On-Line Approaches to Data Delivery and Visualisation in ... · mented by local data collection. After data comes technology. The literature on PPGIS and P-GIS is extensive and includes

International Journal of E-Planning Research, 1(1), 31-41, January-March 2012 31

Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Keywords: EmergencyManagement,GameEngine,GIS,LandscapePlanning,On-LineData,Smartphone,Visualisation

INTRODUCTION

Data is important. This is widely acknowledged. However, the data we want may be not acces-sible, buried in masses of extraneous data, not specific to our location of interest or in a form that is not easily digested. This paper looks at ways of improving on this situation.

Effective planning and management de-pends on the availability of appropriate spatial data. Vast amounts of digital data now exist.

These are mainly held by public organisations, although the ease of public access is very dif-ferent according to national philosophies and practices in respect of data provision both within and outside of government. This is being changed somewhat by the emerging phenom-enon of crowd sourced data sets (Goodchild, 2007; Seeger, 2008) and the preceding focus on democratisation of spatial data through public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS) or the subtly different participatory GIS (P-GIS) which were extensively reviewed by Sieber (2006). This paper largely assumes that the raw data is available and looks more

On-Line Approaches to Data Delivery and Visualisation

in Landscape Planning and ManagementIanD.Bishop,UniversityofMelbourne,Australia

ABSTRACTThoseinvolvedinplanningandmanagementinlandscapehavelongrecognisedthevalueofgoodinforma-tionprovidedintheformoftimely,appropriateanddigestibledata.Whetherthedataispartofgovernmentinfrastructureorisaugmentedbycontributionsfromthepublic,itisapparentthaton-linedeliverycanhelpensurethatthebestavailabledataisaccessiblewhilevisualisationtechniquescanmakethedataeasiertointerpret.Acollaborativevirtualenvironmentthenallowsforcooperativedecision-makinginawellin-formedsituation.Addsmartphonesintothetechnologymixandaugmentedrealitypresentationallowsforin-fieldcollaborationandalsoon-demandlocationspecificdataaccessandcapture.Aseriesofprojectsaredescribedwhichillustratethispotential.Ascenarioforapplicationinasituationofemergencymanagementinthelandscapeconcludesthepaper.

DOI: 10.4018/ijepr.2012010104

32 International Journal of E-Planning Research, 1(1), 31-41, January-March 2012


particularly at how this is best made available and digestible, and also how it might be supple-mented by local data collection.

After data comes technology. The literature on PPGIS and P-GIS is extensive and includes many examples of web-based approaches (Brent Hall, Chipeniuk, Feick, Leahy, & Deparday, 2010; Bugs, Granell, Fonts, Huerta, & Painho, 2010). The dominant approach is to provide both an on-line mapping service and an abil-ity to annotate the maps with local geographic knowledge or reflections on local conditions. The technology can be used as either a catchall for non-specific use or as a means of gathering community sentiments in relation to particular projects. Typically such systems do not serve as tools to assist the public in making their own spatial decisions. They are also usually heavily map oriented. The literature on PPGIS, which includes visualisation as a component, is much more limited. This again is potentially a two-way source of communications. Newsam (2010) reports on the utility of community contributed photographs as a source of geo-graphic discovery. Green (2010) discusses the use of various visualisation technologies within a PPGIS framework and asks to what extent these should be trusted and how legiti-macy may be established. Baily and Grossardt (2010) introduce a fuzzy-logic-based approach to visual evaluation using photographs of roads and roadsides. Sheppard and Cizek (2009) introduce a number of case studies which use GoogleEarth to illustrate planning proposals of the effect of climate change. They also discuss the potentials and pit-falls associated with public use of these tools to argue the point on environmental impacts.

