CH6 FIELD SURVEY PROPOSAL

6.1        INTRODUCTION

6.1.1     The Study Brief states at Para 6.6(6) that the Consultants shall:

6.1.2     "Prepare a proposal to undertake field survey to fill the identified data gap, drawing experience from similar local and overseas studies".

6.1.3     This Chapter is concerned with this particular item of Task 5 and will address:

6.2        THE OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF FIELD SURVEY                                  

6.2.1     The Brief divides the Field Survey into two components. These are:

6.2.2     Para 6.7 defines the requirements with regard to the Pilot Survey, as follows:

"6.7     Task 6: Pilot Survey

(1)     Conduct a pilot survey to familiarize the study team with overall character and range of landscape variation in Hong Kong. The Consultants shall conduct at least an hour flying trip and 60 field survey points to be agreed by the DR to make a general appraisal of landscape resources in Hong Kong and establish a range of different types of landscape observed. The arrangement for the pilot survey and the work to be carried out should follow those described in Task 7.

(2)     The information so obtained will serve as a basis to plan and refine the record system for use in the subsequent field survey, subject to satisfaction of the DR."

6.2.3    Para 6.8 of the Study Brief defines the objectives and scope of field survey, as follows:

"6.8    Task 7: Field Survey

(1)     The Consultants shall undertake extensive field survey, to verify or refine the boundaries of draft LCT and LCA, and identify the landscape qualities and range of variations within those boundaries. Detailed arrangements shall be agreed with the DR.

(2)     The Consultants shall arrange the modes of transport for the field survey work, which should include boat trips for conducting survey in coastal areas and outlying islands, and helicopter flight for aerial survey. At least four 1-hour separate flying trips are required. The cost for the field survey and transportation shall be included in the lump sum.

(3)     In the field survey, the Consultants shall also

(4)     Hong Kong will be divided into typical landscape units of 5 hectares for field survey assessment. For areas of similar or common characters, consideration may be given to amalgamating typical units for assessment, with a minimum of three survey points for each unit. If the total number of representative field survey points exceed 900, survey exceeding this number may be counted as additional work or may be based on the most recent aerial photographs, depending on the ground conditions, subject to the agreement of the DR.

(5)     A field survey sheet should guide the collection of field data at each survey point. The survey sheet should be tailor-made for this field survey and should include, inter alia, checklist of landscape components and their significance, aesthetic and perceptual factors, and allow space for written description on observation about the sensitivity and nay remarks on strategic management action needs of the landscape.

(6)     The survey findings shall include all overall description of landscape character, the components of the landscape character and they way they are interrelated to each other. The findings shall be supplemented by annotated photographic records in digital form. The level of details shall be compatible with the requirements for major development projects to which sustainability impact assessment would be applied.

(7)     The Consultants shall ensure that data gathered from the field survey shall be documented to allow easy updating in future."

6.2.4    From this, the basic objectives of the field survey can be defined as:

6.3        EXPERIENCE FROM LOCAL AND OVERSEAS STUDIES

6.3.1     No study directly comparable to the current Study has been carried out to date in Hong Kong. As mentioned in TR1, a number of sub-regional landscape assessments and EIA studies have been carried out, but documentation on these studies has concentrated exclusively on the results of the study, rather than the process. As a result there is little or no evidence of field survey techniques typically used in Hong Kong.

6.3.2     This notwithstanding, it is possible to discern from knowledge of current professional practice, the following broad approaches to field survey in comparable studies.

6.3.3     Field survey by Landscape Architects in Hong Kong is typically carried out by a single professional on foot or using public transport and occasionally private car or boat.

6.3.4     The use of structured field survey forms is not typical. Records of field survey will typically comprise:

6.3.5    LCAs, LCTs, key landscape elements and visual features will typically be marked onto a plan on site and supported by text notes. Panoramic photographic coverage is used to support this evidence.

6.3.6      A key draw-back to this approach is that the lack of a structured survey form does not promote consistency between studies. Moreover, the use of a single professional to carry out the assessment, though expedient and practical, does not allow for the cross-checking of conclusions on site. Instead, such cross-checking is usually carried out by senior professional in the office, remote from the actual field survey.

