Landscape visualisation and climate change: the potential

for influencing perceptions and behaviour

Stephen R.J. Sheppard

Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP), Department of Forest Resources and Landscape Architecture,

University of British Columbia, 2045-2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4

Abstract

The urgent need to mitigate and adapt to climate change is becoming more widely understood in scientific and policy circles, but public

awareness lags behind. The potential of visual communication to accelerate social learning and motivate implementation of the substantial

policy, technological, and life-style changes needed, has begun to be recognised. In particular, realistic landscape visualisations may offer

special advantages in rapidly advancing peoples’ awareness of climate change and possibly affecting behaviour and policy, by bringing certain

possible consequences of climate change home to people in a compelling manner. However, few such applications are yet in use, the

theoretical basis for the effectiveness of visualisations in this role has not been clearly established, and there are ethical concerns elicited by

adopting a persuasive approach which deliberately engages the emotions with visual imagery. These questions and policy implications are

discussed in the context of a theoretical framework on the effects of landscape visualisation on a spectrum of responses to climate change

information, drawing in part on evidence from other applications of landscape visualisation. The author concludes that the persuasive use of

visualisations, together with other approaches, may be effective, is justified, and could be vital in helping communicate climate change

effectively, given ethical standards based on disclosure, drama, and defensibility.

# 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654

1. Introduction

This paper addresses the potential role of realistic

visualisation tools in rapidly increasing peoples’ awareness

of climate change and possibly affecting behaviour and

policy, together with associated ethical dilemmas.

1.1. The need for increased public awareness and policy

response on climate change

Evidence of climate change and its impacts on society and

the environment have becomegenerally accepted by scientists

(Pearce et al., 1996; IPCC, 2001), along with the importance

of mitigating and adapting to climate change (Fawcett et al.,

2002; Adger, 2003). However, public awareness and policy

changes are lagging behind. Boardman and Palmer (2003)

found low levels of ‘carbon consciousness’ among European

consumers and businesses, and Lorenzoni and Langford

E-mail address: Stephen.Sheppard@ubc.ca.

1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.08.002

(2001) reported that the majority of their study participants

were not concerned about climate change.Many authors have

addressed the substantial gap between the possession of

environmental knowledge or behavioural intent and actual

pro-environmental behaviour (e.g. Kollmuss and Agyeman,

2002). In some countries, organisations such as the UK

Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP, 2000a) have been set

up to address this gap through education and communication.

Tickell (2002) has summarised the difficulties in com-

municating climate change (discussed further below), and

warned that it may require a calamity to induce people and

governments to take the necessary radical actions. The

principal question therefore becomes: what are the most

effective ways to stimulate climate change mitigation and

adaptation behaviours in society before crises occur, and

reduce harm to the environment and society? The main

hypothesis examined in this paper is that certain kinds of

visual communication (i.e. realistic landscape visualisations)

which attempt to look into the future and which engage the

emotions, may substantially enhance awareness-building on

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

Fig. 1. Example of a conceptual or abstract 3D visualisation (showing

terrain and elevation). Credit: John Lewis, CALP, UBC. Reproduced from

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

Guide for First Nations and Rural Communities, courtesy of Sustainable

Forest Management Network, Canada.

various complexities and implications of climate change, and

may help motivate behavioural change at the individual to

societal levels (Sheppard, 2004). Since few such visualisa-

tions addressing climate change have yet been produced or

subjected to research evaluation, this paper attempts a

proactive, systematic analysis of their potential, informed by

early precedents. It is recognised that many more abstract,

statistical, or iconic aspects of climate and related landscape

change may not be readily communicated with realistic

landscape visualisation, and other more conventional tools

may be needed in addition.

As background to the discussion of visualisation

applications to climate change issues, this section provides

a brief rationale for using visual imagery, and landscape

visualisation in particular, in promoting environmental

awareness and behaviour.

1.2. The rationale for using visual imagery and

visualisation to raise environmental awareness and

influence behaviour

Human responses to environments and visual displays

can be broadly categorised as cognitive (related to knowl-

edge and understanding), affective (related to feelings,

attitudes, and emotions), behavioural (related to changes in

behaviour of the viewer), and physiological (biological or

physical effects on the observer’s body) (Zube et al., 1982).

The latter type of response is not considered further in this

paper. Perception is defined here as the process of seeing or

otherwise perceiving phenomena, leading to particular

responses or states which include both cognitive and

affective outcomes. The focus of the paper is primarily

on individual perceptions, individual behavioural responses,

and organisational behaviour (i.e. policy).

The ability of visual imagery to communicate messages

quickly and powerfully has long been recognised in fields of

human activity ranging from commercial advertising, to the

media, to political campaigns: seeing is believing. The

cognitive advantages of visual information over written or

verbal information have been widely documented (e.g.

Tufte, 1990), for example, when mentally visualising

conditions that cannot be seen directly in the real world

(e.g. famines in remote countries, or the design of a proposed

building). Visual stimuli can also trigger innate and instant

reflexes and feelings which can be persistent even in the face

of new information (Slovic et al., 2002); Zajonc (1984) has

termed this the ‘‘primacy of affect’’ over cognition. Visual

imagery can therefore be a powerful tool to reach people’s

emotional side, as witnessed in the more dramatic imagery

from the news media. Imagery (visual or otherwise) which

triggers affective responses has been shown to improve

cognition in some cases (Winn, 1997), and to influence

people’s decision-making (Slovic et al., 2002). Clearly, the

intent of some visual imagery is not just to inform or engage

emotionally, but also to influence people’s behaviour, as in

advertising and public service health announcements.

Community-based social marketing using such techniques

has proved effective in bringing about behaviour change

(McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999; Kollmuss and Agyeman,

2002).

Among the various forms of visual imagery available, 3D

visualisations present special characteristics which help

demonstrate consequences of environmental change in a

compelling manner. Scientific information is commonly

communicated by forms of data visualisation such as charts,

diagrams, maps, graphics, and 3D computer models (Cox,

1990; MacEachren and Ganter, 1990). These 2D and 3D

representations are often somewhat abstract or simplified

(Fig. 1). Landscape visualisation, sometimes referred to as

visual simulation or landscape modelling (Ervin and

Hasbrouck, 2001), represents actual places and on-the-

ground conditions in 3D perspective views (Fig. 2), often

with fairly high realism (Sheppard and Salter, 2004). These

specific forms of virtual reality are now typically computer-

generated in three or four dimensions, and can convey

detailed information on the assumed future appearance of

environments (sky, terrain, buildings, and vegetation). This

amounts to a unique form of visual communication,

conveying information in the dominant form to which the

human species is genetically adapted (i.e. visual land-

scapes), but capable of showing future worlds as they would

be seen if the viewer were actually there. Historically,

landscape visualisations have been used primarily in urban

design and impact assessment (Porter, 1979; Sheppard,

1989; Bosselmann, 1998). GIS-based methods for landscape

visualisation (Appleton et al., 2002) are now being applied

more broadly to depict alternative future scenarios for

visioning, public input, and decision-making (Tress and

Tress, 2002; Steinitz et al., 2003; Sheppard and Meitner,

2005).

Nicholson-Cole (2005) describes the promise of land-

scape visualisation in conveying strong messages quickly,

condensing complex information, engaging people in issues

of environmental change, and motivating personal action.

