IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i8p1324-d889483.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimizing Viewpoint Selection for Route-Based Experiences: Assessing the Role of Viewpoints on Viewshed Accuracy

Author

Listed:
  • Garet Openshaw

    (Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, College of Agriculture and Applied Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA)

  • Brent Chamberlain

    (Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, College of Agriculture and Applied Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA)

Abstract

A visual analysis is useful to assess potential impacts to our surroundings. There has been tremendous progress toward the optimization, accuracy, and techniques of these analyses. Viewshed analyses are a common type of visual analysis. The purpose of this study was to identify the optimal trade-off between the number of viewpoints needed to generate an accurate viewshed for a given route. In this study, we focused on identifying how a viewshed differs based on the sampling distance (interval) of viewpoints, topography, and distance of analysis. We employed the Geospatial Route Analysis and Visual Impact Assessment (GRAVIA) tool, a type of advanced viewshed that uses visual-magnitude measures. GRAVIA was applied across three different topographical environments (flat, hilly, and mountainous). We generated a one-mile-long segment for each environment and systematically discretized the route by varying the sampling-distance intervals from 1 m to 100 m. We also compared how the calculated results differed by distance from the route. The results showed a linear decrease in the correlation, though this was sensitive to the distance. When all distances were combined, a 30 m and 50 m sampling distance correlated to 0.9 and 0.7, respectively. However, when the results compared calculations beyond 300 m away from the route, the correlation values exceeded 97% for all the viewpoint-sampling distances. This suggests that for route-based analyses using visual magnitude, reducing the sampling rate can produce equivalent results with far less processing time while maintaining model precision.

Suggested Citation

  • Garet Openshaw & Brent Chamberlain, 2022. "Optimizing Viewpoint Selection for Route-Based Experiences: Assessing the Role of Viewpoints on Viewshed Accuracy," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-17, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:1324-:d:889483
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1324/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1324/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gibbons, Stephen, 2015. "Gone with the wind: Valuing the visual impacts of wind turbines through house prices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 177-196.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gibbons, Stephen & Overman, Henry & Sarvimäki, Matti, 2021. "The local economic impacts of regeneration projects: Evidence from UK's single regeneration budget," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    2. Frondel, Manuel & Kussel, Gerhard & Sommer, Stephan & Vance, Colin, 2019. "Local cost for global benefit: The case of wind turbines," Ruhr Economic Papers 791, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen, revised 2019.
    3. Dröes, Martijn I. & Koster, Hans R.A., 2016. "Renewable energy and negative externalities: The effect of wind turbines on house prices," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 121-141.
    4. van Vuuren, Aico, 2022. "Is there a diminishing value of urban amenities as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic?," Working Papers in Economics 818, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    5. Dong, Luran & Lang, Corey, 2022. "Do views of offshore wind energy detract? A hedonic price analysis of the Block Island wind farm in Rhode Island," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    6. Pates, Nicholas J. & Kim, GwanSeon & Mark, Tyler B. & Ritter, Matthias, 2020. "Windfalls or wind falls? The Local Effects of Turbine Development on US Agricultural Land Values," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304611, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. García, Jorge H. & Cherry, Todd L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Torvanger, Asbjørn, 2016. "Willingness to accept local wind energy development: Does the compensation mechanism matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 165-173.
    8. Steve Gibbons & Stephan Heblich & Esther Lho & Christopher Timmins, 2016. "Fear of Fracking? The Impact of the Shale Gas Exploration on House Prices in Britain," SERC Discussion Papers 0207, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    9. Krekel, Christian & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Does the presence of wind turbines have negative externalities for people in their surroundings? Evidence from well-being data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 221-238.
    10. Zerrahn, Alexander & Krekel, Christian, 2015. "Sowing the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind? The Effect of Wind Turbines on Residential Well-Being," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112956, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt & Nancy Holman, 2018. "Distinctively Different: A New Approach to Valuing Architectural Amenities," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(608), pages 1-33, February.
    12. Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M. & Nitsch, Volker & Wendland, Nicolai, 2019. "Ease vs. noise: Long-run changes in the value of transport (dis)amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    13. Lehmann, Paul & Tafarte, Philip, 2023. "The opportunity costs of environmental exclusion zones for renewable energy deployment," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2023, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    14. Zheng, Xian & Peng, Wenwei & Hu, Mingzhi, 2020. "Airport noise and house prices: A quasi-experimental design study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    15. Lei Fu & Tiantian Zhu & Kai Zhu & Yiling Yang, 2019. "Condition Monitoring for the Roller Bearings of Wind Turbines under Variable Working Conditions Based on the Fisher Score and Permutation Entropy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-20, August.
    16. Dröes, Martijn I. & Koster, Hans R.A., 2021. "Wind turbines, solar farms, and house prices," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    17. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    18. Olivier JOALLAND & Tina RAMBONILAZA, 2017. "Assessing the impact of renewable energy infrastructure on the “tourist value” in rural landscapes: a spatial hedonic approach," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2017-10, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    19. Ki, Jaehong & Yun, Sun-Jin & Kim, Woo-Chang & Oh, Subin & Ha, Jihun & Hwangbo, Eunyoung & Lee, Hyoeun & Shin, Sumin & Yoon, Seulki & Youn, Hyewon, 2022. "Local residents’ attitudes about wind farms and associated noise annoyance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    20. Tafarte, Philip & Lehmann, Paul, 2021. "Quantifying trade-offs for the spatial allocation of onshore wind generation capacity: A case study for Germany," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2021, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:1324-:d:889483. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.