Experience from Overseas Case Studies

6.3.7     The overseas case studies presented in Technical Report No.1 provide examples of a number of different approaches to landscape appraisal and evaluation. The following section sets out available information on field survey techniques used. Because field survey is often seen as part of the process rather than the product of landscape mapping exercises, comparatively little information is generally available on this aspect of the studies. However, that information which is available is presented below together with comments on strengths and weaknesses. Further detail on each of the case studies is provided in Technical Report No.1. 

Countryside Character Initiative, England, UK

6.3.8     The Countryside Character Initiative is a framework assessment which draws together the findings of numerous regional and sub-regional assessments across the UK. GIS was used in order to initially define its Countryside Character Areas (CCAs). It is not clear however, to what extent field survey was used to support this characterisation process. It may in fact be the case that the Study relied heavily on the field survey work of the smaller studies that were subsumed into it.

6.3.9     There is therefore little evidence of how any field survey was carried out. It is however likely that the other smaller studies based their field survey methodologies on that recommended by the Countryside Agency (formerly Countryside Commission). The remainder of this section therefore highlights the key characteristics of the approach recommended by the Agency in its guidance 'Landscape Character Assessment' (2002). This document draws on and updates previous guidance recommended by the Agency.

6.3.10    The Countryside Agency recommends that careful planning of the field survey to optimise use of time and resources. When selecting field survey points, the Agency recommends (at p30) that:

6.3.11    "Each point should be publicly accessible and be firmly within the area in question".

6.3.12    The Agency recommends that survey be carried out by pairs of professionals in order to assist "with the practicalities of navigating and recording at the same time and encourages a consensus to be reached about reactions to the landscape". (p30)

6.3.13    The Agency recommends the use of structured field survey sheets in order to record field data. It states, "this encourages surveyors to make systematic observations and to record them in a consistent way". (p30) An example of a recommended survey form is shown in Figure 6.1. However the Agency does advise that forms should be individually tailored to suit the Study in question and also advocates the use of record photographs for record, reference and illustration purposes.

6.3.14   The Agency notes that as well as recording the objective description of landscape, it is important "to give equal attention to the more experiential aspects of the landscape covering aesthetic and perceptual dimensions of landscape character". (p34)

6.3.15    In addition, the Agency states: "Some of the more aesthetic aspects of landscape character can still be recorded in a rigorous and systematic, if not wholly objective or value-free, way...Such information can be recorded, using a suitable check-list, by incorporating suitable adjectives into written descriptions, and by ensuring that appropriate annotations are added to sketches or photographs". The Agency recommends that more subjective judgements be "incorporated into surveys in a transparent way, acknowledging the extent of subjectivity that is involved. Both checklists and written descriptions can be used to record responses in the field. It should be noted that even in these areas of perception, an element of objectivity can inform such judgements".

6.3.16    In order to substantiate judgements that may be subject to public scrutiny, the Agency advises that collecting too much field information is better than collecting too little.

6.3.17    In summary, the Countryside Agency methodology provides a clear and well documented approach to the objectives and logistics of field survey and to the means of recording data. The field survey form prescribed has been developed and refined over many years and provides a good means of capturing data. The use of words as prompts and the separation of objective and subjective data on the form are particularly helpful.

LANDMAP Information System, Wales, UK

6.3.18   There is little explicit reference to field survey in the LANDMAP methodology. However, it is implicit that the standard data capture form which is used as part of the classification and evaluation process includes data that will only be available from a site visit (Figure 6.2).

6.3.19    The Standard Data Capture Form should therefore be sensibly filled in on site and is used to describe the characteristics and features that distinguish one Aspect Area or group of Aspect Areas from another. The data capture forms provide detailed sets of tick boxes from which to select key descriptive terms (Figure 6.2). Clear definitions of each term are provided for reference.