However, we lack comprehensive knowledge and integrative

theories to validate, explain, and predict a broad range of

responses to landscape visualisations (Appleyard, 1977;

Sheppard, 2001). These techniques also harbour risks and

key limitations, and there are a number of ethical and

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

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

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

professional issues raised by attempts to influence behaviour

using visual imagery. It is therefore important to consider

carefully available evidence and theoretical arguments for

the effectiveness and ethics of using visualisation on climate

change issues, in order to avoid false expectations, critique

the inevitable use of visualisations of climate change, and

guide further research.

1.3. Scope and structure of paper

These issues are discussed in the context of an initial

theoretical framework on the possible effects of landscape

visualisations on human responses to climate change; thus,

Section 2 addresses the question: ‘‘Can landscape visualisa-

tion deliver on improving awareness and stimulating action

on climate change?’’ Section 3 examines dilemmas relating

to such use, essentially addressing the question: ‘‘Should we

use landscape visualisations to engage the emotions and

influence behaviour, and if so, how?’’ Possible approaches

are described involving ethical standards for use of

visualisations in a persuasive role on climate change,

resulting policy implications, and research priorities.

Visualisation can have multiple roles in society: in

entertainment, planning and decision-support, education,

and research on public perceptions. In this paper, the focus is

on visualisations as awareness-building tools and potential

change agents in fostering action by both the general public

and policy-makers, although with more emphasis on

individual behaviour. In the context of climate change,

the most urgent applications address the need for

behavioural change to mitigate climate change, though

the ideas discussed in this paper apply equally to adaptation

priorities.

While the focus is on landscape visualisation, it is

understood that in reality a combination of techniques and

influences will be required to effect societal change on

climate change; the attempt made here is to articulate the

additional or value-added contributions of visualisation

within the toolset. In the rest of this paper, the term

‘visualisation’ refers to landscape visualisation, unless

otherwise noted.

2. A theoretical framework for the impact of

visualisation on awareness, attitudes, andbehaviour in relation to climate change

This section addresses the issue of whether landscape

visualisation can be expected to impact awareness,

individual behaviour, and policy. We briefly consider

theoretical concepts, available evidence, and experience

from professional practice, relating to people’s responses to

general environmental issues presented via landscape

visualisation. Then, we consider how this knowledge on

visualisation can be applied to the question of people’s

responses to climate change.

2.1. Human responses to landscape visualisations

Some of the potential benefits promised by landscape

visualisation techniques in the arena of awareness-building,

behaviour change, and environmental decision-making can

be summarised as in Table 1. These benefits include both

self-evident capabilities (e.g. the ability to depict alternative

future scenarios side by side) and theorised influences on

people’s responses (e.g. increased engagement and per-

ceived salience). However, despite the widespread use of

landscape visualisations in planning and design, findings on

responses to them are generally not scientifically docu-

mented or comprehensive (Sheppard, 2001; Lange, 2001;

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654640

Table 1

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

Integration of science

and intuition

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

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

that may help strengthen more informed perspectives in decision-making

Engagement of lay-people The attractiveness of virtual reality and its novel applications to conventional planning problems may be helpful

in getting multiple stakeholders to engage in public processes (Sheppard and Meitner, 2005; Nicholson-Cole, 2005)

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

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

Presentation of choices

for the future

The ability to present alternative futures side-by-side and over time, posing ‘what-if’ questions (Steinitz et al., 2003)

in the search for preferred or acceptable environmental solutions over the long term

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

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

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

Sheppard and Salter, 2004), and there is clear potential for

offsetting disadvantages (discussed below).

Most recent visualisation evaluation studies focus on

direct self-report evaluation of the tools, and here there is

considerable evidence of their usability or perceived

communications effectiveness (Bengtsson et al., 1997; Al-

Kodmany, 2000; Appleton and Lovett, 2003; Sheppard and

Meitner, 2005), including the ability to engage lay-people

(Lewis and Sheppard, in press) (Fig. 3). Some research has

evaluated effects on cognition, but mostly with somewhat

abstract forms of visualisation (MacEachren and Ganter,

1990; Al-Kodmany, 2000), which can be helpful in

explaining concepts, ecological processes, and overall

environmental conditions not easily expressed in text or

data tables. Winn (1997) has argued that more complex,

interactive 3D virtual reality displays may provide

qualitatively and quantitatively superior forms of learning

on environmental science and global change issues.

Researchers have found that visualisation can demonstrate

cognitive advantages over other media (e.g. Furness et al.,

1998; Danahy, 2001), though MacEachren (2001) notes that

learning may be hampered by the virtual devices used to

attract and sustain attention. We should also be careful to

discriminate between learning quickly (widely reported in

practice) and learning correctly, which is seldom measured

Fig. 3. The impact of imagery: substantially increased dialogue was obtained with

using realistic landscape visualisations, compared with using simple GISmaps.Cre

permission of Sustainable Forest Management Network.

(MacEachren and Ganter, 1990; Winn, 1997; Lewis, 2000;

Salter, 2005).

Daniel and Meitner (2001) have described several studies

which show that visualisations can arouse positive or

negative emotional reactions in observers. Few studies have

attempted to measure the intensity of emotional reaction,

though practical experience suggests public reactions to

visualisations can sometimes be vehement. A few studies

have evaluated the ability of visualisations to match the

affective and related experiential and evaluative responses

obtained from real world environments (e.g. Bosselmann

and Craik, 1987; Sheppard, 1989, 2001; Meitner and Daniel,

1997; Bishop and Rohrmann, 2003), with mixed results.

Zube et al. (1982) and Bishop and Rohrmann (2003)

nonetheless believe that the greater the realism, the more

similar the responses will be to real life.

Very few studies have been carried out on the behavioural

impacts of landscape visualisation, either during the

exposure to the visualisation material or afterwards. Some

experiments have evaluated behavioural actions such as

pathway choices in a virtual environment (Bishop et al.,

2001), or tracked behaviour in collaborative immersive

settings during planning workshops (Campbell and Salter,

2004). Orland (1992, p. 259) has speculated that visualisa-

tions may be used ‘‘in a more persuasive mode to motivate

members of a First Nation community on resource management issues when

dit: John Lewis, CALP, UBC. Courtesy of CheamBand, BC. Reproduced by

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654 641

people to do something about the impact being represented,’’

as happens with photography, film, and television media.

McKenzie-Mohr and Smith (1999) provide numerous

examples of visual information which, with other commu-

nity-based social marketing techniques, can influence

sustainable behaviour or adaptation if they are vivid,

personal, and concrete.

Interactions between cognitive, affective, and beha-

vioural responses may help explain visual triggers to

behavioural responses. Slovic et al. (2002, p. 398) state that

‘‘many theorists have given affect a direct and primary role

in motivating behaviour.’’ They review evidence that more

vivid and sensational narratives associated with feelings

rather than cognition have more influence on risk

behaviours. This suggests that introducing compelling

visual evidence that is readily translatable into personal

risks or implications can be more successful in strengthening

motivations to change behaviour than cognitive information

alone. Maiteny (2002) argues that behavioural change to

support sustainability can only take place when the

individual has gone through a deep-rooted personal

transformation, as in experiential learning processes.

