3 other landscape appraisal issues         

        3.1       INTRODUCTION

        3.1.1     This section of the report briefly reviews the findings of two components of the Study, previously completed, which have a bearing on the selection of a landscape appraisal methodology for the Study. These are:                 

        3.2        OVERSEAS CASE STUDIES

        3.2.1     The overseas case studies presented in Technical Report No.1 provide examples of a number of different approaches to landscape appraisal and evaluation. These are briefly highlighted below with comments on their strengths and weaknesses(1) . Further detail on each of the case studies is provided in Technical Report No.1.

                    Countryside Character Initiative, England, UK

        3.2.1  In the two Countryside Character Areas (CCAs) developed in detail so far under the Initiative, the environmental capital approach was used to evaluate the landscape character data with a view to informing decision-making on the landscape. Environmental capital is a new, integrated decision-making tool that covers all aspects of the environment. It has been developed jointly by the four conservation agencies in England: the Countryside Agency, English Nature, English Heritage and the Environment Agency and has recently been expanded to cover social and economic as well as environmental considerations. It offers a systematic way of recording which landscape areas and features (attributes) matter to people and why, by analysing the services (benefits) that they provide. For example, a landscape area or feature may be a local landmark, a valued habitat or a recreational resource. The approach helps place values on the commonplace as well as the unusual and rare; and allows stakeholder values to be seen alongside scientific and professional values.

        3.2.2     For the National Countryside Character Database project, a tailored version of the methodology was developed and was tested by the consultants in the two pilot CCAs. The first step was to draw up a generic list of landscape benefits. Then, using the information from the CCA descriptions and the landscape character database, attributes that could provide those benefits were identified. Analysis of other aspects of environmental capital, namely importance, enoughness and trends relative to target was also undertaken. The findings were tested through discussions with local staff of the conservation agencies and local authorities. The result of these discussions was the recognition that further work was required to refine the methodology for use in conjunction with the Database.

        3.2.3    The evaluative component of the project is not yet well developed, for two main reasons. The first is that the environmental capital approach tends to be difficult and time-consuming to apply. Although the principles and aims are laudable, in practice it is cumbersome to use and does not readily yield clear advice on comparative landscape values. The second possible reason that the pilot evaluation was unsuccessful was that it was carried out mainly by the consultants rather than by local stakeholders. In future a more strategic approach to evaluation is likely to be adopted, with greater stakeholder involvement. Therefore, because the environmental capital approach is not yet well-developed for landscape appraisal and because the results of the case study suggest that it is potentially complex, cumbersome and time-consuming, this method should be approached with some caution.

                    LANDMAP Information System, Wales, UK

        3.2.4     Central to LANDMAP is the concept of evaluation, including assessment of value, condition and trend. In relation to value, LANDMAP provides a pre-defined list of criteria for assessing the value of the Aspect Area. The Aspect Specialist is asked to assess, based on the criteria given, the overall intrinsic value of the Aspect Area to the Aspect. The specialist is required for each criterion to use a scale of:

        3.2.5     An overall evaluation using the same scale is also made. The criteria put forward are generally those that are known and accepted within that specialism; and many criteria are common to several aspects. Criteria for the Visual and Sensory Aspect include 'scenic quality', 'integrity', 'character' and 'rarity'. The accompanying assessment of condition evaluates the current physical health of the Aspect Area (good/fair/poor/unassessed) at the time of the assessment; while the assessment of trend evaluates change in condition (improving/constant/declining). Both these parameters require field survey.

        3.2.6     The next section of the data capture form is headed 'Recommendations', and aims to provide expert comment and advice on the current and future management of the Aspect Area. Existing management is scored on a ten-point scale, an overall (open) management recommendation is made, and up to three management guidelines may be made for conserving, restoring or enhancing particular landscape characteristics or features. The degree of urgency of management is also indicated. Lastly, there is the option to assess the degree of tolerance of change of each Aspect Area to a long list of pre-defined developments and land use changes.

        3.2.7    In summary, the following data-sets are compiled and entered on the GIS for each Aspect Area:

        3.2.8     Unlike the English countryside character approach - a basic principle of which is integrated characterisation - preparation of an overall landscape characterisation is seen as an optional extra in Wales, on the grounds that landscape character will look after itself if the individual qualities that make up the landscape are properly taken into account in decision-making.

        3.2.9     The LANDMAP approach to appraisal and evaluation has a number of benefits. Firstly, it clearly separates the issue of value from key characteristics and condition and sensitivity. Its method of testing sensitivity against key types of development in a matrix form is also simple and transparent.