6.3.20   The data capture form is split into three parts:

6.3.21   The criteria under Description are generally fairly standard and are similar to those recommended by the UK Countryside Agency. Notably, it also includes sections for 'sensory data' and 'seasonal interest'. The assessment of "attractive" and "detractive" views mixes description with evaluation and provides no explicit criteria by which to assess attractiveness.

6.3.22   The criteria under 'Evaluation' include '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:

6.3.23    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 including 'visual and sensory'. Criteria include, for example, research value, educational value, rarity/uniqueness/representativeness, priority species and habitats, threat, distinctiveness, fragmentation, scenic quality, integrity, character, documentation, survival, vulnerability and diversity. The accompanying assessment of condition evaluates the current physical health of the Aspect Area (good/fair/poor/un-assessed) at the time of the assessment; while the assessment of trend evaluates change in condition (improving/constant/declining). Both these parameters require field survey.

6.3.24   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.

6.3.25   In summary, the LANDMAP Data Capture Form is clearly divided into three clear sections in an attempt to separate description, evaluation and recommendation (although, as noted above, some data seems to cross between these categories). The assessment of scenic value is not very well defined on the form and the overall assessment of value is not broken down on the form itself. Also, the making of recommendations for landscapes at a phase as early as field survey is a little unusual and not within the scope of every study. However, generally the form is concise and reasonably transparent.

Cleveland Bioregional Plan, Ohio, USA

6.3.26   There appears to be little explicit reference to field survey in the Cleveland Bioregional Plan and it is not clear to what extent this played a role in the development of the mapping exercise. Given the reliance of the Study on GIS and physical or digital mapping, it is likely that this was not a significant component of the process. However, it is likely that there was opportunity for the public to comment on the accuracy of data published on the web, using their own detailed knowledge of their locales.

North Shore City Study, Auckland, New Zealand

6.3.27  The North Shore Study appears to have placed considerable emphasis on the use of field survey as a tool for the collection of data, description and evaluation of landscape. Indeed, the only desk work undertaken was formulation of the method and 'tidying up' of mapping implemented in the field surveys and assessments. 

6.3.28   While the bulk of this work involved travelling in motor vehicles, parts of it also involved venturing onto individual private properties.

6.3.29   The assessment process initially involved subdivision of the landscape into character units, each of which displays a homogeneous and consistent landscape character derived from:

6.3.30    A field survey form was used divided into five sections (Figure 6.3):

6.3.31    Description was supplemented by a panoramic photographic record of every landscape unit.

6.3.32    PART 1 - LANDSCAPE CHARACTER - It is notable that there are no prompts on the data capture form, as there are in the case of the UK Countryside Agency form. Instead, key elements are recorded in bullet point form. In the case of the 'significant landscape features' assessment, individual features were deemed to be significant - on the basis of the broad parameters already described. 

6.3.33    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

6.3.34    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:

6.3.35    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.

6.3.36    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.

6.3.37    Having determined the relative Sensitivity of each landscape unit to development and the constraints upon development associated with its landscape characteristics, it was also considered important to arrive at an understanding of the OPPORTUNITIES presented by each unit. This included addressing the way in which particular elements and patterns within an individual unit, grouping of units, or large scale catchment, might be used to enhance the general quality of future development and perhaps even provide a thematic platform for it.

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

             PART 5 - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL RATING. The final ratings - those for SENSITIVITY and for DEVELOPMENT ATTRIBUTES provided the foundation for comparison of development potential and suitability between the units. Sensitivity and Attribute ratings were then synthesised into an overall rating for development potential.

6.3.39    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.

6.3.40   Generally, it is notable that the Study appears to have used field survey as a substantive tool in the data collection, description and evaluation process. Rather than using prompts for description, the Worksheet offers space for notes to be made on site. The orientation of the Worksheet is strongly influenced by the general orientation of the Study: i.e. to identify the development capacity of different areas of landscape. This might not be appropriate in other studies with different orientations. 

6.3.41    The data capture forms are clearly structured and reasonably transparent, with useful criteria being provided on aesthetic qualities. The numeric scoring of values may be somewhat controversial and it is not always clear how two individual scores for differing values have been synthesised into a single cumulative score.

