esp landscape vis and climate change nov05

Landscape visualisation and climate change: the potentialfor influencing perceptions and behaviour

Stephen R.J. Sheppard

Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP), Department of Forest Resources and Landscape Architecture,University of British Columbia, 2045-2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4

Abstract

The urgent need to mitigate and adapt to climate change is becoming more widely understood in scientific and policy circles, but publicawareness lags behind. The potential of visual communication to accelerate social learning and motivate implementation of the substantialpolicy, technological, and life-style changes needed, has begun to be recognised. In particular, realistic landscape visualisations may offerspecial advantages in rapidly advancing peoples’ awareness of climate change and possibly affecting behaviour and policy, by bringing certainpossible consequences of climate change home to people in a compelling manner. However, few such applications are yet in use, thetheoretical basis for the effectiveness of visualisations in this role has not been clearly established, and there are ethical concerns elicited byadopting a persuasive approach which deliberately engages the emotions with visual imagery. These questions and policy implications arediscussed in the context of a theoretical framework on the effects of landscape visualisation on a spectrum of responses to climate changeinformation, drawing in part on evidence from other applications of landscape visualisation. The author concludes that the persuasive use ofvisualisations, together with other approaches, may be effective, is justified, and could be vital in helping communicate climate changeeffectively, given ethical standards based on disclosure, drama, and defensibility.# 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Visualisation; Climate change; Visual communications; Carbon consciousness; Behavioural response

1. Introduction

This paper addresses the potential role of realisticvisualisation tools in rapidly increasing peoples’ awarenessof climate change and possibly affecting behaviour andpolicy, together with associated ethical dilemmas.

1.1. The need for increased public awareness and policyresponse on climate change

Evidence of climate change and its impacts on society andthe environment have becomegenerally accepted by scientists(Pearce et al., 1996; IPCC, 2001), along with the importanceof mitigating and adapting to climate change (Fawcett et al.,2002; Adger, 2003). However, public awareness and policychanges are lagging behind. Boardman and Palmer (2003)found low levels of ‘carbon consciousness’ among Europeanconsumers and businesses, and Lorenzoni and Langford

(2001) reported that the majority of their study participantswere not concerned about climate change.Many authors haveaddressed the substantial gap between the possession ofenvironmental knowledge or behavioural intent and actualpro-environmental behaviour (e.g. Kollmuss and Agyeman,2002). In some countries, organisations such as the UKClimate Impacts Programme (UKCIP, 2000a) have been setup to address this gap through education and communication.

Tickell (2002) has summarised the difficulties in com-municating climate change (discussed further below), andwarned that it may require a calamity to induce people andgovernments to take the necessary radical actions. Theprincipal question therefore becomes: what are the mosteffective ways to stimulate climate change mitigation andadaptation behaviours in society before crises occur, andreduce harm to the environment and society? The mainhypothesis examined in this paper is that certain kinds ofvisual communication (i.e. realistic landscape visualisations)which attempt to look into the future and which engage theemotions, may substantially enhance awareness-building on

www.elsevier.com/locate/envsciEnvironmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654

E-mail address: [email protected].

1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.08.002

various complexities and implications of climate change, andmay help motivate behavioural change at the individual tosocietal levels (Sheppard, 2004). Since few such visualisa-tions addressing climate change have yet been produced orsubjected to research evaluation, this paper attempts aproactive, systematic analysis of their potential, informed byearly precedents. It is recognised that many more abstract,statistical, or iconic aspects of climate and related landscapechange may not be readily communicated with realisticlandscape visualisation, and other more conventional toolsmay be needed in addition.

As background to the discussion of visualisationapplications to climate change issues, this section providesa brief rationale for using visual imagery, and landscapevisualisation in particular, in promoting environmentalawareness and behaviour.

1.2. The rationale for using visual imagery andvisualisation to raise environmental awareness andinfluence behaviour

Human responses to environments and visual displayscan be broadly categorised as cognitive (related to knowl-edge and understanding), affective (related to feelings,attitudes, and emotions), behavioural (related to changes inbehaviour of the viewer), and physiological (biological orphysical effects on the observer’s body) (Zube et al., 1982).The latter type of response is not considered further in thispaper. Perception is defined here as the process of seeing orotherwise perceiving phenomena, leading to particularresponses or states which include both cognitive andaffective outcomes. The focus of the paper is primarilyon individual perceptions, individual behavioural responses,and organisational behaviour (i.e. policy).

The ability of visual imagery to communicate messagesquickly and powerfully has long been recognised in fields ofhuman activity ranging from commercial advertising, to themedia, to political campaigns: seeing is believing. Thecognitive advantages of visual information over written orverbal information have been widely documented (e.g.Tufte, 1990), for example, when mentally visualisingconditions that cannot be seen directly in the real world(e.g. famines in remote countries, or the design of a proposedbuilding). Visual stimuli can also trigger innate and instantreflexes and feelings which can be persistent even in the faceof new information (Slovic et al., 2002); Zajonc (1984) hastermed this the ‘‘primacy of affect’’ over cognition. Visualimagery can therefore be a powerful tool to reach people’semotional side, as witnessed in the more dramatic imageryfrom the news media. Imagery (visual or otherwise) whichtriggers affective responses has been shown to improvecognition in some cases (Winn, 1997), and to influencepeople’s decision-making (Slovic et al., 2002). Clearly, theintent of some visual imagery is not just to inform or engageemotionally, but also to influence people’s behaviour, as inadvertising and public service health announcements.

Community-based social marketing using such techniqueshas proved effective in bringing about behaviour change(McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999; Kollmuss and Agyeman,2002).

Among the various forms of visual imagery available, 3Dvisualisations present special characteristics which helpdemonstrate consequences of environmental change in acompelling manner. Scientific information is commonlycommunicated by forms of data visualisation such as charts,diagrams, maps, graphics, and 3D computer models (Cox,1990; MacEachren and Ganter, 1990). These 2D and 3Drepresentations are often somewhat abstract or simplified(Fig. 1). Landscape visualisation, sometimes referred to asvisual simulation or landscape modelling (Ervin andHasbrouck, 2001), represents actual places and on-the-ground conditions in 3D perspective views (Fig. 2), oftenwith fairly high realism (Sheppard and Salter, 2004). Thesespecific forms of virtual reality are now typically computer-generated in three or four dimensions, and can conveydetailed information on the assumed future appearance ofenvironments (sky, terrain, buildings, and vegetation). Thisamounts to a unique form of visual communication,conveying information in the dominant form to which thehuman species is genetically adapted (i.e. visual land-scapes), but capable of showing future worlds as they wouldbe seen if the viewer were actually there. Historically,landscape visualisations have been used primarily in urbandesign and impact assessment (Porter, 1979; Sheppard,1989; Bosselmann, 1998). GIS-based methods for landscapevisualisation (Appleton et al., 2002) are now being appliedmore broadly to depict alternative future scenarios forvisioning, public input, and decision-making (Tress andTress, 2002; Steinitz et al., 2003; Sheppard and Meitner,2005).

Nicholson-Cole (2005) describes the promise of land-scape visualisation in conveying strong messages quickly,condensing complex information, engaging people in issuesof environmental change, and motivating personal action.However, we lack comprehensive knowledge and integrativetheories to validate, explain, and predict a broad range ofresponses to landscape visualisations (Appleyard, 1977;Sheppard, 2001). These techniques also harbour risks andkey limitations, and there are a number of ethical and

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654638

Fig. 1. Example of a conceptual or abstract 3D visualisation (showingterrain and elevation). Credit: John Lewis, CALP, UBC. Reproduced from

Sheppard, Lewis, and Akai, 2004, Landscape Visualisation: An Extension

Guide for First Nations and Rural Communities, courtesy of Sustainable

Forest Management Network, Canada.

professional issues raised by attempts to influence behaviourusing visual imagery. It is therefore important to considercarefully available evidence and theoretical arguments forthe effectiveness and ethics of using visualisation on climatechange issues, in order to avoid false expectations, critiquethe inevitable use of visualisations of climate change, andguide further research.

1.3. Scope and structure of paper

These issues are discussed in the context of an initialtheoretical framework on the possible effects of landscapevisualisations on human responses to climate change; thus,Section 2 addresses the question: ‘‘Can landscape visualisa-tion deliver on improving awareness and stimulating actionon climate change?’’ Section 3 examines dilemmas relatingto such use, essentially addressing the question: ‘‘Should weuse landscape visualisations to engage the emotions andinfluence behaviour, and if so, how?’’ Possible approachesare described involving ethical standards for use ofvisualisations in a persuasive role on climate change,resulting policy implications, and research priorities.