        3.2.10   Central to the LANDMAP approach is that non-visual values (as discussed above) are not captured in the landscape evaluation, but by experts on other Aspects. Whilst this dis-aggregation has the benefit of transparently separating landscape value into its separate components, it is open to the criticism that it leaves the full holistic value of landscape character somewhat under-appreciated (i.e. how do we tell when the value of the whole is greater than the sum of its separate parts?) In addition, the method of appraising "importance" (national/regional/local, etc) is however not clearly defined and appears difficult to apply in a rational or rigorous manner.

                    Cleveland Bioregional Plan, Ohio, USA    

        3.2.11   It is not clear to what extent the evaluation process for the Cleveland Study was set out or formalised. The selection of key parameters to be mapped suggests an evaluative role (i.e. in determining which areas were critical).

        3.2.12   Limitations associated with the various GIS data-sets are outlined in the plan, together with proposals for their future expansion and improvement. These proposals include more detailed analysis of woodland, wetlands, open spaces, farmland, urban parks and lakefront access.

        3.2.13   Given that the emphasis of the entire Study appears to have been orientated towards public participation, it is perhaps not surprising that a formal model for evaluation does not appear to have been well-developed.

        3.2.14   In summary, the Cleveland case study demonstrates that where the orientation of a landscape assessment Study is as a publicly driven vehicle for change, the prescription adoption of a formal evaluation methodology may not be appropriate to capture the full range of public values.

                    North Shore Study, Auckland, Zealand

        3.2.15   The North Shore City study adopted a thorough, though somewhat complex methodology for capturing intrinsic landscape values, comprising two key stages:                 

                    Analysis & Evaluation - Landscape Units 

         3.2.16  Each landscape unit was analysed and evaluated using a "Landscape Assessment Worksheet" - this particular exercise being the major part of the assessment process. The process was subdivided into four parts, with each phase involving numeric evaluation on a scale of 1 - 7, from least to most sensitive.

         3.2.17  PART 1 - LANDSCAPE VALUE - In evaluating LANDSCAPE VALUE, the sub-headings of Aesthetic Value, Heritage Value and Uniqueness / Rarity were used (drawn from the research undertaken by Stephen & Rachel Kaplan in the USA) and the full range of assessment criteria employed in that process are set out as follows:

a)   Aesthetic Value - Detailed analysis of the unit's scenic / aesthetic value in terms of:

b)  Heritage Value - To what extent does the unit reveal and convey a distinctive sense of identity because of:

c)  Uniqueness / Rarity - To what extent is the unit or key elements within it rare and unique at both the sub-regional and local Level

        3.2.18   PART 2 - VULNERABILITY TO CHANGE - In assessing each landscape unit's VULNERABILITY TO CHANGE, other criteria are employed, under the sub-headings of Visual Absorption Capability and Exposure / Visibility.

a)   Visual Absorption Capability (VAC) - Field evaluation of VAC using the following criteria to determine the capacity of the unit or view to visually absorb change without significant modification of its character:

b)  Adaptability - How adaptable is the unit to urbanisation without significant detriment in terms of landscape values:

        3.2.19   PART 3 - SENSITIVITY - The ratings recorded on the Landscape Assessment Worksheets provided composite ratings for "Value" and "Vulnerability". These were then combined to establish SENSITIVITY rating for each unit, again on a 1 - 7 scale.

        3.2.20   Within each landscape unit, the importance of individual elements (e.g. blocks of forest and open pasture) was also evaluated and, if significant, described in writing next to the relevant section. The combination of ratings and descriptive notes established the relative importance that should be attached to different components in the landscape throughout Parts 1 to 3, including identification of key factors that contributed to the overall Sensitivity rating.

        3.2.21   PART 4 - DEVELOPMENT ATTRIBUTE RATING - Detailed analysis of development opportunity in relation to:

                    Assessment Ratings - Landscape Units

        3.2.22   In establishing cumulative ratings or "scores" for any one group of criteria (e.g. for AESTHETIC VALUE) individual ratings were not simply added together and subtracted, as in any individual unit one or two variables may be considered more important than most, if not all, of the others. Accordingly, some cumulative ratings were weighted either up or down to reflect such imbalances and the same applies in relation to overall ratings for both Parts 1 and 2 and the final SENSITIVITY rating for each unit.