Waitakere City Study, Auckland, New Zealand

6.3.42    Development of the study method, field work and evaluation, and preparation of final reports was undertaken by up to four persons.

6.3.43    The main desk-work undertaken was the geophysical breakdown of the study area into broad Catchments and Sub-catchments (in concert with initial field work) and subsequent mapping of Landscape Types, Landscape Units / Policy Areas as result of on-ground analysis and boundary delineation. 

6.3.44    All of the study involved extensive field work, in particular focusing upon:

6.3.45    Little evidence is available of how field survey was structured or how data was captured on site. However, the following data was captured during the Study and it can be assumed that much of this was captured during site visit.

6.3.46    Description of the landscape at each level is indicated in Table 6.1 below.

Table 6.1 Waiketere City Study - Description of Catchments

Catchments/ 
Sub Catchments 

Mapped
Landscape Types Mapped
  • Broad written description of the character of each landscape type: its main physical features, level of development, visual and recreational attributes, etc
  • Identification of key issue related to each type, e.g. forest clearance, habitat protection, earthworks management, design and scale of development
  • Statement of core management goal, e.g. "to maintain and enhance the valuable forest resource whilst allowing sustainable and sympathetic development in limited locations"
  • Identification of key objectives, e.g. to minimise bush clearance, to eliminate grazing and browsing, to minimise the adverse effects of earthworks, to control run-off and effluent disposal, to enhance habitat values.
Policy Areas Mapped / Photographed
  • Written description of main characteristics and values
  • Identification of local issues, e.g. Protection and management of hazard prone and sensitive areas, protection of significant ecosystems and wildlife habitats, provision of recreational opportunities and facilities, potential wind erosion of slopes following removal of plantation planting.
  • Development of related Objectives & Policies for landscape management
Landscape Elements Mapped / Photographed
  • Identification of Objectives & Policies for landscape management of each element
Outstanding Natural Features & Landscapes Mapped
  • Brief written description

 

6.3.47    The broad scale 'unit' assessment involved a number of clearly defined stages. These were:

6.3.48    Three methods of evaluation - related to Visual Quality (VQ), Visual Absorption Capability (VAC), and Visibility - were applied to each of the Rural Policy Areas.

6.3.49    Visual Quality (VQ) referred to the inherent character of the landscape and the three criteria used to assess Visual Quality were:

6.3.50   VQ was rated for each policy area on a scale of 1 - 5.

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

6.3.52    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. 

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

6.3.54    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.

6.3.55    In summary, although it is not clear, it is likely that much of the data above was captured on site. Although evidence is not available of how the above information was collected on site or how any data capture forms were structured, it would be useful if much of the data set out were included on field survey forms. In particular, the assessment of VQ and VAC components are well articulated and explicit and similar criteria might usefully be captured during field survey.

Ujung Kulon National Park Landscape Plan, Indonesia

6.3.56    There appears to be little explicit reference to field survey in the Ujung Kulon Study and it is not clear to what extent this played a role in the development of the mapping exercise. However, given the reliance of the Study on GIS and physical / digital mapping, it is likely that this was not a significant component of the process, but rather, was used to establish data that this particular study used to develop its sensitivity ratings for different landscapes.

6.4        FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY

6.4.1     In drawing up the Field Survey Proposal and Field Survey Data Record for the current Study, an attempt has been made to:

  Survey Teams

6.4.2     In deciding how many field Survey Teams to deploy, two conflicting objectives must be considered. The fewer the number of survey teams, the greater the consistency of results between teams. However at the same time, a sufficient number of survey teams needs to be deployed in order to complete the survey to programme. It seems therefore that two Survey Teams represents the optimal way to fulfil these two objectives.