Visualisation can have multiple roles in society: inentertainment, planning and decision-support, education,and research on public perceptions. In this paper, the focus ison visualisations as awareness-building tools and potentialchange agents in fostering action by both the general publicand policy-makers, although with more emphasis onindividual behaviour. In the context of climate change,the most urgent applications address the need forbehavioural change to mitigate climate change, thoughthe ideas discussed in this paper apply equally to adaptationpriorities.

While the focus is on landscape visualisation, it isunderstood that in reality a combination of techniques and

influences will be required to effect societal change onclimate change; the attempt made here is to articulate theadditional or value-added contributions of visualisationwithin the toolset. In the rest of this paper, the term‘visualisation’ refers to landscape visualisation, unlessotherwise noted.

2. A theoretical framework for the impact ofvisualisation on awareness, attitudes, andbehaviour in relation to climate change

This section addresses the issue of whether landscapevisualisation can be expected to impact awareness,individual behaviour, and policy. We briefly considertheoretical concepts, available evidence, and experiencefrom professional practice, relating to people’s responses togeneral environmental issues presented via landscapevisualisation. Then, we consider how this knowledge onvisualisation can be applied to the question of people’sresponses to climate change.

2.1. Human responses to landscape visualisations

Some of the potential benefits promised by landscapevisualisation techniques in the arena of awareness-building,behaviour change, and environmental decision-making canbe summarised as in Table 1. These benefits include bothself-evident capabilities (e.g. the ability to depict alternativefuture scenarios side by side) and theorised influences onpeople’s responses (e.g. increased engagement and per-ceived salience). However, despite the widespread use oflandscape visualisations in planning and design, findings onresponses to them are generally not scientifically docu-mented or comprehensive (Sheppard, 2001; Lange, 2001;

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654 639

Fig. 2. Visualisations of landscapes can now be modelled in detail and realistically rendered, as in this depiction of two forest management alternatives after 38

years of plan implementation. Credit: Ken Fairhurst, Mike Meitner, Ryan Gandy, and Duncan Cavens, CALP, UBC. Courtesy of CANFOR.

Sheppard and Salter, 2004), and there is clear potential foroffsetting disadvantages (discussed below).

Most recent visualisation evaluation studies focus ondirect self-report evaluation of the tools, and here there isconsiderable evidence of their usability or perceivedcommunications effectiveness (Bengtsson et al., 1997; Al-Kodmany, 2000; Appleton and Lovett, 2003; Sheppard andMeitner, 2005), including the ability to engage lay-people(Lewis and Sheppard, in press) (Fig. 3). Some research hasevaluated effects on cognition, but mostly with somewhatabstract forms of visualisation (MacEachren and Ganter,1990; Al-Kodmany, 2000), which can be helpful inexplaining concepts, ecological processes, and overallenvironmental conditions not easily expressed in text ordata tables. Winn (1997) has argued that more complex,interactive 3D virtual reality displays may providequalitatively and quantitatively superior forms of learningon environmental science and global change issues.Researchers have found that visualisation can demonstratecognitive advantages over other media (e.g. Furness et al.,1998; Danahy, 2001), though MacEachren (2001) notes thatlearning may be hampered by the virtual devices used toattract and sustain attention. We should also be careful todiscriminate between learning quickly (widely reported inpractice) and learning correctly, which is seldom measured

(MacEachren and Ganter, 1990; Winn, 1997; Lewis, 2000;Salter, 2005).

Daniel and Meitner (2001) have described several studieswhich show that visualisations can arouse positive ornegative emotional reactions in observers. Few studies haveattempted to measure the intensity of emotional reaction,though practical experience suggests public reactions tovisualisations can sometimes be vehement. A few studieshave evaluated the ability of visualisations to match theaffective and related experiential and evaluative responsesobtained from real world environments (e.g. Bosselmannand Craik, 1987; Sheppard, 1989, 2001; Meitner and Daniel,1997; Bishop and Rohrmann, 2003), with mixed results.Zube et al. (1982) and Bishop and Rohrmann (2003)nonetheless believe that the greater the realism, the moresimilar the responses will be to real life.

Very few studies have been carried out on the behaviouralimpacts of landscape visualisation, either during theexposure to the visualisation material or afterwards. Someexperiments have evaluated behavioural actions such aspathway choices in a virtual environment (Bishop et al.,2001), or tracked behaviour in collaborative immersivesettings during planning workshops (Campbell and Salter,2004). Orland (1992, p. 259) has speculated that visualisa-tions may be used ‘‘in a more persuasive mode to motivate


Table 1

Potentially beneficial attributes of landscape visualisation for promoting environmental awareness and actiona

Integration of science

and intuition

The combination of the predictive capabilities of modelling and GIS with the intuitive and experientially rich

media of photography and realistic representation, with meaningful socio-cultural associations for communities

that may help strengthen more informed perspectives in decision-making

Engagement of lay-people The attractiveness of virtual reality and its novel applications to conventional planning problems may be helpfulin getting multiple stakeholders to engage in public processes (Sheppard and Meitner, 2005; Nicholson-Cole, 2005)

Personal salience The ability to localize and ground the information by detailed depiction of recognisable and well-known sites as they

would be seen by local residents or users, as opposed to a detached plan or aerial view or an expert’s conceptualisation

Presentation of choicesfor the future

The ability to present alternative futures side-by-side and over time, posing ‘what-if’ questions (Steinitz et al., 2003)in the search for preferred or acceptable environmental solutions over the long term

Flexibility of tool Digital visualisation techniques can be modified or customized to emphasize important information or condense

complex details, to fit the presentation to the needs and capabilities of the user (Sheppard, 2005)

a Potential disadvantages of landscape visualisation are discussed in the text in Section 3.1.

Fig. 3. The impact of imagery: substantially increased dialogue was obtained with members of a First Nation community on resource management issues when

using realistic landscape visualisations, compared with using simple GISmaps.Credit: John Lewis, CALP, UBC. Courtesy of CheamBand, BC. Reproduced by

permission of Sustainable Forest Management Network.

people to do something about the impact being represented,’’as happens with photography, film, and television media.McKenzie-Mohr and Smith (1999) provide numerousexamples of visual information which, with other commu-nity-based social marketing techniques, can influencesustainable behaviour or adaptation if they are vivid,personal, and concrete.

Interactions between cognitive, affective, and beha-vioural responses may help explain visual triggers tobehavioural responses. Slovic et al. (2002, p. 398) state that‘‘many theorists have given affect a direct and primary rolein motivating behaviour.’’ They review evidence that morevivid and sensational narratives associated with feelingsrather than cognition have more influence on riskbehaviours. This suggests that introducing compellingvisual evidence that is readily translatable into personalrisks or implications can be more successful in strengtheningmotivations to change behaviour than cognitive informationalone. Maiteny (2002) argues that behavioural change tosupport sustainability can only take place when theindividual has gone through a deep-rooted personaltransformation, as in experiential learning processes.Sheppard (2004) and Nicholson-Cole (2005) speculate thatthe strength and symbolic emotive content of visualisationimagery may motivate people to act in a more sustainablemanner. However, it must be recognised that both the formsof and causal influences on environmentally significantbehaviour are very complex, varying with pre-determinedattitudes, individual capability, context, etc. (Stern, 2000),and therefore the effectiveness of any form of externalintervention such as visualisations, on their own, may belimited by other factors.

There is also the important issue of how the use ofvisualisation could influence relevant policy, either directlythrough presentations to key decision-makers and policy-makers or indirectly through public opinion and collectiveindividual actions. Again, however, there is little scientificinformation on such policy responses in the visualisationliterature. There is some evidence from perception studiesusing visualisation which indicate differing levels ofacceptability of various resource management scenarios(e.g. Sheppard and Meitner, 2005; Ribe, 2005), although thepractical linkages between judgements of unacceptability inresearch and actual policy impacts in the real world have notbeen widely demonstrated. Professional practice doesprovide anecdotal examples suggesting sometimes profoundeffects of visualisation on government behaviour: forexample, computer visualisations of potential housingdevelopment under the Official Community Plan in MapleRidge, BC, when shown to members of the city council,caused such surprise and negative reaction that the councilinitiated a process to develop sustainable community planswith a very different footprint.