The potential of visualisation as an aid to data representation is huge and fraught with complexities of legitimacy, access to data, access to tools, differences in perceptions within and between cultures and so forth. That is, many of the same issues identified in the PPGIS context by Sieber (2006). No attempt is made to reconcile any of these points which are all worthy of study and review on their own. These technologies as still young enough that

just understanding the diversity of ideas which are emerging through key research programs at University of British Columbia (e.g., Salter, Campbell, Journeay, & Sheppard, 2009; Shep-pard, 2005), University of East Anglia (e.g., Appleton & Lovett, 2003; Dockerty, Lovett, Appleton, Bone, & Sünnenberg, 2006; Jude, 2008) and elsewhere (e.g., Lange & Hehl-Lange, 2010; Wissen, Schroth, Lange, & Schmid, 2008) is a challenge in itself. The reported use of vi-sualisation in conjunction with on-line systems - as data providers, as conduits for data or as repositories of data generated in the course of daily activities - is particularly limited and so here I have sought simply to introduce a body of research at the University of Melbourne (UM) and the Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information (CRCSI) in collaboration with a number of research partners from a number of government agencies. The initial emphasis of these projects was on visualisation, but as the research developed the opportunities to link directly to on-line data sets, and to provide on-line solutions became more apparent. Figure 1 shows a number of components that have been developed in the course of this research. The sections to follow focus on sub-sets of this diagram and illustrate the linkages between the boxes. A more technical look at some of these sub-systems is available in Stock, Bishop, Chen, Ninõ-Ruiz, and Wang (2011). The conclusion looks at the possible futures that emerge when all the linkages become seamless and operate in real-time.

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENTS

Automated Creation of 3D Virtual Worlds

The vision for this work was to use growing digital spatial data resources, especially digital terrain models, aerial imagery, land use maps and topographic mapping of landscape features to create automatic virtual reality models in 3D. It was decided in create these virtual world models in the format of a specific game engine. While certain standards exist for mapped data,



and a high level of interchangability between products, there is quite limited exchange ca-pability for 3D modelling software and even less among the 3D game engines. Therefore the models had to be software specific. We chose a game engine format to allow for collabora-tive, networked access into the virtual worlds. We then chose TORQUE (www.garagegames.com) as the game engine because of the low cost, the availability of source code and the rights to create new products without licensing complications. TORQUE Game Engine (TGE) also became the viewing platform for the newly created virtual environments and since multiple users could join in they became collaborative virtual environments.

Before creating an online world builder we developed a version to work with a specific geographic information system (ArcMAP). Figure 2 illustrates the components within this phase of development (O’Connor, Bishop, & Stock, 2005; Stock et al., 2008). At this stage we introduced our acronym SIEVE (spatial information exploration and visualisation en-vironment) which was then applied to the suite of programs as they emerged: hence SIEVE Builder and SIEVE Viewer.

A natural extension of the export from a specific GIS is export from a on-line server which stores the spatial data in accessible for-mats, and this was implemented next (Stock, Bishop, Chen, Nino-Ruiz & Wang, 2011).

Live Linkage to GIS

Exporting data to a 3D viewer is good in provid-ing another way to look at the data but it does not contribute to interactive design or planning procedures in which an ability to work simul-taneously in either 2D or 3D, with the maps or with the objects, is a clear advantage. The next phase therefore involved programming of a live link between ArcMAP and TGE (Chen, Stock, Bishop, & Pettit, 2008). An application of this technology in wind farm planning and design is explored by Bishop and Stock (2010).

However, a system for public use requires not only 2D sources on line but also collections of 3D objects (and their textures) stored on-line in some accessible form of object library (Bishop et al., 2009). When linked to the latest input de-vices for collaborative planning, such as a touch table, the entire system can work effectively to create a base virtual environment, populate it with objects or vegetation interactively through

Figure1.ThemajorcomponentsofemergingsystemsatUM/CRCSI



the touchtable while the objects are draw from the object library (Bhandari, Sharma, Bishop, & Pettit, 2010). Interested parties in other locations can join as members in the virtual environment.

Integration with Scientific Process or Agent-Based Models

In our work with ArcMAP and TGE we were limited to reading the outputs of scientific models into ArcMAP for display on the terrain surface, or using another product like 3DS MAX to create 3D objects based on the outcomes. For example, we used MAX to create 3D models of water tables generated using the state govern-ment’s hydrological models (Bishop, O’Connor, & Stock, 2007) as shown in Figure 3.

More recently we have been exploring the potential of running models within the game environment by building the models as part of the source code. Figure 4 illustrates an early example of an agent-based model of visitor behaviour within a botanic garden environment (Chen & Bishop, 2011). The advantage for the modeller of working in the game environment is that the agents can be given ‘vision’ which can be an important influence on their move-ment decisions in certain environments.