6.4.3     The Survey Teams will comprise two members each. This ensures that survey team members can discuss findings with each other and cross-check each other's views. Teams of two will also probably be necessary to transport all necessary equipment (GPS/camera, hand-held PC, map, water, food, etc). Survey teams will be composed of:

  The Survey Process

6.4.4     The Survey will be divided into two phases:

   Pilot Survey

6.4.5     The Pilot Survey will serve a number of important functions:

6.4.6     The survey team will be thoroughly briefed on the preliminary classification system and introduced to the Preliminary Landscape Character Map. There will be a preliminary helicopter flight to familiarise the team with the range of landscape in Hong Kong. This will be followed by a thorough briefing of the survey team on the field survey methodology to be used and instruction in the use of hand-held PCs and GPS-linked cameras.

6.4.7     40 initial Pilot Survey LCAs will be surveyed by both Survey Teams together, as well as the Project Manager, so that both Survey Teams understand the approach and methodology to be adopted. This will ensure that the whole team adopts a consistent approach during the subsequent Field Survey. To test this, 20 further LCAs will be surveyed by both survey teams independently, and the results compared, so as to check that both teams come to the same conclusions with regard to defining and verifying the LCTs and LCAs. This double-checking process will be repeated for additional LCAs until both survey teams are consistent in their survey and recording techniques. 

6.4.8     The Pilot Survey will use Lantau Island as its location. Lantau has a reasonable range of coastal landscape, natural upland landscape, village landscape and urban landscape (Tung Chung/Chek Lap Kok) as well as being a discrete geographic unit. 

6.4.9     After completion of the Pilot Survey, thorough de-briefing and analysis of results will be carried out in order to refine record systems and if necessary the methodology and/or Preliminary Landscape Character Map.

6.4.10    Results of the Pilot Survey will be collated and presented in Technical Report 4A for review by the DR shortly after the commencement of the Field Survey.

   Field Survey

6.4.11    The field survey methodology developed for the current Study has been developed in large part from the well-documented approach used in England/Scotland, presented above. However, this has been augmented by elements of the LANDMAP and New Zealand, particularly with regard to recording landscape value.

6.4.12    The Field Survey will be preceded by a period of field survey planning in which lessons learnt from the Pilot Survey are assimilated, transport arrangements made and a survey programme developed. For example, it is possible that LCTs will be larger in rural areas than in urban fringe or urban areas and that therefore there will be more data collection in the latter areas. Field Survey Programming will account for this disparity in workload and for the implications for transportation (as transportation will be more difficult in remote rural areas).

  The Survey Process

6.4.13    For each LCA, the following key tasks will be completed:

6.4.14   It will not be possible to identify a Field Record Station for every LCA since access to some LCAs will not be possible. For example, it will not be possible to land on uninhabited islands, steep rocky shorelines or inaccessible beaches and cliffs. In these circumstances, information will be recorded from offshore during boat trips.

6.4.15    Where access is possible, survey teams will carry out a general walkover survey of each LCA to confirm that the PLCM is correct during which they will identify the location (Field Record Station) from which to take a representative photo of the LCA. The Field Record Station will be a point from which a good view of the LCA is available in which its typical characteristics are evident. It will not be possible to identify the Field Record Station prior to the actual walkover survey. 

6.4.16    A Field Data Record will be completed at the Field Record Station chosen for each LCA, reflecting the characteristics of the LCA as a whole and not just those visible from the Field Record Station. For each LCA a number of photographs may be taken of different features as appropriate (not just from the Field Record Station) so as to enhance appreciation of the landscape character of the LCA. These photographs may be included in the database. Where LCAs contain recognised viewpoints, photographs will be taken from these locations. However these locations may not be selected as the Field Record Stations since they may offer views out of the LCA rather than views of the LCA itself.

6.4.17    Where there is no road access to an LCAs, as in some rural areas, public footpaths will be used. 

6.4.18    The boundaries of LCAs will be defined on site where possible. Where this is not possible, they will be defined back in the office, using e.g. aerial photos from helicopter trips, contour data or map data to identify practical and verifiable LCA boundaries.

