DialogueMaps: GIS instrument for landscape valuation (august, 2014)

1

DialogueMaps

A GIS instrument for landscape valuation in

the rural-urban fringe of Leiden

Name Robbert-Jan Geldhof BSc

E-mail rmgeldhoflivecom

Registrationnr 3469212

Period of Internship 1-3-2014 ndash 22-8-2014

Date final report 22-8-2014

Internship provider University

Ir Merten Nefs Dr Ir Ron van Lammeren

Deltametropolis Association Wageningen UR

Aert van Nesstraat 45 3012 CA Rotterdam +31 (0)10 737 0340

PO Box 47 6700 AA Wageningen +31 (0)317 481 553

2

ABSTRACT The landscape in the rural-urban fringe of the Deltametropolis is under pressure from spatial

developments Landscape protection policies are being relaxed planning authority is being

decentralized to lower governments and the agricultural sector is increasingly dynamic This leads

to a current and urgent discussion about the value of the landscape of the Deltametropolis To

facilitate this discussion the Deltametropolis Association set out to develop a GIS instrument

The result is DialogueMaps an interactive web-based viewer that aims at visualizing

stakeholdersrsquo conflicting landscape values

In DialogueMaps stakeholders identify their landscape values based on a set of maps that tell

the story of the landscape the landscapersquos narrative Stakeholdersrsquo landscape values are modelled

as geodata and are input for a weighted overlay analysis Via this analysis these landscape values

are then modelled as value maps to be visualized in an interactive viewer The conflict map

identifies areas of conflicting values and of areas of agreement between stakeholders

Test sessions yield that the value maps contribute to the discussion and offer new insights into

stakeholdersrsquo valuation of the landscape It was also found that value maps are complex and

require careful explanation

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On behalf of the Deltametropolis Association and myself I direct a word of gratitude to the

participants of the various meetings and interviews

Jeroen Traudes (Gemeente Leiden) Henrieumltte Noordhof (Gemeente Leiden) Steven Slabbers

(Bosch Slabbers) Lennert Langerak (Werkorganisatie Duivenvoorde) Elise Coenen

(Werkorganisatie Duivenvoorde) Ernst Bos (LEI) Wim ter Keurs (Stichting Behoud Rijnland)

Hans Hoek (Veelzijdig Boerenland)

Without their valuable contribution this research would not have been possible

22-8-2014

Rob Geldhof

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 2

Acknowledgements 3

1 Introduction 6

11 The rural-urban fringe of the Deltametropolis 6

12 Defining the RUF 6

121 A multi-functional environment 6

122 A dynamic environment 7

123 An untidy and vulnerable landscape 7

124 ldquoFuzzyrdquo and permeable boundaries 7

13 Research goal and research questions 8

2 Methodology 9

21 Users and user requirements 9

211 Study area 9

212 User involvement and user requirements 10

22 Technical development 11

221 Geodata and geoprocessing requirements 11

222 Interface requirements 11

223 Technical components and prototype assembly 12

23 Testing 12

3 Results 13

31 First stakeholder reflection board meeting 13

311 Stakeholdersrsquo view of landscape valuation 13

312 Stakeholdersrsquo view of the three types of instruments 13

32 Landscape economist and CBA practitioner 14

33 Representative of agricultural nature management associations 15

331 Farmersrsquo perspective on landscape 15

332 Feedback on instrument design 15

34 Environmental activist 16

341 Evaluation of Rijnlandroute Project 16


35 Second stakeholder reflection board meeting 17

351 Design of the first working prototype 17

352 The process of using the instrument 18

4 DialogueMaps 20

41 User interface 20

5

42 Map layers 21

421 Base maps 21

422 Thematic maps 21

423 Value maps 23

43 Use process 24

431 Context of use process 24

432 Step one user session for value identification 24

433 Step two Spatial analysis of stakeholdersrsquo landscape values 25

434 Step three user session for discussing value conflicts 25

44 Test results 25

441 Test session 1 25


5 Technical design 30


52 Tile server 30

53 Geodata 30

6 Discussion conclusions and recommendations 32

61 Discussion 32

611 Stakeholder involvement and testing 32

612 Instrument interactivity and user interaction 32

62 Conclusions 33

63 Recommendations 34

631 Process recommendations 34

632 Technical recommendations 35

7 Bibliography 36

Appendix A Literature study to landscape valuation 38

Spatial planning approach to landscape valuation 38

Ecosystem services approach to landscape valuation 39

In summary confronting two different approaches 40

Appendix B Hand-out to stakeholder reflection board for instrument types 42

Appendix C Origin datasets 44

6

1 INTRODUCTION The position of the landscape in the metropolitan debate is gaining in importance as planners

and designers become more aware of the benefits landscape provides to urban society but also

of the problems the metropolitan landscape is facing This has prompted the Deltametropolis

Association to start a research program on the Metropolitan Landscape As part of this program

this research attempts to facilitate the discussion on the position of the landscape in the

metropolitan debate by developing a GIS instrument for landscape valuation

11 THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE OF THE DELTAMETROPOLIS The Deltametropolis is the conurbation situated in the Rhine-Meuse delta the Netherlands and

roughly corresponds with the area known as the Randstad with spill-overs to the east and south

Historical developments and planning regimes have resulted in a polycentric urban form and

have preserved the rural landscape between the cities Past and contemporary planning practices

are typically aimed at either urban or rural landscapes but the interface between them is gaining

in importance as academics and practitioners begin to identify the rural-urban fringe (RUF) as a

separate place with its own problems and needs (Scott et al 2013)

In the Deltametropolis the RUF has received attention from academics but the concept has not

yet taken hold in planning practices (Nabielek Kronberger-Nabielek amp Hamers 2013 Piek amp De

Niet 2010) In several case studies of metropolitan landscapes the Deltametropolis Association

has found that the relationship between the rural and the urban is becoming more important but

that conflicting interests and values remain a pervasive issue (Nefs 2014)

12 DEFINING THE RUF The RUF is the transitional zone between town and country It can be described as the gateway

for visitors who enter the city and as a recreational area for urban citizens The RUF is further

characterized by a unique mixture of different land uses residential business parks infrastructure

but also recreational and cultural facilities (Piek amp De Niet 2010) One could argue that no

traditional concept of urban or rural land use is dominant in the RUF so the RUF is difficult to

define as a separate place next to city and countryside Scott and colleagues (2013) identify several

characteristics of the RUF

The RUF is a multi-functional environment often characterised by essential service

functions and by low-density economic activity including retail industry distribution

and warehousing

The RUF is a dynamic environment characterised by adaptation and conversion

between uses

The RUF is characterized by an untidy and vulnerable landscape potentially rich in

wildlife

The RUF does not have clear but rather ldquofuzzyrdquo and permeable boundaries

These characteristics are further explored and put in context of scientific literature

121 A MULTI-FUNCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT The multi-functionality of the RUF is manifest in the diverse functions that can be found in the

RUF As a zone of transition the RUF has a mixture of rural and urban functions For example

7

in the RUF residential areas and commercial zones are bordered by rural functions such as crop

fields and nature conservation areas And infrastructure is usually prevalent in the form of

junctions of major traffic arteries (Piek amp De Niet 2010 Zhang Pu amp Zhu 2013) But the RUF

also has unique functions that are not found in dominantly urban or rural areas These functions

usually rely on large markets of consumers who reside in the city but also require good

accessibility and low land prices Examples of such functions are indoor ski centres and shopping

malls (Rauws amp De Roo 2011)

122 A DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT The dynamic nature of the RUF is manifest in the rate of change in the land use A quantitative

GIS analysis of the RUF in the Netherlands spanning the period 1996-2003 revealed that

changes in residential land use were 5 times greater in the RUF than in the city and 14 times

greater than in the countryside Land use changes in commercial and recreational land use types

showed similar numbers (Nabielek Kronberger-Nabielek amp Hamers 2013) Rauws and De Roo

(2011) argue that these land use changes can be explained by the influence of drivers that are

largely autonomous and beyond the control of planners Examples of these autonomous drivers

are (Rauws amp De Roo 2011)

urbanizationsuburbanization

the emergence of new land use types like technoparks and shopping malls

diversification of agriculture where farmers broaden the scope of their business by also

offering recreational health care and education services and products

And an additional driver that can be added to this list is the changing landscape policy Policies

that aim to contain urban development and preserve landscape are being relaxed and

decentralized as the planning system as a whole is undergoing a process of liberalization

(Nabielek Kronberger-Nabielek amp Hamers 2013)

123 AN UNTIDY AND VULNERABLE LANDSCAPE From the perspective of landscape and ecology it can be said that the RUF is a very vulnerable

place The dynamic land use pattern that characterizes the RUF results in small pockets of

ldquoremnantrdquo nature amidst other functions such as residential and commercial (Crossman et al

2007) These ldquoremnantsrdquo in turn are vulnerable to land use change Research in the Netherlands

suggests that residential commercial and recreational developments in the RUF come at the

expense of agriculture in particular but to nature as well (Nabielek Kronberger-Nabielek amp

Hamers 2013) This is partly because natural areas in the RUF tend to be of high economic value

due to their proximity to high value functions (Crossman et al 2007) The resulting mix of

ldquogreenrdquo and built-up areas in the RUF results in a cluttered untidy landscape (Wagtendonk amp

Vermaat 2014) The vulnerability of the landscape raises concerns about the benefits provided by

the landscape Green environments in and surrounding the city provide important ecosystem

services to urban residents (Krasny et al 2013)

124 ldquoFUZZYrdquo AND PERMEABLE BOUNDARIES There is no consensus among authors about the geographical extent of the RUF It appears that

this definition varies from region to region and is largely dependent on urban and landscape

patterns in those regions In Australia and North America the spread of suburbs have resulted in

areas that can be characterized as RUF areas that can extend up to 100 km around an urban

8

centre (Crossman et al 2007) In South Africa the RUF is dominated by townships sprawling

urban centres in the vicinity of central cities that are remnants of apartheid planning (Cash 2014)