Use of Real-Time Data

If virtual worlds are to become useful in emer-gency situations, such as flood or fires, they must be able to show not only the pre-emergency situation but also the current conditions. This information is increasing available on-line from meteorological, traffic, oceanographic or fire services. Various techniques - web-scraping, mashups and use of mobile devices can support integration of real-time data into the virtual world (Wang, Stock, & Bishop, 2009). Close to home we can see regular updates of weather stations (30 minutes) and rain radar services (6 minutes), traffic congestion levels (5 minutes), coastal shipping (99 seconds), tides and swells (3 hours) and fire incident reports (as received). All this information could be important in an emergency situation and rather than require a crisis coordinator to switch across several web pages, it is better to simulate the conditions within the virtual environment (Figure 5). The main challenge, after data acquisition,is turning the variables reported by the data providers into representing variable in the game environment. A secondary challenge is interpolation both spa-tial (e.g., when the weather stations are sparse)

Figure2.Buildingvirtualenvironments



and temporal (e.g., fitting tidal information to appropriate curves).

In-Field Support: Augmented Reality

Augmented reality (AR) has been demonstrated in a number of contexts (such as engine repair, surgery and utility management). In rural plan-ning there is scope for use in data acquisition and checking, design of new infrastructure or plantings and (through linkage to environmental models) on-site checking (and in-context view-ing) of the consequences of planning or design

choices (Chen, Stock, Bishop, & O’Connor, 2006). By extension of the examples given, it is easy to foresee a situation in which a person in the field, either scientist or member of the public, could be planting trees interactively in context, having these transferred to a 2D data-base (perhaps GIS) where models could run, in-cluding hydrological models, and the outcomes represented in 3D and transferred back to the in-field AR display. The AR outcomes could be viewed through a head mounted display or on a smartphone using its built-in positioning and orientation systems and its rapid data transfer capabilities (Figure 6).

Figure3.Hydrologicalmodelofdepthtowatertableunderacatchmentrevegetationscenarioandthesamedataasa3DobjectunderlyingtheterraininSIEVEviewer

Figure4.Elevatedandagent-eyeviewsofagentmovementsinthelandscape



Usage In-Field: Data Review and Data Collection

The user in the field with a smartphone can also use the know positioning to (a) draw down data about their current location, or (b) upload data or images relating to the state of the environment to a server. Figure 7A shows a farmer querying the database for scientific data (EM38) and remote sensing data (NDVI) relating to his current location. He could also access historical photos or stock movement information, which may help him understand the erosion conditions. In Figure 7B the farmer is now adding data to the farm database by mark-ing out the erosion polygon. He can also store a geotagged image, or upload other attribute information. This data on the server is now available to the farm advisor - or to interested scientists - through a web interface. Over time the buildup of information from participating farmers might form a meaning data set for mining by researchers into agriculture or farm management. Our web interface to this data ex-change process is currently using Google Earth as the viewer, but could also be adapted for use in SIEVE to draw on other capabilities - such as the AR environment, or the object library.

DISCUSSION

This work began around 2003 and we chose to use TGE at about that time. As the figures show the quality of the computer graphics in game engines at that time is not what it is today. However, the key purpose of these de-velopments was not to simply produce alluring pictures of current environmental conditions. The objectives in each case were to demonstrate the possibilities of the emerging technologies. The combined tools and approaches described here have the capacity to work entirely with on-line data sources, with local editing and supplementation, to support people in the of-fice, at home or in the field. Over the period of development we have also seen the emergence of Google Earth (and other world viewers) as user-friendly visualisation systems. GE provides a coarse terrain model (approx 90 m) and image coverage (of varying quality) across the whole earth. This, and the ease with which it can be embedded into a web page make it a strong challenger to specialised visualisation packages and game engines for use as the key data viewing platform (Sheppard & Cizek, 2009). At this time, the graphics of the whole earth viewer do not have the quality of the game engines with their capacity for detail and more sophisticated lighting and shading models, but

Figure5.Screenshots fromavirtual representationofSydneyHarbour.Theship’s location,headingandspeedaredeterminedbyanRSSfeedandtheweatherconditionsdeterminedbyscrappingfromtheBureauofMeteorologywebsite.



that gap may close with the potential for ever better algorithms to manage levels of detail. Products such as Biosphere3D (Paar & Clasen, 2007) have the capacity to render high levels of vegetation detail within a global context.

