3D Visualization of Zoning Plans

Christiaan Bos

41

3D Visualization of Zoning Plans

Master Thesis

Date: November, 2010 Author: Christiaan Bos, Msc Geographical Information Management and pplications !GIM " #esearch cond$cted at the M$nicipalit% of Groningen

Supervisors: &r' Ir' #'(' ' van )ammeren !*ageningen +niversit%" &r'Ir' ' )igtenberg !*ageningen +niversit%" Ing' (' &$ister !M$nicipalit% of Groningen"

Professor: ,rof' &r' Ir' ' Bregt !*ageningen +niversit%"

41

41

Abstract
Traditionall%, -oning plans have been represented on a 2& map' .o/ever, vis$ali-ing a -oning plan in 2& has several limitations, s$ch as vis$ali-ing heights of b$ildings' 0$rthermore, a -oning plan is abstract, /hich for citi-ens can be hard to interpret' Therefore, the goal of this research is to e1plore ho/ a -oning plan can be vis$ali-ed in 2& and ho/ it can be vis$ali-ed it is $nderstandable for the p$blic' The 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan is applied in a case st$d%, presented in Google 3arth, and a s$rve% is e1ec$ted to verif% ho/ the respondents perceive the -oning plan from the case st$d%' n important factor of -oning plans is interpretation, since it determines if the p$blic is able to $nderstand /hat is vis$ali-ed b% the -oning plan' This is challenging, since a -oning plan is abstract and consists of man% detailed information and diffic$lt terms' In the case st$d% several techni4$es are $sed to vis$ali-e the -oning plan in 2&' The s$rve% sho/s that vis$ali-ing heights in 2& gives a good impression of the ma1im$m heights and is considered as an important advantage in comparison to 2&' The s$rve% also made clear incl$ding e1isting b$ildings is $sef$l, /hich can help that the p$blic can recogni-e the area easier' nother important factor is interactivit%' Interactivit% can range from letting people navigate thro$gh a -oning plan area and in the case st$d% $sers can clic5 on a certain area or ob6ect in the plan and s$bse4$entl% a men$ pops $p sho/ing more detailed information of a certain ob6ect' The s$rve% made clear that $sing a pop$p men$ is $sef$l, b$t this techni4$e did not optimall% /or5' Navigating in Google 3arth /as also being positivel% 6$dged' Information intensit% is also an important factor Information intensit% concerns the level of detail of a 2& representation of an ob6ect' 7oning plans are generall% not meant to be vis$ali-ed in a high level of detail, b$t sho$ld be represented abstract' The s$rve% co$ld not implicitl% point o$t that the -oning plan sho/s too m$ch or too less detail, b$t it co$ld point o$t that the ma6orit% of the respondents ans/ered that the -oning plan does not sho/ too m$ch information' The interface $sed for the case st$d%, Google 3arth, has a s$bstantial infl$ence on the interpretation of the -oning plan' The legend in Google 3arth is $nclear and an e1planation of the -oning plan is lac5ing, /hich is re4$ired to ma5e the -oning plan more $nderstandable' This research has sho/n that 2& can stim$late the interpretation of -oning plans, beca$se $sers can get a better impression of the plan and is clearer than a c$rrent 2& -oning plan' .o/ever, the interpretation of a -oning plan, even in 2&, still is comple1'

41

Preface

*hen I started m% research period at the department of geo information at the m$nicipalit% of Groningen I did not have clear idea of a topic for m% research' .o/ever, rather 4$ic5l% I fo$nd an interesting topic' The department of geo information is being active in 2& and one of the goal is to develop a database of 2& information and to $se 2& in pro6ects' I became more interested in 2& and I /anted to specif% on a certain application of 2&' I fo$nd an article on 2& -oning plans and I /as immediatel% enth$siastic abo$t this topic' I have a bac5gro$nd in spatial planning, therefore the combination of 2& geo information and -oning plans /as ver% interesting for me' ccidentl%, a co$ncilor from the one the political parties of the m$nicipalit% of Groningen came /ith the idea to present the m$nicipal -oning plans in a 2& environment' B% presenting -oning plans in 2&, the co$ncilor arg$ed, it /o$ld be m$ch clearer for the p$blic /hat the allo/ed heights of b$ildings are' 0or me this /as interesting ho/ 2& can be $sed in -oning plans and this research gained me a lot of 5no/ledge'

I /o$ld li5e to than5 ever%one /ho assisted me d$ring m% research' 0irst of all I /o$ld li5e to than5 (elte &$ister for giving me the opport$nit% to e1ec$te the research at the department of geo information at the M$nicipalit% of Groningen' 8econd of all I /o$ld li5e to than5 all the members at the department of geo information and other members of the m$nicipalit% /hich /ere involved in -oning plans for their s$pport and cooperation' 0rom the GIM programma I /o$ld li5e to than5 m% s$pervisors #on van )ammeren en d$ring this research' rend )igtenberg for their val$able s$pervision and feedbac5

Groningen, The Netherlands &ecember 2010 Christiaan Bos

41

Table of contents
2& 9is$ali-ation of 7oning ,lans'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''iii .............................................................................................................................................. iv Abstract................................................................................................................................... v Preface................................................................................................................................... vi When I started my research period at the department of geo information at the municipality of Groningen I did not have clear idea of a topic for my research. However rather !uic"ly I found an interesting topic. #he department of geo information is being active in $% and one of the goal is to develop a database of $% information and to use $% in pro&ects. I became more interested in $% and I wanted to specify on a certain application of $%. I found an article on $% 'oning plans and I was immediately enthusiastic about this topic. I have a bac"ground in spatial planning therefore the combination of $% geo information and 'oning plans was very interesting for me. Accidently a councilor from the one the political parties of the municipality of Groningen came with the idea to present the municipal 'oning plans in a $% environment. (y presenting 'oning plans in $% the councilor argued it would be much clearer for the public what the allowed heights of buildings are. )or me this was interesting how $% can be used in 'oning plans and this research gained me a lot of "nowledge...........vi #able of contents................................................................................................................... vii *ist of figures and tables.........................................................................................................+i 1.Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1,oning plans in the -etherlands.....................................................................................1 1'1'1 8patial planning in the Netherlands'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''1 ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 2 1'1'2' 7oning plans'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2 1'1'2 2& -oning plans'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2 1... Problem definition.........................................................................................................4 1.$ /esearch ob&ectives......................................................................................................4 1.4 /esearch !uestions.......................................................................................................4 1.0 1cope............................................................................................................................ 0 .. 2ethodology....................................................................................................................... 3 ..1 1cientific 2ethodology...................................................................................................3 2'1'1' 8$b:4$estion 1''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''; 2'1'2 8$b:4$estion 2'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''; 2'1'2 8$b:4$estion 2'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''; 2'1'2 8$b 4$estion <'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''= .... #hesis outline...............................................................................................................4 $. ,oning plans in the -etherlands..........................................................................................5 $.1 %evelopments in 'oning plans.......................................................................................5 $... *imitations of .% visuali'ation of 'oning plans............................................................11 2'2'1' Interpretation of height ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''11 2'2'2 Mi1ed -oning'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''11 2'2'2' +ndergro$nd'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''12 $...4 6onclusions.............................................................................................................. 14 $.$ $% 'oning plan pilots...................................................................................................14 2'2'1' ,ilot 200;'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''1> 2'2'2 3nschede case''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''1= 2'2'2 #otterdam case''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''1?