In contrast the Netherlands has not seen urban sprawl like North America South Africa or

Australia Here urban compaction policies have resulted in clearer boundaries between city and

countryside Some researchers even suggest the RUF in the Netherlands can be defined by a 2

km buffer around built-up areas (Nabielek Kronberger-Nabielek amp Hamers 2013 Piek amp De

Niet 2010)

In any case defining the RUF using a geographical extent seems to be at odds with another

characteristic of the RUF namely the dynamic nature of the land use If cities expand and the

land use on the fringes constantly changes then it is difficult to define a hard geographical extent

of the RUF (Rauws amp De Roo 2011)

13 RESEARCH GOAL AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS In summary it can be said that the multi-functional and dynamic fringes of towns and cities can

be identified as places in their own right having neither a dominant urban or dominant rural

character These areas are constantly changing in terms of land use and are vulnerable from a

perspective of landscape and ecology as a result of various largely autonomous drivers This

leads to an important debate on the value of the landscape in the RUF of the Deltametropolis

The hypothesis is that the discourse on landscape valuation in the Deltametropolis is currently

suboptimal due to poor awareness of landscape characteristics and conflicting interests among

stakeholders in the RUF on the one hand and the overlap of distinct planning doctrines (urban

and environmental planning) on the other It is assumed that mapping and visualizing crucial

landscape characteristics and stakeholder values will improve the debate on the value of the

landscape and therefore planning processes in the RUF and that the resulting areas of conflict

will help to create a basis for negotiation and decision making

Calling on positive experiences with the application of geographical information systems (GIS)

to complex planning problems the Deltametropolis Association aims to develop a GIS

instrument to facilitate this debate The research goal and questions are therefore

To develop a GIS instrument to facilitate the discussion of the valuation of the

landscape in the rural-urban fringe

To reach this goal the following questions are answered

Q1 Who are the supposed users of such a GIS instrument and how can these users be

involved in the instrumentrsquos development and what are their requirements

Q2 What geodata and geodata-processing is needed

Q3 What interface does the instrument need to facilitate the discussion

Q4 Which technical components does this GIS instrument require and how can these

components be assembled in a prototype

Q5 How can the prototype be tested

In the next chapter the methodology of the research is explained followed by the results of the

user requirements study in chapter 3 Chapter 4 describes the instrument Chapter 5 provides an

in-depth overview of the technical components and chapter 6 is dedicated to discussion

conclusions and recommendations

9

2 METHODOLOGY

21 USERS AND USER REQUIREMENTS

211 STUDY AREA The first research question addresses the question who the users are To answer this question a

geographical demarcation of the research was needed A study area was selected based on two

criteria a clear spatial development that affects the landscape in the RUF and practical

considerations in particular the availability of a network among stakeholders on part of the

Deltametropolis Association Three areas were initially considered Midden-Delfland the

Randstadrail Corridor1 and the south-western fringe of Leiden (Figure 1) This report will suffice

with elaborating on the south-western fringe of Leiden

The south-western fringe of Leiden can be roughly defined as the area stretching from the

North Sea coast to the village of Zoeterwoude following the south-western fringe of the urban

fabric of the cities of Katwijk and Leiden (Figure 2)

This area is characterized by a great and unique variety of landscape types dunes beach ridges

beach plains reclaimed peat lands and land drainages Partly these landscapes were shaped by

geophysical processes (dunes beach ridges and plains) and partly by anthropogenic processes

(peat reclamations settlement patterns) (Provincie Zuid-Holland 2014)

1 The corridor between The Hague and Rotterdam which follows the Randstadrail trajectory

Figure 1 Images from the south-western RUF of Leiden

10

The urgency in the area is caused

by two major developments the

transformation of former air base

Valkenburg into a large residential

location and the connection of

highways A4 and A44 via a new

road (the so called Rijnlandroute)

(respectively black and

greenblack in Figure 2) The

Deltametropolis Association has

previously operated in this area

and therefore a network of

stakeholders could be called upon

for this research in both the rural

and urban area Together with the

diverse landscape and clear spatial

developments in the area the

south-western fringe of Leiden

was selected as the study area

212 USER INVOLVEMENT AND USER REQUIREMENTS To identify potential users of the instrument a reflection board of stakeholders was set up In

addition to three employees of the Deltametropolis Association (including the author) the board

was comprised of a landscape architect and various representatives from the municipalities in the

study area Due to circumstances these representatives varied every board meeting

The stakeholder reflection board was involved throughout the project to reflect on the

instrumentrsquos development and provide feedback This is reflected in the topics of each boardrsquos

meeting (table 1) In addition to the stakeholder reflection board three interviews were

conducted One was an expert interview with a landscape economist The other two were

interviews with stakeholders in the area who were unable to take part in the reflection board

These stakeholders were a farmersrsquo representative and an environmental activist Finally two test

sessions were organized One separate session and one was combined with the final stakeholder

reflection board meeting

Table 1 Meetings of stakeholder reflection board

Date Event Topic

29-5-2014 Stakeholder reflection board

Discussion about three types of prototype tools

11-6-2014 Interview landscape economist

Cost-benefit analysis economic landscape valuation

20-6-2014 Interview farmersrsquo representative

Farmersrsquo perspective on landscape valuation feedback on prototype design

23-6-2014 Interview environmental activist

Activistrsquos perspective on landscape valuation feedback on prototype design


Reflection on first working prototype

Figure 2 Study area the south-western fringe of Leiden featuring the Valkenburg location (black) and the Rijnlandroute (green with black)

11

6-8-2014 Test session Test session of near final prototype

19-8-2014 Test sessionstakeholder reflection board

Reflection on final prototype testing of final prototype

22 TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT The technical development addresses research questions 2 3 and 4 the geodata requirements

the interface requirements and the instrumentrsquos technical components

221 GEODATA AND GEOPROCESSING REQUIREMENTS The stakeholders consulted in the reflection board and interviews provided the input needed to

define what geodata and geoprocessing were needed The stakeholders did however not directly

indicate what kind of data and processing thereof were required Gathering the data requirements

was therefore an interpretative process where stakeholders would state what kind of information

they would need to valuate the landscape Then the possibilities would be explored on how this

information could be modelled and presented as maps In the first board meeting the discussion

on information requirements was a very general discussion in order to explore a range of

possibilities In later meetings the discussion would become more precise addressing specific

maps and occasionally geoprocessing approaches

222 INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS The interface requirements in this research are understood as the requirements to the type of

interface but also more general as the type of instrument It should be noted that the study for

interface requirements focussed on the type of instrument and on the information that the

interface should serve to the users No computer-human interaction study was conducted

It was unclear initially what kind of an instrument was called for and it became evident that

many different approaches to landscape valuation exist Therefore an academic literature study

was conducted on the backgrounds of landscape valuation (Appendix A) Drawing upon this

literature study and on examples found in practice three widely different types of instruments

were described and presented to the first actor board meeting These types are a quantitative

model an interactive viewer and a serious game (Table 2)

Table 2 Three types of GIS instruments

Quantitative model Interactive viewer Serious game

Description A spatio-mathematical model that quantifies landscape values based on objective measurable units

A web-based viewer that displays attractively styled interactive maps

A game that addresses a serious real-life issue using an appealing narrative

Example Burkhard et al 2013 Info Amazonia wwwinfoamazoniaorg

Rufopoly (Scott et al 2013) httpbitly1iFYd9l

The quantitative model is prevalent in academic literature (see appendix A for a comprehensive

literature study) These models either use ecosystem services to quantify landscape values or are

grounded in economic theory In the latter case these models generally take on the form of a

cost-benefit analysis These models do not necessarily have an attractive user interface and are

not usable for lay users The interactive viewer is a common GIS instrument which aims at

12

serving geo-information in a simple and appealing way to users It is usually the final stage of geo-

information handling when data have been acquired analysed styled and then served to the user

Academic literature on interactive viewers focuses on computer-human interaction and usability

(eg Vonk amp Ligtenberg 2010) The use of GIS in combination with serious gaming is an

innovative approach which is actively pursued by Deltametropolis Association (Duffhues et al

2014) Another notable example is Rufopoly a board game designed for regional planning in a

hypothetical RUF (Scott et al 2013)

It is clear that these instruments are not mutually exclusive For example a quantitative model

could be combined with an interactive viewer to display the modelrsquos output The purpose of the

three types was rather to present widely different approaches to the stakeholders and learn from

their feedback Therefore these instruments were presented on the first stakeholder reflection

board using a slide presentation and a hand-out with a comparative diagram (appendix B) Based

on these different types the actor board made a clear decision for the interactive viewer which

enabled the technical design process to start

223 TECHNICAL COMPONENTS AND PROTOTYPE ASSEMBLY The fourth research question addresses the technical development process of the instrument

Once a decision was made on the type of instrument to be developed the technical design

process started For developing the instrument an approach was taken similar to the Agile

development methodology In Agile short term goals are reached using short iterations (here one

week was used) At the end of the iteration it was evaluated what to do with goals that could not

be reached whether to drop them or to adjust them and move them to the next iteration The

benefit of Agile is that the scope is not fixed and so the development process is flexible to scope

changes (Alleman 2002)

23 TESTING Lastly testing is addressed The instrument was tested in two user sessions One user session

was conducted with co-workers from Deltametropolis Association and one user session was

conducted with the stakeholder reflection board In both sessions different features of the

instrument were tested The setup and aims of both sessions are explained in later sections

13

3 RESULTS This chapter outlines the results of the user requirements study The results are discussed in

chronological order as the findings of one event influenced the discussion topic of consecutive

events

31 FIRST STAKEHOLDER REFLECTION BOARD MEETING Attendees

Henrieumltte Noordhof policy advisor on the Rijnlandroute (Municipality of Leiden)

Lennert Langerak landscape coordinator (Municipalities of Wassenaar and

Voorschoten)