Sheppard (2004) and Nicholson-Cole (2005) speculate that

the strength and symbolic emotive content of visualisation

imagery may motivate people to act in a more sustainable

manner. However, it must be recognised that both the forms

of and causal influences on environmentally significant

behaviour are very complex, varying with pre-determined

attitudes, individual capability, context, etc. (Stern, 2000),

and therefore the effectiveness of any form of external

intervention such as visualisations, on their own, may be

limited by other factors.

There is also the important issue of how the use of

visualisation could influence relevant policy, either directly

through presentations to key decision-makers and policy-

makers or indirectly through public opinion and collective

individual actions. Again, however, there is little scientific

information on such policy responses in the visualisation

literature. There is some evidence from perception studies

using visualisation which indicate differing levels of

acceptability of various resource management scenarios

(e.g. Sheppard and Meitner, 2005; Ribe, 2005), although the

practical linkages between judgements of unacceptability in

research and actual policy impacts in the real world have not

been widely demonstrated. Professional practice does

provide anecdotal examples suggesting sometimes profound

effects of visualisation on government behaviour: for

example, computer visualisations of potential housing

development under the Official Community Plan in Maple

Ridge, BC, when shown to members of the city council,

caused such surprise and negative reaction that the council

initiated a process to develop sustainable community plans

with a very different footprint.

Overall, many dimensions of visualisation use and

subsequent human response (especially behavioural) are

not well understood, and we should be wary of generalizing

too broadly (Bosselmann and Craik, 1987). There would

however seem to be advantages in engagement and

cognition, with some evidence of emotional arousal and

the potential to affect behaviour on environmental issues.

2.2. Applications of landscape visualisation to the

problem of climate change

So, can visualisation, in combination with other

information sources/media, affect human responses to

climate change? To address this question systematically,

we need to consider the specific context of society’s

perceptions of climate change, before developing a

conceptual framework of how visualisation may relate to

these perceptions.

2.2.1. Perceptions of climate change

The potential for visualisation in relation to climate

change can be considered in terms of:

� p

erceptual characteristics and difficulties relating to

climate change itself;

� p

otential and observed responses of people and agencies

to climate change, and observed gaps between awareness

and behaviour;

� e

arly precedents for responses to imagery and visualisa-

tion of climate change-related phenomena.

The characteristics of climate change make it difficult to

see directly. Carbon dioxide and even the carbon source

itself is effectively invisible. There is potential to recognise

some quite tangible visual or landscape-related effects of

climate change, such as sea-level rise, flooding, or drought (a

typology of such effects is provided below). However,

Tickell (2002) has described the problems of communicat-

ing change which occurs over long time periods and which

carries uncertain and uncomfortable future consequences.

Winn (1997) and Nicholson-Cole (2005) have described the

scale, complexity, and abstraction of climate change as

challenges to communication. This is exacerbated by

problems of media coverage, ranging from down-playing

the issue (Monbiot, 2004) to ‘‘inappropriate use of model

predictions, inaccurate representations of physical pro-

cesses, false associations of unrelated phenomena, and use

of emotion-laden language’’ (Furness et al., 1998, p. 19). It is

also difficult to relate global or national figures on climate

change to local scales (Furness et al., 1998), and there are as

yet few reliable predictions for local climate effects or

spatially explicit consequences at high levels of resolution,

other than for sea-level rise. It is therefore difficult for

individuals to relate their actions (good or bad) to the larger

context of climate change (Sheppard, 2004; Nicholson-Cole,

2005).

Information has begun to flow on the nature of

conceptualisations of and human responses to climate

change. Several researchers report evidence of persistent

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654642

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

thickness at the South Pole over a 150 year period, where white represents

the thickest ice and the red line depicts the maximum extent of 1cm thick

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

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

fic credits: Mark Holland, CGD/NCAR; Cecilia Bitz, U. Washington; Bruce

Briegleb, CGD/NCAR; Elizabeth Hunke, LANL; Bill Lipscomb, LANL;

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

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

NCAR/SCD. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure

legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

misconceptions of climate change, e.g. confusing clean air

or ozone-layer issues with climate change (e.g. Furness

et al., 1998; Boardman and Palmer, 2003). Kollmuss and

Agyeman (2002) and Lorenzoni and Langford (2001)

describe various types of barrier or gaps between percep-

tions/intentions and behaviour conducive to climate change

mitigation, including gaps in cognition and awareness

(ignorance), gaps between knowledge and action, and gaps

between intent and action. Lorenzoni and Langford (2001)

identify different perspectives that people adopt when

confronted by climate change issues, including denial,

doubt, disinterest, and engagement. Other responses include

confusion, pessimism, guilt, frustration, and, more rarely,

motivation to change behaviour (Kollmuss and Agyeman,

2002; Maiteny, 2002). Nicholson-Cole (2005) found that a

sample of Norfolk residents expressed their feelings about

climate change in a somewhat negative but abstract, distant

sense, though personal experiences and impacts on local

environments were a common feature of people’s visual

conceptions of climate change. Her results highlight the

influence of popular visual media on the mental imagery of

climate change that respondents held (Nicholson-Cole,

2005), and suggest, in particular, that respondents were most

emotionally affected by national and local imagery, rather

than global. Gaps in behavioural motivation seemed to be

related to difficulties in personalising climate change

(Nicholson-Cole, 2005); respondents felt that they needed

to understand the personal implications of climate change

and be regularly reminded if they were to act. However, it

should be noted that these findings represent self-report data

on behavioural intent, and not actual measured behaviour.

In the context of climate change, visual communications

are beginning to be used to accelerate social learning, and

the possibility of their motivating the substantial policy,

technological, and life-style changes needed has begun to be

recognised. Cohen (1997) used GIS and remote sensing

imagery with other information to communicate climate

change scenarios to Canadian stakeholders, who reported

that the scenarios made a difference in their visions of the

future and potential interventions in policy debates.

Scientific agencies provide animated 3D visualisations of

modelled climate change phenomena seen from space, such

as changes in sea ice over time (Fig. 4), on the web; similar

visualisations of the ‘ozone hole’ are commonly credited

with helping to spur legislation to ban fluorocarbons. New

books on climate change highlight the impacts of climate

change as illustrated with vivid landscape photography of

changing iconic landscapes such as snow-capped volcanoes

and glaciers (Lynas, 2004). There has been much debate

over the recent film entitled ‘‘The Day After Tomorrow’’

which dramatically depicts fictionalized climate change

events (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/

189422p-163828c.html). Lowe et al. (2005) found that

the film, which included spectacular ‘realistic’ visualisations

of weather extremes and sea-level rise threatening the

characters, did result in changes in attitude towards climate

change, with significantly more concern, anxiety, and

motivation to change behaviour, though the latter effect

was short-lived. It appeared, however, that the disaster film

genre, overly dramatic special effects, and the failure to

distinguish fact from fiction amid the high realism, led to

low credibility of the film itself, making inferences for more

scientifically based visualisation difficult to draw.

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654 643

Few visualisations of climate change effects on the

landscape have yet been produced to scientific standards,

and even fewer have yielded results on responses. The

feasibility of using realistic landscape visualisations to

depict climate change is not in question: it can be done quite

simply using limited 2D perspective imagery with photo-

imaging software to depict specific possible consequences of

climate change, or by more sophisticated 3D/4D modelling

of future scenarios with multiple attributes and visualisation

inputs. The ease of manipulating images with convincing

photo-realism is demonstrated in Fig. 5, which depicts a

Fig. 5. Photo-realistic landscape visualisations comparing existing conditions a

Achiam, CALP, UBC.

hypothetical mitigation strategy to reduce fossil fuel usage,

seen from within a real community. Fig. 6 provides

examples of 3D modelling with semi-realistic visualisation

software developed for the Royal Commission on Environ-

mental Pollution, to depict a hypothetical British landscape

in existing conditions and with alternate mitigation

strategies, here seen in birds-eye view. Dockerty et al.