41

2'2'< 2& vis$ali-ation iss$es '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''1@ 2'< Concl$sions''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''20 4. $% geovisuali'ation in spatial planning and the role in 'oning plans .................................. <'1 #ole of comm$nication in the planning process'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''22 <'1'1 Comm$nicative planning'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''22 <'1'2 3:participation'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''22 4.. Geovisuali'ation.......................................................................................................... .$ <'2'1 Geovis$ali-ation defined ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''22 <'2'2 The AIB factors of geovis$ali-ation'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2< <'2'2 Geovis$ali-ation frame/or5s''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2; <'2'< #elating geovis$ali-ation frame/or5s to -oning plans''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2= 4.$ 1patial interpretation of geovisuali'ations.....................................................................4 <'2'1 +ser definition'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2? <'2'2 General principles for the interpretation of geovis$ali-ations''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2@ <'2'2 8patial interpretation and vis$ali-ation of -oning plans'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''20 4.4 $% geovisuali'ation as communication tool in the planning process............................$1 <'<'1 2& geovis$ali-ation as comm$nication tool''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''21 <'<'2 2& geovis$ali-ation in the planning process''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''22 <'<'2 31amples of 2& geovis$ali-ation in $rban planning''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2> 4.0 $% geovisuali'ation of 'oning plans in the planning process.......................................$3 <'>'1 2& geovis$ali-ation of -oning plans as a comm$nication tool''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2; <'>'2 Concept$al model''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2? 4.3 6onclusions................................................................................................................. 41 6hapter 0. /e!uirements for $% visuali'ation of 'oning plan ob&ects....................................4. 0.1 I2/7.884................................................................................................................... 4. A standard in relation to the I2/7.884 model is -9- $318:.880 (asis 1cheme Geo; information <-9- .880= where terms relations and general rules for the e+change of information concerning the surface related spatial ob&ects are described. I2/7.884 is an application of the (asis 1cheme Geo;information which means that I2/7 has to comply with the rules which are described in -9- $318. I2/7.884 ma"es use of the ob&ect classes described in -9- $318 and in addition the ob&ects should as much as possible be described according to the identified attributes from -9- $318. However the -9- $318 is a general model which is not specific enough in every case for the spatial planning. #herefore in the I2/7.884 model attributes are distinguished which are not provided in -9- $318 and more details are added to already e+isting attributes of -9- $318...........4. 0.. 7b&ects of I2/7.884..................................................................................................4$ 0.$ )rom .% 'oning plan into $% geovisuali'ation............................................................40 >'2'1 &imensions of vis$ali-ations'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<; >'2'2 Cb6ects of -oning plan /ith third dimension'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<= >'2'2 Geometric presentation of ob6ects'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<? Ma1im$m heights'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<@ a' b' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<@ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<@ rea denotations'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<@ >'2'< 9is$al variables'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''>1 0.4 /e!uirements $% visuali'ation ob&ects .......................................................................0$ >'<'1 7oning plane''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''>2 >'<'2 B$ilding plane ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''>< >'<'2 &evelopment percentage'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''>> >'<'< rea denotations''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''>>

41

>'<'> rchaeological val$es''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''>; >'<'; Images'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''>= >'<'= 31isting b$ildings''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''>? 0.0 6onclusions................................................................................................................. 04 6hapter 3. 6ase study Groningen.........................................................................................05 3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 38 3.. 1tudy area................................................................................................................... 38 ;'2'1 .istor%''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';0 3.... ,oning plan 6oendersborg.......................................................................................31 3.$ 1oftware and data sets................................................................................................31 ;'2'1 &ata sets ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';1 ;'2'2' 8oft/are''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';2 ;'2'2 .ard/are:'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';2 ;'2'< 9is$ali-ation tool'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';2 3.4 2odelling process........................................................................................................3$ ;'<'1 Creation of terrain model''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';> ;'<'2 ,rocessing -oning plan data''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';> ;'<'2 31tr$sion of b$ilding vol$mes''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';= ;'<'< 31isting b$ildings ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';? ;'> 9is$ali-ing -oning plan into Google 3arth'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=1 ;'>'1 B$ilding vol$mes''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=1 ;'>'2 Mi1ed f$nctions'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=1 ;'>'2 Noise -one'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=2 ;'>'< 31isting b$ildings''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=2 ;'>'> +ndergro$nd -oning''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=< ;'>'; Thematic maps''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=> 3.3 6onclusion................................................................................................................... >3 >. /esults of survey............................................................................................................... >4 >.1 1urvey population........................................................................................................>4 >.. %esign of setup of the survey......................................................................................>4 >.$ 2ultiple choice !uestions.............................................................................................>5 0ig$re ;1' .eights''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?1 The goal of the statement sho/n in fig$re =1 /as to get an impression if the respondents state vis$ali-ing the ma1im$m heights is $sef$l' The res$lts of the geo gro$p clearl% sho/s that the% agree on the statement' >0D of the non:geo gro$p agrees on the statement, ho/ever still a s$bstantial percentage of <0D neither agrees nor disagrees on the statement''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?; >.0 %iscussion of results....................................................................................................45 ='>'1 9is$al clarit%'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?@ ='>'2 ,erceived $sef$lness and ease of $se'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?@ ='>'2 General concl$sions'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''@0 4. 6onclusions and discussion..............................................................................................5. 4.1 Answering the research !uestion.................................................................................5. 4.. %iscussion................................................................................................................... 54 ?'2'1 Choice of Google 3arth'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''@> ?'2'2' #es$lts of the case st$d%'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''@> s alread% pointed o$t in the previo$s section, the ob6ects in the $ndergro$nd cannot be vis$ali-ed in Google 3arth' .o/ever, some vis$al re4$irements have been described and disc$ssed in the case st$d% !see chapter > and ;", b$t ho/ the ob6ects in the $ndergro$nd are perceived b% the $sers /as not tested in the s$rve%' That /as a limitation of this research'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''@; ?'2'2 8$rve%'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''@;

41

4.$ )uture research........................................................................................................... 53 /eferences............................................................................................................................ 55 Appendi+ A 1urvey.............................................................................................................. 184 Appendi+ ( Interviews.........................................................................................................11. Interviews with 2unicipality of /otterdam and 9nschede....................................................11.

