The Validity of Visual Surrogates for Representing Waterscapes

Abstract

Visual surrogates have been widely used for solving environment related issues. Researchers now have concern over the validity of surrogates. Human perception is multi-modal (Wohlwill, 1976;Ittelson, 1973) and motion is an essential aspect in the perceptual process (Gibson, 1979). Therefore, a surrogate has to be able to represent the dynamic elements in the environment and more realistically reflect human environmental experience. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of videos and slides as visual surrogates for representing dynamic environment. The validity of the surrogates was verified by comparing subjects' perceptual responses to on-site and simulated situations. The perceptual assessments included emotional, cognitive, behavioural and preference responses. The results indicated that on-site participants' emotional responses and preferences are significantly stronger than those of video and slide viewers. In addition, on-site participants' and video viewers' cognitive and behavioural responses were significantly higher than those of slide viewers. Overall, the validity of videos and slides for representing waterscapes was not supported.

Landscape Representation Validity: A Comparison between On-site Observations and Photographs with Different Angles of View

“…Bernaldez et al, 1988;Hodgson & Thayer, 1980;Kroh & Gimblett, 1992;Scott & Canter, 1997;Stewart & Hull, 1996). Huang (2009) concludes that, for example, motion in waterscapes is not validly represented through videos and slides compared to on-site observations. A more specific concern raised in the literature is the ability of photographs to capture heterogeneous landscapes.…”

An Actual Natural Setting Improves Mood Better Than Its Virtual Counterpart: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Data

“…Of these 16 relevant studies, one was excluded because they varied the duration of treatments between actual and simulated conditions (Ryan et al, 2010). Seven were excluded because they did not use standardized measures of mood and/or were not designed to assess change in affect across a defined exposure (Hartig et al, 1997;Kahn et al, 2008;Huang, 2009;Mayer et al, 2009;Kjellgren and Buhrkall, 2010;Lassonde et al, 2012;Yin et al, 2018). Two more were excluded because they would have introduced substantial heterogeneity in models; one study used a unique mood measurement that contrasted with the bulk of the other included articles (Gatersleben and Andrews, 2013), and the other (Plante et al, 2006) measured an entirely different dimension of mood: activation rather than valence (Kensinger and Corkin, 2004).…”

Presentation Matters: Causes of Differences in Preferences for Agricultural Landscapes Displayed via Photographs and Videos

“…In contrast, a number of authors have objected that the real environment is characterized by dynamic rather than static qualities, and that therefore these qualities should also be presented when conducting sociological perception research (Gibson, 1979; Heft & Nasar, 2000; Hetherington et al, 1993; Thiel, 1997). However, empirical research involving dynamic representation of the environment has been very limited in comparison with research based on static representation (Brown & Daniel, 1991; Feimer, 1984; Hetherington et al, 1993; Huang, 2009; Zacharias, 2006).…”