Steven Slabbers landscape architect (Bosch-Slabbers)

Paul Gerretsen (Deltametropolis Association)

Merten Nefs (Deltametropolis Association)

Rob Geldhof (Deltametropolis Association)

In the first stakeholder reflection board the aim was to give direction to the research by

specifying what the stakeholders think the main issues with landscape valuation are in general

and specifically at the fringe of Leiden and by choosing one of the three different instrument

types

311 STAKEHOLDERSrsquo VIEW OF LANDSCAPE VALUATION The municipal members stressed the fact that stakeholders often are not communicating

effectively There is much mutual misunderstanding between stakeholders about peoplersquos values

of the landscape Mr Slabbers emphasized the fact that the landscape in the RUF is very

fragmented and that as such it is difficult to recognize the relations between city and countryside

This makes a coherent discussion about landscape in the RUF difficult

The board therefore concluded that there is a need for discussion that raises awareness of

peoplersquos different values of the landscape particularly taking into account different scales (from

neighbourhood to regional scale) Based on this conclusion the board was asked what kind of

information would then be necessary The consensus was that the instrument should make clear

why the landscape is as it is by offering insights in processes that shape and have shaped it (the

geogenesis settlement and cultivation) The board also set a condition to the instrument it

should not let the valuation discussion dwell on established facts that cannot be overturned The

construction of the Rijnlandroute was mentioned specifically here

312 STAKEHOLDERSrsquo VIEW OF THE THREE TYPES OF INSTRUMENTS The board immediately recognized the cost-benefit analysis as a quantitative model A cost-

benefit analysis was performed as part of the Rijnlandroute project The experiences with this

project are mixed The consensus was that the cost-benefit analysis has many advantages

including monetization but that it does not contribute to raising awareness of peoplersquos different

valuations of the landscape The cost-benefit analysis is considered too technical and too rigid for

this purpose However the board did not dismiss the principle of value quantification as such

14

The board opted for an interactive viewer approach The viewer should display stakeholdersrsquo

landscape values based on a bottom-up process where stakeholders would provide the input for

the landscape values directly Also a viewer was found suitable because it allows for switching

between different spatial scales The board agreed that the instrument should target a wide

audience of users both aldermen and local residents should be able to use it simultaneously

because one of the purposes of the instrument should be to overcome the lack of

communication between some stakeholders

The outcomes of the first stakeholder reflection board can thus be summarized as follows

The instrument should give insights in the defining and shaping factors of the landscape

The instrument should connect stakeholders that do currently not have an

understanding of each otherrsquos valuation of the landscape

The instrument should be an interactive viewer rather than a quantitative model or a

serious game

32 LANDSCAPE ECONOMIST AND CBA PRACTITIONER An interview was held with Ernst Bos professor in Landscape Economics affiliated with the

LEI Institute and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) practitioner The purpose of the interview with

prof Bos was to increase the understanding of the CBA to understand why it is the established

landscape valuation method and what its pros and cons are

Prof Bos believes that economic valuation of landscape using the CBA holds the future for

landscape valuation The main reasons being the fact that CBA is grounded in market theory

which enables the use of market prices as a relatively objective standard of valuation Also prices

can be standardized making values transferable and results comparable between separate

studies

Prof Bos was confronted with the question whether all aspects of landscape can be valuated

using CBA His response was negative According to Bos CBA is currently not capable of

adequately valuating aspects that represent intrinsic values the most important of which being

cultural heritage Bos explained that the value attached to heritage by society changes over the

course of time and it is questionable if for example a certain object or structure in the landscape

represents a constant value Particularly if heritage is hardly recognizable like archaeological

findings that remain covered However Bos does believe that it is only a matter of time before

there have been sufficient studies into valuating heritage so that it too can be properly assessed by

CBA

It was explained to prof Bos that the CBA involving the Rijnlandroute was perceived negatively

by some stakeholders in the study area Bos stated that he is not familiar with this particular case

but he emphasizes public participation in the process Stakeholders must be involved with

identifying landscape values and be made aware of how the valuation method works This is

necessary for creating support for the CBA Without public support it is questionable what the

purpose of the CBA is The identification process of landscape values is particularly important

because a CBA practitioner must make clear decisions on what to valuate and what not It is

usually possible nor expedient to valuate everything Therefore the valuation process must be a

reflection of the landscape values that exist among the stakeholders

For the development of the instrument the following lessons were drawn from the interview

with prof Bos

15

CBA is currently not adequately able to address intrinsic landscape values particularly

heritage

Landscape valuation requires public support in order to be useful

The identification of landscape values among stakeholders is an important part of the

valuation process

33 REPRESENTATIVE OF AGRICULTURAL NATURE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIONS Following European and national policies2 farmers are becoming increasingly more involved in

the management of the landscape in general and nature in particular Farmers are therefore an

important stakeholder and consequently an interview was conducted with Mr Hans Hoek

director of Veelzijdig Boerenland an organization that represents farmers who take part in

landscape and nature management The purpose of the interview was primarily to learn about

farmersrsquo perspective on landscape and second to obtain feedback on the design of the

instrument as it was then

331 FARMERSrsquo PERSPECTIVE ON LANDSCAPE Mr Hoek recognizes the tensions between rural and urban areas because of the process of

urbanization which almost always happens at the expense of agricultural land But it also causes

dynamic interactions between city and countryside that benefit farmers Mr Hoek mentions the

examples of leisure seekers from the city who enjoy the agricultural countryside and the natural

values of the landscape that provide ecosystem services On the topic of heritage and landscape

preservation Mr Hoek believes that farmers feel it is their responsibility to society to preserve

the landscape and also spend time and effort on it However as farmers are entrepreneurs with a

business they expect to be compensated properly by society in return for this service Offering

products and services in addition to traditional food production is called multifunctional land use

and Mr Hoek believes it is an important principle for farmers in the western urbanized part of

the country

However Mr Hoek identifies an important problem with multifunctional land use There is a

mismatch between supply and demand of these additional services One example is that some

areas that farmers maintain for leisure seekers are not accessible For example because there is no

good cycling infrastructure Earlier research on this topic revealed that sometimes visitors do get

access to the area but would like additional access to the premises of farms which they do not

always allow (Nefs 2014) Another example of mismatch is that products that farmers brand as

local produce somehow do not reach the consumer in the city This too is supported by earlier

research (Nefs 2014) The main cause of this mismatch is a lack of transboundary coordination

of landscape initiatives says Mr Hoek He believes that many initiatives to improve the relation

between city and countryside founder on administrative boundaries Something he believes

should be addressed

332 FEEDBACK ON INSTRUMENT DESIGN At the time of the interview the instrument design included the principle of value maps maps

that visualize stakeholdersrsquo landscape valuation based on an assessment of the landscape value by

2 Communal Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Nature Vision 2014

16

means of a score These scores would be assigned to concrete landscape objects and types of land

use by the user

Mr Hoek indicated that this approach would always be susceptible to the viewpoint of one

individual person and would not per se be representative for a larger group of persons He also

indicated that assessing concrete objects and land use types would not do justice to the diversity

of landscapes and multifunctional land use Also for farmers specifically the ownership situation

of land is important for the valuation of landscape

Summarizing the interview the following lessons were drawn

Farmers anticipate on the cityrsquos needs by providing additional products and services

from their lands Therefore agricultural land is multifunctional

Farmers recognise a mismatch between supply and demand of the city and the

(agricultural) landscape something they believe should be addressed

Value maps are not representative per se and landscape assessments should take into

account the diversity and multifunctionality of the landscape

34 ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST The Rijnlandroute project has sparked significant opposition among various activist groups in

the area in particular from community associations and environmental associations An

overarching foundation the Foundation Preserve Rhineland represents these groups and is

headed by Wim ter Keurs a retired environmental biologist The purpose of the interview was to

review how the environmental support groups experienced landscape valuation in the

Rijnlandroute project

341 EVALUATION OF RIJNLANDROUTE PROJECT Mr Ter Keurs describes the process of the Rijnlandroute project In an early stage stakeholders

were invited to partake in an evaluation of the plan This evaluation was done using a multi-

criteria analysis The result of the evaluation was that traffic relief and nature preservation were

ranked almost equally by stakeholders but that these values did not find their way into the

eventual plan in equal manner This is evident in the mandatory cost-benefit analysis carried out

by the province which has not quantified nature and landscape values at all In addition the

Foundation Preserve Rhineland considers that stakeholders were not involved sufficiently in the

project For this reason and for the lack of acknowledgement of natural values the foundation

has always rejected the Rijnlandroute

Looking back at the process Mr Ter Keurs was positive about the multi-criteria analysis

because it was transparent and on a level playing field where all stakeholders had equal influence

on the evaluation outcome But he now rejects the approach as the eventual plan did not do

justice to the result

Mr Ter Keurs was asked to respond to the thesis that any landscape valuation method should

attempt to objectify the values as is the case in a cost-benefit analysis He is not in favour of this

thesis as he questions the ability of such methods to adequately express the intrinsic value of

landscape He is more in favour of an approach where value is derived from a degree of public

support for an intervention but he acknowledges that this is difficult to standardize

17

342 FEEDBACK ON INSTRUMENT DESIGN Mr Ter Keurs appreciates the principle of mapping the values of individual stakeholders but he

argues that most methods can be adequate as long as some important conditions are met He lists

four

No stakeholder should be denied participation in the valuation method

All stakeholders should be involved in an early stage of the project

The method must facilitate a level playing field where all stakeholders have equal

influence

The method must be transparent

In effect Mr Ter Keurs argues these conditions are not in any way new They can be read

almost literally in the report by the Elverding Committee3 (Elverding et al 2008) But somehow

Mr Ter Keurs observes these recommendations are seldom put into practice

35 SECOND STAKEHOLDER REFLECTION BOARD MEETING Attendees

Elise Coenen policy advisor green space (Municipalities of VoorschotenWassenaar)