Overall, many dimensions of visualisation use andsubsequent human response (especially behavioural) arenot well understood, and we should be wary of generalizing

too broadly (Bosselmann and Craik, 1987). There wouldhowever seem to be advantages in engagement andcognition, with some evidence of emotional arousal andthe potential to affect behaviour on environmental issues.

2.2. Applications of landscape visualisation to theproblem of climate change

So, can visualisation, in combination with otherinformation sources/media, affect human responses toclimate change? To address this question systematically,we need to consider the specific context of society’sperceptions of climate change, before developing aconceptual framework of how visualisation may relate tothese perceptions.

2.2.1. Perceptions of climate changeThe potential for visualisation in relation to climate

change can be considered in terms of:

! perceptual characteristics and difficulties relating toclimate change itself;

! potential and observed responses of people and agenciesto climate change, and observed gaps between awarenessand behaviour;

! early precedents for responses to imagery and visualisa-tion of climate change-related phenomena.

The characteristics of climate change make it difficult tosee directly. Carbon dioxide and even the carbon sourceitself is effectively invisible. There is potential to recognisesome quite tangible visual or landscape-related effects ofclimate change, such as sea-level rise, flooding, or drought (atypology of such effects is provided below). However,Tickell (2002) has described the problems of communicat-ing change which occurs over long time periods and whichcarries uncertain and uncomfortable future consequences.Winn (1997) and Nicholson-Cole (2005) have described thescale, complexity, and abstraction of climate change aschallenges to communication. This is exacerbated byproblems of media coverage, ranging from down-playingthe issue (Monbiot, 2004) to ‘‘inappropriate use of modelpredictions, inaccurate representations of physical pro-cesses, false associations of unrelated phenomena, and useof emotion-laden language’’ (Furness et al., 1998, p. 19). It isalso difficult to relate global or national figures on climatechange to local scales (Furness et al., 1998), and there are asyet few reliable predictions for local climate effects orspatially explicit consequences at high levels of resolution,other than for sea-level rise. It is therefore difficult forindividuals to relate their actions (good or bad) to the largercontext of climate change (Sheppard, 2004; Nicholson-Cole,2005).

Information has begun to flow on the nature ofconceptualisations of and human responses to climatechange. Several researchers report evidence of persistent


misconceptions of climate change, e.g. confusing clean airor ozone-layer issues with climate change (e.g. Furnesset al., 1998; Boardman and Palmer, 2003). Kollmuss andAgyeman (2002) and Lorenzoni and Langford (2001)describe various types of barrier or gaps between percep-tions/intentions and behaviour conducive to climate changemitigation, including gaps in cognition and awareness(ignorance), gaps between knowledge and action, and gapsbetween intent and action. Lorenzoni and Langford (2001)identify different perspectives that people adopt whenconfronted by climate change issues, including denial,doubt, disinterest, and engagement. Other responses includeconfusion, pessimism, guilt, frustration, and, more rarely,motivation to change behaviour (Kollmuss and Agyeman,2002; Maiteny, 2002). Nicholson-Cole (2005) found that asample of Norfolk residents expressed their feelings aboutclimate change in a somewhat negative but abstract, distantsense, though personal experiences and impacts on localenvironments were a common feature of people’s visualconceptions of climate change. Her results highlight theinfluence of popular visual media on the mental imagery ofclimate change that respondents held (Nicholson-Cole,2005), and suggest, in particular, that respondents were mostemotionally affected by national and local imagery, ratherthan global. Gaps in behavioural motivation seemed to berelated to difficulties in personalising climate change(Nicholson-Cole, 2005); respondents felt that they neededto understand the personal implications of climate changeand be regularly reminded if they were to act. However, itshould be noted that these findings represent self-report dataon behavioural intent, and not actual measured behaviour.

In the context of climate change, visual communicationsare beginning to be used to accelerate social learning, andthe possibility of their motivating the substantial policy,technological, and life-style changes needed has begun to berecognised. Cohen (1997) used GIS and remote sensingimagery with other information to communicate climatechange scenarios to Canadian stakeholders, who reportedthat the scenarios made a difference in their visions of thefuture and potential interventions in policy debates.Scientific agencies provide animated 3D visualisations ofmodelled climate change phenomena seen from space, suchas changes in sea ice over time (Fig. 4), on the web; similarvisualisations of the ‘ozone hole’ are commonly creditedwith helping to spur legislation to ban fluorocarbons. Newbooks on climate change highlight the impacts of climatechange as illustrated with vivid landscape photography ofchanging iconic landscapes such as snow-capped volcanoesand glaciers (Lynas, 2004). There has been much debateover the recent film entitled ‘‘The Day After Tomorrow’’which dramatically depicts fictionalized climate changeevents (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/189422p-163828c.html). Lowe et al. (2005) found thatthe film, which included spectacular ‘realistic’ visualisationsof weather extremes and sea-level rise threatening thecharacters, did result in changes in attitude towards climate

change, with significantly more concern, anxiety, andmotivation to change behaviour, though the latter effectwas short-lived. It appeared, however, that the disaster filmgenre, overly dramatic special effects, and the failure todistinguish fact from fiction amid the high realism, led tolow credibility of the film itself, making inferences for morescientifically based visualisation difficult to draw.


Fig. 4. Computer visualisations of simulated summer-averaged sea-ice

thickness at the South Pole over a 150 year period, where white representsthe thickest ice and the red line depicts the maximum extent of 1cm thick

sea-ice. Credit: Copyright, # 2002, University Corporation for Atmo-

spheric Research, http://www.vets.ucar.edu/vg/seaice/index.shtml. Scienti-

fic credits: Mark Holland, CGD/NCAR; Cecilia Bitz, U. Washington; BruceBriegleb, CGD/NCAR; Elizabeth Hunke, LANL; Bill Lipscomb, LANL;

RichardMoritz, U.Washington; Julie Schramm, CGD/NCAR. Visualization

credits: Fred Clare, NCAR/SCD; John Clyne, NCAR/SCD; Tim Scheitlin,

NCAR/SCD. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figurelegend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

http://ethos-uk.com/



Few visualisations of climate change effects on thelandscape have yet been produced to scientific standards,and even fewer have yielded results on responses. Thefeasibility of using realistic landscape visualisations todepict climate change is not in question: it can be done quitesimply using limited 2D perspective imagery with photo-imaging software to depict specific possible consequences ofclimate change, or by more sophisticated 3D/4D modellingof future scenarios with multiple attributes and visualisationinputs. The ease of manipulating images with convincingphoto-realism is demonstrated in Fig. 5, which depicts a

hypothetical mitigation strategy to reduce fossil fuel usage,seen from within a real community. Fig. 6 providesexamples of 3D modelling with semi-realistic visualisationsoftware developed for the Royal Commission on Environ-mental Pollution, to depict a hypothetical British landscapein existing conditions and with alternate mitigationstrategies, here seen in birds-eye view. Dockerty et al.(2005) describe one of the first studies to visualisescientifically modelled effects of climate change in anactual rural landscape in Norfolk, at the detailed site level.Here, local scenarios visualised were developed from the


Fig. 5. Photo-realistic landscape visualisations comparing existing conditions and a hypothetical low-carbon future in southern England. Credit: Cecilia

Achiam, CALP, UBC.

four basic socio-economic scenarios described by Nakice-novic and Swart (2000), by applying an agricultural land usemodel and locally specific decision-rules and assumptions,to develop high-resolution 3D visualisations showingchanges in the farming landscape (Fig. 7). However, nostudies of formally collected responses to these visualisa-tions have yet been published.

In other visualisation-based research on responses tolong-range scenarios for forest management planning(Sheppard and Meitner, 2005), rural community membersquestioned the failure to build in climate change factors tosuch models, raising concerns over modelling credibility.Schroth et al. (2005) used interactive 3D aerial views ofsemi-abstract 3D visualisations of the Entlebuch BiosphereReserve in Switzerland, to assess qualitatively responses toretreating snow cover on winter recreation under climatechange modelling assumptions based on topographicelevation (Fig. 8). When shown to community stakeholders,the visualisations caused surprise and disquiet, which ledquickly to a new and different discussion of summerrecreation opportunities (Schroth et al., 2005), suggestingthat the medium can stimulate a rapid adaptation response.