41

List of figures and tables

Figures
)igure 1. A framewor" of %utch spatial plans <derived from ?oogd Wolt&er .885=................. )igure .. ,oning plan of municipality of Groningen.................................................................$ )igure $. 9+ample of a digital 'oning plan on www.ruimteli&"eplannen.nl..............................18 )igure 4. 2i+ed 'oning <source: website municipality of Groningen=.....................................1. )igure 0. %ouble 'oning functions shown by a@AB symbol.....................................................1$ )igure 3. $% 'oning plan from below.....................................................................................13 )igure >. Planning volume...................................................................................................1> )igure 4. 7verlapping of 'oning volumes..............................................................................1> )igure 5. Csseler 9s 9nschede............................................................................................14 )igure 18. 1tadshavens /otterdam.......................................................................................15 )igure 11. ?isuali'ation of piles in the underground..............................................................15 )igure 1.. *evel of %etail <source 6ityG2* .818..................................................................0 )igure 1$. 2ac9achrenDs cube representing "ey dimensions related to visuali'aton and communication. 1ource: <2ac9achren <.884=.......................................................................3 )igure 14. 9;interaction communication protocol cube <van *ammeren et al. .88>=..............> )igure 10. 6onceptual framewor" for $% geovisuali'ation Hoogerwerf et al. <.883= modified by Eibria <.884=..................................................................................................................... $$ )igure 13. /elationship between geovisuali'ation effects </ietdi&" et al. .883=.....................$4 )igure 1>. ?irtuo6ity Groningen............................................................................................$3 )igure 14. Cse of interactive map table in planning process of 'oning plans........................$> )igure 15. 6onceptual model of $% visuali'ation of 'oning plans.........................................$4 )igure .8. ,oning plan scheme <source: Pra"ti&"li&nen I2/7.884=.......................................4$ )igure .1: I2/7.884 ob&ects ..............................................................................................44 #he ob&ect Fbuilding planeD <bouwvla"= is always inside or e!ual to the 'oning plane. It is possible to have more building planes within a 'oning plane. #he development plane relates to the 'oning plane. (uilding planes which are stretched out on multiple 'oning types <FbestemmingenD= will be divided for each 'oning type since the regulations of a 'oning type only apply to the part of the development )igure .. . (uilding plane ................................................................................................................................. 44 )igure .$. %enotations.......................................................................................................... 40 )igure .4. 2easurements ........................................40 )igure .0. Image................................................................................................................... 40 )igure .3. Area denotations..................................................................................................40 )igure .>. 1patial representation in different dimensions......................................................43 )igure .4. Geometric options visuali'ing ma+imum heights..................................................45 )igure .5. Geometric options visuali'ing noise 'ones...........................................................08 )igure $8. (uilding volume with rooftop................................................................................01 )igure $1. 6onceptual model for $% visuali'ation of 'oning plan..........................................0. )igure $.. ,oning functions for each building level...............................................................0$ )igure $$. ?isualisation of building volumes.........................................................................04 )igure $4. 9+ample of visuali'ation of development percentage...........................................00

41

)igure $0. ?isuali'ation of a safety 'one of $% 'oning plan of 9nschede <source 1tohr et al. .88>=..................................................................................................................................... 03 )igure $3. ?isuali'ation of transport pipelines in the underground........................................0> )igure $>. *evel of %etail <6ityG2* .818=...........................................................................04 )igure $4. *ocation of 6oendersborg in Groningen..............................................................38 )igure $5. ,oning plan of 6oendersborg<source: municipality of Groningen=........................31 )igure 48. 2odelling process for $% visuali'ation of 'oning plan in Google 9arth...............34 )igure 41. Pit heights............................................................................................................ 30 )igure 4.. ,oning planes with a terrain model......................................................................33 )igure 4$. 1hapefile with 'oning planes................................................................................3> )igure 44. 6onvert pro&ection................................................................................................34 )igure 40. 1trabo+ 1tereo ?iewing 1ystem...........................................................................35 )igure 43. G(EG with height measurements........................................................................35 )igure 4>. 9+truded buildings................................................................................................>8 )igure 44. 9+isting buildings with rooftops in 1"etchCp........................................................>8 )igure 45. ,oning plan in Google 9arth................................................................................>1 )igure 08. 2i+ed 'oning functions within one building volume..............................................>. )igure 01. -oise 'one........................................................................................................... >$ )igure 0.. 9+isting buildings in the 'oning plan visuali'ed in Google 9arth..........................>4 )igure 0$. ?isuali'ing basement and archaeological 'one....................................................>0 )igure 04. %evelopment percentages...................................................................................>0 )igure 00. ?isuali'ation of ma+imum heights........................................................................>3 )igure 03. 9+perience in 'oning plans..................................................................................>5 )igure 0>. ,oning plan on the internet...................................................................................>5 )igure 04. Cse of Google 9arth............................................................................................48 )igure 05............................................................................................................................... 48 )igure 38. $% visuali'ation of 'oning plan in Google 9arth...................................................41 )igure 31. Heights................................................................................................................. 41 )igure 3.. (uilding percentages............................................................................................4. )igure 3$. 2a+imum heights.................................................................................................4. )igure 34. Amount of information..........................................................................................4. )igure 30. 2ore te+t.............................................................................................................. 4$ )igure 33. Popup menu.........................................................................................................4$ )igure 3>. 9+isting buildings.................................................................................................44 )igure 34. Adding photos on e+isting buildings.....................................................................44 )igure 35. Advantages $% in comparison to .%....................................................................44 )igure >8. %isadvan;tages $% in comparison to .%..............................................................40 )igure >1.?isuali;'ing ma+imum heights...............................................................................40 )igure >..6omparison .% to $%............................................................................................43 )igure >$. Adding shadows...................................................................................................43 )igure >4. 2easu;ring heights...............................................................................................4> )igure >0. #he legend used in the case study <left image= and an e+ample of an improved legend with a e+planation of one of the maps <right image=..................................................58 )igure >3. 6lic"ing on ob&ects...............................................................................................50

Tables

41

#able 1. $% component ........................................................................................................4> #able .. #ransport pipelines..................................................................................................0> #able $ %ata sets.................................................................................................................. 31

41

1. Introduction
In the Netherlands, space is a scarce commodit%, /hich ma5es it vital to be caref$l /ith the $se of space' Therefore, the government sees it as its responsibilit% to act as a reg$lation bod% /hen the $se and development of land is in matter !9an 7$ndert, 200;"' Cne of the instr$ments to reg$late space is the m$nicipal -oning plan !bestemmingsplan in &$tch"' It is the most important planning instr$ment in the &$tch spatial planning' The c$rrent -oning plans are represented on a 2& map' .o/ever, a 2& -oning plan has its limitations, mainl% beca$se the heights of b$ildings are not vis$ali-ed !8toter and Bi6l, 200;"' In addition, man% developments of 2& vis$ali-ations ! Virtual Cities, Second Life, Google Earth" are ta5ing place and there is also a gro/ing interest of 2& in the field of spatial planning !Batt%, 200="' The interest in 2& -oning plans /as also made clear /hen one of the main political parties in the m$nicipalit% of Groningen came /ith a proposition to represent a 2& -oning plan on the internet !,vd Groningen, 2010"' The motive for this proposition /as a complaint from citi-ens /hich had no good idea of the allo/ed heights of b$ildings' In a traditional -oning plan, these heights are not vis$ali-ed' In these 5inds of sit$ations 2& vis$ali-ation co$ld offer an added val$e' The $se of vis$ali-ations, especiall% in 2&, is interesting for citi-ens as the% can get a good impression of an area and can be easier to $nderstand than polic% doc$ments !8ieber, 200;"' 0$rthermore, 2& can offer more and better opport$nities to vis$ali-e ob6ects' -oning plans /ill be given' challenge is to create vis$ali-ations in s$ch as /a% it is interpretable b% the $ser' This /ill be an aspect in this research' In the ne1t section a bac5gro$nd on

1.1

Zoning plans in the Netherlands

etherlands

1.1.1 Spatial planning in the

In the Netherlands the government s%stem e1ists of three levels: central government, provincial government and m$nicipal government' The three:tiers are a$tonomo$s, e1cept for certain stat$tor% po/ers reserved for provinces and central government !9an der 9al5, 2002"' The administrative s%stem is based on a constit$tion and implementing acts and the process of comm$nication bet/een the tiers of government is characteri-ed b% consens$s b$ilding !0al$di and van der 9al5, 1@@<"' 3ach of these a$thorities has a role in spatial planning' National and provincial governments $se broad frame/or5 visions and polic% g$idelines' Integration plans are e4$al to -oning plans and can be developed /hen national or provincial interests are at sta5e' M$nicipalities ma5e $se of both frame/or5 visions !str$ct$$rvisies in &$tch" as /ell as binding -oning plans' 0rame/or5 visions are made to develop visions for desired spatial developments for the long:term f$t$re' The m$nicipal -oning plan is the most important instr$ment in the spatial planning' The -oning plan is the onl%