Steven Slabbers landscape architect (Bosch Slabbers)

Jeroen Traudes project manager Rijnlandroute (Municipality of Leiden)




The purpose of the second actor board meeting was to reflect on the first working prototype of

the instrument

351 DESIGN OF THE FIRST WORKING PROTOTYPE The first prototype was a web viewer that featured a topographic basemap a landscape map and

3 Advisory Committee on Expedition of Decision Making in Infrastructure Projects

Figure 3 Screenshots from the first working prototype featuring the landscape map (left) and the value map (right)

18

a series of value maps The landscape map was a map of land use and prominent landscape

features and ldquocarriersrdquo of the landscape such as the Roman Limes age-old water ways and

estates (Figure 3)

The value maps are rasters of which the cell values correspond with the landscape value at that

location defined by user input using a score of -3 to 3 where -3 means that intervention should

take place at that location and where 3 means the opposite (Figure 4) Dummy value maps were

made representing four different fictional stakeholders

The board re-emphasized the importance of communicating the narrative of the area to the user

by visualizing important landscape features and structures However the landscape map was

considered to be too focused on specific objects whereas a more generic map was needed one

that focuses more on dominant structures in the landscape and the processes that defined the

landscape This would help in seeing the landscape as an integrated whole rather than a

fragmented environment

The concept of value maps was well received but these maps are based on the wrong values In

the current approach land use and landscape objects are valuated rather than ldquorealrdquo values such

as view and openness of the landscape the absence of noise accessibility by bike etc The board

argued it is necessary that the instrument focuses on these more abstract values instead

Also an issue was found in the numeric spectrum of -3 to 3 which is not suitable to make

composite maps of multiple stakeholders as you cannot use the sum or mean (eg two

overlapping values of -3 and 3 would sum or mediate to 0 which effectively means there is no

discussion whereas there actually is a considerable underlying disagreement)

352 THE PROCESS OF USING THE INSTRUMENT The board argued that it would require two user sessions to reach a landscape valuation The

first session should focus on identifying peoplersquos values using the landscape map whereas a

second session should focus on discussing the value maps In the meantime the value maps

should be produced based on the input provided by stakeholders in the first session Mr Traudes

indicated this approach would be of benefit if the instrument were to be used by municipalities

Figure 4 Schematic of value map computation in first working prototype

19

as they have the obligation to specify the manner in which public participation input is processed

into policy recommendations Value maps would be a useful instrument in that respect

20

4 DIALOGUEMAPS Based on the iterative development process supported by input from stakeholders experts and

literature DialogueMaps is developed (link wwwdeltametropoolnlindex5html) This chapter

outlines the workings and components of the instrument

41 USER INTERFACE The user interface is a web-based map viewer accessible through most web browsers It was

attempted to design the interface in a minimalistic fashion so that the map would be the centre of

attention but also so that the interface would be easy to operate The interface features the

following controls zoom draw and layer control Some layers feature additional interaction

through legends and teasers that appear in the bottom right and top right of the screen A teaser

is an information label that appears on the mouse-over of an object The video below illustrates

the interface controls

21

42 MAP LAYERS DialogueMaps features three types of maps

Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps

421 BASE MAPS Base maps are a topographic map and the aerial imagery Both layers are map services provided

by MapBox In addition an overlay of streets is included This high-contrast layer displays only

streets and roads which is useful in combination with thematic maps This layer is provided as a

service by Stamen Maps (refer to Appendix C for a comprehensive overview of all original

datasets used)

422 THEMATIC MAPS There are two kinds of thematic maps First are the so called narrative layers The first

stakeholder reflection board meeting emphasized the fragmented topography of the current

landscape and expressed the need for visualizing the underlying defining features of the

landscape Therefore a geomorphology map and a landscape map are included These maps

describe the narrative of the landscape in terms of geogenesis and defining landscape objects and

structures The plan contours which can be visualized on top of other maps represent the

planning urgency in the area and are included so that these plans are displayed in their landscape

context

The second kind of thematic map refers to values that are of particular importance in the study

area As was noted in the methodology mapping values is an interpretative process because key

landscape values are often abstract In the prototype six values have been mapped based on input

from the stakeholder reflection board meetings and interviews (Table 3) In addition all map

layers are displayed in the video on the next page4

Table 3 Description of thematic maps as interpretations of abstract landscape values

Value Thematic map

View openness Two view shed panoramas one from the main infrastructure (rail highway) and one from intimate country roads that cross the landscape

Quietness absence of noise

A map of noise contours around infrastructure and protected nature silence areas

Accessibility for leisure seekers

A map of service area contours of 1 2 and 3 km around important nodes in the leisure cycle infrastructure (national cycling routes train stations and recreational parking facility)

The natural value of the landscape

A map displaying several categories of nature protection areas

The economic value of the landscape

A map displaying the various spatial forms of economic activity in the landscape

Permissibility and ability of access

This map is a qualitative assessment of the degree to which mainly leisure seekers are allowed and able to access a specific area

4 The digital file can be downloaded here httpdeltametropoolnlnldialoguemaps

22

Most thematic maps were created by combining different origin datasets (appendix C) The view

sheds were created by performing a view shed analysis on a digital elevation model The service

area contours for cyclists were created using network analysis based on the road network All

thematic maps are transparent overlays except for the view shed maps

23

423 VALUE MAPS Value maps are non-transparent overlays that visualize stakeholdersrsquo landscape values in the

area Every stakeholder contributes to the discussion with his own value map (or of the interest

group that the stakeholder represents) Comparison of the different value maps is one of the

main drivers of the debate

Value maps are the output of a weighted overlay analysis The weighted overlay analysis can be

described as a spatial variant of a multi-criteria analysis and weighs input criteria according to a

positive-negative scale and an important-unimportant scale (Figure 5) The input criteria are the

thematic maps of abstract landscape values The landscape values are valued from negative to

positive expressed in a score of 1 to 9 and according to their relative importance or weight

expressed in a percentage The sum of all weights equals 100 The scores are not assigned to a

complete thematic value map but to categories within that map For instance for the nature

map scores are assigned to each category of nature on the map Natura2000 EHS-nature bird

protection areas and ecological corridors The weights however are assigned to the complete

map The result is a set of maps that represents stakeholdersrsquo views on the area based on both

their valuation (ie positive or negative) and on their assessment of relative importance of these

landscape values

The value maps are raster maps where cell values in the raster correspond with a result score

For visualisation it is important that all value maps for all different stakeholders are visualized on

the same scale with the same colours corresponding to the same values The scale is an ordinal

scale which ranges from the lowest to the highest value of any value map with intervals of 1 In

the value maps included in the prototype the lowest value is 1 and the highest is 9 so this creates

a scale of 9 classes that are assigned a colour on a spectrum from red (1) to green (9) (Figure 6)

In other words a bright red zone on a value map represents an area that the stakeholder rates

negatively and a green zone is rated positively

In addition to the separate value maps a composite map is included The purpose of the

composite map is to visualize areas where landscape values conflict Conflicts are visualized by

means of the standard deviation which is expressed on a colour scale ranging from the lowest

value (light blue) to the highest value (dark blue) The standard deviation is an expression of the

degree of variance in underlying values in this case the value maps of all stakeholders If the

standard deviation is low at a given location all value maps tend to have a similar value there If

the standard deviation is high the stakeholders value that location differently

Figure 5 Flow chart of the weighted overlay analysis

Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights

Value map Stakeholderrsquos

values

User input

24

Other statistics of dispersion were considered in addition to the standard deviation the variance

coefficient of variation and index of dispersion The standard deviation was selected because it

has the same dimension as the value scale which makes it easier to interpret than the other

statistics

43 USE PROCESS DialogueMaps has been designed with a process in mind that could facilitate its use This

paragraph outlines this process but it is by no means a blueprint and alternative processes and

applications can be thought of

431 CONTEXT OF USE PROCESS DialogueMaps can be imagined as a tool in the toolbox of a planner When landscape is a

sensitive topic in a planning discussion this tool could be used to involve stakeholders in the

design phase of the plan Alternatively the tool can be used to gather arguments for adapting

existing plans or to steer developments that have already been set in motion

DialogueMaps is used in three steps two separate user sessions and an analysis step in between

The user sessions are to be organized with 4 to 8 stakeholders who have a clear stake in the

landscape

432 STEP ONE USER SESSION FOR VALUE IDENTIFICATION In the first user session the landscape values are identified This session yields criteria (the

landscape values) scores and weights for the weighted overlay analysis During this session the

viewer only contains the geomorphology landscape and plan contours layers in addition to the

base layers These layers communicate the narrative of the study area and help stakeholders to

formulate their values

The session is led by a chairman whose role is to explain the process and to make sure all

stakeholders get to express what they think is valuable about the landscape in the study area In

addition his role is to make sure the position of all stakeholders is known by the end of the

Figure 6 Detail of a value map (left) indicating positively (green) and negatively valued areas and composite map (right) indicating areas of agreement (light blue) and areas of conflict (dark blue)

25

session It is possible to let users assign scores and weights directly or to let an independent

observer (eg the chairman) assign these on the basis of interpretation

Although one of the aims of the first session is to identify values it is to be expected that in

practice some values will already be known beforehand For example the prevalence of nature

and particular view sheds are expected to be quite common In this case these values may already

be modelled as map layers and included in the interface on beforehand (Figure 7)

433 STEP TWO SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDERSrsquo LANDSCAPE VALUES The second step is the modelling of stakeholdersrsquo landscape values into thematic value maps

and the subsequent computation of the value maps using the weighted overlay analysis (Figure 5)

Landscape values are abstract constructs for ldquooff the shelfrdquo geodata will not always be available

In this case interpretation and operationalization becomes part of the modelling process and

constraints such as data availability and capacity for geoprocessing come into play