2.2.2. Towards a theoretical framework for visualisationof climate change

Based on a synthesis and simplification of the availableevidence and theoretical arguments discussed above, Fig. 9presents a conceptual diagram in the form of a spectrum ofpossible individual responses to visual information onclimate change, representing different levels of carbonconsciousness and commitment to action on climate changeissues. We can envisage the range of perceptual andbehavioural responses to visual information in the form of anordered categorisation moving from a low state of awarenessthrough to action, which corresponds generally with aprogression from cognitive processing of information,through emotional responses, to behaviour change. It isnot assumed that each stage on the spectrum is a necessaryprecursor for response types further along the spectrum, orthat over time any individual will necessarily move throughthe range of responses in this specific linear sequence. Forexample, emotional effects may actually precede cognitiveeffects from a given presentation, or occur at the same time.The diagram is presented as a simple way of structuring ourthinking and emerging research programmes on the range ofresponse types and effects we may look for as the result ofapplying visualisations to issues of climate change. It isrecognised that there are many other models of themotivations and controlling factors on pro-environmentalbehaviour, which may not be reflected in this simpleframework.

The responses illustrated here can be related to othersystems of categorising types of respondents, e.g. Lorenzoniand Langford’s (2001) classification of the deniers,uninterested, doubters, and engaged; or to Kollmuss andAgyeman’s (2002) analysis of barriers to pro-environmental


Fig. 6. Hypothetical British landscape visualised in existing conditions and

with alternate future scenarios including mitigation strategies featuring

wind-turbines and biofuels plantations, and varying levels of development.

The two future scenarios represent two major energy choices (S1 – energydemands stabilized at 1998 levels; S4 – energy demands at half the 1998

levels*), affecting the need for large-scale renewable or nuclear energy

plants that adversely impact on landscape and seascape character, and the

capacity of small-scale generation to cope with local energy demands.Credit: Images from ‘‘Visualizing renewable Energy in the Landscape of

2050’’: Copyright of The Countryside Agency. Images by ethos-uk.com.

*S4 scenario uses energy projections from the Royal Commission forEnvironmental Pollution.


behaviour. The gaps between the stages along the spectrumrepresent some of the main gaps between knowledge andaction. However, for visualisation to be judged effective inaddressing climate change, viewers do not need tomove alongthe entire length of the spectrum; if visualisation succeeds atany one of these levels, e.g. in reducing ignorance or denial,then this should be beneficial, particularly if it is more

effective than other forms of communication. The responsespectrum suggests that the early stages along the spectrummay be more straightforward to achieve with visualisationthan the upper stages: the ability of pictures to conveyinformation is well accepted, whereas the ability to impactbehaviour is much less certain.

In order to bridge the various kinds of perceptual orbehavioural gap shown in Fig. 9, it would seem that differentforms of visualisation may be required, as suggested inFig. 10. In improving understanding of climate change, wemay expect that more conceptual 3D visualisations may beappropriate, through simplification and focus on the mostcogent information such as overall CO2 cycles, shifts inbiogeoclimatic zones, or cumulative effects. Cognitivelyeffective landscape visualisation might focus on augmentingreality to make the invisible visible, making the abstracttangible, collapsing long time scales into short periods, andeasily switching between different scales (Winn, 1997;Furness et al., 1998). Clarity of message and of depictedconditions appears important in effective cognition (Shep-pard, 1989; Nicholson-Cole, 2005). While realism may notbe necessary for (and may in some cases detract from)cognition, Furness et al. (1998, p. 13) believe that, in most


Fig. 7. Model-derived 3D visualisations of existing conditions in a Norfolkagricultural area, with two scenarios under climate change in 2020: a low

mitigation, high carbon emissions scenario (A2) and a local stewardship

scenario with lower carbon emissions (B2). Credit: Katy Appleton, Uni-

versity of East Anglia. Reproduced from Dockerty et al., 2005, courtesy ofComputers, Environment and Urban Systems.

Fig. 8. Semi-realistic 3D visualisations of forecasted snow conditions and

existing ski runs in the Sorenberg area of Switzerland, under currentconditions and after 50 years with climate change, with safe snow elevations

for skiing depicted in white. Credit: Olaf Schroth/VisuLands 2005, #Geo-

data: RAWI Lucerne.

cases, ‘‘. . . realistic representation will lead to more directand more robust knowledge construction.’’ Experience hasalready shown that the novelty or interest in computervisualisations can attract people and engage them incollaborative learning processes (Winn, 1997; Campbelland Salter, 2004; Sheppard and Meitner, 2005).

In order to reach the emotional side of viewers, thefollowing additional attributes of visualisation would appearto be important:

! Realism, in the sense of photo-realistic or ‘lifelike’imagery in re-creating experiential qualities (Appleyard,1977) and making abstract concepts ‘concrete’’ (McKen-zie-Mohr and Smith, 1999).

! Depicting personally relevant environments, such as localand recognisable neighbourhoods (Nicholson-Cole,2005), or iconic, well-known landscape symbols to whichpeople can relate (Sheppard, 2004). It is well known in the

environmental psychology literature that familiar land-scapes tend to be associated with stronger and morepositive affective responses (e.g. Kaplan and Herbert,1988), and as noted above, people seem most affected bypersonal implications of climate change (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999; Nicholson-Cole, 2005).

! Immediacy: near-term conditions (Lorenzoni and Lang-ford, 2001) or possibly longer term conditions made toseem nearer term through speeding up time, combinedwith meaningful future considerations such as theirneighbourhood as seen by the viewers’ grand-children.

! Containing images of people, animals, or other symbolswith strong affective content (Nicholson-Cole, 2005).

! Demonstrating the future consequences of people’sactions or inactions (Furness et al., 1998).

In theory, behaviour change may require emotional andcognitive attributes described above, but intensified to bevivid, memorable, and transformative (McKenzie-Mohr andSmith, 1999; Maiteny, 2002): ‘‘a compelling virtualenvironment will likely heighten (people’s) motivation toact responsibly’’ (Furness et al., 1998, p. 28). Both Winn(1997) and Furness et al. (1998) argue that vivid andcompelling visualisations can be obtained through a range oftechniques, notably:

! immersion in a virtual environment: large images andpanoramic ‘wrap-around’ displays can increase the senseof presence (Furness et al., 1998), engagement (Apple-yard, 1977), and intensity of experience (Sheppard et al.,2001);

! dynamic or animated imagery that increases enthusiasmand engagement (e.g. Dykes, 2000) and/or providesfreedom of virtual movement for the viewer (Orland andUusitalo, 2001);

! interactivity with the displayed data in real-time, toincrease engagement (Orland and Uusitalo, 2001; Camp-bell and Salter, 2004; Schroth et al., 2005).

Beyond media attributes, the content of the climatechange message also appears critical if behaviour is to beinfluenced. McKenzie-Mohr and Smith (1999) argue thatmessages which emphasize environmental losses due toinaction are consistently more persuasive than those whichsimply emphasize benefits of action; such threats should becombined with positive implications of action to overcomethe barrier of helplessness which might otherwise afflictviewers (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Nicholson-Cole(2005) stresses the importance of tailoring the visualisationmaterial to the target audience in light of the variability inhuman responses: this can be interpreted as identifying themost applicable stage on the response spectrum for the targetaudience in selecting the appropriate visualisation stimulus.A more systematic discussion of approaches to the contentof visualisations addressing aspects of climate change isprovided in Section 3.2.


Fig. 9. A theoretical spectrum of human responses to visual information on

climate change.

In summary, therefore, there is strong evidence of thecognitive effectiveness of visualising global change, and astrong likelihood of the ability to engender emotionalresponses. It also appears theoretically possible that the useof landscape visualisation could affect behaviour with regardto climate change, if the imagery provides: (1) disclosure: awindow into the future which is personally meaningful andtangible, making the global both local and personal, showingpossible negative and positive outcomes; (2) drama: a vividand compelling presentation with emotional content. How-ever, the behavioural part of the theoretical response spectrum(Fig. 10) is mostly in doubt and in need of testing. Developingtheories on the potential of visualisations to influence attitudesand behaviour must also recognise that their effectivenesswould be dependent on many factors including the intendedpurpose of the exercise (i.e. nature of response sought), socio-cultural and environmental context, the type of audience, andthe contribution of other forms of information.

3. Ethical and policy issues of using visualisation toinfluence perceptions and behaviour on climatechange

In this section we turn our attention to the ethicalquestions: ‘Should we use visualisations for the purpose ofpersuasion, and if so, how?’ Is there a ‘right’ way to do this?