        3.2.23   The final ratings - those for SENSITIVITY and for DEVELOPMENT ATTRIBUTES provided the foundation for comparison of development potential and suitability between the units.

                    Evaluation - Significant Landscape Features 

        3.2.24   The assessment and evaluation of more localised landscape features was again carried out employing a landscape assessment matrix. The factors used in the 1998 assessment and mapping were carried over into a set of criteria against which each landscape feature could be measured. Factors related to landscape "structure and definition", "endemic value", "ecological value" and "ornamental value".

        3.2.25  The assessment matrix also included other components to assist in the evaluation of each feature's significance:

        3.2.26   Though somewhat complex, this evaluation method is certainly comprehensive in capturing the full range of attributes, which can be appraised (sensitivity, condition, aesthetic value, heritage). The process of identifying key landscape features which contribute to the character of a landscape unit is also notable. In addition, the separation of the value of landscape units from that of landscape features offers potential to capture both the aggregate and dis-aggregate values of landscape. The use of structured evaluation forms is very helpful in promoting transparency.

        3.2.27   It is clear that the methodology is very much driven by the requirement to identify sites suitable for future development, on a comparative basis (i.e. between different LCAs). This accounts for the elaborate mechanisms find assessing "sensitivity" as a function of "value" and "vulnerability" to change. This is sophisticated elaboration, driven by the requirements of this particular study which may not be necessary in every assessment Study.

                   Waitakere City Study, Auckland, Zealand

        3.2.28   In this study, three methods of evaluation - related to Visual Quality (VQ), Visual Absorption Capability (VAC), and Visibility - were applied to each of landscape character areas (or Rural Policy Areas).

        3.2.29   Visual Quality (VQ) referred to the inherent character of the landscape and the three criteria used to assess Visual Quality were vividness, coherence and intactness. The following are descriptions employed in the report to describe each

        3.2.30   "Vividness is a reflection of special relief, features or water, or of powerful spatial definition. It is ranked on a scale from landscapes that are outstandingly memorable and visually powerful (ranked high) through to bland unmemorable landscapes containing little or no distinction (ranked low)."

        3.2.31   "Coherence relates to the way landscape elements fit together which may add to, or detract from, the quality of a scene (that is, its composition). It is ranked on a scale from landscapes with a visual unity of elements (close relationship) and unity with surrounding areas (ranked high) through to landscapes that are ambiguous with discordant elements and little visual cohesion (ranked low)."

        3.2.32     "Intactness is a reflection of the level of modification and the type of modifying elements within a landscape (that is, whether natural or artificial in appearance). It is ranked on a scale from natural (ranked high) through to totally modified and artificial (ranked low)."

        3.2.33   VQ was rated for each policy area on a scale of 1 - 5. For a Policy Area to be given a high (ranked 5) VQ rating, it had to score highly in each of the three criteria. Landscapes given a high VQ rating were deemed to be visually powerful and memorable and have not been compromised by intrusions which detract from their essential character. Conversely, landscapes with a low VQ rating have no distinguishing or memorable features and have been severely modified thus compromising their essential character.

        3.2.34   Visual Absorption Capability (VAC) was used to describe each policy area's ability to absorb development based on:

        3.2.35   The following are descriptions employed in the report to describe each.

                    Degree of Modification

        3.2.36   "This was taken to reflect the changes imposed upon the landscape by human activity and the degree of modification that has occurred. Landscapes which are essentially unmodified tend to have low VAC score (ie. low ability to absorb change), whereas landscapes which are modified tend to have a high VAC score (ie. high ability to absorb change)."

                    Topography

        3.2.37   "The nature of topography within a landscape unit will affect its ability to incorporate change easily. Both steep and very flat landscapes have a limited ability to incorporate change (low VAC) without significant visual effects. Gently undulating and hilly landscapes, by contrast, have a landform pattern which provides opportunities for the visual integration of change (i.e. high VAC)."

                    Vegetation Cover / Pattern

        3.2.38   "The amount and pattern of distribution of vegetation within a landscape unit also influences its ability to absorb change. Vegetation can assist in integrating development through screening, providing a backdrop and creating patterns, which form the basis for the integration of development. Landscape units which have an intact vegetation cover or are totally devoid of vegetation have a low VAC (difficult to incorporate change) whilst landscapes with a good pattern of discrete areas of vegetation have a high VAC (good opportunities for integrating change)."

        3.2.39   Each of these criteria was ranked on a 5 graduation scale from low (1) to high (5) with overall values for VAC then being attributed to each unit, as for VQ. Policy Areas with high VAC were deemed more likely to have a high capacity for absorbing change whereas a low VAC meant the individual unit would have difficulty integrating change within its landscape.