434 STEP THREE USER SESSION FOR DISCUSSING VALUE CONFLICTS In the second user session the values have been identified and the value maps have been

generated The purpose of this session is to identify where and why stakeholdersrsquo landscape

values conflict and to discuss what could be done about it (Figure 8) The chairman of the

session needs to take the time to recap on the findings of the first session Next the value maps

need to be discussed one by one with particular attention paid to the issues that are brought up

by the composite map

44 TEST RESULTS The instrument was tested in two sessions The first session was conducted with co-workers at

the Deltametropolis Association who all have backgrounds in urban planning and urban design

The second session was conducted with the stakeholder reflection board

441 TEST SESSION 1 The aim of the first session was to assign roles to the participants (co-workers) and play out all

three steps of the instrument Participants were assigned the roles of four different stakeholders

Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights

Figure 7 Flow chart of first user session

Values

26

farmer resident leisure seeker and environmental activist The testing environment was a

meeting room with a big screen (Figure 9)

The participants had one mouse at their disposal to operate the viewer The instrument used

during this session was very similar to the final release version with the exception that no value

maps were included

The thematic value maps of Table 3 (Page 21) were predefined and included in the interface

The participants were given an introduction into the background of the research and the study

area Also they were given a layer-by-layer explanation of the viewer On their own initiative the

participants decided to mark down where they were housed or situated in the area using the draw

functionality They were then asked to start the discussion

The first assignment was to have a generic discussion about the value of the landscape using the

viewer The active layers were the topographic base layer and the plan contour layer The

discussion that ensued revolved around the spatial plans in the area about whether the

participants supported or rejected them The chairman did not steer this discussion They made

little use of the viewer This discussion was ended after about 10 minutes when it was clear the

discussion did not really involve the landscape or the viewer

It was decided to choose a more structured approach The plan contour layer was turned off

Layer by layer the chairman would ask the participants to explain their position on each particular

value (refer to paragraph 422 on page 21 for an overview of the values) This led to a more

structured discussion that involved the entire area and not just the areas where the developments

are planned During the discussion the users would occasionally enable another layer but most of

the time the chairman would enable another layer when the topic of the discussion changed Also

during the discussion the chairman kept notes on everyonersquos position for each value (a positive or

negative stance for each value) At the end of the discussion the participants were asked to

determine the relative weights themselves A fill-in form was distributed for that purpose and it

was asked to divide 100 points over the five values reflecting importance

A short break was held during which the chairman entered the values and weights in the

weighted overlay model and the value maps were generated It was not possible to include the

value maps so quickly in the viewer so they were displayed in the desktop GIS environment

instead The participants had trouble understanding the value maps especially the composite

map One participant in retrospect stated she did not understand the difference between score

and weight and had assigned weight points on the basis of positivenegative rather than

importantunimportant More participants stated that the distinction should be made clearer

Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict

Figure 8 Flow chart of second user session

27

Unfortunately the session was over time and had to be stopped before the actual discussion

based on the value maps could take place

The duration of the session was 2 hours including 20 minutes of introduction and 20 minutes

of geoprocessing

442 TEST SESSION 2 The second test session was conducted with the stakeholder reflection board and was at the

same time the final meeting of the board Attending were Steven Slabbers landscape architect

and Jeroen Traudes project manager for the Rijnlandroute in addition to Paul Gerretsen Merten

Nefs and the author from Deltametropolis Association The purpose of the session was to

evaluate the final instrument in particular the value maps and the composite map as these were

not thoroughly discussed in the first test session

The session started with a slide presentation which recapped on previous findings and an

explanation of all layers in the viewer similar to the first session This time also the value maps

and composite map were explained The questions for the day were stated

Are the map layers clear

Is the purpose of the instrument clear how could the instrument be used

And what is the role of the value maps in the discussion

Table 4 Feedback on map layers by the stakeholder reflection board

Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas

The view sheds may display the quantity of the view shed (ie what can be seen and from how far) but they do not say anything about the quality of the view shed (ie what is it that the observer sees in the distance) The argument is that the magnitude of the view shed does not determine the quality of the view and so the view shed may need to be enriched with qualitative data Also the maps need some sort of legend or informative text to clarify the symbology

Figure 9 Environment of test session 1

28


It was recognized that permissibility and ability of access is a very difficult value to model in geodata Although the board had previously expressed the desire to include this value in the instrument no consensus could be reached this time on how to define it This illustrates the importance of a good interpretation of stakeholdersrsquo definitions of the values they express in the identification process It also illustrates the importance of evaluating the thematic value maps so they can be validated before the actual value maps are discussed

Value maps composite map

The principle of the weighted overlay analysis using scores and weights to determine landscape value was clear to the participants However the board prompted the question to what extent the value maps eventually tell us what the qualities and non-qualities are of specific areas The underlying criticism here is that the overlaying process disguises the underlying values and so it is difficult to understand why an area is perceived as positive or negative Finally the board recommends that the value maps are aggregated Currently the maps are raster maps with a resolution of 25m This results in ldquospecklesrdquo in the maps that raise unnecessary questions It is proposed to convert the maps to smooth polygons

In addition it was noted how the participants would interact with the instrument

First the map layers were discussed Most map layers were considered clear but some were not (Table 4) The second issue to be addressed is the purpose of the instrument and how it can be used The

board reaffirmed the importance of having two separate discussions one devoted to value

identification and one to discussing value maps and identifying conflicts Two issues were raised

First it is unclear who should participate in the sessions and how to assess the importance of

each stakeholder (democratic influence) The instrument is designed for 4 to 8 participants any

more and the number of value maps to discuss becomes unmanageable Therefore the

participants should have a very clear and undisputed stake in the landscape The example was

given of the resident whose value map is part of the prototype There are two types of residents

that can be distinguished a small number of residents whose view of the landscape from their

homes is threatened by developments and a larger number that live in the wider region Both

should be involved as they would probably have different opinions and values in the area at

stake It was mentioned that a local entrepreneur or commuter would also be an interesting

stakeholder because of their view of the landscape from the highway or train

Second the role of the chairman is very important As was noted in Table 4 the chairman has

an important role in explaining the value maps that are not self-explanatory The same remark

was made in the first test session The board proposed to rename the chairman to ldquodialogue

leaderrdquo and for him to more actively steer the discussion by unravelling conflict areas in advance

and explain them to the participants so that the discussion can focus on these areas As an

example a conflict area on the Rijnlandroute was identified (Figure 10) For such areas that

intersect with spatial developments the dialogue leader should be able to explain why the area

highlights as a conflict area based on the underlying values A possible goal of the discussion

could be to reach consensus on the value of certain areas and resulting ambitions for example

conservation Another goal could be in the case of conflict areas to identify differences in values

that might be overcome by the different stakeholders and others that are likely to remain should

simply be recognized instead of solved The drawing tool could be used to highlight these areas

29

Lastly it was observed how

participants interact with the

instrument It was observed that the

participants were hesitant to operate the

mouse which was at their disposal

Rather they would ask the chairman to

navigate or enable layers Only on one

occasion would one participant operate

the instrument by himself The

participants were asked how they

appreciated the draw functionality They

argued it is a good addition to the

instrument but also argued that more

functionalities would be helpful like

having the ability to choose colours

write texts and save the drawings to file

The dominant zoom level was the most detailed zoom level This was caused by the value maps

that draw attention to particular areas of agreement or conflict Participants would want to zoom

to those areas and enable other layers to see what may cause the agreement or conflict

The duration of the session was 80 minutes with an introduction of 20 minutes and a

discussion of 60 minutes

Figure 10 Example of interesting conflict area (dark blue) on intersection with planned road (dashed line)

30

5 TECHNICAL DESIGN This chapter outlines the technical design of the instrument It is intended as a technical

reference for understanding the instrumentrsquos technical components Simultaneously it answers

research question 4

The technical components are described using the software stack (Figure 11) The bottom of

the stack is the data-component The top of the stack is the user interface the viewer The

ldquomiddlewarerdquo is a server for serving data to the interface

51 USER INTERFACE The user interface is a HTML website The code is scripted in

Javascript using the MapBox Application Programming Interface

(API) This API is based on the popular Leaflet API The website

is styled using CSS The website consists of only an index file and

requires only a web server and web space to publish it online

Sublime Text 2 was used to write all code

52 TILE SERVER A tile server is required to serve the maps to the user interface in

other words to visualize the data at several scales in the

interactive viewer The tile server is provided by MapBox which

offers free hosting space of up to 50 mb of map data

Alternatively a private tile server must be set up MapBox offers

the Tilestream tile server for free This server requires an Ubuntu

or iOS system Tilestream can be made interoperable with a Windows system if a virtual machine

such as Oracle VM VirtualBox is used

53 GEODATA The source data are vector or raster files that are processed in any desktop GIS environment

For this research ESRI ArcGIS was used to assemble analyse and prepare data before being

styled in Tilemill It goes beyond the scope of this report to specify the processing steps of all

map layers but for vector data some kind of generalization (eg the removal of sliver polygons

and the smoothing of edges) is recommended as Tilemill cannot do this The value maps and

composite map require the Weighted Overlay and Cell Statistics tools in ArcGIS These tools

require the Spatial Analyst extension to operate The service area analysis for the bicycle

accessibility layer requires the Network Analyst extension

Also the instrument contains some layers that are external services (topographic map aerial

imagery and roads overlay) The display of these layers is dependent on the link to these services

The link is contained in the index file of the instrument If the service providers would ever

change the link then these layers would no longer show However it is relatively easy to find the

links in the index file and change them with up to date links should the event occur No scripting

knowledge is required to make this reparation

The maps in the user interface are in the so called MBtiles format MBtiles is a tile format

designed by MapBox and is unique in the sense that the tiles offer user interactivity for example

User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles

Figure 11 Software stack of DialogueMaps

31

the display of pop-ups on mouse-over of map features or the display of a legend MBtiles is not

an open standard and is not supported by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Although

OGC standards like WMS and WMTS can be used to serve MBtiles the interactivity of legends

and teasers will be negated

MBtiles are the output format of Tilemill Tilemill is the cartographic stylesheet editor by