3.1. Risks and dilemmas in using visualisation ofclimate change

Attemptsdeliberately toharness thepowerofvisualisationsto influence behaviour, what Luymes (2001) describes as therhetoric of visual simulation, have radical policy implicationsin terms of visualisation use and the role of the presenter. Theconventional role of visualisation as an informative tool indecisionsupport is associatedwith the supposedneutral roleofscience in not imposing value judgements on the public.


Fig. 10. Theoretical effects of different types of landscape visualisations in stimulating perceptions and behaviour in response to climate change.

Arguments for a more deliberate attempt to usevisualisation to influence the public or impact governmentpolicy emphasize the need to forestall an actual crisis in theenvironment as an over-riding imperative. A persuasiveapproach should not necessarily be equated with inaccurateor distorted visualisations: visualisations properly preparedcan simply disclose the truth, which may itself bepersuasive. In fact, it could be argued that visualisationswhich disclose possible futures are less misleading than notusing them, and there may be an obligation to disclose thetruth to those who cannot or will not see. Luymes (2001) hasadvocated the use of powerful visualisation tools to shapepublic values on sustainability. History is replete withexamples of the inability of cultures to foresee the impact oftheir actions or inaction: e.g. the use of DDT, fluorocarbons,and indeed carbon emissions. Precedents do exist for otherkinds of long-term predictions and disclosure of con-sequences, including environmental impact assessment,multiple-rotation forest modelling, and biodiversity model-ling in response to climate change (Berry et al., 2002). Thereis also an argument that scientifically produced visualisa-tions are needed to counter the misinformation propagatedby entertainment media such as the recent film ‘‘The DayAfter Tomorrow,’’ while utilizing a similar medium. Moregenerally, Michaelis (2003) has argued for a governmentstrategy to change public behaviour on greenhouse gasemissions through a process of leadership, dialogue, andfacilitation: there would appear to be strong role forvisualisation in helping project ‘‘visions for a sustainableway of living’’ (Michaelis, 2003, p. S143).

This author concludes that the persuasive use ofvisualisations, together with other tools and approaches,is justified if they can be effective, and may even be vital incommunicating climate change urgently. We should take theperceptual leap and seek to engage the public’s emotions.This seems worth doing even if behaviour does not changeimmediately, by engaging people to think more seriouslyabout the future and showing them they have a choice amongalternative futures. This at least would remove the firstbarrier of ignorance on the response spectrum of carbonconsciousness and action (Fig. 9).

Once the decision is taken that a policy of persuasive useof powerful visual imagery can be justified in the fightagainst climate change, a second tier of issues becomesevident. What risks do we take in such usage, how can theybe minimized, and are the resulting risks worth taking?There are many process decisions and constraints in theproduction of any realistic simulated landscape imagery, andmany different problems can result (Sheppard, 1989). Thereis space here only for a brief discussion of some of these, asfollows:

1. The risk of biased responses: How can unintentional biasor deliberate attempts to mislead be prevented?(McQuillan, 1998; Orland et al., 2001). Winn (1997)points out that virtual reality media may create their own

misconceptions. There is the risk of aesthetic responsesto visual conditions over-riding more important but non-visible implications of climate change. Both Luymes(2001) and Orland and Uusitalo (2001) express concernsabout the high credibility and low transparency ofrealistic immersive forms of virtual reality, which fostersometimes false assumptions of authority, and whichencourage suspension of disbelief in the virtual worldsdepicted. These problems can be increased whendeliberate efforts are made to engage the emotions(Slovic et al., 2002).

2. The risk of disbelief : Lack of credibility (Sheppard, 1989)of the visualisation imagery or the underlying modelling/assumptions would seriously damage the effectiveness ofthe visualisation exercise. Sheppard and Meitner (2005)and Schroth et al. (2005) record participants’ concernsabout apparent or potential manipulation of visualisationimagery to support a particular message. Realisticvisualisations of possible climate change effects(Fig. 11) which are presented without correspondingscientific explanations may not be taken seriously. Evenwith such information, the necessary disclosure ofmassive uncertainty (Webster, 2003) in climate changeand land use projections could itself trigger lack ofconfidence in the scientists and their models.

3. The risk of confusion: The enormous complexity ofclimate change and associated policy options (Keeneyand McDaniels, 2001) could simply confuse people overthe number of visualised scenarios, contingencies,associated risks, and consequent choices.

4. The risk of overkill: Even visual information can becometoo much, either through information overload (Orfordet al., 1999) or sheer habituation to what becomesmundane (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999). There may


Fig. 11. Examples of photo-simulations of hypothetical sea-level rise in

Holland in 2020, used in public communications. Credit: Stone/Getty

Images; courtesy of The Guardian ‘‘The Drowned World’’ September

11, 2004; and Glen Taylor.

be different desired levels of stimulus and responseintensity for different purposes, e.g. multiple iterativeexposures to promote better learning versus single sharpexposures for shock value. Winn (1997) has raised thefear of the virtual reality medium itself being ‘over-hyped’ and losing effectiveness.

5. The risk of upsetting people: There are differing views onthe desirability and effectiveness of emotional content(such as fear or unease), leading to negative or defensivereactions to the issue (Nicholson-Cole, 2005), versusjudicious use to trigger behavioural change (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999). Furness et al. (1998) note thatstudents who become personally engaged in seriousconsideration of global change may become verydistressed, raising conflicts between the goal of‘truthfulness’ and the desire not to upset people.

6. The risk of perpetuating the problem by encouragingacceptance of climate change: What if the visualisationimagery is valid but simply too subtle to influenceattitudes, or depicts positive imagery that may result fromsome aspect of a given climate change scenario?Dockerty et al. (2005) have generated landscapevisualisations for Norfolk (Fig. 7) showing what somemay consider to be attractive fields of sunflowers whichwould replace the existing agricultural crops.

3.2. Ethical standards and policy implications

Given the issues just raised, how should we embark upona policy of deliberate use of visualisations to influenceattitudes and behaviour on climate change? The followingsections briefly explore three topics key to the ethicalimplementation of visualisations of climate change.

3.2.1. Defensible methodologies for preparingvisualisations

An obvious starting point would be to develop guidelinesfor uses of visualisation related to climate change,appropriate to the needs of public motivation anddecision-making. This would address the principal missingingredient beyond disclosure and drama for effectivevisualisation of climate change: defensibility. If there isno overall scientific or logical underpinning of thevisualisations, they are unlikely to change peoples’ mindsor convince policy-makers suspicious of new media.

However, there is little guidance on how muchmanipulation or selectivity should be allowed to createthe appropriate kinds of drama while avoiding the pitfallsdescribed in Section 3.1. What accuracy or response validitystandards can be applied when visualisations representpredictions of unknowable futures? Should accuracy bemeasured against likelihood or feasibility of occurrence, oras veracity to the modelled outcomes? Towhat degree wouldexisting conventions developed for typical uses of landscapevisualisation in design and planning apply to the specialcircumstances of climate change mitigation and adaptation?

Sheppard (2001, 2005) has proposed a code of ethics forvisualisation which identifies the following principles orcriteria that may be relevant to climate change applications:accuracy of visualisation relative to expected conditions;representativeness of views in space and time; visual clarityof presentations; interest and engagement of the audience/users; legitimacy or accountability of the visualisation,including transparency of data and of the productionprocess, and delivery of visualisations by a trusted source(Sheppard and Meitner, 2005; Nicholson-Cole, 2005); andaccessibility of the visualisations to the public and potentialusers.

Other ethical and policy issues of particular concern toclimate change are likely to include:

! Representing uncertainty, e.g. through presentationdevices (Dockerty et al., 2005) or through multiplealternative visualisations per given scenario as a form ofsensitivity testing (Appleyard, 1977; Sheppard, 2001,2004).

! Down-scaling from global, regional, or even local climatechange scenarios: we need robust ways of developingdecision rules for visualising the detailed landscapeconditions necessary for personal engagement and localrecognition, but based on very broad land use orenvironmental scenarios with limited resolution data-sets(e.g. UKCIP, 2000b; Dockerty et al., 2005).

! Presentation of non-visible conditions (in the visualisa-tion and with other media) to mediate and augment thevisible aspects of climate change, through a blend(Fig. 12) of realism (in this case, individual trees onthe hillside) and abstraction (e.g. false colour).

! Permissible types of drama, including dramatic contentsuch as forest die-back or the effects of extreme storms,dramatic viewing conditions such as animated ‘fly-bys’and unusual lighting, or dramatic display formats such asstereo vision, big screens, and panoramic angles of view.