41

instr$ment /here binding re4$irements are given for the allo/ed $se of land' The -oning plan describes /hat the p$rposes are !development or other $se" of land !9an 7$ndert, 200;"'

National government

0rame/or5 vision Integration plans

,rovince

M$nicipalit%

0rame/or5 vision Integration plans

Figure 1. A framework of Dutch spatial plans (derived from Voogd,

olt!er, "##$%&

1.1.!. Zoning plans

7oning plan important instr$ment in the spatial planning' The -oning plan is The m$nicipal -oning plan is the most the onl% instr$ment /here0rame/or5 binding re4$irements are given for the allo/ed $se of land' The -oning plan vision describes /hat the p$rposes are !development or other $se" of land !9an 7$ndert, 200;"' The -oning plan consists of the reg$lations of the b$ilding development, li5e the t%pe of development, b$ilding reg$lations and $se reg$lations' 7oning plans are developed to have a Aproper spatial planningB !*ro, 200?"' This for e1ample implies that ne1t to a ho$sing area an ind$strial area can not be developed /itho$t an% problems, since the environment sho$ld be ta5en into acco$nt for ne/ developments' Therefore, -oning is $sed to prevent ne/ development from interfering /ith e1isting residents or b$sinesses and to preserve the AcharacterB of an area' Aproper spatial planningB also implies that the interests in the involved area /hich pla% a role sho$ld be ta5en into acco$nt and need to be /eighted' This integral /eighting sho$ld res$lt in clear and motivated choices in relation to the vision of the m$nicipalit% and sho$ld be laid do/n in a -oning plan !8tr$i5sma, 200?"'

41

Figure 2' 'oning plan of municipalit( of Groningen

In the map belonging to the -oning plan, the different t%pes of -ones are represented' This is represented on a 2& map !see fig$re 2"' B% assigning a f$nction to an area, it is described /hat is allo/ed and /hat 5ind of reg$lations e1ists in that area' The reg$lations of each f$nction concerning the constr$ction and land:$se are related' The bo$ndaries of each -one on the map have to be ver% acc$rate, beca$se an incorrect bo$ndar% co$ld ma5e $ndesirable developments possible or can fr$strate desired developments !T$nnissen, 200@"' .ere, it is not onl% important that the bo$ndaries are correct, b$t that a $ser can e1tract this information from the map' The aspect of vis$ali-ation is vital, since it sho$ld enhance the $sabilit% and $nderstanding of the plan !)angenorf, 1@@2, cited in B$lmer, 2001"'

1.1.3 3D zoning plans

C$rrentl% there is no m$nicipalit% in the Netherlands /hich $ses a 2& -oning plan' .o/ever, as part of a program of 9#CM t/o pilots have been done to b$ild protot%pes to find o$t the possibilities of a 2& -oning plan

Cne of the main concl$sions from the pilots is that a 2& -oning plan can offer an added val$e in vis$ali-ing heights ho/ever, a transformation from a 2& map to 2& is a challenge, since the addition

41

of the third dimension ma5es a -oning plan f$ndamentall% different' To establish a complete 2& -oning plan, man% aspects sho$ld be considered, s$ch as data capt$ring, data modelling, management, dissemination and vis$ali-ation' data

1.2. Problem definition

Traditionall%, -oning plans have been represented on a 2& map' .o/ever, a 2& -oning plan has several limitations, s$ch as the vis$ali-ation of the heights of a b$ilding !Bi6l and 8toter, 200;" and a -oning plan is abstract, /hich for citi-ens can be hard to interpret' In the last co$ple of %ears 2& have been thro$gh man% developments and is being $sed for a /ide variet% of disciplines li5e spatial planning, geolog%, h%drolog%, environmental monitoring and real estate !Nielsen, 200>"' In spatial planning, m$nicipalities have developed 2& models of their cit% and begin $sing 2& for planning processes !7latanova et al' 200?"' 2& vis$ali-ation offers several advantages, for e1ample the 2& vis$ali-ation of spatial plans can res$lt in better comm$nication /ith citi-ens, thereb% involving them more in the planning process ! l:Eodman%, 2002"' 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan is f$ndamentall% different than a 2& -oning plan, since the third dimension is added to map, /hich res$lts in a different vis$ali-ation of the plan' In the IM#C200? standard, /hich is the &$tch standard for the representation of -oning plan, the ob6ects and the attrib$tes are described for the 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plan' Cne of challenges is ho/ the -oning plan ob6ects of a -oning plan can be vis$ali-ed in 2& and ho/ it can be vis$ali-ed in a /a% it is $nderstandable for the p$blic' 0$rthermore, 2& offers several methods and techni4$es to vis$ali-e the -oning plan and /hich can help in the $nderstanding of the -oning plan'

1.3 Research objectives

The main ob6ective of this research is to e1plore ho/ a -oning plan can be vis$ali-ed in 2& and in s$ch a /a% it can be made $nderstandable for the p$blic and improve the comm$nication /ith the p$blic'

1.4 Research questions

Based on the stated research ob6ective, /hich is defined in the previo$s section, a main 4$estion /ith some s$b:4$estions are form$lated'

Main research 4$estion:

41

How can a zoning plan be visualized in 3D and how can it be visualized such that it is understandable?

8$b:4$estions:

*hat are developments in -oning plansF

*hat is the role of 2& geovis$ali-ation in -oning plansF

*hat are the vis$al re4$irements for the 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning planF

.o/ can a 2& -oning plan of Groningen be vis$ali-ed in 2& /hich can be $nderstandable for the $sersF

1. !cope
The research /ill be limited to research to the 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan and ho/ it can be vis$ali-ed it is clear to the p$blic' To develop a 2& -oning plan more aspects sho$ld be ta5en into acco$nt, tho$gh some of them might be mentioned d$ring this research, the% /ill not be researched in detail' Cne of the aspects deals /ith the design of an interface' This research /ill ma5e $se of an e1isting interface, Google 3arth, to vis$ali-e the -oning plan' It is not a goal to design an interface specificall% for a 2& -oning plan' In addition, c$rrent -oning plans are presented on the internet, ho/ever this research /ill not research possibilities to design a /eb service for a 2& -oning plan' 2& offers ne/ opport$nities to vis$ali-e ob6ects /hich are s$itable to vis$ali-e in 2& and /hich are comple1 to vis$ali-e in 2&' 31amples of these ne/ opport$nities are par5ing garages, basements, thermal energ% storage etcetera' The aim of this research is not to investigate if and ho/ these ob6ects can be vis$ali-ed in 2& in a -oning plan' This research /ill onl% vis$ali-e ob6ects of a c$rrent -oning plan' nother aspect deals /ith the 6$ridical conditions of a -oning plan' -oning plan is a binding plan

/hich sho$ld be 6$ridical correct' 9is$ali-ing a -oning plan in 2& has conse4$ences for the 6$ridical part of a -oning plan, since the c$rrent -oning plan reg$lations do not in ever% case fit to vis$ali-ation in 2&, it fits to 2& vis$ali-ation' This research /ill not aim to e1plore ho/ the reg$lations sho$ld be

41

made s$itable for 2& vis$ali-ation' #elated to this iss$e is the IM#C model' This research /ill not develop a ne/ data model for 2& -oning plans, b$t /ill $se the -oning plan ob6ects from the c$rrent IM#C200? model' Tho$gh the IM#C200? model /ill be disc$ssed, no ne/ IM#C model /ill be developed'

!. "ethodolog#
This chapter deals /ith the methodolog% /here the research is based on' It consists o$t of t/o parts: a scientific methodolog% and a thesis o$tline'