(2005) describe one of the first studies to visualise

scientifically modelled effects of climate change in an

actual rural landscape in Norfolk, at the detailed site level.

Here, local scenarios visualised were developed from the

nd a hypothetical low-carbon future in southern England. Credit: Cecilia

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654644

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

with alternate future scenarios including mitigation strategies featuring

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

The two future scenarios represent two major energy choices (S1 – energy

demands stabilized at 1998 levels; S4 – energy demands at half the 1998

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

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

capacity of small-scale generation to cope with local energy demands.

Credit: Images from ‘‘Visualizing renewable Energy in the Landscape of

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

*S4 scenario uses energy projections from the Royal Commission for

Environmental Pollution.

four basic socio-economic scenarios described by Nakice-

novic and Swart (2000), by applying an agricultural land use

model and locally specific decision-rules and assumptions,

to develop high-resolution 3D visualisations showing

changes in the farming landscape (Fig. 7). However, no

studies of formally collected responses to these visualisa-

tions have yet been published.

In other visualisation-based research on responses to

long-range scenarios for forest management planning

(Sheppard and Meitner, 2005), rural community members

questioned the failure to build in climate change factors to

such models, raising concerns over modelling credibility.

Schroth et al. (2005) used interactive 3D aerial views of

semi-abstract 3D visualisations of the Entlebuch Biosphere

Reserve in Switzerland, to assess qualitatively responses to

retreating snow cover on winter recreation under climate

change modelling assumptions based on topographic

elevation (Fig. 8). When shown to community stakeholders,

the visualisations caused surprise and disquiet, which led

quickly to a new and different discussion of summer

recreation opportunities (Schroth et al., 2005), suggesting

that the medium can stimulate a rapid adaptation response.

2.2.2. Towards a theoretical framework for visualisation

of climate change

Based on a synthesis and simplification of the available

evidence and theoretical arguments discussed above, Fig. 9

presents a conceptual diagram in the form of a spectrum of

possible individual responses to visual information on

climate change, representing different levels of carbon

consciousness and commitment to action on climate change

issues. We can envisage the range of perceptual and

behavioural responses to visual information in the form of an

ordered categorisation moving from a low state of awareness

through to action, which corresponds generally with a

progression from cognitive processing of information,

through emotional responses, to behaviour change. It is

not assumed that each stage on the spectrum is a necessary

precursor for response types further along the spectrum, or

that over time any individual will necessarily move through

the range of responses in this specific linear sequence. For

example, emotional effects may actually precede cognitive

effects from a given presentation, or occur at the same time.

The diagram is presented as a simple way of structuring our

thinking and emerging research programmes on the range of

response types and effects we may look for as the result of

applying visualisations to issues of climate change. It is

recognised that there are many other models of the

motivations and controlling factors on pro-environmental

behaviour, which may not be reflected in this simple

framework.

The responses illustrated here can be related to other

systems of categorising types of respondents, e.g. Lorenzoni

and Langford’s (2001) classification of the deniers,

uninterested, doubters, and engaged; or to Kollmuss and

Agyeman’s (2002) analysis of barriers to pro-environmental

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654 645

Fig. 7. Model-derived 3D visualisations of existing conditions in a Norfolk

agricultural area, with two scenarios under climate change in 2020: a low

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

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

versity of East Anglia. Reproduced from Dockerty et al., 2005, courtesy of

Computers, Environment and Urban Systems.

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

existing ski runs in the Sorenberg area of Switzerland, under current

conditions and after 50 years with climate change, with safe snow elevations

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

data: RAWI Lucerne.

behaviour. The gaps between the stages along the spectrum

represent some of the main gaps between knowledge and

action. However, for visualisation to be judged effective in

addressing climate change, viewers do not need tomove along

the entire length of the spectrum; if visualisation succeeds at

any one of these levels, e.g. in reducing ignorance or denial,

then this should be beneficial, particularly if it is more

effective than other forms of communication. The response

spectrum suggests that the early stages along the spectrum

may be more straightforward to achieve with visualisation

than the upper stages: the ability of pictures to convey

information is well accepted, whereas the ability to impact

behaviour is much less certain.

In order to bridge the various kinds of perceptual or

behavioural gap shown in Fig. 9, it would seem that different

forms of visualisation may be required, as suggested in

Fig. 10. In improving understanding of climate change, we

may expect that more conceptual 3D visualisations may be

appropriate, through simplification and focus on the most

cogent information such as overall CO2 cycles, shifts in

biogeoclimatic zones, or cumulative effects. Cognitively

effective landscape visualisation might focus on augmenting

reality to make the invisible visible, making the abstract

tangible, collapsing long time scales into short periods, and

easily switching between different scales (Winn, 1997;

Furness et al., 1998). Clarity of message and of depicted

conditions appears important in effective cognition (Shep-

pard, 1989; Nicholson-Cole, 2005). While realism may not

be necessary for (and may in some cases detract from)

cognition, Furness et al. (1998, p. 13) believe that, in most

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654646

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

climate change.

cases, ‘‘. . . realistic representation will lead to more direct

and more robust knowledge construction.’’ Experience has

already shown that the novelty or interest in computer

visualisations can attract people and engage them in

collaborative learning processes (Winn, 1997; Campbell

and Salter, 2004; Sheppard and Meitner, 2005).

In order to reach the emotional side of viewers, the

following additional attributes of visualisation would appear

to be important:

� R

ealism, in the sense of photo-realistic or ‘lifelike’

imagery in re-creating experiential qualities (Appleyard,

1977) and making abstract concepts ‘concrete’’ (McKen-

zie-Mohr and Smith, 1999).

� D

epicting personally relevant environments, such as local

and recognisable neighbourhoods (Nicholson-Cole,

2005), or iconic, well-known landscape symbols to which

people can relate (Sheppard, 2004). It is well known in the

environmental psychology literature that familiar land-

scapes tend to be associated with stronger and more

positive affective responses (e.g. Kaplan and Herbert,

1988), and as noted above, people seem most affected by

personal implications of climate change (McKenzie-

Mohr and Smith, 1999; Nicholson-Cole, 2005).

� I

mmediacy: near-term conditions (Lorenzoni and Lang-

ford, 2001) or possibly longer term conditions made to

seem nearer term through speeding up time, combined

with meaningful future considerations such as their

neighbourhood as seen by the viewers’ grand-children.

� C

ontaining images of people, animals, or other symbols

with strong affective content (Nicholson-Cole, 2005).

� D

emonstrating the future consequences of people’s

actions or inactions (Furness et al., 1998).