MapBox that reads Shapefiles (vector) and GeoTiffs (raster) and allows for detailed cartographic

styling using the CartoCSS styling language

32

6 DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In this chapter the results are discussed conclusions are drawn and recommendations are made

to the Deltametropolis Association

61 DISCUSSION

611 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND TESTING The goal of this research was to develop a GIS instrument to facilitate the discussion of

landscape valuation in the rural-urban fringe After a literature study an iterative development

process with stakeholders and experts and two test sessions DialogueMaps has been developed

as the result Consulting stakeholders was an important part of the requirements study Originally

it was intended to test the instrument in a setting with direct stakeholders individuals who have a

clear stake in the landscape and use the spatial developments in the study area as a case It turned

out that the conceptual design of the instrument was more difficult than anticipated because

landscape valuation is conceptually complex As a consequence a comprehensive literature study

was performed before the user requirements analysis (Appendix A) Consequently the

stakeholders who were consulted in this research were invited based on their position as

stakeholder in the study area but also as being an expert or authority in their field or interest

group It can be said that this was a good approach as these stakeholders are involved in the area

but are also knowledgeable about landscape planning processes and public participation They

could reflect on the instrumentrsquos contents and functionalities as was the case in the second test

session but also on the conceptual design and context which was the topic of the first

stakeholder reflection board

However as a point of discussion it should be noted that these stakeholders are not per se a

reflection of the end users of the instrument End users in this case refer to direct stakeholders

who are participating in a session for example the residents who overlook the Rijnlandroute or a

local farmer and not their representatives in interest groups or associations The first test session

did attempt to simulate these users by assigning roles to participants However the

representativeness of this simulation for the study area and its stakeholders cannot be assured

because the stakeholders were fictional Additional testing with direct stakeholders and a concrete

case is therefore required and recommended

612 INSTRUMENT INTERACTIVITY AND USER INTERACTION Another point of discussion relates to the instrumentrsquos interactivity It was found that users tend

to be reluctant in operating the instrument themselves This was an unexpected result as the

interface was partly designed with direct user interaction in mind (ie minimalistic and straight

forward interface) This does not mean that the users do not interact with the instrument at all It

was evident that maps the value maps and composite map in particular spark arguments and

trigger discussion It is therefore argued that future research should take this distinction in user

interaction into account and evaluate to what extent users actually have the need to operate the

instrument in order to make use of it

33

62 CONCLUSIONS In order to reach conclusions the research goal and questions are revisited

Q1 Who are the supposed users of such a GIS instrument and how can these users be involved in the

instrumentrsquos development and what are their requirements

Supposed users of the instrument are actors with a clear stake in the landscape that is

undergoing change due to spatial developments The instrument can be used as a tool by

practitioners in spatial planning who are faced with complex landscape valuation discussions in a

particular area

Making use of a reflection board of stakeholders and interviews it was found that there is a need

for an instrument that can address intrinsic landscape values and can bridge the gap between

widely different landscape values of different stakeholders and literally bring them together This

need stems from the fact that the prevailing instrument for landscape valuation the cost-benefit

analysis cannot adequately value intrinsic landscape values and is too technical and rigid to

connect stakeholders


First the user requirements yielded a specific need for the instrument to ldquotell the story of the

landscaperdquo This resulted in the inclusion of maps that offer insights into the geogenesis of the

area and defining features and structures that are present in the landscape today For this

purpose geomorphology data and data on cultural heritage were used to assemble the required

maps

Second in order to map specific landscape values data were acquired that represent these values

based on interpretation Interpretation is needed because landscape values are abstract and data

are not always readily available to map these values Sometimes a specific geoprocessing analysis

is required to make the step from data to an adequate thematic value map This was the case with

the values ldquoaccessibilityrdquo and ldquoviewrdquo which require a service area analysis and view shed analysis

respectively Eventually the geodata needs are dependent on the values that are identified by

stakeholders and cannot always be mapped in advance

Third the last geodata and geoprocessing requirement concerns stakeholdersrsquo value maps

Based on scores and weights provided directly or indirectly by the stakeholder a weighted

overlay analysis is performed on the thematic value maps which results in the stakeholderrsquos value

map The value maps are an important result of the use of the instrument and provide the basis

for discussion about the value of the landscape All stakeholdersrsquo value maps together provide the

input for the composite or conflict map which visualizes underlying areas of agreement or

conflict by means of the standard deviation It was found that these maps are difficult to

understand for users and therefore require careful explanation

In conclusion it can be said that the instrument requires only a few generic maps but mostly

requires maps that are the result of user input It can also be concluded that these maps require a

well-informed dialogue leader who is able to explain and clarify the maps and lead a productive

discussion


In order to determine what kind of interface is required stakeholders were presented with three

widely different instrument design types that each feature a different interface The

characteristics of these three ldquoarchetypesrdquo were explained to the stakeholders so that they could

make an informed decision The stakeholders decided for an interactive viewer as the user

34

interface In the test sessions it became clear that users do not interact much with the interface by

taking the controls The interaction is mainly manifest in the discussion where the maps provide

input for the discussion However it was also found that the maps are not self-explanatory so

the role of a dialogue leader is very important aside from the instrument itself From this it is

concluded that the maps and how they are displayed and explained is key to facilitating the

discussion

Q4 Which technical components does this GIS instrument require and how can these components be

assembled in a prototype

Following the choice of the stakeholders for an interactive viewer it can be said that the

following components are required

A web-based viewer interface

A tile server

Geodata

Geodata is served to the client as tiles via a tile server Before geodata is served to the interface

geoprocessing and styling are necessary For this purpose a desktop GIS with analytical

capabilities is required as well as a style sheet editor


The prototype was tested on two occasions On one occasion the use of the instrument was

simulated by assigning stakeholder roles to non-involved participants On the second occasion

the overall concept and quality of the maps was the focus of discussion Useful feedback was

obtained from this group of experts to improve the instrument in quick development cycles To

test the resulting instrument more thoroughly sessions with a concrete planning problem and

direct stakeholders rather than a simulation are called for Therefore it is argued that this

question has not been completely answered and remains open for further research

63 RECOMMENDATIONS This research has yielded a functional prototype and a basis for applying it in practice

Recommendations are made to Deltametropolis Association on how to proceed from here both

with regard to the use and process of the instrument and the user sessions as well as regarding

further technical development of the instrument

631 PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS The instrument is functional but now it needs to be applied in practice The instrument has not

been tested with direct stakeholders in a concrete case and it was found that steering the process

with a dialogue leader is crucial It is therefore argued that the process component of the

instrument requires further research This leads to the recommendation to conduct a pilot study

This pilot study should be set up in cooperation with a municipality or province as these

organizations typically initiate and coordinate spatial plans and have access to all stakeholders

Ideally the pilot study should involve two or three sessions with stakeholders

It is believed that such a pilot study should be of sufficient substance for a graduate intern This

intern would require a background in planning processes public participation but also in GIS in

order to create thematic value maps and perform the weighted overlay analysis A key goal of this

pilot study should be the role of the dialogue leader and the manner in which to moderate the

discussion Another process-oriented goal should be the selection of stakeholders What would

be an optimal size and composition of a group of stakeholders

35

632 TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS Technically the prototype is functional but there is room for improvement The following

technical recommendations are made

Include the ability to style and export drawings The software component that enables

the draw functionality is the Leaflet Draw plugin This plugin includes the possibility to

style drawings however they simply have not been implemented Saving the drawings

to disk is more difficult It requires the scripting of a method that recognizes the JSON

code of the drawing and allows to save this code to disk Online sources seem to

provide the answer but it was not possible to implement the solution within the scope

of the research

Aggregate the value maps A recommendation made in the second test session was to

aggregate the value maps including the composite map This would clear out ldquospecklesrdquo

and create a smoother appearance of the map It is recommended to look for a solution

in first aggregating the cell size of the raster file and then converting the raster to

polygons followed by a procedure to smooth and simplify the polygons

Explore the possibilities of using a map table Map tables are innovative forms of

hardware that are emergent in participatory GIS Using DialogueMaps with a map table

could be an appropriate interface

Explore the need for additional base and thematic maps Currently the narrative of the

area is described using a geomorphology map and a landscape map It could be

considered to emphasize the natural values of the area by adding an ecosystem services

map to the narrative Also a map of underground values could be considered (eg

archaeology)

Solve known issues The following issues are known

o In Internet Explorer 11 the legend of the Landscape overlay does not display

correctly

o In Google Chrome 36 and Firefox 31 the Leaflet Draw marker does not display

correctly

36

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alleman G (2002) Agile project management methods for IT projects In E Carayannis amp Y

Kwak The story of managing projects A global cross-disciplinary collection of perspectives Greenwood PressQuorum Books

van Berkel D and P Verburg 2014 Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape Ecological Indicators 37163-174

Beukers E L Bertolini and M te Broumlmmelstroet 2012 Why Cost Benefit Analysis is perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of transport plans A process perspective Transportation Research Part A 4668-78

Bos E 2008 De evaluatie van ruimtelijke afwegingsvraagstukken via Maatschappelijke Kosten Baten Analyse of via Multi Criteria Analyse Tijdschrift Vervoerswetenschap 44162-168

Bos E and R de Graaff 2013 Naar een economische waardering van het cultuurhistorisch landschap In Regionale Economie en Ruimtegebruik Den Haag LEI

Bull R J Petts and J Evans 2008 Social learning from public engagement dreaming the impossible Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51 (5)701-716

Burkhard B F Kroll S Nedkov and F Muumlller 2012 Mapping ecosystem service supply demand and budgets Ecological Indicators 2117-29

Cash C 2014 Towards Achieving Resilience at the RuralndashUrban Fringe the Case of Jamestown South Africa Urban forum 25125-141

Crossman N B Bryan B Ostendorf and S Collins 2007 Systematic landscape restoration in the ruralndashurban fringe meeting conservation planning and policy goals Biodiversity Conservation 163781-3802