In recent years therefore GE has been increasingly adopted for use as the viewing component of our integrated systems. Figure 8A shows the web-interface seen by farm advisors or scientists interacting with farmers through the smartphone system. Figure 8B shows another

integrated GE view, this time giving a user the ability to steer through the outcomes flowing from on-line accessible regional IPCC climate change scenarios to better understand their ef-fect on land allocation.

Consideration of scenarios introduces another on-line option to support landscape planning and management through appropriate presentation of data and visualisation. Figure 9 shows a product called Scenario Chooser which is written for use in a browser window

Figure6.SimulatedARexperienceonsmartphone.Viewofexistingconditions(left),newplant-ings(upperright),effectsonwatertable(lowerright)

Figure7.Farmerqueriesdatabasetounderstandtheerosioncondition(left).Farmerentersnewdataforuploadtotheserver(right).



and which has been used to allow people to explore options for forest harvest management. Scenarios can be chosen two at a time for direct comparison on the basis of outputs (economic, environmental and amenity based) and also on the basis of the visualisations, user rotatable panorama that can be linked to rotate together for easier comparison. The interface is designed to be as easy as possible to both make com-parisons and identify preferences. Such a system made available on-line could therefore form the basis for better-informed public debate and eventual decision-making.

A key to understanding the effectiveness of these developments is knowledge of their usage patterns and comparison with alternative approaches. This data can be gathered in a number of ways, as reviewed by Bishop, Sheth, Pettit, and Sharma (2010), including tests of ability to find answers, subjective assessments and usage tracking. With on-line tools in par-ticular there is great scope, because of the technologies of HTML, PHP, Javascript and so forth, for increased use of usage tracking to aid evaluation.

Figure8.Farmmanagersoftwaredrawingfromdataserveralsousedbysmartphoneapplication(left),landuseallocationexplorationsystemdrawingonIPCCscenarios(right)

Figure9.Thescenariochooserinterface



CONCLUSION

This paper began with the premise that while lots of data frequently exists, it is not always accessible to stakeholders in land planning and management. The reported examples of data processing and visualisation techniques in support of land planning and management help to overcome the identified issues by

• Drawing the data to be used directly from government data infrastructure, including object libraries

• Combining model outputs with the existing 3d environment to allow the viewer to more easily interpret complex outputs

• Using the geolocation ability of smart-phones to deliver site specific data

• Using virtual environments and augmented reality to make data more easily interpreted in context, and hence more digestible to a larger part of the population

• Supporting on-line collaboration within the virtual environment

However, at this stage all these features are not combined in a single software product. We can imagine however applications that uses all these feature and so provide a stimulus to look for further integration.

Imagine a serious wildfire. The challenges for the population are to know whether and when to evacuate, or to prepare to defend their homes. The challenges for the authorities are to deploy reconnaissance and fighting resources, the warnings to give the population. The chal-lenges for local fire fighters include awareness of the form, movement and expected responses of the fire front. Using these technologies the authorities can create a virtual environment of the area under threat; this can be projected to a large screen in the control room. The fire mod-eller can show the modelled behaviour within the virtual environment, This has two clear advantages over providing maps of movement: (a) the experienced fire agency staff can identify any anomalies or uncharacteristic behaviour in the modelling, these can be referred back to the

modellers for analysis, and (b) more natural interpretation of the locations and directions of the fire relative to the terrain and patterns of vegetation. If the fire fighters’ vehicles, or the fire fighters themselves, are GPS equipped then their avatars can also be displayed in real-time in the virtual environment, along with real time data on the weather conditions and traffic movement on access and egress routes. The fire fighters themselves can use AR technology to know better the locations of their colleagues, houses at risk etc. This would be particularly valuable in times of high smoke levels where addition components of the virtual environment could be drawn with the AR system. Once the virtual environment exists, residents can enter the virtual environment on-line (using an on-line version of the game engine) to have access to all the same information as the authorities and hence make better decisions about their strategic response. They can even use the game environ-ment to get a preview of the form and intensity, with full sound effects, of the fire front as it approaches their house. They can even play a game in which they try to save the house under the approaching conditions - although this is probably something to be done as preparation in more peaceful times (Bishop, Handmer, Winarto, & McCowan, 2011).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Much of this work was funded by the Coop-erative Research Centre for Spatial Informa-tion. The Scenario Chooser (Figure 9) was developed under Australian Research Council funding supported by Forestry Tasmania and other partners. Much of the object library development took place in the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria and the Department of Primary Industries, Victoria with assistance from the Victorian eResearch Strategic Initiative. The touchtable development was primarily the work of the Department of Primary Industries, Victoria. Key contributors to the software development were: Christian Stock, Alice O’Connor, Alex Tao Chen, Haohui



Chen, Peter Pan Wang, Marcos Ninõ-Ruiz, Eric Smith, Benny Yiqun Chen and Subhash Sharma.