2.1 !cientific "ethodolog#

In this section the methodolog% to give ans/ers to the research 4$estions /ill be o$tlined' The methodolog% is split $p res$lting into a methodolog% for each of the fo$r research 4$estions'

2.1.1. Sub-question 1
The first s$b:4$estion /ill disc$ss the developments in 2& -oning plans' This 4$estion /ill be divided into three sections' The first section /ill disc$ss the limitations of a traditional 2& -oning plan' It /ill start /ith e1plaining the traditional -oning plan and the developments /hich have been ta5en in place in the last co$ple of %ears' 8$bse4$entl% it /ill disc$ss the limitations of representing a -oning plan in 2&' The second section /ill disc$ss the development of 2& -oning plans' In 200= a pilot of 9#CM has been done to design a protot%pe of a 2& -oning plan' The o$tcome of this pilot /ill be described and disc$ssed' lso a report abo$t the development of a 2& -oning plan from three cons$ltanc% agencies /ill be described' In addition, intervie/s /ith persons from m$nicipalities /ill be done /hich /ere involved in this pilot' This chapter ends /ith concl$sions'

!.1.! Sub$%uestion !
The second s$b:4$estion /ill consist of a literat$re st$d% on 2& vis$ali-ation, spatial interpretation of vis$ali-ations and an anal%sis of the role of 2& vis$ali-ation in the planning process of a -oning plan' 0irst an introd$ction on !2&" geovis$ali-ation and frame/or5s /ill be disc$ssed to position this research and -oning plans in the frame/or5 of 2& vis$ali-ation' Then general principles for vis$ali-ation /ill be disc$ssed to determine /hat is necessar% for $nderstandable vis$ali-ations' 0$rthermore, 2& vis$ali-ation /ill be p$t into perspective of the planning process of a -oning plan b% ma5ing a concept$al model and some e1amples of 2& vis$ali-ation in spatial planning /ill be disc$ssed'

!.1.3 Sub$%uestion 3
The first step of this s$b:4$estion /ill be to disting$ish the planning ob6ects of a -oning plan' In the IM#C standards the planning ob6ects are described for -oning plans /hich /ill be $sed for the representation in 2&' These planning ob6ects /ill be $sed for the implementation for the 2&

41

vis$ali-ation' 0$rthermore, in IM#C reg$lations are described, for e1ample reg$lations for the ma1im$m height of b$ildings, /hich are described in the reg$lations of a -oning plan' These reg$lations have to be ta5en into acco$nt for the vis$ali-ation of planning ob6ects in 2&' The second step /ill deal /ith the re4$irements to represent the identified planning ob6ects in 2&' 8everal techni4$es are available to vis$ali-e the ob6ects in 2&, this /ill be disc$ssed' described' concept$al model /ill be presented and for each ob6ect in the -oning plan, the vis$al re4$irements /ill be

!.1.3 Sub %uestion &

The goal of is s$b 4$estion is to vis$ali-e a -oning plan in 2& as part of a case st$d%' The method /hich /ill be $sed for this case st$d% /ill be based on the #apid pplications

&evelopment, in /hich protot%ping is an important element' # & is a term $sed b% (ames Martin !1@@1" to describe a set of proced$res and approaches /hich, as the name describes, aim to prod$ce s%stem designs 4$ic5l%' ,rotot%ping is an essential element of # & allo/ing $sers to see earl% attempts b% designers and provide concrete, positive responses' definition of a protot%pe is Aa /or5ing model of a s%stem or part of a s%stem /hich ma% emphasi-e some specific aspects of it !#eeve and ,etch, 1@@@"' The established idea of protot%ping is to spend a limited amo$nt of time and mone% on prod$cing something in the small before prod$cing something in the large' This s$b: 4$estion can be considered as design protot%ping, /here the goal is to sho/ ho/ a -oning plan can be vis$ali-ed in 2&' The case st$d% area /ill be a neighbo$rhood in Groningen, named Coendersborg' The c$rrent 2& -oning plan of Coendersborg /ill be $sed for the vis$ali-ation of the -oning plan in 2&' The re4$irements to represent the ob6ects based on IM#C200?, /hich are described in the s$b:4$estion 2 /ill be applied in this case st$d%' Google 3arth /ill be $sed as a vie/er to represent the -oning plan' The development of the -oning plan /ill be done b% a combination of soft/are, s$ch as 85etch$p' The developed -oning plan /ill be validated based on a s$rve%' The goal of the s$rve% is to verif% if the -oning plan is clear and ho/ the interface is perceived b% the respondents' The pop$lation of the s$rve% consists of people /ith and /itho$t e1perience in geovis$ali-ations' the m$nicipalit% of Groningen' The s$rve% res$lts /ill be anal%sed and disc$ssed' 0inall%, this research ends /ith concl$sions, a disc$ssion and some f$t$re research directions /ill be proposed' n$mber of the respondents are civil servants from the m$nicipalit% of Groningen and most of the other are citi-ens of rc8cene en

41

2.2. $hesis outline

(ro)lem description (Chapter *) +ethodology (Chapter ')

Background analysis (Chapter 3) Current zoning plans &imitations o 'D zoning plan Developments in 3D zoning plans

Role 3D visualization in zoning plan (Chapter 4) 3D geovisualizatio n ,patial interpretation 3D visualization in zoning plans sprocess

Re-uirements zoning plan o).ects (Chapter /) 0+R1 '22% o).ects 3D o).ects 3D visualization techni-ues

Case-study: 3D visualization o zoning plan o !roningen (Chapter " #$) 3isualization in !oogle 4arth ,urvey to test interpretation zoning plan

Conclusions discussion and uture research (Chapter %)

41

3. Zoning plans in the etherlands

This chapter /ill disc$ss the developments in -oning plans and can be considered as a conte1t for this research' 0irst, an overvie/ of developments in -oning plans /ill be given' Thereafter, limitations concerning the representation of the c$rrent -oning plan /ill be disc$ssed' The last section /ill disc$ss pilots of 2& -oning plans'

3.1 %evelopments in &oning plans

The last co$ple of %ears, the -oning plan /ent thro$gh a n$mber of developments' This /ill be described belo/' t the end of 2000 the pro6ect &+#, !&igitale +it/isselbare #$imteli65e ,lannen, since 200> &igitale +it/isseling in #$imteli65e ,rocessen" /hich stands for digital e1change in spatial processes /as introd$ced b% the Ministr% of .o$sing, 8patial ,lanning and the 3nvironment !9#CM", /hich is responsible for spatial planning' The ob6ective of this pro6ect /as to ma5e the spatial planning process more effective and efficient thro$gh the digitali-ing of the development, $se and e1change of spatial plans' 0$rthermore, it /as set$p to increase the involvement of citi-ens and ma5e the spatial planning process more transparent !Metta$ and 9ersch$$r, 2001"' ,art of &+#, /as that from ($l% 200@, m$nicipalities, provinces and national governments are obligated to ma5e their ne/ spatial plans digitall%' This obligation is part of the ne/ )a/ on spatial planning !*ro"' The la/ arranges the accessibilit% of spatial plans b% t/o related instr$ments: 8patial ,lanning 8tandards 200? !#C 8tandaarden 200?" and 8patial ,lanning Cnline !#C:Cnline"' The first is a set of agreements and r$les /hich provide that spatial plans are e1changeable, comparable and ob6ect oriented !9#CM, 200?"' Ne1t to the digiti-ation and improved e1changeabilit% of the plans is the importance of standardi-ation' &igiti-ed and standardi-ed -oning plans contrib$te to better $niform, $p:to:date and e1change of plans' In the ne/ *ro the re4$irements for standards of the instr$ments are described !9#CM, 200="' These standards are called 8patial ,lanning standards 200? !#C standaarden 200?" /hich are the basis for the representation, planning and accessibilit% of spatial plans' Cne of these standards is IM#C200?, /hich is the information model for the form$lation and e1change of str$ct$re visions, -oning plans, decisions and commandments of the ne/ *ro on ever% governmental level' It is a model for standardi-ed encoding of ob6ect:based spatial plans' The different -oning f$nctions are standardi-ed and m$st be $sed in the plans !(anssen and (e5el, 200;"' The standard for the e1change format is the Geograph% Mar5$p )ang$age !GM)" !CGC", an open standard' 0or the application of IM#C a set of practical g$idelines are defined for -oning plans' The g$idelines promote an ob6ect:based approach in /hich ob6ects in the map are lin5ed /ith te1t abo$t the t%pe of $se and reg$lations' G$idelines for 2& modelling are not described in the g$idelines, /hich

