IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i7p977-d848339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visibility Analysis to Enhance Landscape Protection: A Proposal of Planning Norms and Regulations for Slovakia

Author

Listed:
  • Daniele La Rosa

    (Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Zita Izakovičová

    (Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Štefánikova No. 3, P.O. Box 254, SK-814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia)

Abstract

The visibility of a landscape is an important aspect of landscape protection planning because different rules or norms can be defined to regulate land-use and human activities depending on the degree of landscape visibility. Viewshed analyses are common GIS-based approaches to evaluate which parts of the landscape can be seen from certain points or by people located or moving in the landscape. In this work, the visibility of the entire landscape of the Slovak Republic is assessed from the network of major national roads. The results of the landscape visibility analysis are then used to propose appropriate planning norms and regulations to protect the identified visibility values and avoid potential visual obstructions from new buildings or infrastructure development. Particularly, the proposed norms indicate allowable changes to the landscape and the maximum height of new or existing buildings and other urban infrastructure. Maps of the spatial distribution of the proposed norms identify possible situations of consistency or conflict with potential urban development trends, to support landscape protection planning processes at the national level. On average, the most visible land-use/land-cover categories are glacial mountains relief, plane depressions, and wide alluvial plains, while the planning indications/prescriptions to protect landscape visibility have been proposed for irrigated land and forests. Thanks to the limited use of geographic datasets, the method ensures high transferability to other different geographic contexts, and allows to derive planning indications for large national contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniele La Rosa & Zita Izakovičová, 2022. "Visibility Analysis to Enhance Landscape Protection: A Proposal of Planning Norms and Regulations for Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:7:p:977-:d:848339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/7/977/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/7/977/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bishop, Ian D. & Miller, David R., 2007. "Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: The influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 814-831.
    2. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    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. Alphan, H., 2021. "Modelling potential visibility of wind turbines: A geospatial approach for planning and impact mitigation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    2. Ioannidis, R. & Mamassis, N. & Efstratiadis, A. & Koutsoyiannis, D., 2022. "Reversing visibility analysis: Towards an accelerated a priori assessment of landscape impacts of renewable energy projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Amaury Chesné & Romanos Ioannidis, 2024. "An Investigation of the Perception of Neoclassical, Eclectic, Modernist, and Postmodern Architecture within Different Urban Landscapes: Athens vs. Paris," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-29, March.
    4. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Hirsh, Richard F., 2008. "Island wind-hydrogen energy: A significant potential US resource," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1928-1935.
    5. Ho, Lip-Wah & Lie, Tek-Tjing & Leong, Paul TM & Clear, Tony, 2018. "Developing offshore wind farm siting criteria by using an international Delphi method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 53-67.
    6. Tsoutsos, Theocharis & Tsouchlaraki, Androniki & Tsiropoulos, Manolis & Serpetsidakis, Michalis, 2009. "Visual impact evaluation of a wind park in a Greek island," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(4), pages 546-553, April.
    7. David Rudolph & Claire Haggett & Mhairi Aitken, 2018. "Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 92-117, February.
    8. Tabassum-Abbasi, & Premalatha, M. & Abbasi, Tasneem & Abbasi, S.A., 2014. "Wind energy: Increasing deployment, rising environmental concerns," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 270-288.
    9. Richards, Daniel R. & Warren, Philip H. & Moggridge, Helen L. & Maltby, Lorraine, 2015. "Spatial variation in the impact of dragonflies and debris on recreational ecosystem services in a floodplain wetland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 113-121.
    10. Molina-Ruiz, José & Martínez-Sánchez, María José & Pérez-Sirvent, Carmen & Tudela-Serrano, Mari Luz & García Lorenzo, Mari Luz, 2011. "Developing and applying a GIS-assisted approach to evaluate visual impact in wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1125-1132.
    11. 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.
    12. Manchado, Cristina & Otero, César & Gómez-Jáuregui, Valentín & Arias, Rubén & Bruschi, Viola & Cendrero, Antonio, 2013. "Visibility analysis and visibility software for the optimisation of wind farm design," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 388-401.
    13. Kaldellis, John K. & Zafirakis, D., 2011. "The wind energy (r)evolution: A short review of a long history," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1887-1901.
    14. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    15. Virtanen, E.A. & Lappalainen, J. & Nurmi, M. & Viitasalo, M. & Tikanmäki, M. & Heinonen, J. & Atlaskin, E. & Kallasvuo, M. & Tikkanen, H. & Moilanen, A., 2022. "Balancing profitability of energy production, societal impacts and biodiversity in offshore wind farm design," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    16. Sunak, Yasin & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "The impact of wind farm visibility on property values: A spatial difference-in-differences analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 79-91.
    17. Ladenburg, Jacob, 2010. "Attitudes towards offshore wind farms--The role of beach visits on attitude and demographic and attitude relations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1297-1304, March.
    18. Katsaprakakis, Dimitris Al., 2012. "A review of the environmental and human impacts from wind parks. A case study for the Prefecture of Lasithi, Crete," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 2850-2863.
    19. Jones, Christopher R. & Richard Eiser, J., 2010. "Understanding 'local' opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 3106-3117, June.
    20. G.-Fivos Sargentis & Nikos D. Lagaros & Giuseppe Leonardo Cascella & Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 2022. "Threats in Water–Energy–Food–Land Nexus by the 2022 Military and Economic Conflict," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.

    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:7:p:977-:d:848339. 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.