One defensible policy on permissible drama wouldperhaps be that a defined ‘reality’ remains the guide: forexample, animated large-screen panoramic imagery of afuture landscape may be both dramatic and legitimate if itconveys the expected appearance at the actual image sizeand angle of view with which it would be seen in theneighbourhood, but not if it exaggerated the effects ofclimate change, gave a magnified view of the landscapefeatures affected, or selectively left out key elements.However, the type of decision or response required doesneed to be taken into account, and cognitive awareness, assuggested in Fig. 10, may require the very types of omissionor abstraction that could be misleading with the experientialresponse. Ensuring that multiple media are used, retainingthe cognitive information along with the realistic experi-ential media (e.g. 3D landscape models augmented withdraped polygons and labels) may reduce the risk, togetherwith disclosing anymanipulation of suppression of data. The


aims of the exercise (e.g. fostering sustainable behaviour)should also be made explicit at the outset. Allowing thesceptical user to navigate and interrogate the visualisationimagery and underlying databases, and to choose their ownviewing conditions or view sequence, may help in assuringdefensibility (Furness et al., 1998; Sheppard and Salter,2004). Another strategy for building defensibility would beto ensure effective stakeholder participation in the devel-opment of socio-economic scenarios, the application ofdecision-rules for visualising the scenarios, and even theprocess of generating the visualisations (Sheppard andSalter, 2004).

3.2.2. The content of visualisations of climate changescenarios

The selection of appropriate global, regional, and localscenarios to visualisewould be a key strategic decision.Whilethe IPCC (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000) and various levels ofnational and regional governments have developed genericalternative scenarios for future climate change and adaptation(e.g. UKCIP, 2000b), systematic mechanisms for down-scaling these to local landscapes are needed. This usuallymeans accepting the limited range and assumptions inherentin the internationally or nationally selected generic scenarios,although none of the seminal IPCC scenarios currentlycontemplates substantial short-term reductions in carbonemissions to reduce future climate change risks (UKCIP,2002). Visualisation of these scenarios alone might bemistaken by the public as expressing the full range of possiblesolutions, rather than what some may see as a limited andpolitically influenced subset. Such scenarios do not articulateestimated long-term benefits of a radical short-term approachto climate change mitigation, relative to a slower responsewhich effectively endorses additional discretionary carbon

emissions. Mechanisms for developing and analyzingadditional visualisation scenarios which can be derivedindependently from the global scenarios might therefore bestrategically advisable.

There may be other reasons to develop independentscenarios for visualisation purposes. These could addressspecific local environmental or cultural issues which wouldbe more meaningful to local planners and communities, andrequire less work to link to much larger multi-dimensionalglobal or regional scenarios and modelling systems. Thechallenge would lie in still having these visual scenarios becredible. One approach would involve local stakeholders inthe scenario generation process, though this may becomeconstrained by the participants’ inability or unwillingness toconsider the more radical alternatives posed by climatechange (Berry, 2005). Another possibility is to assumecertain likely conditions, based on prior scientific analysis,without detailed linkages of visualisation to complexmodelling systems. For example, there is a strong likelihoodin the dry Okanagan basin of BC that increasing droughtconditions will continue or get worse under regional climatepredictions (Cohen et al., 2004), leading to more widespreadforest die-back; even without specific modelling, visualisa-tion that shows the possibility of 80% die-off of forest treesat some point in the lifetime of current middle-agedresidents of the area, generated with the advice of recognisedexperts and with appropriate caveats on the generaluncertainties, may not be too speculative. In suchcircumstances, there is a limited set of visual possibilities:more of the trees turn brown or all the trees turn brown. Itmay be sufficient to say: ‘we are not sure which of thesefutures will occur, but you should be prepared for all ofthem,’ in order to stimulate adaptation behaviour. Muchmore thought needs to be given to this issue, and where to


Fig. 12. Non-visible conditions (in this case tree species changing over time on a BC mountainside) can be displayed with colour-coding in detailed landscape

visualisations to express important environmental changes due to policy implementation or climate change, even though the actual landscape appearance might

not change significantly. Credit: Jon Salter, CALP, UBC.

draw the line between defensible (though not necessarilyquantifiable) depictions of possible futures, and lessscientific, alarmist scenarios.

A range of climate change impacts would lendthemselves to disclosure in visualisations of a future locallandscape, depending on the geographic conditions of thearea. Table 2 provides an initial typology of climate changeeffects, with an initial categorisation of how readily theycould be expressed in realistic landscape visualisations: aninitial indication of their potential for visual drama ormeaningful communication in that medium. One use ofsuch a classification would be to identify those phenomenawhich are not well suited to portrayal by landscapevisualisations and where other media need to be used.Issues in attempting to represent future climate-influencedconditions in visualisations include conditions or eventswhich have occurred before but which now occur withdifferent frequency or timing, and the importance ofthreshold conditions (e.g. tree death and dam-failure) thatare more visibly demonstrated than more subtle and gradualchanges.

In the context of motivating behavioural change at thepolicy level, the potential content of visualisation imageryneed not be limited to the direct impacts of climate changeon the local environment and community (as shown inTable 2 and Fig. 8). It might also be effective cognitively andaffectively to visualise:

! the root causes of climate change and sources of carbonentering the ecosystem cycle, e.g. oil wells and coalmines;

! mechanisms of GHG emission into the atmosphere, e.g.powerplants, vehicles, and houses;

! indirect impact through adaptation, e.g. raised dykes forflood abatement, changed agricultural land-use, orlogging to reduce fire-risk;

! mitigation measures to reduce climate change and CO2

emissions, e.g. proposed low energy transportationsystems, dispersed renewable energy sources, houseswith energy-generating technology, etc. (Fig. 5).

3.3. Research priorities

Research programmes to support such usage of visualisa-tion would need to address:

1. Empirical testing of visualisation to support or adaptthe theoretical framework of effects on the responsespectrum, and especially, effects on behaviour. Thisshould combine more psychological research onclimate change perception and behaviour (e.g. Lor-enzoni and Langford, 2001) with classical environ-mental perception research methods using controlledvisual landscape imagery as stimuli (e.g. Daniel andMeitner, 2001).


Table 2

An initial typology of selected climate change impacts in terms of their potential to be readily and realistically visualised

Climate change impact type Capability to be visualised realisticallya

Often readily apparentor imageable to lay-viewer

at landscape level

Visually subtle or invisible(requiring augmented realism)

at landscape level

Sea-level rise (coastline) HPermanent flooding HSeasonal flooding HChanges in seasonal patterns/timing HIncreased storm severity HIce retreat HSnow depth reduction HSoil erosion from concentrated precipitation H HStream character change (drying up, loss of riparian vegetation, etc.) HLake level drop HDrought induced vegetation stress HDrought induced vegetation die-back HVegetation succession/invasion from biome shift H HDesiccation of forest floor HIncreased forest disease epidemics HIncreased vegetation fire risk HFire events HLoss of rare plant species HLoss of wildlife species (through extreme climatic events or long-term shifts) HCrop failures HFarm abandonment HCultural event disruption (e.g. seasonally disrupted traditional ceremonies) HUrban landscaping stress HUrban brown-outs H

a Some climate change impacts vary widely in their visibility, and are noted in both columns. Some impacts may or may not be realistically imageable

depending on whether time-lapse visualisations are used.

2. Exploration of ethical issues through policy debate andinitial case studies developed especially to illuminatethese difficult questions.

3. Scientific monitoring of real-world projects or processesof long-term planning, resource modelling, and climatechange adaptation, where these address alternativefutures as mediated by landscape visualisation-basedtools or related visual imagery. This would track actualconsequences of the use of visualisations on learning andbehaviour.

Such a combined programmewould help to identify someof the underlying triggers for attitudinal or behaviouralchange on climate change policy and life-styles, as well asrisks and benefits of particular visualisation approaches. Itwould also be instructive to evaluate the effect ofvisualisations relative to other policy and communicationtools.

Visualisation research could be built into ongoing studiesfocused on people’s reactions to possible climate changestrategies and mitigation approaches, e.g. alternativetechnologies for house construction and energy sources(Fawcett et al., 2002). With an appropriate research design,landscape visualisations (e.g. Fig. 5) being used assurrogates for real world conditions in determiningpreferences or acceptability of possible climate changestrategies could provide additional research results on theperformance/effects of alternative visualisation methods.Research programmes which are using landscape visualisa-tion stimuli for perception research on planning issues couldalso be retuned to address climate change issues.

