VISUALquality in kuala selangor

VISUAL

Noor Aida Farain BT Amir Shahfuddin

2012629438

Muhammad Qamarul ‘Ariffin B. Mohamad Zain

2013111841

Nazatul Athirah BT Abdul Rashid

2013346889

QUALITY

Final

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

definition

Visual Quality

Evaluation

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.

Evaluation

of visual quality

Factor

LANDFORM

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.

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.

low quality -Low rolling hills, foothills, or flat valley bottoms

-few or no interesting landscape features.

of visual quality

evaluation

Example of landform

Massive, highly eroded, unique mountains

Little variety of landform

Interesting volcanic features

high quality moderate quality

low quality

HQ

MQ

LQ

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

Resource Inventory Manual H-8410-1

Factor

VEGETATION


low quality

A variety of vegetative types

as expressed in interesting

forms, textures and patterns

Some variety of vegetation,

but only one or two major

types.

Little or no variety or contrast

in vegetation.

of visual quality

evaluation

Example of vegetation

Variety of vegetative types and color

Little or no variety or contrast

in vegetation.

Some variety of vegetation, but

only one or two major types.


low quality

HQ

MQ

LQ

http://communicativelandscapes.wordpress.com/ http://tcgwww.taipei.gov.tw/np.asp?ctNode=15974&mp=106002



http://communicativelandscapes.wordpress.com/

http://tcgwww.taipei.gov.tw/np.asp?ctNode=15974&mp=106002

http://tcgwww.taipei.gov.tw/np.asp?ctNode=15974&mp=106002

Factor

WATER

Clear and clean

appearing, still, or

cascading white water, any

of which are a dominant

factor in the landscape

Flowing or still, but not

dominant in the landscape. Absent, or present, but not

noticeable.


low quality

of visual quality

evaluation

Example of water

Clear and clean-appearing

Absent, or present, but not

noticeable.

Some intermittent and perennial streams


low quality

HQ

MQ

LQ

COLOR

high quality

Factor

moderate quality

low quality

Rich color combinations,

variety or vivid color, or

pleasing contrasts in the soil,

rock vegetation, water or

snow fields 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.

of visual quality

evaluation

Example of color

Rich color combinations and harmony

Muted tones similar to area

Good color variation


low quality

HQ

MQ

LQ

SCARCITY

Factor high quality moderate quality

low quality

One of a kind; or unusually

memorable, very rare within

region. Consistent chance

for exceptional wildlife or

wildflower viewing.

Interesting within its setting,

but fairly common within the

region.

Distinctive, though

somewhat similar to others

within the region.

of visual quality

evaluation

Example of scarcity

Highly unique for physiographic

region

Blends in, looks typical

Somewhat unique hills


low quality

HQ

MQ

LQ



CULTURAL

Factor

high quality

moderate quality

low quality

Modifications add

favorably to visual variety

while promoting visual

harmony.

Modifications add variety

but are very discordant and

promote strong disharmony.

Modifications add little or

no visual variety to the area

and introduce no

discordant elements

MODIFICATION

of visual quality

evaluation

Example of cultural modification

Modifications add favorably to visual variety

while promoting visual harmony.

The red sculpture promote strong

disharmony

Little modification and no discordant

elements


low quality

HQ

MQ

LQ

FACTOR OF VISUAL QUALITY EVALUATION CHART

FACTOR OF VISUAL QUALITY EVALUATION COMPOSITE MAP

Sensitivity Level

Analysis

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.

Sensitivity

visual quality level analysis of

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.

1.Type of Users

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.

Sensitivity


Sensitivity


2. Amount of Users

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

moderate sensitivity

*Road and Highways

5000-45000 visits/yr

*River and Trails

2000-20000 visits/yr

*Recreation Sites

2000-10000 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

3. Public Interest 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

visual quality level analysis of high sensitivity


quality is a major public

issue.


quality is a moderate public

issue.


Low sensitivity


quality is a low public issue.

Sensitivity


4. Special Areas 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

high sensitivity


quality to sustain Special

Area management

objectives is very important.

Maintenance of visual quality to

sustain Special Area

management objectives is

moderate important.


quality to sustain Special

Area management

objectives is slightly

important.


Low sensitivity

CHART OF VISUAL QUALITY SENSITIVITY LEVEL

VISUAL QUALITY SENSITIVITY LEVEL COMPOSITE MAP

Viewing Distance

Zones

Viewing

zones distance

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

zones distance 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

Seldom-Seen Zone.

Background Zone.

Foreground-Middle ground 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

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

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/

blm_handbook.Par.31679.File.dat/H-8410.pdf

Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility EIS/EIR. (2011). Visual Resources Appendix E‐2

ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/ocotillo-express/63appe2-visual-resources.pdf

Clean Water Coalition H-2 Systems Conveyance and Operations Program – Draft EIS.

(2005). Visual Resources Appendix H

http://www.nps.gov/lake/parkmgmt/upload/SCOP_AppendixH.pdf

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

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.31679.File.dat/H-8410.pdf















VISUALquality in kuala selangor

Documents

Transcript of VISUALquality in kuala selangor