Gis-based Landscape Appreciation Model First steps towards the development of GLAM version 3 Sjerp de Vries Landscape Centre, Alterra, Wageningen The Netherlands

Background GLAM is a model that predicts the attractiveness of the countryside to local residents, based solely on physical characteristics of the landscape on which information is available in national GIS- databases Version 2 uses four indicators, each with five levels: Naturalness, Historical distinctiveness, Urbanization, Skyline disturbance. Spatial resolution of the model: 250 x 250 meters (6.25 ha) Predictive validity is reasonable: 47% of variance explained –In average rating of a demarcated area (>> 6.25 ha) –By people living in or near to it Problem: usability to evaluate policy measures is still low, because small changes often do not lead to different indicator values

Research questions and method Level of spatial detail is quite acceptable, but how to improve the sensitivity of the model to more subtle/smaller changes in the physical appearance of the landscape? Step 1: recalibrate the model based on recently gathered data on landscape appreciation (larger dataset, more areas rated) –Additional indicators available (relief, noise/fragmentation) –Weight of the indicators (regression) –Validation of individual indicators based on aspect ratings Step 2: error analysis using recalibrated model –Where do predictions deviate most from actual attractiveness scores? –Is there some structure to be discerned in the direction or size of errors? Spatial clustering Type of landscape

(Un)planned deliverables Recalibrated version of GLAM 2 –Based on more/better data Specific ideas on how to improve GLAM –Redesign existing indicators –Develop additional indicators Project proposal for developing GLAM version 3 Actual new & improved version of GLAM: GLAM 3 –Funding requested for 2009

Main results thus far Recalibrated version of GLAM 2 available –Based on study “Beleving naar gebieden”, part of “Belevingswaardenmonitor” –About 300 demarcated areas rated by people living nearby –Explained variance: 38% (lower than in previous validation phase!) Naturalness of the areas as main focus –Adding average rating of naturalness: explained variance 76% –Correlation GIS-indicator with rating of naturalness: r = 0.61 Quite reasonable already –Correlation of rating of naturalness with prediction error: r = 0.57  But very important to improve it further! Preliminary results based on –Over 700 postcode areas with at least 10 participants –Rating of attractiveness of countryside surrounding place of residence –51% of variance in average attractiveness rating explained by GLAM 2

Preliminary conclusion and next steps Feasibility of improved version of GLAM seems high –Already identified clear source of errors: naturalness –Still unused GIS-data on naturalness are likely to be available In 2008: –Looking at spatial pattern of errors what is wrong with the present naturalness indicator? patterns of prediction errors for datawww.daarmoetikzijn.nl- why such a difference in predictive validity for the two datasets? –Reporting results and proposal for 2009 In 2009 (if funded): –Develop new naturalness indicator –Perhaps make other improvements too –Calibrate new version of GLAM

International position, scientific & social relevance Spatially explicit operational model at national level quite rare/unique Article published on GLAM 2 in international journal –Forest, Snow & Landscape Research, 2007 Some others working on similar topics (GIS – appreciation/values) –Switzerland: Wald, Schnee und Landschaft (Hunziker, Buchecker) –Finland: METLA (Tyrvainen); Helsinki University of Technology (Kyttä) –Denmark: Forest and Landscape Denmark (Skov-Petersen) Timely: –European Landscape Convention Democratising landscape (Fairclough, 2002) –Agenda Landschap: importance assigned by policy makers to citizens’ appreciation of the landscape is rising (e.g. internet discussion) –Social support for EHS problematic; showing its social benefits might help