4. Conclusions

There is an alarming gap between awareness and action onclimate change. Fawcett et al. (2002) admit that ‘‘Appropriatepolicy on energy use and carbon emissions would only have asmall part to play in the social revolution which would beneeded to achieve voluntary acceptance of reduced con-sumption levels’’ (p. 80). Emerging techniques of landscapevisualisation promise considerable improvements over othermedia in communicating some climate change issues,fostering social learning, and possibly in influencing popularperceptions and behaviour on climate change. There isconsiderable evidence of the effectiveness of visualisation as aplanning tool and its ability to enhance cognition, but lessresearch has taken place on responses to realistic landscapevisualisations, especially their behavioural impacts.However,experience in practice suggests that landscape visualisationscan sometimes have substantial effects on policy, and there isevidence with other visual media of behavioural effectsthrough engaging emotional responses.

New immersive and interactive systems offer attractivepossibilities for engagement, awareness building, andreaching the emotions of the viewer; however, there are

ethical concerns including unrecognised bias in using suchtools. Despite these issues, the rhetoric of visualisation(Luymes, 2001), applied deliberately and defensibly as apersuasive force, may be vital in helping to accelerate sociallearning, engage the emotions, influence individual beha-viour, and project the rationale for policy change. Thehypothetical mechanism is realistically and dramatically tobring home the impacts of future climate change scenarios topeople in their back yard or in other meaningful and iconiclandscapes: ‘making climate change personal.’

A theoretical framework is needed for examiningresponses to visualisations of climate change, addressingtheir ability to influence people’s hearts, minds, andbehaviour. One possible framework has been outlined inthis paper. However, even if the theorised effects ofvisualisation on behaviour are not established and theframework presented here is not borne out, there may beadvantages in using visualisation to stimulate awareness anddeliberative discourse. We should test carefully everypotentially powerful weapon in the fight against climatechange, especially those which promise rapid results.Visualisation tools are potentially too powerful either tobe ignored or used without careful consideration. The hopeis that the dilemmas of whether and how to use visualisationsproactively as agents of learning and behavioural change,can be resolved through development of ethical standardsincorporating the ‘3 Ds’ of visualising climate change:disclosure, drama, and defensibility.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the initial inspiration for thispaper and the subsequent review from Dr. David Little ofArthur D. Little Limited. Dr. Russ Parsons also providedhelpful comments on early drafts. I would like to thankGreen College and the Environmental Change Institute atOxford University, and members of The Zuckerman Institutefor Connective Environmental Research (ZICER) at Uni-versity of East Anglia, for providing venues and/or vitalinformation contributing to the development of this paper.Thanks also to Cecilia Achiam for her graphics andguidance, and to the many CALP members who havesupported me. The preparation of the manuscript wassupported in part by sabbatical funding from the SustainableForest Management Network, Canada.

References

Adger, W.N., 2003. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to

climate change. Econ. Geogr. 79 (4), 387–404.

Al-Kodmany, K., 2000. GIS in the urban landscape: reconfiguring neigh-bourhood planning and design processes. Landsc. Res. 25 (1), 5–28.

Appleton, K., Lovett, A., Sunnenberg, G., Dockerty, T., 2002. Rural land-

scape visualisation from GIS databases: a comparison of approaches,

options, and problems. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 26, 201–211.


Appleton, K., Lovett, A., 2003. GIS-based visualisation of rural landscapes:

defining ‘sufficient’ realism for environmental decision-making.

Landsc. Urban Plann. 65, 117–131.Appleyard, D., 1977. Understanding professional media: issues, theory, and a

research agenda. In: Altman, I., Wohlwill, J.F. (Eds.), Human Behavior

and Environment, vol. 1. Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 43–88.

Bengtsson, P., Johansson, C.R., Akselsson, K.R., 1997. Planning workingenvironment and production by using paper drawings and computer

animation. Ergonomics 40, 334–347.

Berry, P.M., 2005. Personal communication.

Berry, P.M., Dawson, T.P., Harrison, P.A., Pearson, R.G., 2002. Modellingpotential impacts of climate change on the bioclimatic envelope of

species in Britain and Ireland. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 11 (6), 453–462.

Bishop, I.D., Rohrmann, B., 2003. Subjective responses to simulated andreal environments: a comparison. Landsc. Urban Plann. 65, 261–277.

Bishop, I.D., Ye, W.S., Karadaglis, C., 2001. Experiential approaches to

perception response in virtual worlds. Landsc. Urban Plann. 54, 115–

123.Boardman, B., Palmer, J., 2003. 4CE—Consumer Choice and Carbon

Consciousness: Electricity Disclosure in Europe. 4CE Final Report.

Environmental Change Institute, Oxford, UK, 81 pp.

Bosselmann, P., 1998. Representation of Places: Reality and Realism in CityDesign. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Bosselmann, P., Craik, K.H., 1987. Perceptual simulations of environments.

In: Bechtel, R.B., Marcus, R.W., Michelson, W. (Eds.), Methods inEnvironmental and Behaviour Research. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New

York, NY (Chapter 5).

Campbell, D.C., Salter, J., 2004. The Digital Workshop: Exploring the

Effectiveness of Interactive Visualisations and Real-Time Data Analysisin Enhancing Participation in Planning Processes. Report Submitted to

Forestry Innovation Investment Forestry Research Programme, Deliver-

able #5. Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning, UBC, Van-

couver, BC, 32 pp.Cohen, S.J., 1997. Scientist–stakeholder collaboration in integrated assess-

ment of climate change: lessons from a case study of Northwest Canada.

Environ. Model. Assess. 2, 281–293.

Cohen, S.J., Nielsen, D., Welbourn, R. (Eds.), 2004. Expanding the Dia-logue on Climate Change and Water Management in the Okanagan

Basin, BC. Final Report, Environment Canada, Agriculture and Agri-

Food Canada and University of British Columbia. Project A463/433.Submitted to the Adaptation Liaison Office, Climate Change Impacts

and Adaptation Directorate, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, 300 pp.

Cox, D.J., 1990. The art of scientific visualization. Acad. Comput. 46, 20–

56.Danahy, J.W., 2001. Technology for dynamic viewing and peripheral vision

in landscape visualization. Landsc. Urban Plann. 54, 125–137.

Daniel, T.C., Meitner, M.J., 2001. Representational validity of landscape

visualizations: the effect of graphical realism on perceived scenic beautyof forest vistas. J. Environ. Psychol. 21 (1), 61–72.

Dockerty, T., Lovett, A., Sunnenberg, G., Appleton, K., Parry, M., 2005.

Visualising the potential impacts of climate change on rural landscapes.Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 29 (3), 297–320.

Dykes, J., 2000. An approach to virtual environments for visualization using

linked geo-referenced panoramic imagery. Comput. Environ. Urban

Syst. 24, 127–152.Ervin, S.M., Hasbrouck, H.H., 2001. Landscape Modeling: Digital Tech-

niques for Landscape Visualization. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Fawcett, T., Hurst, A., Boardman, B., 2002. Carbon UK. Industrial Sustain-

able Development Group, Environmental Change Institute, Universityof Oxford, Oxford, UK, 65 pp.

Furness III, T.A., Winn, W., Yu, R., 1998. The impact of three dimensional

immersive virtual environments on modern pedagogy: global change,VR and learning. In: Proceedings of Workshops in Seattle, Washington,

and Loughborough, England in May and June 1997. Human Interface

Technology Lab, University of Washington, Seattle, WA available

online at http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-97-32/, rtf fileaccessed June 1, 2004.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2001. Climate Change

2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Summary for Policy-

makers. World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva.Kaplan, R., Herbert, E.J., 1988. Familiarity and preference: a cross-cultural

analysis. In: Nasar, J.L. (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory,

Research, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York,

NY, pp. 379–389.Keeney, R.L., McDaniels, T.L., 2001. A framework to guide thinking about

climate change policies. Risk Anal. 21 (6), 989–1000.

Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act

environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmentbehaviour? Environ. Educ. Res. 8 (3), 239–260.

Lange, E., 2001. The limits of realism: perceptions of virtual landscapes.

Landsc. Urban Plann. 54, 163–182.Lewis, J.L., 2000. Ancient values, new technology: emerging methods for

integrating cultural values in forest management. Unpublished M.Sc.

Thesis. Faculty of Forestry, UBC, Vancouver, BC.

Lewis, J.L., Sheppard, S.R.J. Culture and communication: can landscapevisualisation improve forest management consultation with indigenous

communities? Landsc. Urban Plann., in press.