REFERENCES

Appleton, K., & Lovett, A. (2003). GIS-based visualisation of rural landscapes: Defining `suffi-cient’ realism for environmental decision-making. LandscapeandUrbanPlanning, 65(3), 117–131. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00245-1

Bailey, K., & Grossardt, T. (2010). Toward struc-tured public involvement: Justice, geography and collaborative geospatial/geovisual decision support systems. AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGe-ographers.AssociationofAmericanGeographers, 100(1), 57–86. doi:10.1080/00045600903364259

Bhandari, C., Sharma, S. C., Bishop, I. D., & Pettit, C. J. (2010). Visualizingfuturebiolinksusingatouchtable-newdimensionsinplanning. Paper presented at the Joint International Conference on Theory, Data Handling and Modelling in GeoSpatial Information Science, Hong Kong.

Bishop, I. D., Chan, P., Chan, T., Lau, A., Pettit, C. J., Stock, C., et al. (2009). Objectlibraries:Thenextstepinspatialdatainfrastructure. Paper presented at the Surveying & Spatial Sciences Institute Bien-nial International Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

Bishop, I. D., Handmer, J., Winarto, A., & McCowan, E. (2011). Survival in dangerous landscapes - A game environment for increasing public preparedness. In Buhmann, E., Ervin, S., Palmer, J., Tomlin, D., & Pietsch, M. (Eds.), Digitallandscapearchitecture. Dessau, Germany: Wichmann Verlag.

Bishop, I. D., O’Connor, A. N., & Stock, C. (2007, December 10-13). Representationofmodellingdatainvirtualworlds. Paper presented at the MODSIM International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Bishop, I. D., Sheth, F., Pettit, C. J., & Sharma, S. (2010). Evaluationofgeographicvisualisationop-tionsinlandscapeplanningandmanagement. Vic-toria, Australia: Future Farming Systems Research.

Bishop, I. D., & Stock, C. (2010). Using collab-orative virtual environments to plan wind energy installations. RenewableEnergy, 35(10), 2348–2355. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.04.003

Brent Hall, G., Chipeniuk, R., Feick, R. D., Leahy, M. G., & Deparday, V. (2010). Community-based production of geographic information using open source software and Web 2.0. InternationalJournalofGeographicalInformationScience, 24(5), 761–781. doi:10.1080/13658810903213288

Bugs, G., Granell, C., Fonts, O., Huerta, J., & Painho, M. (2010). An assessment of public participation GIS and Web 2.0 technologies in urban planning practice in Canela, Brazil. Cities(London,England), 27(3), 172–181. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2009.11.008

Chen, A. T., Stock, C., Bishop, I. D., & O’Connor, A. N. (2006). Prototyping an in-field collaborative environment for landscape decision support by linking GIS with a game engine. In ProceedingsoftheInternationalSocietyforOpticalEngineering, Wuhan, China.

Chen, A. T., Stock, C., Bishop, I. D., & Pettit, C. J. (2008). Automated generation of enhanced virtual environment for collaborative decision making via a live link to GIS. In Pettit, C., Cartwright, W., Bishop, I., Lowell, K.,Puller, D., & Duncan, D. (Eds.), Landscapeanalysisandvisualisation,spatialmod-elsfornaturalresourcemanagementandplanning (pp. 571–590). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69168-6_28

Chen, Y. & Bishop, I. D. (2011, July 4-6) Simulating visitors recreational activities in a virtual environ-ment, In M. H. Hamza (Ed.), Proceedings of theIASTEDSymposiumonModellingandSimulation, Calgary, AB, Canada (no. 735-017). ACTA Press.