41

/ill be necessar% /hen 2& land:$se plans /ill be implemented nationall%' .o/ever, GM) does s$pport 2&' 0rom the first (an$ar% of 2010 all of the m$nicipalities, provinces and national departments are re4$ired to ma5e ne/ digital spatial plans !li5e the -oning plan" available via internet !9an 8cherpen-eel, 2010"' Citi-ens, companies and organi-ations are getting easier access to information on reg$lations of spatial plans this sho$ld improve the services of the m$nicipalities to its p$blic' The /ebsite #C:Cnline !///'r$imteli65eplannen'nl" sho/s digital -oning plans from m$nicipalities !see fig$re 2"' These -oning plans are capt$red via a /eb service in the m$nicipal GI8 vie/er to #C: Cnline' 7oning plans are available on the internet via CGC !CpenGI8" standards *M8 and *08 /ebservices'

5igure 3. E)ample of a digital *oning plan on www&ruimteli!keplannen&nl

The -oning plans have gone thro$gh several developments, /hich improved the accessibilit%, transparenc% and e1change of the plan' .o/ever, the c$rrent -oning plan, vis$ali-ed in 2&, has limitations, /here ne/ technologies, s$ch as 2& co$ld offer a benefit in the vis$ali-ation of the plan' 2&, therefore, co$ld be the ne1t step in the process of development of -oning plans' In the ne1t section, several limitations of 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plans /ill be disc$ssed'

41

3.2. 'imitations of 2% visuali&ation of &oning plans

The c$rrent -oning plans have a n$mber of limitations related to the vis$alisation of the plan' In comparison to 2&, the 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan has several disadvantages' The main limitations /ill be disc$ssed in this section'

3.!.1. Interpretation of height

nother important limitation of the c$rrent -oning plan is the interpretation of the plan, in partic$lar the interpretation of the ma1im$m heights of b$ildings' Cn the map it is not vis$ali-ed /hat the allo/ed ma1im$m b$ilding height is, b$t ma1im$m heights are described in the -oning plan reg$lations and are not vis$ali-ed on the map' Therefore for citi-ens a map does not give a clear vie/ /hat ma1im$m height is allo/ed and /hat the impact is on the environment !,vd , 2010", /hich is important for citi-ens to $nderstand the plans better' 2& maps are abstract and can be hard to $nderstand' In 2&, people can get a better impression of the plan and people can easier recogni-e the st$d% area ! l:Eodman%, 2001"' In addition, in 2& it is possible to vis$ali-e the ma1im$m heights' B% vis$ali-ing the heights of b$ildings in 2&, citi-ens can get a better overvie/ of the allo/ed heights of b$ildings' *hen citi-ens can easier $nderstand the -oning plan, the% become more involved in the planning process ! l:Eodman%, 2002"' In the ne1t chapter, the iss$e of interpretation of vis$ali-ation /ill be disc$ssed in more detail'

3.!.! "i'ed zoning

*hen areas have one t%pe of -oning f$nction !bestemming", a 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan is s$itable and is clear' .o/ever, /hen more than one -oning f$nction is assigned on a -oning plane, the c$rrent 2& maps are not s$itable to give a clear vie/' mi1ed !in &$tch: AgemengdB" -oning t%pe is part of the main -oning f$nctions li5e ho$sing, retail, c$lt$re, service and recreation' In a -oning plan a mi1ed !gemengd" -oning label is assigned to a -oning plane /hen it contains at least t/o -oning t%pes, s$ch as ho$sing and retail' This implies that the map does not vis$ali-e /hich -oning t%pes are allo/ed, it onl% states that a certain -oning plane is meant for mi1ed -oning !see fig$re 1"' *here these -oning f$nction sho$ld be e1actl% located is not described in the reg$lations, therefore, /ithin a mi1ed -one the allo/ed -oning t%pes are e1changeable /ithin the area' If one /o$ld li5e to 5no/ the allo/ed -oning t%pes, one have to loo5 into the -oning plan reg$lations to 5no/ /hat is allo/ed on the different b$ilding levels andGor on the -oning plane !B$ro 9i6n et al' 200;"' This is a disadvantage of c$rrent -oning plans, since it is not clearl% visible on /hich level /hich -oning t%pe e1actl% is allo/ed !At 3rve, 2010"' n e1ample of a mi1ed -oning t%pe is /hen a -oning plane can have the -oning f$nction ho$sing and retail andGor service' *hen a -oning plane e1ist of a b$ilding /ith man% b$ilding levels, it is possible to have mi1ed -oning /ith for e1ample retail on the gro$nd level and ho$sing on the $pper levels'

41

Figure 4. Mixed zoning (source: website municipality of Groningen)

3.!.3. (nderground
7oning in the $ndergro$nd is another aspect /hich is hard to vis$ali-e in a c$rrent -oning plan, s$ch as the vis$ali-ation of archaeological val$es and transport pipelines' s alread% sho/n in fig$re 1 -oning f$nctions can be either single: or do$ble -oning' &o$ble -oning !in &$tch: Ad$bbelbestemmingB" means that there are al/a%s at least -oning f$nctions independent from each other, for e1ample Aagric$lt$re $seB and Agas pipelineB, and one of them is overlapping more than one other -oning f$nction' b$ilding /ith t/o different -oning f$nctions !eg ho$sing and retail" is not independent' Three main gro$ps of do$ble -oning can be disting$ished: 1' transport pipelines !eg' gas, oil, /ater, se/er"H 2' val$es !eg' archaeological, c$lt$re historical, ecological"H 2' /ater management !eg /ater emban5ment, /ater storage"' These -oning f$nctions overlap more than other -oning f$nction'