In theory, behaviour change may require emotional and

cognitive attributes described above, but intensified to be

vivid, memorable, and transformative (McKenzie-Mohr and

Smith, 1999; Maiteny, 2002): ‘‘a compelling virtual

environment will likely heighten (people’s) motivation to

act responsibly’’ (Furness et al., 1998, p. 28). Both Winn

(1997) and Furness et al. (1998) argue that vivid and

compelling visualisations can be obtained through a range of

techniques, notably:

� i

mmersion in a virtual environment: large images and

panoramic ‘wrap-around’ displays can increase the sense

of presence (Furness et al., 1998), engagement (Apple-

yard, 1977), and intensity of experience (Sheppard et al.,

2001);

� d

ynamic or animated imagery that increases enthusiasm

and engagement (e.g. Dykes, 2000) and/or provides

freedom of virtual movement for the viewer (Orland and

Uusitalo, 2001);

� i

nteractivity with the displayed data in real-time, to

increase engagement (Orland and Uusitalo, 2001; Camp-

bell and Salter, 2004; Schroth et al., 2005).

Beyond media attributes, the content of the climate

change message also appears critical if behaviour is to be

influenced. McKenzie-Mohr and Smith (1999) argue that

messages which emphasize environmental losses due to

inaction are consistently more persuasive than those which

simply emphasize benefits of action; such threats should be

combined with positive implications of action to overcome

the barrier of helplessness which might otherwise afflict

viewers (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Nicholson-Cole

(2005) stresses the importance of tailoring the visualisation

material to the target audience in light of the variability in

human responses: this can be interpreted as identifying the

most applicable stage on the response spectrum for the target

audience in selecting the appropriate visualisation stimulus.

A more systematic discussion of approaches to the content

of visualisations addressing aspects of climate change is

provided in Section 3.2.

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654 647

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

In summary, therefore, there is strong evidence of the

cognitive effectiveness of visualising global change, and a

strong likelihood of the ability to engender emotional

responses. It also appears theoretically possible that the use

of landscape visualisation could affect behaviour with regard

to climate change, if the imagery provides: (1) disclosure: a

window into the future which is personally meaningful and

tangible, making the global both local and personal, showing

possible negative and positive outcomes; (2) drama: a vivid

and compelling presentation with emotional content. How-

ever, the behavioural part of the theoretical response spectrum

(Fig. 10) is mostly in doubt and in need of testing. Developing

theories on the potential of visualisations to influence attitudes

and behaviour must also recognise that their effectiveness

would be dependent on many factors including the intended

purpose of the exercise (i.e. nature of response sought), socio-

cultural and environmental context, the type of audience, and

the contribution of other forms of information.

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

change

In this section we turn our attention to the ethical

questions: ‘Should we use visualisations for the purpose of

persuasion, and if so, how?’ Is there a ‘right’ way to do this?

3.1. Risks and dilemmas in using visualisation of

climate change

Attemptsdeliberately toharness thepowerofvisualisations

to influence behaviour, what Luymes (2001) describes as the

rhetoric of visual simulation, have radical policy implications

in terms of visualisation use and the role of the presenter. The

conventional role of visualisation as an informative tool in

decisionsupport is associatedwith the supposedneutral roleof

science in not imposing value judgements on the public.

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654648

Arguments for a more deliberate attempt to use

visualisation to influence the public or impact government

policy emphasize the need to forestall an actual crisis in the

environment as an over-riding imperative. A persuasive

approach should not necessarily be equated with inaccurate

or distorted visualisations: visualisations properly prepared

can simply disclose the truth, which may itself be

persuasive. In fact, it could be argued that visualisations

which disclose possible futures are less misleading than not

using them, and there may be an obligation to disclose the

truth to those who cannot or will not see. Luymes (2001) has

advocated the use of powerful visualisation tools to shape

public values on sustainability. History is replete with

examples of the inability of cultures to foresee the impact of

their actions or inaction: e.g. the use of DDT, fluorocarbons,

and indeed carbon emissions. Precedents do exist for other

kinds of long-term predictions and disclosure of con-

sequences, including environmental impact assessment,

multiple-rotation forest modelling, and biodiversity model-

ling in response to climate change (Berry et al., 2002). There

is also an argument that scientifically produced visualisa-

tions are needed to counter the misinformation propagated

by entertainment media such as the recent film ‘‘The Day

After Tomorrow,’’ while utilizing a similar medium. More

generally, Michaelis (2003) has argued for a government

strategy to change public behaviour on greenhouse gas

emissions through a process of leadership, dialogue, and

facilitation: there would appear to be strong role for

visualisation in helping project ‘‘visions for a sustainable

way of living’’ (Michaelis, 2003, p. S143).

This author concludes that the persuasive use of

visualisations, together with other tools and approaches,

is justified if they can be effective, and may even be vital in

communicating climate change urgently. We should take the

perceptual leap and seek to engage the public’s emotions.

This seems worth doing even if behaviour does not change

immediately, by engaging people to think more seriously

about the future and showing them they have a choice among

alternative futures. This at least would remove the first

barrier of ignorance on the response spectrum of carbon

consciousness and action (Fig. 9).

Once the decision is taken that a policy of persuasive use

of powerful visual imagery can be justified in the fight

against climate change, a second tier of issues becomes

evident. What risks do we take in such usage, how can they

be minimized, and are the resulting risks worth taking?

There are many process decisions and constraints in the

production of any realistic simulated landscape imagery, and

many different problems can result (Sheppard, 1989). There

is space here only for a brief discussion of some of these, as

follows:

1. T

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

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

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

11, 2004; and Glen Taylor.

he risk of biased responses: How can unintentional bias

or deliberate attempts to mislead be prevented?

(McQuillan, 1998; Orland et al., 2001). Winn (1997)

points out that virtual reality media may create their own

misconceptions. There is the risk of aesthetic responses

to visual conditions over-riding more important but non-

visible implications of climate change. Both Luymes

(2001) and Orland and Uusitalo (2001) express concerns

about the high credibility and low transparency of

realistic immersive forms of virtual reality, which foster

sometimes false assumptions of authority, and which

encourage suspension of disbelief in the virtual worlds

depicted. These problems can be increased when

deliberate efforts are made to engage the emotions

(Slovic et al., 2002).

2. T

he risk of disbelief : Lack of credibility (Sheppard, 1989)

of the visualisation imagery or the underlying modelling/

assumptions would seriously damage the effectiveness of

the visualisation exercise. Sheppard and Meitner (2005)

and Schroth et al. (2005) record participants’ concerns

about apparent or potential manipulation of visualisation

imagery to support a particular message. Realistic

visualisations of possible climate change effects

(Fig. 11) which are presented without corresponding

scientific explanations may not be taken seriously. Even

with such information, the necessary disclosure of

massive uncertainty (Webster, 2003) in climate change

and land use projections could itself trigger lack of

confidence in the scientists and their models.

3. T

he risk of confusion: The enormous complexity of

climate change and associated policy options (Keeney

and McDaniels, 2001) could simply confuse people over

the number of visualised scenarios, contingencies,

associated risks, and consequent choices.

4. T

he risk of overkill: Even visual information can become

too much, either through information overload (Orford

et al., 1999) or sheer habituation to what becomes

mundane (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, 1999). There may

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654 649

be different desired levels of stimulus and response

intensity for different purposes, e.g. multiple iterative

exposures to promote better learning versus single sharp

exposures for shock value. Winn (1997) has raised the

fear of the virtual reality medium itself being ‘over-

hyped’ and losing effectiveness.