Lorenzoni, I., Langford, I.H., 2001. Climate change now and in the future: a

mixed methodological study of public perceptions in Norwich (UK).CSERGE Working Paper ECM 01-05. CSERGE, Norwich, UK.

Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de Franca Doria, M., Haynes, K., Vincent,

K.,March 2005. Does tomorrow ever come?Disaster narrative and publicperceptions of climate change. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change

Research Working Paper 72. University of East Anglia, Norwich.

Luymes, D., 2001. The Rhetoric of Visual Simulation in Forest Design:

Some Research Directions. International Union of Forest ResearchOrganizations (IUFRO) Research Series. CABI International, Wall-

ingford, UK, pp. 191–204 (Chapter 13).

Lynas, M., 2004. High Tide: News from a Warming World. Flamingo,

Oxford, UK.MacEachren, A.M., 2001. Cartography and GIS: extending collaborative

tools to support virtual teams. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 25 (3), 431–444.

MacEachren, A.M., Ganter, J.H., 1990. A pattern identification approach to

cartographic visualization. Cartographica 27 (2), 64–81.Maiteny, P.T., 2002. Mind in the gap: summary of research exploring ‘inner’

influences on pro-sustainability learning and behaviour. Environ. Educ.

Res. 8 (3), 299–306.McKenzie-Mohr, D., Smith, W., 1999. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An

Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing. New Society

Publishers, Gabriola Island, Canada.

McQuillan, A.G., 1998. Honesty and foresight in computer visualizations. J.Forestry 96 (6), 15–16.

Meitner, M., Daniel, T., 1997. The effects of animation and interactivity on

the validity of human responses to forest data visualizations. In: Orland,

B. (Ed.), Proceedings of Data Visualization’97, St. Louis, MO.Michaelis, L., 2003. Sustainable consumption and greenhouse gas mitiga-

tion. Climate Policy 3S1, S135–S146.

Monbiot, G., 2004. Beware the fossil fools. In: The Guardian, Tuesday,April 27, accessed June 8, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/

0,3604,1204194,00.html.

Nakicenovic, N., Swart, R. (Eds.), 2000. Emissions Scenarios 2000: Special

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Nicholson-Cole, S.A., 2005. Representing climate change futures: a critique

on the use of images for visual communication. Comput. Environ. Urban

Syst. 29 (3), 255–273.Orford, S., Harris, R., Dorling, D., 1999. Geography: information visualisa-

tion in the social sciences. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 17 (3), 289–304.

Orland, B., 1992. Evaluating regional changes on the basis of localexpectations: a visualisation dilemma. Landsc. Urban Plann. 21,

257–259.

Orland, B., Budthimedhee, K., Uusitalo, J., 2001. Considering virtual

worlds as representations of landscape realities and as tools for land-scape planning. Landsc. Urban Plann. 54 (1–4), 139–148.


http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-97-32/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1204194,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1204194,00.html

Orland, B., Uusitalo, J., 2001. Immersion in a virtual forest: some implica-

tions. In: Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W. (Eds.), Forests and Land-

scapes: Linking Sustainability, Ecology, and Aesthetics. InternationalUnion of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) Research Series.-

CABI International, Wallingford, UK, (Chapter 14), pp. 205–224.

Pearce, D.W., Cline, W.R., Achanta, A.N., Frankenhauser, S., Pachauri,

R.K., Tol, R.S., Vellinga, P., 1996. The social costs of climate change:greenhouse damage and the benefits of control. In: Bruce, J.P., Lee, H.,

Haites, E.F. (Eds.), Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social

Dimensions of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cam-

bridge, UK.Porter, T., 1979. How Architects Visualize. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New

York, NY.

Ribe, R., 2005. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests invista views: The interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest

shape. Landsc. Urban Plann. 73 (4), 277–293.

Salter, J.D., 2005. Designing and testing a prototypical landscape informa-

tion interface for lay-people. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Faculty ofForestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Schroth, O., Lange, E., Schmid, W.A., 2005. From information to participa-

tion: applying interactive features in landscape visualizations. Paper

presented at Our Shared Landscape Conference, Ascona, Switzerland,May 2–6.

Sheppard, S.R.J., 1989. Visual Simulation: A User’s Guide for Architects,

Engineers, and Planners. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Sheppard, S.R.J., 2001. Guidance for crystal ball gazers: developing a code

of ethics for landscape visualization. Landsc. Urban Plann. 54 (1–4),

183–199.

Sheppard, S.R.J., 2004. Making Unsustainability Obvious to the Public.Green College Environmental Seminar Presentation, Oxford, 4 Febru-

ary.

Sheppard, S.R.J., 2005. Validity, reliability, and ethics in visualization. In:

Bishop, I., Lange, E. (Eds.), Visualization in Landscape and Environ-mental Planning. Taylor and Francis, London, (Chapter 5), pp. 79–97.

Sheppard, S.R.J., Cavens, D., Salter, J., Meitner, M., 2001. Seeing the big

picture: the benefits of digital landscape immersion. In: Proceedings of

the LANDTECH ASLA/CSLA Annual Meeting, 24 September 2001,Montreal, Canada. (CD-ROM).

Sheppard, S.R.J., Meitner, M.J., 2005. Using multi-criteria analysis and

visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stake-holder groups. Forest Ecol. Manage. 207 (1–2), 171–187.

Sheppard, S.R.J., Salter, J., 2004. The role of visualization in forest

planning. In: Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences, Academic Press/Else-

vier, Oxford, UK, pp. 486–498.Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G., 2002. The affect

heuristic. In: Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Heuristics

and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement. Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, New York, NY, (Chapter 23), pp. 397–420.

Steinitz, C., Rojo, H.M.A., Bassett, S., Flaxman, M., Goode, T., Maddock

III, T., Mouat, D., Peiser, R., Shearer, A., 2003. Alternative Futures for

Changing Landscapes: The Upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona andSonora. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant

behaviour. J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 407–424.

Tickell, C., 2002. Communicating climate change. Science 297, 737(Editorial).

Tress, B., Tress, G., 2002. Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape

planning: a study from Denmark. Landsc. Urban Plann. 982, 1–18.

Tufte, E.R., 1990. Envisioning Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT.UKCIP (Climate Impacts Programme), Mackenzie Hedger, M., Gawith,

M., Brown, I., Connell, R., Downing, T.E. (Eds.), 2000a. Climate

Change: Assessing the Impacts—Identifying Responses: The First 3Years of the UK Climate Impacts Programme. UKCIP, Oxford, UK, 123

pp.

UKCIP (Climate Impacts Programme), 2000b. Socio-Economic Scenarios

for Climate Change Impact Assessment: AGuide to their Use in the UKClimate Impacts Programme. UKCIP, Oxford, UK, 123 pp.

UKCIP (Climate Impacts Programme), 2002. Climate Change Scenarios for

the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report. UKCIP, Oxford,

UK, 112 pp.Webster, M., 2003. Communicating climate change uncertainty to policy-

makers and the public: and editorial comment. Climatic Change 61, 1–8.

Winn, W., 1997. The Impact of Three-Dimensional Immersive VirtualEnvironments on Modern Pedagogy. HITL Technical Report R-97-

15. Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University ofWashington,

Seattle, WA.

Zajonc, R.B., 1984. On the primacy of affect. Am. Psychol. 39 (2), 117–123.Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape perception: research,

application, and theory. Landsc. Plann. 9, 1–33.

Stephen Sheppard teaches in sustainable landscape planning, aesthetics,and visualisation in the Faculty of Forestry and Landscape Architecture

programme at the University of British Columbia. He received a BA/MA in

agricultural and forest sciences at Oxford, an MSc in forestry at UBC, and a

PhD in environmental planning at UC, Berkeley. He directs the Collabora-tive for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP), an interdisciplinary

research group using perception-testing and immersive/interactive visuali-

sation to support public awareness and collaborative planning on sustain-

ability issues. He has over 25 years’ experience in environmentalassessment and public participation internationally. He has written or co-

written two books on visual simulation, and co-edited ‘‘Forests and Land-

scapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability, and Aesthetics,’’ vol. 6, in theIUFRO Research Series. He is currently contributing to the BC chapter of

Canada’s National Assessment of climate change impacts and adaptation.

Current research interests lie in perceptions of climate change, the

aesthetics of sustainability, and visualisation theory and ethics.


esp landscape vis and climate change nov05

Documents

implications of climate

climate change mitigation

climate change issues

climate change information

climate change fawcett

behavioural change

related landscape change

iconic aspects of climate