You are on page 1of 33

VISUAL

QUALITY

Noor Aida Farain BT Amir Shahfuddin

2012629438

Muhammad Qamarul Ariffin B. Mohamad Zain

2013111841

Nazatul Athirah BT Abdul Rashid

2013346889

Final

definition

of visual quality

Visual quality is a measure

of the overall impression

or appeal of an area

created by the physical

features of the landscape

Visual Quality Evaluation

Evaluation

of visual quality

The visual quality of an area is determined by completing

a visual resource inventory process based on six factors which are landform, water, color, scarcity and cultural

modifications. Each of these factors is ranked on a

comparative basis with similar features within the

physiographic province. The visual quality was rated

based on BLM VRM guidelines, using BLM Scenic Quality

Field Inventory Bureau Form 8400-5. Each rating unit was ranked depending on the type of user, the amount of use,

public interest, adjacent land uses, special areas and

consideration of other factors.

high quality

-High vertical relief as expressed in prominent cliffs

-spires on massive rock

outcrops

-severe surface variation

-highly eroded formations including major badlands or

dune systems

-detail features dominant and exceptionally striking and intriguing such as glaciers.

Factor

of visual quality

evaluation

moderate quality

-Steep canyons, mesas, buttes, cinder cones, and drumlins

-interesting erosion patterns or variety in size and shape of

landforms; detail features which

are interesting though not dominant or exceptional.

LANDFORM
LANDFORM

low quality

-Low rolling hills, foothills, or flat valley bottoms

-few or no interesting landscape features.

high quality

moderate quality

low quality

Example of landform

  • Little variety of landform

Massive, highly eroded, unique mountains

Interesting volcanic features

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986. Visual Resource Inventory Manual H-8410-1

Factor

of visual quality

evaluation

high quality

A variety of vegetative types

as expressed in interesting

forms, textures and patterns

moderate quality

VEGETATION
VEGETATION

Some variety of vegetation,

but only one or two major

types.

low quality

Little or no variety or contrast in vegetation.

high quality

moderate quality

low quality

Example of vegetation

  • HQ

Variety of vegetative types and color

  • MQ

Some variety of vegetation, but

only one or two major types.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986. Visual Resource Inventory Manual H-8410-1

  • LQ

Little or no variety or contrast

in vegetation.

WATER
WATER

Factor

of visual quality

evaluation

high quality

Clear and clean appearing, still, or cascading white water, any of which are a dominant factor in the landscape

moderate quality

Flowing or still, but not dominant in the landscape.

low quality

Absent, or present, but not noticeable.

high quality

moderate quality

low quality

Example of water

  • Some intermittent and perennial streams

Clear and clean-appearing

Absent, or present, but not

noticeable.

high quality

Factor

of visual quality

evaluation

Rich color combinations,

variety or vivid color, or

pleasing contrasts in the soil, rock vegetation, water or snow fields

COLOR
COLOR

low quality

moderate quality

Some intensity or variety in colors and contrast of the soil, rock and vegetation, but not a dominant scenic

element

Subtle color variations, contrast, or interest; generally mute tones.

high quality

moderate quality

low quality

Example of color

Rich color combinations and harmony

Good color variation

Muted tones similar to area

high quality

One of a kind; or unusually

memorable, very rare within

region. Consistent chance

for exceptional wildlife or

wildflower viewing.

low quality

Interesting within its setting, but fairly common within the region.

moderate quality

Factor

of visual quality

evaluation

Distinctive, though somewhat similar to others within the region.

SCARCITY
SCARCITY

high quality

moderate quality

low quality

Example of scarcity

  • Somewhat unique hills

region

Blends in, looks typical

Highly unique for physiographic

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986. Visual Resource Inventory Manual H-8410-1

high quality

Modifications add favorably to visual variety while promoting visual harmony.

low quality

Modifications add variety but are very discordant and promote strong disharmony.

Factor

of visual quality

evaluation

moderate quality

Modifications add little or

no visual variety to the area

and introduce no

discordant elements

CULTURAL MODIFICATION
CULTURAL
MODIFICATION

high quality

moderate quality

low quality

Example of cultural modification

  • elements

Modifications add favorably to visual variety

while promoting visual harmony.

Little modification and no discordant

The red sculpture promote strong

disharmony

FACTOR OF VISUAL QUALITY EVALUATION CHART

FACTOR OF VISUAL QUALITY EVALUATION CHART

FACTOR OF VISUAL QUALITY EVALUATION COMPOSITE MAP

FACTOR OF VISUAL QUALITY EVALUATION COMPOSITE MAP

Sensitivity Level Analysis

Sensitivity

level analysis of

visual quality

Sensitivity levels area a measure of public concern for scenic quality. Visual

sensitivity is dependent upon user or viewer attitudes, the amount of use, and the types of

activities in which people are engaged when viewing an object. Higher degrees of visual

sensitivity are correlated with areas where people live and with people who are engaged in

recreational outdoor pursuits or participate in scenic. While area of industrial or commercial

use are considered to have low to moderate visual sensitivity because the activities

conducted in these area are not significantly affected by the quality of the environment. Public lands are assigned high, medium, or low sensitivity levels by analyzing the various

indicators of public concern. Factors to be considered are as below.

1.Type of Users

Sensitivity

level analysis of

visual quality

high sensitivity

Maintenance of visual

quality is a major concern

for most users

moderate sensitivity

Maintenance of visual quality is a moderate

concern for most users.

low sensitivity

Maintenance of visual quality is a low concern for

most users.

Visual sensitivity will vary with

the type of users. Recreational sightseers may

be highly sensitive to any

changes in visual quality,

whereas workers who pass

through the area on a

regular basis may not be as

sensitive to change.