5. T

he risk of upsetting people: There are differing views on

the desirability and effectiveness of emotional content

(such as fear or unease), leading to negative or defensive

reactions to the issue (Nicholson-Cole, 2005), versus

judicious use to trigger behavioural change (McKenzie-

Mohr and Smith, 1999). Furness et al. (1998) note that

students who become personally engaged in serious

consideration of global change may become very

distressed, raising conflicts between the goal of

‘truthfulness’ and the desire not to upset people.

6. T

he risk of perpetuating the problem by encouraging

acceptance of climate change: What if the visualisation

imagery is valid but simply too subtle to influence

attitudes, or depicts positive imagery that may result from

some aspect of a given climate change scenario?

Dockerty et al. (2005) have generated landscape

visualisations for Norfolk (Fig. 7) showing what some

may consider to be attractive fields of sunflowers which

would replace the existing agricultural crops.

3.2. Ethical standards and policy implications

Given the issues just raised, how should we embark upon

a policy of deliberate use of visualisations to influence

attitudes and behaviour on climate change? The following

sections briefly explore three topics key to the ethical

implementation of visualisations of climate change.

3.2.1. Defensible methodologies for preparing

visualisations

An obvious starting point would be to develop guidelines

for uses of visualisation related to climate change,

appropriate to the needs of public motivation and

decision-making. This would address the principal missing

ingredient beyond disclosure and drama for effective

visualisation of climate change: defensibility. If there is

no overall scientific or logical underpinning of the

visualisations, they are unlikely to change peoples’ minds

or convince policy-makers suspicious of new media.

However, there is little guidance on how much

manipulation or selectivity should be allowed to create

the appropriate kinds of drama while avoiding the pitfalls

described in Section 3.1. What accuracy or response validity

standards can be applied when visualisations represent

predictions of unknowable futures? Should accuracy be

measured against likelihood or feasibility of occurrence, or

as veracity to the modelled outcomes? Towhat degree would

existing conventions developed for typical uses of landscape

visualisation in design and planning apply to the special

circumstances of climate change mitigation and adaptation?

Sheppard (2001, 2005) has proposed a code of ethics for

visualisation which identifies the following principles or

criteria that may be relevant to climate change applications:

accuracy of visualisation relative to expected conditions;

representativeness of views in space and time; visual clarity

of presentations; interest and engagement of the audience/

users; legitimacy or accountability of the visualisation,

including transparency of data and of the production

process, and delivery of visualisations by a trusted source

(Sheppard and Meitner, 2005; Nicholson-Cole, 2005); and

accessibility of the visualisations to the public and potential

users.

Other ethical and policy issues of particular concern to

climate change are likely to include:

� R

epresenting uncertainty, e.g. through presentation

devices (Dockerty et al., 2005) or through multiple

alternative visualisations per given scenario as a form of

sensitivity testing (Appleyard, 1977; Sheppard, 2001,

2004).

� D

own-scaling from global, regional, or even local climate

change scenarios: we need robust ways of developing

decision rules for visualising the detailed landscape

conditions necessary for personal engagement and local

recognition, but based on very broad land use or

environmental scenarios with limited resolution data-sets

(e.g. UKCIP, 2000b; Dockerty et al., 2005).

� P

resentation of non-visible conditions (in the visualisa-

tion and with other media) to mediate and augment the

visible aspects of climate change, through a blend

(Fig. 12) of realism (in this case, individual trees on

the hillside) and abstraction (e.g. false colour).

� P

ermissible types of drama, including dramatic content

such as forest die-back or the effects of extreme storms,

dramatic viewing conditions such as animated ‘fly-bys’

and unusual lighting, or dramatic display formats such as

stereo vision, big screens, and panoramic angles of view.

One defensible policy on permissible drama would

perhaps be that a defined ‘reality’ remains the guide: for

example, animated large-screen panoramic imagery of a

future landscape may be both dramatic and legitimate if it

conveys the expected appearance at the actual image size

and angle of view with which it would be seen in the

neighbourhood, but not if it exaggerated the effects of

climate change, gave a magnified view of the landscape

features affected, or selectively left out key elements.

However, the type of decision or response required does

need to be taken into account, and cognitive awareness, as

suggested in Fig. 10, may require the very types of omission

or abstraction that could be misleading with the experiential

response. Ensuring that multiple media are used, retaining

the cognitive information along with the realistic experi-

ential media (e.g. 3D landscape models augmented with

draped polygons and labels) may reduce the risk, together

with disclosing anymanipulation of suppression of data. The

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654650

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

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

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

aims of the exercise (e.g. fostering sustainable behaviour)

should also be made explicit at the outset. Allowing the

sceptical user to navigate and interrogate the visualisation

imagery and underlying databases, and to choose their own

viewing conditions or view sequence, may help in assuring

defensibility (Furness et al., 1998; Sheppard and Salter,

2004). Another strategy for building defensibility would be

to ensure effective stakeholder participation in the devel-

opment of socio-economic scenarios, the application of

decision-rules for visualising the scenarios, and even the

process of generating the visualisations (Sheppard and

Salter, 2004).

3.2.2. The content of visualisations of climate change

scenarios

The selection of appropriate global, regional, and local

scenarios to visualisewould be a key strategic decision.While

the IPCC (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000) and various levels of

national and regional governments have developed generic

alternative scenarios for future climate change and adaptation

(e.g. UKCIP, 2000b), systematic mechanisms for down-

scaling these to local landscapes are needed. This usually

means accepting the limited range and assumptions inherent

in the internationally or nationally selected generic scenarios,

although none of the seminal IPCC scenarios currently

contemplates substantial short-term reductions in carbon

emissions to reduce future climate change risks (UKCIP,

2002). Visualisation of these scenarios alone might be

mistaken by the public as expressing the full range of possible

solutions, rather than what some may see as a limited and

politically influenced subset. Such scenarios do not articulate

estimated long-term benefits of a radical short-term approach

to climate change mitigation, relative to a slower response

which effectively endorses additional discretionary carbon

emissions. Mechanisms for developing and analyzing

additional visualisation scenarios which can be derived

independently from the global scenarios might therefore be

strategically advisable.

There may be other reasons to develop independent

scenarios for visualisation purposes. These could address

specific local environmental or cultural issues which would

be more meaningful to local planners and communities, and

require less work to link to much larger multi-dimensional

global or regional scenarios and modelling systems. The

challenge would lie in still having these visual scenarios be

credible. One approach would involve local stakeholders in

the scenario generation process, though this may become

constrained by the participants’ inability or unwillingness to

consider the more radical alternatives posed by climate

change (Berry, 2005). Another possibility is to assume

certain likely conditions, based on prior scientific analysis,

without detailed linkages of visualisation to complex

modelling systems. For example, there is a strong likelihood

in the dry Okanagan basin of BC that increasing drought

conditions will continue or get worse under regional climate

predictions (Cohen et al., 2004), leading to more widespread

forest die-back; even without specific modelling, visualisa-

tion that shows the possibility of 80% die-off of forest trees

at some point in the lifetime of current middle-aged

residents of the area, generated with the advice of recognised

experts and with appropriate caveats on the general

uncertainties, may not be too speculative. In such

circumstances, there is a limited set of visual possibilities:

more of the trees turn brown or all the trees turn brown. It

may be sufficient to say: ‘we are not sure which of these

futures will occur, but you should be prepared for all of

them,’ in order to stimulate adaptation behaviour. Much

more thought needs to be given to this issue, and where to

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654 651

Table 2

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

Climate change impact type Capability to be visualised realisticallya

Often readily apparent

or imageable to lay-viewer

at landscape level

Visually subtle or invisible

(requiring augmented realism)

at landscape level

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

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

depending on whether time-lapse visualisations are used.

draw the line between defensible (though not necessarily

quantifiable) depictions of possible futures, and less

scientific, alarmist scenarios.