Dockerty, T., Lovett, A., Appleton, K., Bone, A., & Sünnenberg, G. (2006). Developing scenarios and visualisations to illustrate potential policy and climatic influences on future agricultural landscapes. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 114(1), 103–120. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.008

Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221. doi:10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y

Green, D. R. (2010). The role of public participatory geographical information systems (PPGIS) in coastal decision-making processes: An example from Scot-land, UK. OceanandCoastalManagement, 53(12), 816–821. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.021

Jude, S. (2008). Investigating the potential role of visualization techniques in participatory coastal management. CoastalManagement, 36(4), 331–349. doi:10.1080/08920750802266346



Lange, E., & Hehl-Lange, S. (2010). Making visions visible for long-term landscape manage-ment. Futures, 42(7), 693–699. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.006

Newsam, S. (2010). Crowdsourcing what is where: Community-contributed photos as volunteered geographic information. IEEEMultiMedia, 17(4), 36–45. doi:10.1109/MMUL.2010.79

O’Connor, A., Bishop, I. D., & Stock, C. (2005). 3D visualisation of spatial information and environ-mental process model outputs for collaborative data exploration. In ProceedingsoftheInternationalCon-ferenceonInformationVisualisation, London, UK.

Paar, P., & Clasen, M. (2007). Earth,landscape,bio-tope,plant:InteractivevisualisationwithBiosphere3D. Paper presented at the CORP12th International Conference on Urban Planning & Regional Develop-ment in the Information Society.

Salter, J. D., Campbell, C., Journeay, M., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2009). The digital workshop: Exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. JournalofEnvironmentalManagement, 90(6), 2090–2101. doi:10.1016/j.jenv-man.2007.08.023

Seeger, C. J. (2008). The role of facilitated volun-teered geographic information in the landscape plan-ning and site design process. GeoJournal, 72(3-4), 199–213. doi:10.1007/s10708-008-9184-2

Sheppard, S. R. J. (2005). Landscape visualisation and climate change: The potential for influencing percep-tions and behaviour. EnvironmentalScience&Policy, 8, 637–654. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.08.002

Sheppard, S. R. J., & Cizek, P. (2009). The ethics of Google Earth: Crossing thresholds from spatial data to landscape visualisation. JournalofEnvironmentalManagement, 90(6), 2102–2117. doi:10.1016/j.jenv-man.2007.09.012

Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and frame-work. AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeogra-phers.AssociationofAmericanGeographers, 96(3), 491–507. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x

Stock, C., Bishop, I. D., Chen, H., Ninõ-Ruiz, M., & Wang, P. (2011). Web-based collaboration and decision-making in GIS-built virtual environments . In Li, S., Dragicevic, S., & Veenendaal, B. (Eds.), Advances in web-based GIS, mapping servicesand applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. doi:10.1201/b11080-23

Stock, C., Bishop, I. D., O’Connor, A. N., Chen, A. T., Pettit, C. J., & Aurambout, J. P. (2008). SIEVE: Collaborative decision-making in an im-mersive online environment. Cartography andGeographicInformationScience, 35(2), 133–144. doi:10.1559/152304008784090568

Wang, P., Stock, C., & Bishop, I. D. (2009). Real-timedatavisualizationinCollaborativeVirtualEnviron-mentsforemergencyresponse. Paper presented at the Surveying & Spatial Sciences Institute Biennial International Conference.

Wissen, U., Schroth, O., Lange, E., & Schmid, W. A. (2008). Approaches to integrating indicators into 3D landscape visualisations and their benefits for participative planning situations. JournalofEnviron-mentalManagement, 89(3), 184–196. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.062

IanD.BishopisaProfessorialFellowintheschoolofEngineering,DepartmentofInfrastruc-tureEngineering,attheUniversityofMelbourne.Hehasworkedformanyyearswithemergingtechnologieswithaviewtopromotionofnovelspatialapplicationsespeciallyinlandscape.Ianhashadaspecial interest invisualizationtechnologiesandrecently thishas includedanumberofapplicationsbasedongameengines.Heisparticularlyinterestedintheirpotentialtoimprovethemanagementofnaturalresourcesandtocontributetopublicparticipationinplanninganddesignissues.

Documents

On-Line Approaches to Data Delivery and Visualisation in ... · mented by local data collection. After data comes technology. The literature on PPGIS and P-GIS is extensive and includes