Cumming G P Olsson F S C III and C S Holling 2013 Resilience experimentation and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes Landscape Ecology 281139-1150

Duffhues K I Mayer M Nefs and M van der Vliet 2014 Breaking barriers to transit-oriented development insights from the serious game SPRINTCITY Environment and Planning B Planning and Design In press

Elverding P J de Graeff N Ketting N Koeman H de Ru M Scheltema and D Stadig 2008 Sneller en beter Advies Commissie Versnelling Besluitvorming Infrastructurele Projecten

Hauck J and B Schweppe-Kraft 2013 The Promise of the Ecosystem Services Concept for Planning and Decision-Making GAIA 4232-236

Kandziora M B Burkhard and F Muumlller 2013 Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution Ecosystem Services 447-59

Mackie P and T Worsley 2013 International comparisons of transport appraisal practice Overview report Leeds Institute for Transport Studies

Martiacutenez-Harms M J and P Balvanera 2012 Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply a review International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 817-25

Mouter N J A Annema and B van Wee 2012 Maatschappelijke kosten- en batenanalyse inhoudelijk geeumlvalueerd Den Haag NICIS Institute

Nabielek K P Kronberger-Nabielek and D Hamers 2013 The rural-urban fringe in the Netherlands recent developments and future challenges PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Nefs M 2014 Veenweidegebied van de Deltametropool Metropolitaan landschap in ontwikkeling In Landschap van de Metropool Deltametropolis Association

Piek M and R de Niet 2010 Groene stadsranden en verstedelijkingsdynamiek In Staat van de Ruimte 2010 De herschikking van stedelijk Nederland 169-191 Den HaagBilthoven PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

37

Plant R and P Ryan 2013 Ecosystem services as a practicable concept for natural resource management some lessons from Australia International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 9 (1)44-53

Provincie Zuid-Holland 2014 Gebiedsprofiel Duin Horst en Weide Amersfoort Rotterdam H+N+S Landschapsarchitecten

Rauws W S and G de Roo 2011 Exploring transitions in the peri-urban area Planning Theory amp Practice 12 (2)269-284

Scott A J C Carter M R Reed P Lurkham D Adams N Morton R Waters D Collier C Crean R Curzon R Forster P Gibbs N Grayson M Hardman A Hearle D Jarvis M Kennet K Leach M Middleton N Schiessel B Stonyer and R Coles 2013 Disintegrated development at the ruralndashurban fringe Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice Progress in Planning 831-52

Sijtsma F J A van Hinsberg S Kruitwagen and F J Dietz 2009 Natuureffecten in de MKBAs van projecten voor integrale gebiedsontwikkeling PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Stolwijk H 2004 Kunnen natuur- en landschapswaarden zinvol in euros worden uitgedrukt CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis

Tagliafierro C A Longo V V Eetvelde M Antrop and W G Hutchinson 2013 Landscape economic valuation by integrating landscape ecology into landscape economics Environmental Science amp Policy 3226-36

TEEB 2014 Ecosystem Services 2014 [cited 30-4-2014 2014] Available from httpwwwteebweborgresourcesecosystem-services

Tewdwr-Jones M N Gallent and J Morphet 2010 An Anatomy of Spatial Planning Coming to Terms with the Spatial Element in UK Planning European Planning Studies 18 (2)239-257

Troy A and M Wilson 2006 Mapping ecosystem services Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer Ecological Economics 60435-449

Wagtendonk A and J Vermaat 2014 Visual perception of cluttering in landscapes Developing a low resolution GIS-evaluation method Landscape and Urban Planning 12485-92

Zhang R L Pu and M Zhu 2013 Impacts of Transportation Arteries on Land Use Patterns in Urban-rural Fringe A Comparative Gradient Analysis of Qixia District Nanjing City China Chinese Geographical Science 23 (3)378-388

APPENDIX A LITERATURE STUDY TO LANDSCAPE VALUATION In the introduction chapter it was explained that the position of the landscape in the RUF poses

complex challenges to planners Scott and colleagues (2013) identify a clear divide between the

urban and the rural not only in physical space but also in governance practice and academic

research They argue that both planning agencies and academics either champion the urban or the

rural resulting in a ldquoneglected and forgotten policy spacerdquo which is problematic because the RUF is ldquoa

place in its own right with its own needs and prioritiesrdquo (Scott et al 2013 p 2) Scott and colleagues

(2013) identify two paradigms of land use planning that are currently prevalent in both policy

practice and the academic sphere These frameworks are the spatial planning approach and the

ecosystem approach that provide an urban and a rural lens through which to look at the RUF

respectively

Spatial planning is used as an overarching concept for many different planning regimes and as

such has no clear definition in term nor in substance (Tewdwr-Jones Gallent amp Morphet 2010)

However all spatial planning regimes are typically rooted in a historical context of controlling

urban development thereby emphasizing instruments of control and zoning like greenbelts

More contemporary instruments of spatial planning let go of strict control and regulation and are

partnerships between stakeholders particularly public-private partnerships (Scott et al 2013)

A separate paradigm of land use planning developed in the form of the ecosystem services

approach Although ecosystem services are not considered planning instruments as such they can

be used to justify spatial developments and can therefore be considered an important paradigm in

land use planning (Scott et al 2013) It is well established that ecosystems are important to

(urban) society because they provide essential services such as a healthy environment in terms of

air and water but also space for relaxation and recreation (TEEB 2014) Drawing upon the

notion that ecosystems provide benefits for society separate planning regimes have developed

for the rural or natural environments These regimes are characterized by different instruments

than spatial planning regimes that are aimed at urban areas The ecosystems approach emphasizes

landscape valuation and uses incentives for example incentives for farmers to improve

biodiversity in their fields (Scott et al 2013)

Both approaches have developed their own instruments and tools to valuate the landscape

These are looked at more closely in the following sections

SPATIAL PLANNING APPROACH TO LANDSCAPE VALUATION Spatial planning processes incorporate landscape valuation as part of cost-benefit analyses

(CBA) This instrument is embedded in formal procedures and is mandatory in planning policy

frameworks around the world (Sijtsma et al 2009 Mackie amp Worsley 2013) The purpose of

CBA in spatial planning is to evaluate a spatial intervention ex ante by estimating all positive and

negative effects of the intervention for society as a whole on the long term and this includes

effects on landscape and the environment (Sijtsma et al 2009) In CBA costs and benefits are

quantified in monetary equivalents (ie currency) as much as possible Many effects of spatial

interventions can be monetized relatively easily for example the effect on land prices

accessibility the project costs and more However the CBA also includes non-marketable or

ldquosoftrdquo values such as landscape preservation cultural heritage biodiversity environmental

quality etc The monetization of such values is perceived to be very problematic by both

academics and practitioners

First the question arises to what extent ldquosoftrdquo values can be monetized at all Stolwijk (2004)

argues that monetization may make technical assessment easier this does not apply for the

ldquomoralrdquo assessment that is hidden behind the currency (Stolwijk 2004) Some practitioners in

land use planning even think that monetizing abstract values is not possible and should be

avoided because it creates false certainty (Beukers Bertolini amp Te Broumlmmelstroet 2012) The

ambiguity surrounding monetization of abstract values creates much controversy in the CBA

which undermines its validity as an instrument (Mouter Annema amp Van Wee 2012 Beukers

Bertolini amp Te Broumlmmelstroet 2012)

Second the methods for monetizing abstract values are very complex expensive and time

consuming (Stolwijk 2004) Two of the most common methods are the contingent value method

and the travel cost method The former measures peoplersquos willingness to pay for abstract values

such as landscape preservation or biodiversity whereas the latter measures peoplersquos actual money

spent on travelling to a certain locality (eg a nature reserve) (Tagliafierro et al 2013 Van Berkel

amp Verburg 2014 Bos amp De Graaff 2013) The complexity and costliness of measuring ldquosoftrdquo

values sometimes means that these values are not quantified at all but are only included in the

CBA as a qualitative cost or benefit (Sijtsma et al 2009) The consequence is that these values

receive less attention than values that are monetized and as a result the CBA emphasizes ldquohardrdquo

values and undervalues ldquosoftrdquo values (Beukers Bertolini amp Te Broumlmmelstroet 2012)

A third criticism on CBA is how it is embedded within the planning policy framework In the

Netherlands academics argue that the CBA is positioned too late in the planning process when

plans are already designed and political positions entrenched However it is also possible that the

CBA is positioned too early in a phase when decision makers do not yet want to reveal their

position (Beukers Bertolini amp Te Broumlmmelstroet 2012) In any case this illustrates the

procedural context of the CBA in the context of the wider planning policy framework

A notable alternative to CBA that is mentioned in literature is the multi-criteria analysis (MCA)

In MCA users assign a weight to a criterion that reflect the importance of this criterion relative to

the other criteria in the analysis The units are usually qualitative instead of monetary Bos (2008)

argues that the benefits of MCA are increased methodological transparency and the ability to

valuate non-monetizable values But a disadvantage compared to CBA is that the MCA only

measures the criteria that users decide to put in MCA is therefore not a complete assessment In

addition MCA employs relative weights instead of absolute (monetary) values

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES APPROACH TO LANDSCAPE VALUATION Central to the ES approach is that biophysical variables most notably land useland cover are

expressed as ES using a method of quantification (Martiacutenez-Harms amp Balvanera 2012) In

general three different approaches to mapping ES supply can be identified (Martiacutenez-Harms amp

Balvanera 2012 p 17)

Valuation of ES through benefit transfer This method applies a monetary value to a

land-cover map based on previous studies from sites having similar land cover types

Community value methods These methods obtains social values and other perceptions

of place through surveys and are then integrated with biophysical data

Social-ecological assessment methods These methods model the relationship between

measureable variables that indicate ES and map the results

These methods have in common that they are all quantitative methods and are almost all

performed at regional national or global scales (gt1000 km2) Also they have in common that

some kind of monetary equivalent unit is often used to quantify the ES benefits By quantifying