Areas seen and used by

large numbers of people are

potentially more sensitive.

Protection of visual values

usually becomes more important as the number of

viewers increase.

high sensitivity

*Road and Highways more than 45000 visits/yr *River and Trails more than 20000 visits/yr

*Recreation Sites

more than 10000 visitor-days/yr

Low sensitivity

*Road and Highways Less than 5000 visits/yr

*River and Trails Less than 2000 visits/yr

*Recreation Sites

Less than 2000 visitor-days/yr

Sensitivity

level analysis of

visual quality

moderate sensitivity

*Road and Highways 5000-45000 visits/yr

*River and Trails

2000-20000 visits/yr *Recreation Sites

2000-10000 visitor-days/yr

2. Amount of Users

high sensitivity

Maintenance of visual quality is a major public issue.

moderate sensitivity

Maintenance of visual

Sensitivity

level analysis of

visual quality

quality is a moderate public

issue.

3. Public Interest

Low sensitivity

Maintenance of visual

quality is a low public issue.

The visual quality of an area may be of concern to local, State, or National groups. Indicators

of this concern are usually expressed in public meetings, letters, newspaper or magazine articles,

newsletters, land-use plans, etc. Public controversy created in response to proposed activities

that would change the landscape character should also be considered.

Sensitivity

level analysis of

visual quality

high sensitivity

moderate sensitivity

Maintenance of visual

quality to sustain Special

Area management objectives is very important.

Maintenance of visual quality to sustain Special Area

management objectives is

moderate important.

4. Special Areas

Low sensitivity

Maintenance of visual

quality to sustain Special

Area management objectives is slightly important.

Management objectives for special areas such as Natural Areas, Wilderness Areas or

Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Scenic Areas, Scenic Roads or Trails, and Areas

of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), frequently require special consideration for the protection of the visual values. This does not necessarily mean that these areas are scenic, but

rather that one of the management objectives may be to preserve the natural landscape

setting. The management objectives for these areas may be used as a basis for assigning

sensitivity levels

CHART OF VISUAL QUALITY SENSITIVITY LEVEL

CHART OF VISUAL QUALITY SENSITIVITY LEVEL

VISUAL QUALITY SENSITIVITY LEVEL COMPOSITE MAP

VISUAL QUALITY SENSITIVITY LEVEL COMPOSITE MAP

Viewing Distance Zones

Viewing

distance

zones

Landscapes are generally subdivided into three distance zones based on relative visibility from travel routes or observation points. The foreground/ middle ground zone includes

areas that are less than three to five miles from the viewing location. The foreground/ middle

ground zone defines the area in which landscape details transition from readily perceived to outlines and patterns. The background zone is generally greater than five, but less than 15, miles from the viewing location. The background zone includes areas where landforms are the most dominant element in the landscape, and color and texture become subordinate. In order

to be included within this distance zone, vegetation should be visible at least as patterns of

light and dark. The seldom-seen (s/s) zone includes areas that are usually hidden from view as a result of topographic or vegetative screening or atmospheric conditions. In some cases, atmospheric and lighting conditions can reduce visibility and shorten the distances normally covered by each zone (BLM 1986b).

Viewing

distance

zones

Foreground-Middle ground Zone.

0 to 1.0 km from viewer; maximum discernment of detail, texture and contrast, Outer boundry

defined as the point where the texture and form of plant are no longer apparent in the landscape,

Atmospheric conditions can reduce visibility and shorten the distance normally covered by each zone

Background Zone.

1.0 to 8.0 km from viewer; emergence of overall shapes and patterns, with some texture and color still

evident, Area which can be seen from each travel route to approximately 15 miles, Not include areas in

the background which are so far distant that the only thing discernible from the outline, Included within this

distance zone, vegetation should be visible at least as patterns of light and dark

Seldom-Seen Zone.

More than 8.0 km from viewer; outlines of general shapes and patterns, with little discernible texture and color, and strong sense of overall perspective. Zone includes areas that are usually hidden from view as a result of topographic or vegetative screening or atmospheric conditions. Area that are not visible within the foreground-middle ground and background zones and area beyond the background zones

Foreground-Middle ground Zone.
Foreground-Middle ground Zone.
Background Zone.
Background Zone.
Seldom-Seen Zone.
Seldom-Seen Zone.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986. Visual Resource Inventory Manual H-8410-1

CHART OF VISUAL QUALITY FOR DISTANCE ZONES

CHART OF VISUAL QUALITY FOR DISTANCE ZONES

Conclusion

In conclusion, visual quality is one important aspect of the broad, multi-faceted concept of

integrated forest resource management. Visual quality management can enhance visual quality of forested lands for recreational users which results in a healthy tourism economy,

enhance public acceptance of forest management and timber harvesting, therefore, helping to sustain a healthy forest products industry, minimize the visual and audible impacts of forest

management activities on tourists and other recreational users, minimize visibility of harvest

areas by limiting apparent size of harvest, minimize visual impact of slash, minimize the impact of landing operations on recreational viewers and users.

The degree to which an activity affects the visual quality of a landscape depends on the

visual contrast created between a project and the existing landscape. The contrast can be

measured by comparing the project features with the major features in the existing landscape. The basic design elements of form, line, color, and texture are used to make this comparison

and to describe the visual contrast created by the project.

REFERENCES:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986. Visual Resource

Inventory Manual H-8410-1

Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility EIS/EIR. (2011). Visual Resources Appendix E2

Clean Water Coalition H-2 Systems Conveyance and Operations Program Draft EIS. (2005). Visual Resources Appendix H

Forest Practices Branch. (1997). Visual Landscape Inventory Procedures & Standards Manual.