A range of climate change impacts would lend

themselves to disclosure in visualisations of a future local

landscape, depending on the geographic conditions of the

area. Table 2 provides an initial typology of climate change

effects, with an initial categorisation of how readily they

could be expressed in realistic landscape visualisations: an

initial indication of their potential for visual drama or

meaningful communication in that medium. One use of

such a classification would be to identify those phenomena

which are not well suited to portrayal by landscape

visualisations and where other media need to be used.

Issues in attempting to represent future climate-influenced

conditions in visualisations include conditions or events

which have occurred before but which now occur with

different frequency or timing, and the importance of

threshold conditions (e.g. tree death and dam-failure) that

are more visibly demonstrated than more subtle and gradual

changes.

In the context of motivating behavioural change at the

policy level, the potential content of visualisation imagery

need not be limited to the direct impacts of climate change

on the local environment and community (as shown in

Table 2 and Fig. 8). It might also be effective cognitively and

affectively to visualise:

� t

he root causes of climate change and sources of carbon

entering the ecosystem cycle, e.g. oil wells and coal

mines;

� m

echanisms of GHG emission into the atmosphere, e.g.

powerplants, vehicles, and houses;

� i

ndirect impact through adaptation, e.g. raised dykes for

flood abatement, changed agricultural land-use, or

logging to reduce fire-risk;

� m

itigation measures to reduce climate change and CO2

emissions, e.g. proposed low energy transportation

systems, dispersed renewable energy sources, houses

with energy-generating technology, etc. (Fig. 5).

3.3. Research priorities

Research programmes to support such usage of visualisa-

tion would need to address:

1. E

mpirical testing of visualisation to support or adapt

the theoretical framework of effects on the response

spectrum, and especially, effects on behaviour. This

should combine more psychological research on

climate change perception and behaviour (e.g. Lor-

enzoni and Langford, 2001) with classical environ-

mental perception research methods using controlled

visual landscape imagery as stimuli (e.g. Daniel and

Meitner, 2001).

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654652

2. E

xploration of ethical issues through policy debate and

initial case studies developed especially to illuminate

these difficult questions.

3. S

cientific monitoring of real-world projects or processes

of long-term planning, resource modelling, and climate

change adaptation, where these address alternative

futures as mediated by landscape visualisation-based

tools or related visual imagery. This would track actual

consequences of the use of visualisations on learning and

behaviour.

Such a combined programmewould help to identify some

of the underlying triggers for attitudinal or behavioural

change on climate change policy and life-styles, as well as

risks and benefits of particular visualisation approaches. It

would also be instructive to evaluate the effect of

visualisations relative to other policy and communication

tools.

Visualisation research could be built into ongoing studies

focused on people’s reactions to possible climate change

strategies and mitigation approaches, e.g. alternative

technologies for house construction and energy sources

(Fawcett et al., 2002). With an appropriate research design,

landscape visualisations (e.g. Fig. 5) being used as

surrogates for real world conditions in determining

preferences or acceptability of possible climate change

strategies could provide additional research results on the

performance/effects of alternative visualisation methods.

Research programmes which are using landscape visualisa-

tion stimuli for perception research on planning issues could

also be retuned to address climate change issues.

4. Conclusions

There is an alarming gap between awareness and action on

climate change. Fawcett et al. (2002) admit that ‘‘Appropriate

policy on energy use and carbon emissions would only have a

small part to play in the social revolution which would be

needed to achieve voluntary acceptance of reduced con-

sumption levels’’ (p. 80). Emerging techniques of landscape

visualisation promise considerable improvements over other

media in communicating some climate change issues,

fostering social learning, and possibly in influencing popular

perceptions and behaviour on climate change. There is

considerable evidence of the effectiveness of visualisation as a

planning tool and its ability to enhance cognition, but less

research has taken place on responses to realistic landscape

visualisations, especially their behavioural impacts.However,

experience in practice suggests that landscape visualisations

can sometimes have substantial effects on policy, and there is

evidence with other visual media of behavioural effects

through engaging emotional responses.

New immersive and interactive systems offer attractive

possibilities for engagement, awareness building, and

reaching the emotions of the viewer; however, there are

ethical concerns including unrecognised bias in using such

tools. Despite these issues, the rhetoric of visualisation

(Luymes, 2001), applied deliberately and defensibly as a

persuasive force, may be vital in helping to accelerate social

learning, engage the emotions, influence individual beha-

viour, and project the rationale for policy change. The

hypothetical mechanism is realistically and dramatically to

bring home the impacts of future climate change scenarios to

people in their back yard or in other meaningful and iconic

landscapes: ‘making climate change personal.’

A theoretical framework is needed for examining

responses to visualisations of climate change, addressing

their ability to influence people’s hearts, minds, and

behaviour. One possible framework has been outlined in

this paper. However, even if the theorised effects of

visualisation on behaviour are not established and the

framework presented here is not borne out, there may be

advantages in using visualisation to stimulate awareness and

deliberative discourse. We should test carefully every

potentially powerful weapon in the fight against climate

change, especially those which promise rapid results.

Visualisation tools are potentially too powerful either to

be ignored or used without careful consideration. The hope

is that the dilemmas of whether and how to use visualisations

proactively as agents of learning and behavioural change,

can be resolved through development of ethical standards

incorporating the ‘3 Ds’ of visualising climate change:

disclosure, drama, and defensibility.

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the initial inspiration for this

paper and the subsequent review from Dr. David Little of

Arthur D. Little Limited. Dr. Russ Parsons also provided

helpful comments on early drafts. I would like to thank

Green College and the Environmental Change Institute at

Oxford University, and members of The Zuckerman Institute

for Connective Environmental Research (ZICER) at Uni-

versity of East Anglia, for providing venues and/or vital

information contributing to the development of this paper.

Thanks also to Cecilia Achiam for her graphics and

guidance, and to the many CALP members who have

supported me. The preparation of the manuscript was

supported in part by sabbatical funding from the Sustainable

Forest Management Network, Canada.

References

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

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

Al-Kodmany, K., 2000. GIS in the urban landscape: reconfiguring neigh-

bourhood planning and design processes. Landsc. Res. 25 (1), 5–28.

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

scape visualisation from GIS databases: a comparison of approaches,

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

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654 653

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

defining ‘sufficient’ realism for environmental decision-making.

Landsc. Urban Plann. 65, 117–131.

Appleyard, D., 1977. Understanding professional media: issues, theory, and a

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

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

Bengtsson, P., Johansson, C.R., Akselsson, K.R., 1997. Planning working

environment and production by using paper drawings and computer

animation. Ergonomics 40, 334–347.

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

Berry, P.M., Dawson, T.P., Harrison, P.A., Pearson, R.G., 2002. Modelling

potential impacts of climate change on the bioclimatic envelope of

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

Bishop, I.D., Rohrmann, B., 2003. Subjective responses to simulated and

real environments: a comparison. Landsc. Urban Plann. 65, 261–277.