41

Figure 5. Double zoning functions shown by a+ symbol

These -oning f$nctions are vis$ali-ed thro$gh s%mbols on the map !see fig$re >", ho/ever it is not clear ho/ deep these archaeological val$es or transport pipelines are sit$ated' Cn a 2& map, onl% the bo$ndaries on the s$rface are described in the reg$lations, so the third component is not ta5en into acco$nt' .o/ever, the third dimension is important, for 5no/ing ho/ deep belo/ the base level the pipelines and cables are located and ho/ deep the% are allo/ed to be located, in case one /ants to b$ild constr$ctions in the $ndergro$nd' In c$rrent -oning plan maps, the most important cables and pipelines are depicted, onl% the depths cannot be e1tracted from the map' The $ndergro$nd co$ld be an interesting aspect for -oning plans, since the $ndergro$nd is being $sed more intensivel% and therefore becoming more important' The importance of the $ndergro$nd is also stressed in the polic% doc$ment 8patial ,lanning +ndergro$nd !9#CM, 200<"' It /as stated that in the Netherlands the press$re on space is increasing' &$e to gro/ing $se of the $ndergro$nd, more and more private parties are becoming involved in the constr$ction and management of several f$nctions of the $ndergro$nd' 0$rthermore, the $ndergro$nd is being planned /itho$t a clear vision and /itho$t a vision on the conse4$ences of spatial plans !CCB, 200<"' Bi6l and 8toter !200;" sho/ an e1ample of a -oning plan /ith do$ble -oning, /here vis$ali-ation in 2& /o$ld give an added val$e' The e1ample is the -oning plan A.8) #i6n/o$deB /here the AGroene .artB t$nnel of the .8):7$id train is vis$ali-ed' B% ma5ing $se of a 2& map this can not be vis$ali-ed, since no distinction bet/een the levels of the -oning f$nctions can be vis$ali-ed' reas /hich have been -oned thro$gh a 2& approach on different levels are still made s$itable for 2&

41

vis$ali-ation'

nother e1ample is the -oning plan of the North:8o$th metro line in

msterdam' The

t$nnel is partl% sit$ated belo/ ho$sing and shops, partl% $nder /ater and partl% $nder p$blic space' The areas are labelled as a sort of stac5ed areas and the reg$lation of these stac5s !for e1ample: A$ndergro$nd rail/a% trac5 /ith /ater aboveB" is settled in the reg$lations and mentioned in the legend' The disadvantage of this is that the space of the t$nnel is not or ver% diffic$lt to recogni-e on the map' The e1amples ma5es clear that developments /ith different levels, li5e do$ble -oning re4$ire a 2& vis$ali-ation to get a better and more $nderstandable overvie/ of a certain area' Ne1t to the alread% e1isting ob6ects in the $ndergro$nd, described in a -oning plan, there are more ob6ects /hich can be named /hich are sit$ated in the $ndergro$nd' 0or e1ample the $ndergro$nd consists of man% $ndergro$nd par5ing lots, cinemas, t$nnels, stations and pro6ects li5e the NoordG7$idli6n in msterdam' 0$rthermore, research is being done in the $ndergro$nd for archaeological findings and ne/ t%pes of $se in the $ndergro$nd, li5e thermal energ% storage, are gro/ing' In addition, the economic feasibilit% pla%s an important role, d$e to an increasing press$re on space on gro$nd level, the $ndergro$nd is become a more interesting alternative /hen loo5ing to the increase of prices of land !,a$l et al' 2002"' The $ndergro$nd is especiall% ver% s$itable to represent in 2&, since the $ndergro$nd consists of several levels, ma5ing the - component necessar%' 0$rthermore, a 2& map is too limited to vis$ali-e the $ndergro$nd properl%' In 2&, a good overvie/ of all the ob6ects can be given and in 2& this co$ld be done in more detail than in 2&'

3.2.4 (onclusions
The c$rrent vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan in 2& has several clear limitations' 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan is abstract and therefore can be diffic$lt to interpret b% its $sers, s$ch as citi-ens' 0or citi-ens it can be hard to get an impression of the heights of b$ildings /hen it is onl% described as te1t' In addition, the limitations ma5e it necessar% to 5eep man% reg$lations described in the -oning plan doc$ments, rather than be able to vis$ali-e them on a map, s$ch as the ma1im$m allo/ed b$ilding height'

The limitations of representing a -oning map in 2& as5 for a 2& vis$ali-ation, /hich sho$ld res$lt in 2& vis$ali-ation offering an added val$e in comparison to 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plans'

3.3 3% &oning plan pilots

41

s part of the program of 9#CM concerning the spatial planning of the $ndergro$nd a n$mber of pilots have been done /ith the goal to become e1perienced /ith the spatial planning of the $ndergro$nd' ,art of this pilot /as a st$d% concerning the representation of -oning plans in 2&, /here the foc$s /as especiall% laid on the 2& vis$ali-ation of the $ndergro$nd for -oning plans' These pilots /ill be disc$ssed in this chapter' In this section t/o pilots initiated b% 9#CM /ill be disc$ssed, the first pilot from 200; and the other pilot from 200='

3.3.1. Pilot !))*

In 200; three cons$ltanc% companies cond$cted an e1plorator% research for the possibilities of setting $p a 2& -oning plan !B$ro 9i6n et al' 200;"' The goal /as to develop a protot%pe /hich sho$ld be considered as a start for the development of 2& -oning plans' The three cons$ltanc% companies developed a 2& -oning plan for three different areas' The% made -oning plans for a central station area, an $ndergro$nd m$se$m and an o$tl%ing area' ll these locations /ere fictitio$s' In one of the developed protot%pes it became clear -oning on the gro$nd level s$rface can have conse4$ences for the $ndergro$nd' 0or e1ample it is stated in the doc$ment that it is necessar% to reserve space for fo$ndations for ho$sing' This ma5es it also clear that the -oning above gro$nd level is often related to -oning in the $ndergro$nd' 2& ma5es it possible to vis$ali-e the f$nctions in the $ndergro$nd clearl%' In fig$re ; the 2& vis$ali-ation of the station area is represented' In this -oning plan space is e1plicitl% reserved for thermal energ% storage, the fo$ndations of the sit$ated b$ildings and a planned t$nnel' In the c$rrent -oning plan reg$lations, these ob6ects are not described' 4$estion is, /hether these ob6ects sho$ld be incl$ded in a 2& -oning plan' The same co$nts for thermal heating storage' This disc$ssion /ill not e1plicitl% be part of this research, since this deals more /ith the definition of ob6ects of -oning plans then the disc$ssion ho/ to vis$ali-e the -oning plan it can be $nderstood b% the vario$s $sers'

41

Figure 6. +D *oning plan from ,elow

n$mber of iss$es came for/ard from the pilot' Cne of the iss$es /as the height of the earth s$rface level' In the reg$lations it is described /hat the ma1im$m drain: !goothoogte" and b$ilding height !bo$/hoogte" is' The gro$nd s$rface level is important, since from this level the ma1im$m heights are meas$red' .o/ever, it is not al/a%s clear /hat this earth s$rface level e1actl% is' 3speciall% in landscapes /ith differences in heights this has infl$ence on the ma1im$m heights of b$ildings' The 4$estion is th$s if a relative height to the terrain heights sho$ld be $sed or absol$te height levels' In the report it is advised to $se the Normaal msterdams ,eil !N ,", /hich is the &$tch Gro$nd )evel, as the gro$nd level for -oning plans' This means that for ever% location an e1act terrain height is needed' nother point made from the pilot concerned the planning and -oning vol$me' the complete vol$me of the area for /hich a 2& -oning plan is developed' vol$mes are vol$mes for /hich a -oning t%pe is assigned' planning vol$me is

planning vol$me consists

of -oning vol$mes and empt% vol$mes' 3mpt% vol$mes have no f$nction and are not -ones' 7oning s a res$lt planning vol$me consists of -oning vol$mes and empt% vol$mes, ma5ing it a closed s%stem !see fig$re ="' n iss$e is here /hat the bo$ndaries are of a planning vol$me' Therefore, these bo$ndaries of sho$ld be defined for the height and ho/ depth of the planning vol$me'

41

Figure 7. !lanning "olume

nother iss$e /as made concerning splitting $p of vol$mes' It can be comple1 /hen a vol$me consists of t/o -oning t%pes, for e1ample par5ing $ndergro$nd and archaeological val$es /hich intersect in the vol$me' n option is to ma5e a separate vol$me for the intersecting vol$me or as a vol$me /here both -oning t%pes co$nt !see fig$re ?"'