6.4.19    The tentative field survey period is 4 months. During this period, surveyors will spend 4 days each week on site and 1 day each week in the Project Office downloading information and writing up findings. A weekly Survey Review Meeting will be held when both teams are back in the office to discuss problems and update methodologies. Such meetings will be timed to coincide with days of inclement weather, as far as possible.

6.4.20    Based on a total of 900 LCAs to be surveyed over a 4 month period, it is estimated that each Survey Team (assuming 2 teams) will need to survey about 6-8 LCAs each day. In urban areas, it is likely that considerably more than this could be surveyed each day, whilst in more remote areas, it may be possible only to do 4-5. This estimation takes into account that fact that it is likely that during the survey period, some time may be lost to inclement weather, and also that there will be a need to revisit some sites, and that there will be degree of overlap between the 2 teams as they will be required, as part of the quality control methodology, to independently map the same areas to ensure that they continue to adopt a consistent approach throughout the entire field survey.

  Field Data Records

6.4.21   Subject to accessibility, a 'Field Record Station' will be established for each LCA. This will be a location which is:

6.4.22    At each FRS, the survey team will:

6.4.23   The proposed Field Data Record is shown in Appendix 5. In particular, the comprehensive approach of the UK Countryside Agency approach, using prompts for key landscape features and qualities has been employed. This has been enhanced by more specific reference to visual and perceptual values such as those used in the North Shore and LANDMAP studies. In addition, specific reference is made to all evaluation criteria (and sub-criteria), including condition and sensitivity and value, as in the cases of LANDMAP and to an extent, the North Shore Study. Project-specific elements have also been added, as well as items suggested during public consultation (such as the influence of adjoining LCAs). 

6.4.24   Finally, space is provided for observation on trends in the landscape (to be used primarily in future updating) as well as for simple management strategies. Definitions of management strategies are as follows:

6.4.25   Conservation - This strategy applies where landscapes character and sense of place is particularly strong or where individual features are particularly notable for their landscape, ecological and/or cultural value. These landscape represent the most valuable landscape assets of the district, and they should be given the highest priority for conservation and protection from damaging change. Most forms of development are likely to be highly damaging to these sensitive landscape. However, this does not necessarily mean that they could or should be fossilised. Ideally these landscapes require management to conserve their declining features, to reduce intrusive influences and to maintain and enhance long-term landscape and ecological value.

6.4.26   Enhancement - These are areas where the landscape character has been to some extent degraded or where some or all of the individual features or overall structure are showing noticeable decline. Landscape intervention should concentrate on retaining features of merit, repair of the weakening structure, or screening or integration of intrusive features. Often only a minimal degree of intervention would be necessary to bring these areas up to the standard of conservation landscapes. In other cases, more extensive intervention might be required. Development in these areas must be sensitively sited, designed and integrated to ensure that the best aspects of the character of the landscape are maintained. Potentially, these landscapes have a greater capacity to accommodate change because their former natural characteristics have been to some extent changed

6.4.27    Reconstruction - These landscape are those where the landscape has been so modified by human activity that they no longer bear any resemblance to their former character. They include quarries, and airfields. These landscapes have a high capacity to accommodate change because they have already lost their intrinsic character. They would gain very positive benefits from the introduction of a new character and strong sense of place. Any new identifies for landscape areas need to be distinctive, but also need to respond to the surrounding landscape context. A strong landscape framework can help to achieve successful integration of new development in these areas.

6.4.28    In due course, examples collected during field survey will be used to illustrate different categories on the Field Data Record, so that future users of the methodology will have a reference. This will help to ensure a consistent approach.

6.4.29    Field survey records will be loaded onto hand-held PCs and will be filled in through the PC. One Field Data Record will be recorded for each LCA at its 'Field Record Station'.

6.4.30   Relevant sections of the Preliminary Landscape Character Map will be held by the survey teams on the hand-held PCs. Boundaries and other features on the PCs can then be updated on site.