        3.2.40   Visibility. - In addition, a third visual evaluation was made to define areas of greater visibility.

        3.2.41   "Visibility reflects the visibleness of an area ? that is, the extent to which an area is visible. It also includes a reflection of the number of people within the visual catchment or using it e.g. travellers on a particular stretch of road."

        3.2.42   Values for VQ and VAC were attributed to each Policy Area as a whole, with ratings averaged. It was recognised that this would inevitably result in localised areas within most units displayed values either side of this 'average', however this was considered appropriate at the Policy Area scale and could be addressed in a more focused manner at the Land Unit level subsequently.

        3.2.43   The assessment matrices demonstrate the ratings process for a number of policy areas. It is noteworthy that since VQ measured the existing state of the landscape, whilst VAC and Visibility measured the ability of the landscape to absorb hypothetical change, these two 'layers' were separated out into separate matrix sheets under the titles: "Visual Sensitivity" and "Visual Attributes" (see both pages). Also identified on the matrix sheet were Landscape Elements within each Policy Area deemed to either enhance the Visual Quality or Detract from it and any Outstanding Natural Features or Landscapes.

        3.2.44   The evaluation appears to be heavily orientated towards the visual qualities of landscape, or at least conceptualising features through their visual function. This tends to place less emphasis on the resource implications and values of individual landscape elements. That said, the approach is fairly comprehensive in how it approaches visual quality (through an expert-led approach) and it can be said that assessments based on terms such as "visual absorption capacity" and "visual sensitivity" are useful, as they can clearly be linked to planning mechanisms, an approach which the Study might usefully consider.

        3.2.45   As in the North Shore City Study, the use of structured evaluation forms is useful in promoting transparency.

                    Ujung Kulon National Park Landscape Plan, Indonesia

        3.2.46   The Ujung Kulon Study was conceived as a "landscape plan". This employed a definition of landscape involving "considerations both of land uses and natural resources, including physical, biological and cultural resources". The Study saw "landscape planning as ¡§one of several inputs in the comprehensive planning process along with economic planning and social planning. It is an action-orientated process with goals of avoiding and resolving conflicts in land use".

        3.2.47   The Study is focussed on landscape ecology, an approach which is derived from the objectives of the Study: that is, as a management tool for landscape in the widest sense and especially for habitat management.

        3.2.48   Given the scale of Ujung Kulon, it was determined that an empirical, GIS based approach to assessment and evaluation should be employed, focussing upon four key parameters:

        3.2.49   The objective of the plan was to define a series of 'Management Zones' - areas of similar sensitivity in terms of landscape ecology, which could form the basis of an action-orientated plan.

                     Approach to Classification, Description and Evaluation

        3.2.50   Each of the landscape parameters was broken down into segments, which were assigned ratings. The rating process employed a range from 1 to 5, with scores nearer the top of this range indicting greater ecological sensitivity. The criteria employed in this process, and related ratings, are shown in Table 3.1.

        3.2.51   In line with the approaches first developed by Ian McHarg, the ratings for each of these parameters were combined to indicate both cumulative and specific sensitivities in different parts of Ujung Kulon Park. These are shown in Table 3.2.

        3.2.52   The scores were assigned sensitivity ratings (3-4 = Not Sensitive; 5-8 = Slight Sensitivity; 9-12 = Quite Sensitive, etc). In combination, (based on the sum totals for each criteria) it was determined that the following total areas and percentages of parkland correlated with different sensitivity levels (Table 3.3).

        3.2.53   The result is a map dividing the Study Area into zones of different sensitivity or management zones.

        3.2.54   There are a number of notable features with regard to this approach. In particular, it does not take value as its evaluation criterion, but sensitivity. This is a valid, if rather narrow method of ascribing importance to landscape. In addition, the process of classification and evaluation are carried out at the same time - the classification is in effect carried out on the basis of sensitivity, a fact that is openly acknowledged. In addition, the approach gives almost no regard to cultural or visual values, probably because this is not the focus of the Study.

                    Summary of Usefulness of Case Study Approaches to Evaluation

        3.2.55   This section summarises the usefulness to this Study of overseas approaches to evaluation.

        3.2.56   For the reasons noted above, it is not suggested that environmental capital approach adopted under the UK Countryside Character Initiative be employed in the current Study. Nor is it suggested that the rather dis-aggregative approach adopted by the LANDMAP study is wholly appropriate in the current Study, although the approach to the assessment of visual value, condition and sensitivity are of relevance.

