Abstract

Viewshed analysis is a GIS tool in standard use for more than two decades to perform numerous scientific and practical tasks. The reliability of the resulting viewshed model depends on the computational algorithm and the quality of the input digital surface model (DSM). Although many studies have dealt with improving viewshed algorithms, only a few studies have focused on the effect of the spatial accuracy of input data. Here, we compare simple binary viewshed models based on DSMs having varying levels of detail with viewshed models created using LiDAR DSM. The compared DSMs were calculated as the sums of digital terrain models (DTMs) and layers of forests and buildings with expertly assigned heights. Both elevation data and the visibility obstacle layers were prepared using digital vector maps differing in scale (1:5,000, 1:25,000, and 1:500,000) as well as using a combination of a LiDAR DTM with objects vectorized on an orthophotomap. All analyses were performed for 104 sample locations of 5 km2, covering areas from lowlands to mountains and including farmlands as well as afforested landscapes. We worked with two observer point heights, the first (1.8 m) simulating observation by a person standing on the ground and the second (80 m) as observation from high structures such as wind turbines, and with five estimates of forest heights (15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 m). At all height estimations, all of the vector-based DSMs used resulted in overestimations of visible areas considerably greater than those from the LiDAR DSM. In comparison to the effect from input data scale, the effect from object height estimation was shown to be secondary.

Highlights

  • IntroductionDefining the visibility of objects in the landscape has been important for historical studies (e.g., Ogburn, 2006; Sevenant & Antrop, 2007) and has found application in a number of areas of current interest, such as seeking locations to place objects potentially harming scenic beauty like photovoltaic power plants or wind farms (Fernandez-Jimenez et al, 2015; Sklenicka & Zouhar, 2018), coastal aquaculture sites (Falconer et al, 2013), and ski areas (Geneletti, 2008); placing military structures (Smith & Cochrane, 2011); tagging landscape photographs (Brabyn & Mark, 2011); analyzing the effects of introducing animal species (Kizuka et al, 2014); and modelling predation risk in animal ecology (Alonso, Álvarez Martínez & Palacín, 2012; Olsoy et al, 2015)

  • The smallest average size of visible area in sampling locations came from LiDAR model, while all of the remaining datasets led to considerable overestimations in the resulting viewshed

  • For both observer point heights, the viewshed size resulting from LiDAR model clearly differed from the sizes calculated using the other datasets

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Defining the visibility of objects in the landscape has been important for historical studies (e.g., Ogburn, 2006; Sevenant & Antrop, 2007) and has found application in a number of areas of current interest, such as seeking locations to place objects potentially harming scenic beauty like photovoltaic power plants or wind farms (Fernandez-Jimenez et al, 2015; Sklenicka & Zouhar, 2018), coastal aquaculture sites (Falconer et al, 2013), and ski areas (Geneletti, 2008); placing military structures (Smith & Cochrane, 2011); tagging landscape photographs (Brabyn & Mark, 2011); analyzing the effects of introducing animal species (Kizuka et al, 2014); and modelling predation risk in animal ecology (Alonso, Álvarez Martínez & Palacín, 2012; Olsoy et al, 2015). As a number of factors may play roles in visibility modelling and using only a binary attribute (0 or 1) constitutes a drastic simplification (Fisher, 1992), other algorithms have been under development for a number of years, such as fuzzy viewshed and visual magnitude (Chamberlain & Meitner, 2013; Fernandez-Jimenez et al, 2015; Fisher, 1992; Fisher, 1993; Fisher, 1994; Fisher, 1995; Fisher, 1996; Ogburn, 2006), as well as visibility indices such as the Vertical Visibility Index (Nutsford et al, 2015), which enrich the model with further parameters and so are used to bring it closer to reality Due to their simplicity and implementation in common GIS software, binary and cumulative viewsheds are still used in a number of studies (e.g., Alonso, Álvarez Martínez & Palacín, 2012; Falconer et al, 2013; La Rosa, 2011; Olsoy et al, 2015; Schirpke, Tasser & Tappeiner, 2013)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call