6.4.31   One digital photograph will be taken at each Field Record Station. The precise location of the Record Station will be recorded using a GPS system. Given the Study programme, it may not be possible to take photos in 'ideal' daylight or visibility conditions. Every effort will however be made to ensure that the best quality photographs that are reasonably achievable are provided. The field survey will not be repeated because of smog or haze conditions rendering photographs hazy. The photograph will be tagged with its GPS location and the direction of the photo will also be recorded.

6.4.32    A key issue during field survey work will be to ensure consistency between different field survey members and teams. This will be achieved by a Quality Checking process, involving:

6.4.33    Survey results will be collated and will be presented in Technical Report 4.

6.5        FIELD SURVEY TECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION

  Introduction

6.5.1     This following discussion describes the proposed use of mobile GIS technology to assist with validation of the preliminary landscape character map (PLCM). Pocket PCs will be used instead of paper-based maps for the collection of information in the field to correct and supplement the PLCM.

  Hardware and Software

6.5.2     Compaq iPAQ Pocket PC-s loaded with ESRI's ArcPad, digital cameras and GPS units will be used to assist with the field surveys. IPAQs will be used as the Study Team has access to them. ArcPad is one of a number of mobile GIS technologies currently available. ArcPad has been selected as the mobile mapping software to use, as it is compatible with ESRI's ArcGIS suite of products with which the PLCM has been created and because the Study Team is familiar with its use. Data formats remain unchanged when using ArcPad so edits can be directly loaded back to the main GIS system.

6.5.3     GPS units will be used, to assist the Team's surveyors in locating where they are in the field as this can be particularly difficult when in natural landscapes. 

6.5.4     Digital cameras will be used instead of film based cameras to take field photographs as this removes the time consuming need to scan and upload the photographs to the GIS.

  Method of Use

6.5.5     The procedure for using the mobile GIS units, GPS units and cameras is as follows:

  Data Preparation

6.5.6     As the PLCM will be quite a large disk file; only small sections of it will be loaded onto the PocketPCs when surveys are conducted. These sections will correspond with the areas to be surveyed. The PLCM comprises polygon areas tagged with an LCT attribute. Background topographic data of Spot heights, Buildings, Roads, Rail Rivers, and Place Names will also need to be loaded to assist surveyors in locating where they are.

  Editing in the Field

6.5.7     Surveyors will be trained in the use of ArcPad so that they can make edits to the PLCM in the field. The editing procedure is fairly simple and requires the surveyor to assess whether the LCT attributed to a street bock or other area is correct and whether the boundaries of that LCA are correct. If they are found to be correct, a checked and correct attribute will be given to the LCA. If the boundary of the LCA or the LCT is incorrect, they must be corrected and a checked and corrected attribute assigned. The reason for these two validation categories is to assess how successful the procedure for creating the PLCM has been and provide that information should PlanD wish to try to refine the process in the future. An edit template form will be created that forces the surveyors to select attributes from valid categories only. This will eliminate attribute errors.

6.5.8     The system can also be used to enter notes against either LCAs or stand-alone points. These notes could contain information on items such as features of special landscape value.

  Field Photographs

6.5.9     During fieldwork, the surveyors will be taking a number of photographs of the various landscapes they encounter. To facilitate the geo-referencing of these photographs, the surveyors will enter points into the GIS marking the locations where the photograph was taken. As well as the location, a description of what the photograph is of and the direction in which the photograph is taken will also be recorded.

  Upload of Data to Main System

6.5.10    While the Pocket PCs have sufficient memory to store edits made for a number of weeks, for safety's sake, it is advisable to make daily backups of the data edits. The surveyors edits will be checked to ensure that they have been performed correctly and that attributes have been captured in the correct manner. Both the spatial edits and textual edits will be checked. Photographs taken during the day will also be uploaded to the GIS and linked to the point locations entered in the field.