ES in monetary equivalents they can be compared with land use developments that are

commonly expressed in currency like infrastructure or housing (Tagliafierro et al 2013)

Examples of ES quantification are the provisioning service of food which can be quantified

using kilo Joules per hectare and the cultural service of landscape which can be quantified using

willingness to pay-assessments (Burkhard et al 2012 Van Berkel amp Verburg 2014)

In any case there is no general framework of ES quantification Troy and Wilson (2006) argue

that the total ES value of a given area is typically a function of two variables the area of a given

land use or cover type and the ES value associated with that land use or cover type But both the

land usecover type typologies and the ES values are unique for every different study area For

example in areas where wildfires are a prominent danger a very detailed classification of forest

types is required And in a large metropolis one km2 of green space is far more valuable than in

an extensive forest area (Troy amp Wilson 2006)

Very few quantitative methods have been applied to larger scale areas like the local or sub-local

scale (lt1000 km2) (Martiacutenez-Harms amp Balvanera 2012) One reason is that the most important

data source for mapping ES land useland cover data is if often not sufficiently detailed for

greater scales (Kandziora Burkhard amp Muumlller 2013) But more importantly ES become less

meaningful in small study areas where the landscape is very detailed and spatial entities are very

concrete In study areas such as these ES need to be provided with sufficient context and

evidence from other disciplines in order to be applicable in decision making (Troy amp Wilson

2006)

Other authors stress the importance of the social learning process at the local scale when

valuating landscape Social learning is the process whereby stakeholders in a planning process

communicate directly and learn each otherrsquos values opinions and limits (Bull Petts amp Evans

2008) Plant and Ryan (2013) argue that ldquoa well-facilitated process of group learning and reasoning about

naturersquos values that is grounded in local knowledge and experience may ultimately better approximate the lsquotruersquo

value of a regionrsquos natural capital than traditional positivist approaches aimed at comprehensive quantification and

valuation of ESrdquo A similar viewpoint was adopted by other authors (Cumming et al 2013)

IN SUMMARY CONFRONTING TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES In summary spatial planning and ecosystem services provide different perspectives for valuating

landscape In spatial planning the emphasis is on ldquohardrdquo measureable effects that are measured

as part of CBA Spatial planning does recognize the value of landscape nature and other ldquosoftrdquo

values and consequently attempts to ldquofitrdquo them into the CBA methodology However this causes

much controversy and ambiguity Ecosystem services on the other hand emphasize ldquosoftrdquo

values as the core of the approach Sophisticated GIS models are used to quantify ES potential

supply and demand However the ES approach struggles with scale particularly with the validity

of quantitative methods at larger scales and social learning is suggested as a qualitative alternative

at local scales In addition the ES approach uses only ecosystem services as a framework and

does not attempt to provide an integral assessment of effects like the CBA Effects such as land

price accessibility employment and other ldquohardrdquo economic factors are not measured with ES

Also unlike CBA the ES approach is rarely embedded in planning policy frameworks (Hauck amp

Schweppe-Kraft 2013)

APPENDIX B HAND-OUT TO STAKEHOLDER REFLECTION BOARD FOR INSTRUMENT TYPES

APPENDIX C ORIGIN DATASETS

Layer Origin datasets

Basiskaart NA (MapBox service) Luchtfoto NA (MapBox service) Structuurpanorama AHN2 (ruw) Dwarspanorama AHN2 (ruw) Geluidscontouren Geluidsbelasting langs wegen per etmaal

Cultuurhistorische Hoofdstructuur stiltegebieden Fietscontouren TOP10NL weghartlijnen

Fietsknooppunten Natuurkaart Natura2000

Provinciale EHS Productielandschap Kantoorlocaties bedrijventerreinen

Basisregistratie Percelen (BRP) Fysiek Glas

Toegankelijkheid - Geomorfologie Cultuurhistorische hoofdstructuur

Geomorfologische Kaart Nederland (GKN) Landschap Cultuurhistorische hoofdstructuur

CultGIS Wegennet NA (Stamen service) Plancontouren Planned land use IMRO dataset

2

ABSTRACT The landscape in the rural-urban fringe of the Deltametropolis is under pressure from spatial

developments Landscape protection policies are being relaxed planning authority is being

decentralized to lower governments and the agricultural sector is increasingly dynamic This leads

to a current and urgent discussion about the value of the landscape of the Deltametropolis To

facilitate this discussion the Deltametropolis Association set out to develop a GIS instrument

The result is DialogueMaps an interactive web-based viewer that aims at visualizing

stakeholdersrsquo conflicting landscape values

In DialogueMaps stakeholders identify their landscape values based on a set of maps that tell

the story of the landscape the landscapersquos narrative Stakeholdersrsquo landscape values are modelled

as geodata and are input for a weighted overlay analysis Via this analysis these landscape values

are then modelled as value maps to be visualized in an interactive viewer The conflict map

identifies areas of conflicting values and of areas of agreement between stakeholders

Test sessions yield that the value maps contribute to the discussion and offer new insights into

stakeholdersrsquo valuation of the landscape It was also found that value maps are complex and

require careful explanation

3








22-8-2014

Rob Geldhof

4


Acknowledgements 3

1 Introduction 6








2 Methodology 9


211 Study area 9






23 Testing 12

3 Results 13














4 DialogueMaps 20


5

42 Map layers 21

421 Base maps 21


423 Value maps 23

43 Use process 24





44 Test results 25





52 Tile server 30

53 Geodata 30


61 Discussion 32



62 Conclusions 33




7 Bibliography 36







6




























and warehousing


between uses


wildlife





7








































8







Niet 2010)


































9

2 METHODOLOGY


















10

































Date Event Topic












11





































12



























13



events




Voorschoten)








types




















14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included

The thematic value maps of Table 3 (1) were predefined and included in the interface




























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































3








22-8-2014

Rob Geldhof

4


Acknowledgements 3

1 Introduction 6








2 Methodology 9


211 Study area 9






23 Testing 12

3 Results 13














4 DialogueMaps 20


5

42 Map layers 21

421 Base maps 21


423 Value maps 23

43 Use process 24





44 Test results 25





52 Tile server 30

53 Geodata 30


61 Discussion 32



62 Conclusions 33




7 Bibliography 36







6




























and warehousing


between uses


wildlife





7








































8







Niet 2010)


































9

2 METHODOLOGY


















10

































Date Event Topic












11





































12



























13



events




Voorschoten)








types




















14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































4


Acknowledgements 3

1 Introduction 6








2 Methodology 9


211 Study area 9






23 Testing 12

3 Results 13














4 DialogueMaps 20


5

42 Map layers 21

421 Base maps 21


423 Value maps 23

43 Use process 24





44 Test results 25





52 Tile server 30

53 Geodata 30


61 Discussion 32



62 Conclusions 33




7 Bibliography 36







6




























and warehousing


between uses


wildlife





7








































8







Niet 2010)


































9

2 METHODOLOGY


















10

































Date Event Topic












11





































12



























13



events




Voorschoten)








types




















14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































5

42 Map layers 21

421 Base maps 21


423 Value maps 23

43 Use process 24





44 Test results 25





52 Tile server 30

53 Geodata 30


61 Discussion 32



62 Conclusions 33




7 Bibliography 36







6




























and warehousing


between uses


wildlife





7








































8







Niet 2010)


































9

2 METHODOLOGY


















10

































Date Event Topic












11





































12



























13



events




Voorschoten)








types




















14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































6




























and warehousing


between uses


wildlife





7








































8







Niet 2010)


































9

2 METHODOLOGY


















10

































Date Event Topic












11





































12



























13



events




Voorschoten)








types




















14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































7








































8







Niet 2010)


































9

2 METHODOLOGY


















10

































Date Event Topic












11





































12



























13



events




Voorschoten)








types




















14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































8







Niet 2010)


































9

2 METHODOLOGY


















10

































Date Event Topic












11





































12



























13



events




Voorschoten)








types




















14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































9

2 METHODOLOGY


















10

































Date Event Topic












11





































12



























13



events




Voorschoten)








types




















14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































10

































Date Event Topic












11





































12



























13



events




Voorschoten)








types




















14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































11





































12



























13



events




Voorschoten)








types




















14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































12



























13



events




Voorschoten)








types




















14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































13



events




Voorschoten)








types




















14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































14













serious game









studies









CBA











with prof Bos

15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































15


heritage



valuation process


















the country











should be addressed




16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































16


use by the user





































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































17



four




influence













the instrument




18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































18



estates (Figure 3)

























19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































19



20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































20











21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































21


Base maps

Thematic maps

Value maps





datasets used)








context







Value Thematic map













22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included

The thematic value maps of Table 3 () were predefined and included in the interface




























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































22





23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































23
















landscape values

















Thematic

value maps

Weighted

overlay

Scores Weights


values

User input

24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































24




statistics










landscape










25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































25























Stakeholdersrsquo

landscape

values

Narrative

maps

Predefined

thematic value

maps

Discussion

Value

identification

Scores

Weights


Values

26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































26





maps were included





























Value maps

Composite

map

Discussion

conflict

identification

Insights into

areas of

conflict


27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































27




of geoprocessing














Map layer Feedback

View shed panoramas



28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































28































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































29























30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































30



research question 4


































User interface

MapBox API

Tile server

MapBox or

Tilestream

Geodata

Shapefile GeoTiff

MBtiles


31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































31








32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































32



61 DISCUSSION

































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































33







particular area












maps



















discussion






34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































34






discussion






A tile server

Geodata





























35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































35









of the research













archaeology)



correctly


correctly

36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































36






















37






















respectively































































































2006)
































37






















respectively































































































2006)









































respectively































































































2006)

































































































2006)
































DialogueMaps: GIS instrument for landscape valuation (august, 2014)

Documents

Transcript of DialogueMaps: GIS instrument for landscape valuation (august, 2014)