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

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

123.

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

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

Environmental Change Institute, Oxford, UK, 81 pp.

Bosselmann, P., 1998. Representation of Places: Reality and Realism in City

Design. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

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

In: Bechtel, R.B., Marcus, R.W., Michelson, W. (Eds.), Methods in

Environmental and Behaviour Research. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New

York, NY (Chapter 5).

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

Effectiveness of Interactive Visualisations and Real-Time Data Analysis

in Enhancing Participation in Planning Processes. Report Submitted to

Forestry Innovation Investment Forestry Research Programme, Deliver-

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

couver, BC, 32 pp.

Cohen, S.J., 1997. Scientist–stakeholder collaboration in integrated assess-

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

Environ. Model. Assess. 2, 281–293.

Cohen, S.J., Nielsen, D., Welbourn, R. (Eds.), 2004. Expanding the Dia-

logue on Climate Change and Water Management in the Okanagan

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

Food Canada and University of British Columbia. Project A463/433.

Submitted to the Adaptation Liaison Office, Climate Change Impacts

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

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

56.

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

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

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

visualizations: the effect of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty

of forest vistas. J. Environ. Psychol. 21 (1), 61–72.

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

Visualising the potential impacts of climate change on rural landscapes.

Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 29 (3), 297–320.

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

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

Syst. 24, 127–152.

Ervin, S.M., Hasbrouck, H.H., 2001. Landscape Modeling: Digital Tech-

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

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

able Development Group, Environmental Change Institute, University

of Oxford, Oxford, UK, 65 pp.

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

immersive virtual environments on modern pedagogy: global change,

VR and learning. In: Proceedings of Workshops in Seattle, Washington,

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

Technology Lab, University of Washington, Seattle, WA available

online at http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-97-32/, rtf file

accessed June 1, 2004.

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

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

makers. World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva.

Kaplan, R., Herbert, E.J., 1988. Familiarity and preference: a cross-cultural

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

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

NY, pp. 379–389.

Keeney, R.L., McDaniels, T.L., 2001. A framework to guide thinking about

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

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

environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environment

behaviour? Environ. Educ. Res. 8 (3), 239–260.

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

Landsc. Urban Plann. 54, 163–182.

Lewis, J.L., 2000. Ancient values, new technology: emerging methods for

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

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

Lewis, J.L., Sheppard, S.R.J. Culture and communication: can landscape

visualisation improve forest management consultation with indigenous

communities? Landsc. Urban Plann., in press.

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

mixed methodological study of public perceptions in Norwich (UK).

CSERGE Working Paper ECM 01-05. CSERGE, Norwich, UK.

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

K.,March 2005. Does tomorrow ever come?Disaster narrative and public

perceptions of climate change. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change

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

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

Some Research Directions. International Union of Forest Research

Organizations (IUFRO) Research Series. CABI International, Wall-

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

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

Oxford, UK.

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

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

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

cartographic visualization. Cartographica 27 (2), 64–81.

Maiteny, P.T., 2002. Mind in the gap: summary of research exploring ‘inner’

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

Res. 8 (3), 299–306.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., Smith, W., 1999. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An

Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing. New Society

Publishers, Gabriola Island, Canada.

McQuillan, A.G., 1998. Honesty and foresight in computer visualizations. J.

Forestry 96 (6), 15–16.

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

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

B. (Ed.), Proceedings of Data Visualization’97, St. Louis, MO.

Michaelis, L., 2003. Sustainable consumption and greenhouse gas mitiga-

tion. Climate Policy 3S1, S135–S146.

Monbiot, G., 2004. Beware the fossil fools. In: The Guardian, Tuesday,

April 27, accessed June 8, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/

0,3604,1204194,00.html.

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

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK.

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

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

Syst. 29 (3), 255–273.

Orford, S., Harris, R., Dorling, D., 1999. Geography: information visualisa-

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

Orland, B., 1992. Evaluating regional changes on the basis of local

expectations: a visualisation dilemma. Landsc. Urban Plann. 21,

257–259.

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

worlds as representations of landscape realities and as tools for land-

scape planning. Landsc. Urban Plann. 54 (1–4), 139–148.

S.R.J. Sheppard / Environmental Science & Policy 8 (2005) 637–654654

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

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

scapes: Linking Sustainability, Ecology, and Aesthetics. International

Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) Research Series.-

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

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

R.K., Tol, R.S., Vellinga, P., 1996. The social costs of climate change:

greenhouse damage and the benefits of control. In: Bruce, J.P., Lee, H.,

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

Dimensions of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cam-

bridge, UK.

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

York, NY.

Ribe, R., 2005. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in

vista views: The interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest

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

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

tion interface for lay-people. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Faculty of

Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

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

tion: applying interactive features in landscape visualizations. Paper

presented at Our Shared Landscape Conference, Ascona, Switzerland,

May 2–6.

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

Engineers, and Planners. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Sheppard, S.R.J., 2001. Guidance for crystal ball gazers: developing a code

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

183–199.

Sheppard, S.R.J., 2004. Making Unsustainability Obvious to the Public.

Green College Environmental Seminar Presentation, Oxford, 4 Febru-

ary.

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

Bishop, I., Lange, E. (Eds.), Visualization in Landscape and Environ-

mental Planning. Taylor and Francis, London, (Chapter 5), pp. 79–97.

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

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

the LANDTECH ASLA/CSLA Annual Meeting, 24 September 2001,

Montreal, Canada. (CD-ROM).

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

visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stake-

holder groups. Forest Ecol. Manage. 207 (1–2), 171–187.

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

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

vier, Oxford, UK, pp. 486–498.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G., 2002. The affect

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

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

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

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

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

Changing Landscapes: The Upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona and

Sonora. Island Press, Washington, DC.

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

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

Tickell, C., 2002. Communicating climate change. Science 297, 737

(Editorial).

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

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

Tufte, E.R., 1990. Envisioning Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT.

UKCIP (Climate Impacts Programme), Mackenzie Hedger, M., Gawith,

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

Change: Assessing the Impacts—Identifying Responses: The First 3

Years of the UK Climate Impacts Programme. UKCIP, Oxford, UK, 123

pp.

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

for Climate Change Impact Assessment: AGuide to their Use in the UK

Climate Impacts Programme. UKCIP, Oxford, UK, 123 pp.

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

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

UK, 112 pp.

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

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

Winn, W., 1997. The Impact of Three-Dimensional Immersive Virtual

Environments on Modern Pedagogy. HITL Technical Report R-97-

15. Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University ofWashington,

Seattle, WA.

Zajonc, R.B., 1984. On the primacy of affect. Am. Psychol. 39 (2), 117–123.

Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape perception: research,

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

Stephen Sheppard teaches in sustainable landscape planning, aesthetics,

and visualisation in the Faculty of Forestry and Landscape Architecture

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

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

PhD in environmental planning at UC, Berkeley. He directs the Collabora-

tive for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP), an interdisciplinary

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

sation to support public awareness and collaborative planning on sustain-

ability issues. He has over 25 years’ experience in environmental

assessment and public participation internationally. He has written or co-

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

scapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability, and Aesthetics,’’ vol. 6, in the

IUFRO Research Series. He is currently contributing to the BC chapter of

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

Current research interests lie in perceptions of climate change, the

aesthetics of sustainability, and visualisation theory and ethics.