  Data Structure

6.5.11    The following tables illustrate the structure of the GIS data to be edited in the field.

Table 6.2 GIS Data Structure for Field Survey
Layer: PLCM  Description: The Preliminary Landscape Character map contains polygons tagged with a predicted LCT. 
Attribute: LCT This contains the short name of the LCT. The surveyor can modify the by selecting from a drop down list
Attribute: Checked This is a True/False field indicating whether the LCA has been checked.
Attribute: LCT_Correct This a True/False field indicating whether the Draft LCA¡¦s LCT assignment is correct 
Attribute: Boundary_Correct This a True/False field indicating whether the Draft LCA¡¦s boundary assignment is correct
Attribute: Corrected  This is a True/False field indicating whether any mistakes found have been corrected.
Attribute: Note This is a text field allowing the surveyor to enter any notes they wish for the particular LCA being surveyed.
Attribute: Surveyor Name of Surveyor
Attribute: Date Date of inspection

 

Layer: Photograph Description: The Photograph layer contains points of the locations of photographs taken in the field.
Attribute: Photo_ID This field will contain a unique identifier for the photograph taken so that the point can be linked to the photograph later.
Attribute: Description This is a field allowing for the surveyor to enter a description for the photograph.
Attribute: Note This is a text field allowing the surveyor to enter any notes they wish for the photograph.
Attribute: Surveyor Name of Surveyor
Attribute: Date Date of inspection

 

Layer: Miscellaneous_Point Description: The Miscellaneous_Point layer contains points of the locations of features that the surveyor may wish to record.
Attribute: MP_ID This field will contain a unique identifier for the point being recorded.
Attribute: Description This is a field allowing for the surveyor to enter a description for the point.
Attribute: Note This is a text field allowing the surveyor to enter any notes they wish for the point.
Attribute: Surveyor Name of Surveyor
Attribute: Date Date of inspection

 

6.6        FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY

  Modes of Transportation

6.6.1     Transportation will be arranged to suit the location of the survey. It is anticipated that the following modes of transport will be required:

  Public Transport

6.6.2     Public transport, including bus, tram and MTR will be used for survey primarily in the urban areas (Kowloon, Hong Kong Island, new towns, etc).

  Private Car

6.6.3     In order to cover areas where there are roads, but where public transport does not exist or is not efficient, a private car will be used (primarily in urban fringe and accessible lowland rural areas). It is anticipated that a great deal of the 900+ LCAs can be covered in this way.

  Foot

6.6.4     Pedestrian access will be used to cover urban areas as well as otherwise inaccessible lowland areas (e.g. Nam Sang Wai) and upland areas (e.g. Country Parks). It is not anticipated that it will be necessary to use any private footpaths or roads. For purposes of safety, survey staff will not go off-road or on footpaths which are not in a reasonable state of repair.

  Public Boats and Ferries

6.6.5     Outlying islands will be accessed by public ferry boat wherever possible. It is anticipated that almost all outlying islands can be accessed in this manner.

6.6.6     Those islands accessible by scheduled public transport within the SAR region (by ferry, hovercraft, boat, or kaido) are as follows:

  Private Boat

6.6.7    Many of the outlying islands in HKSAR water are not accessible by scheduled public transport. These include the following:

6.6.8     These islands and also numerous inaccessible coastal LCAs, will be accessed by means of privately hired boats. Where there is a landing stage on these islands in a good a state of repair and where sea conditions permit, survey staff will disembark at these islands. Where no such facilities are available staff will survey the island from the boat. 

  Private Boat

6.6.9     As the survey progresses, it is likely to become apparent that certain 'holes' in the survey map exist where the above modes of transport do not allow survey staff to access the landscape. These holes will be filled by means of helicopter survey. A minimum of four helicopter trips will be commissioned in order to reach locations which cannot be accessed by other modes of transport.

  Dealing with Restricted Areas

6.5.10   Given national security requirements, it is recognised that it may not be possible to access certain areas of Hong Kong's landscape, such as military installations and penal institutions. In such cases, the Field Record Station will be the nearest point at which public access is available and from which the LCA in question can be seen.

6.5.11   Special permission will be sought from the Hong Kong Police in order to access the Closed Border Area which is an extensive area of often high quality landscape, which should be included in the survey if the full range of Hong Kong's landscapes is to be adequately reflected in the Study.

 

Go to previousGo to main pageGo to next