        3.2.57   The approaches to evaluation employed in the Cleveland Bioregional Plan and in the Ujung Kulon National Park Landscape Plan are targetted towards specific local circumstances and interests (regional planning in one case and landscape ecology in another) and are not really appropriate to a more comprehensive, general landscape assessment.

        3.2.58   The case studies which best exemplify popular current practice in terms of landscape evaluation and which most fully reflect the many facets of the term 'landscape' are the North Shore City and Waitakere City studies. Though both are quite complex, the evaluation methods are certainly comprehensive in capturing the full range of landscape attributes which can be appraised (sensitivity, condition, aesthetic value, heritage, key landscape features which contribute to character). In addition, the separation of the value of landscape units from that of landscape features in the North Shore City Study offers potential to capture both the aggregate and dis-aggregate values of landscape.

        3.2.59   As well as looking at 'visual quality' (from an expert-led approach) both studies also look at issues such as 'visual sensitivity', 'visibility', 'vulnerability to change' and 'visual absorption capacity' which are useful assessments, as they can be directly linked to development planning policies. The use of structured evaluation forms in both studies is very helpful in promoting transparency.

        3.2.60   The North Shore and Waitakere City studies therefore offer a useful starting point for the development of an evaluation methodology for the current Study, which is both comprehensive and represents popular best-practice world-wide. This can be augmented by certain aspects from other case studies. The key aspects of these approaches which should be reflected in the current Study are:

        3.3       VALUE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP

        3.3.1     On 14th December 2001, a Study Value Management Workshop was held, to which all key stakeholders were invited, in order to discuss key issues relating to the Study. One of the issues which was discussed was the subject of evaluation and this section of the report summarises the main points raised at the Workshop in relation to this topic.

        3.3.2     The Workshop highlighted the different points of view that exist regarding the use of Landscape Mapping, as well as the different ways evaluation can be carried out. Conflicting views of the means of evaluation and the uses for evaluation emerged through the presentations and during the resultant discussion.

        3.3.3     One point of view was that a high level policy, clear-cut evaluation and means of enforcement were required. There was a need for an absolute evaluation of all landscape units, carried out by following a list of criteria so as to be above argument. Where information is collected on an area basis, analysis can be carried out on the basis of evaluation criteria to determine the current status of the landscape. The resources, such as area of woodland, can be quantified.

        3.3.4     The other point of view was that an absolute value for the LCA would be difficult to obtain and may be counter-productive because it would raise issues outside landscape evaluation relating to property prices and "planning blight". A comparative evaluation of levels of landscape sensitivity would be preferred.

        3.3.5     A form of evaluation which avoided controversy and confrontation would require a descriptive analysis of the landscape.

        3.3.6     As a compromise, it was suggested that key parameters or features of each LCT might be evaluated but that the values did not have to be aggregated. This approach follows the simplified environmental capital method, which evaluates individual features of the landscape and focuses on the services / benefits that they provide. No absolute judgement would have to be made on the landscape value of the area as a whole if this approach were adopted.(2)                                       

        3.3.7     The change in individual parameters could then be monitored in a neutral way; at a later stage decision-makers can make judgements as to whether the impacts of the changes are good or bad. This approach would be in line with the requirement for an Indicator in the SUSDEV21 model.

        3.3.8     To assist decision-makers, an agreement on what sort of changes would be detrimental and so cause negative impact and what sort would provide change for the better and cause positive impact and a value of the sensitivity of the landscape would be useful.

        3.3.9     Whilst an initial set of landscape criteria had been discussed, by the end of the Workshop, no agreement had been reached. The remaining objectives of the Workshop had been fulfilled and it was generally felt that the Workshop had raised some worthwhile discussion and interesting ideas and points of view.

 

(1)     Government has noted that in certain case overseas studies, a wider view of what is included in the term 'landscape' is adopted than may be appropriate in the Hong Kong context. Therefore it is suggested that evaluation criteria adopted by certain overseas case studies may not be relevant or appropriate for this Study. The relevance of evaluation criteria used in overseas case studies will therefore be reviewed as the Study continues.

(2)     Since the Value Management Workshop, Government has suggest that evaluation on an area basis has some value as it easily understood by the general public and might correspond well with planning, mechanisms. This issue will be reviewed during the course of the Study.

Go to previousGo to main pageGo to next