Figure 8. -verlapping of *oning volumes&

0$rthermore, the report made recommendations concerning standards are made /hich sho$ld fit in the e1isting IM#C200? standards as /ell as developing an +M) scheme for 2& /hich sho$ld be added to IM#C200?' lso /hen 2& -oning plans are implemented nationall%, c$stom soft/are applications are needed' These iss$es /ill not be part of this research, ho/ever sho$ld be ac5no/ledged /hen implementing a 2& -oning plan nationall%'

3.3.! +nschede case

s 200= as part of the 9#CM program for spatial planning of the $ndergro$nd, another pilot has been done' T/o case st$dies have been done, the +sseler 3s in 3nschede and the pro6ect 8tadshavens in #otterdam, /here the goal /as to design a 2& -oning plan' In the 3nschede pilot mainl% the possibilities of -oning above the s$rface in the $ndergro$nd in 2& /ere the main goals to research' In order to translate from 2& to 2&, the e1isting -oning method and reg$lations have been maintained as m$ch as possible' In pilot, first the 2& -oning plan /as converted into 2& elements' .o/ever, the gro$nd level is defined as a flat plane, /hich in realit% is a conve1 plane' This /as done, beca$se the m$nicipalit% had no s$fficient data available to develop a terrain model' In fig$re @ an impression of the plan is sho/n' n$mber of diffic$lties came for/ard from the pilot' Cne of the diffic$lties /as in ho/ m$ch detail the -oning plan sho$ld be vis$ali-ed' If a lot of detail is p$t into the -oning plan, it /ill li5el% be

41

harder to $nderstand the plan' The large amo$nt of ob6ects can ma5e the plan less visible' In the pilot the 2& topograph% of the c$rrent b$ildings /ith rooftops /as incl$ded, ho/ever a 4$estion is /hether these b$ildings sho$ld be incl$ded in the plan' disadvantage of sho/ing b$ildings /ith rooftops is that a s$ggestion can be made ho/ b$ildings sho$ld loo5 li5e' nother diffic$lt% concerns the visibilit% of the plan' In the pilot the allo/ed b$ilding vol$mes are sho/ed /ith the e1isting b$ildings' Therefore, transparenc% is needed to 5eep the b$ildings visible' Ne1t to b$ildings also -ones li5e safet% and noise -ones sho$ld be vis$ali-ed' .o/ever, incl$ding this in the -oning plan, ma5es the plan less visible, since several -oning ob6ects are b$ilt $p on each other' Transparenc% is a method to deal /ith this iss$e' nother diffic$lt% is ho/ -oning ob6ects s$ch as noise -ones sho$ld be bo$nded' noise -one has a

third dimension and can therefore be vis$ali-ed in 2&' In the -oning plan reg$lations no r$les for the height of the -ones is determined, therefore additional information is needed for the vis$ali-ation of these 5inds of -ones' nother iss$e of bo$ndaries is ho/ deep in the $ndergro$nd a planning ob6ect s$ch as a b$ilding is allo/ed to be -oned' Is it allo/ed to b$ild a basement as deep if one /ants or are there bo$ndariesF In c$rrent -oning plan reg$lation little is stated concerning -oning in the $ndergro$nd' .o/ever, in 2& the $ndergro$nd can be vis$ali-ed m$ch better and also therefore can be more incl$ded in -oning plans' In the section <'<'2 iss$es concerning the vis$ali-ation in 2& /ill be disc$ssed in more detail'

Figure 96 .sseler Es, Enschede

3.3.3 ,otterda- case

In the pilot of #otterdam the emphasis /as especiall% on the 2& modelling of the $ndergro$nd rather than the design of a 2& -oning plan' The idea /as to model the $ndergro$nd in 2& to get a good overvie/ of the spatial, technical and financial conse4$ences of a ne/ t$nnel' B% modelling the $ndergro$nd in 2& it became clear that the $ndergro$nd is comple1, d$e to the e1istence man% ob6ects s$ch as old /alls, piles and remainders of e1plosives of *orld *ar 2' This ma5es it clear that a spatial

41

polic% for the $ndergro$nd is necessar%'

n advantage of #otterdam /as that the m$nicipalit% o/ns a

large amo$nt of data of the $ndergro$nd /hich co$ld be $sed for the pilot' .o/ever, it m$st be said that not ever% m$nicipalit% has this 5ind of e1tensive amo$nt of data in its database'
Figure 10. Stadshavens /otterdam

The m$nicipalit% of #otterdam possesses data abo$t drillings, cables and pipelines, se/ers, archaeological findings, fo$ndations, geo:h%drological data, *orld *ar II findings etcetera' B% modelling the $ndergro$nd in 2& a good overvie/ of the ob6ects /hich are sit$ated in the $ndergro$nd can be vis$ali-ed' B% vis$ali-ing the $ndergro$nd in 2& it became clear /hich ob6ects /o$ld intersect /ith a planned t$nnel !see fig$re 11"'
Figure 11. Visuali*ation of piles in the underground

3.3.& 3D .isualization issues

n$mber of iss$es came for/ard from this pilots ma5ing clear vis$ali-ing a -oning plan in 2& is challenging' first iss$e concerns the visibilit% of the plan, /hich is a res$lt of the addition of the third dimension in a -oning plan' In the 3nschede pilot -ones, li5e noise -ones and environmental -ones are vis$ali-ed in 2&' These -ones mostl% intersect /ith b$ildings, /hich ma5e the plan less clear' In the pilot transparenc% is $sed for those -ones' It is also possible that -ones are crossing each other, /hich also gives visibilit% problems' nother iss$e /ith transparenc% is ho/ b$ildings sho$ld be vis$ali-ed' In the pilot of 3nschede the b$ildings, based on the GBEN are vis$ali-ed in 2& /ith on top the b$ilding

41

vol$mes sho/ing the ma1im$m b$ilding heights' To ma5e a distinction bet/een the b$ilding and the b$ilding vol$mes transparenc% is $sed' second iss$e concerns the amo$nt of information and the level of detail to be vis$ali-ed in 2&' -oning plan can be vis$ali-ed ver% basic /ith simple bloc5 vol$mes on a flat s$rface' 2&

nother option

is to vis$ali-e a -oning plan completel% in 2&, incl$ding a 2& terrain /ith a detailed 2& vis$ali-ation of b$ildings' More detail /ill be more comple1, b$t /ill also lead to more realistic models, /hich for citi-ens might be easier to recogni-e' &etail of b$ildings is another iss$e' B$ildings can be vis$ali-ed as simple bloc5 models !)o&1" or /ith roofs !)o&2"' )o&2 sho/s more detail, b$t is more time cons$ming to constr$ct' )o&1 is eas% to constr$ct, ho/ever gives ver% little detail on b$ildings and res$lts in the s$rface la%er !GBEN" become invisible' )o&2 or )o&< seem less s$itable, since in a -oning plan not man% details concerning the architect$re are described, li5e /indo/s and door reg$lations are reg$lations' To choose the right level of detail it is important to st$d% the -oning plan reg$lations of b$ildings' .o/ever, it is a 4$estion /hether e1isting b$ildings sho$ld be represented in the -oning plan, since reg$lations are made concerning the b$ilding plane /ith r$les s$ch as the ma1im$m b$ilding height and not abo$t the e1isting b$ildings itself' third main iss$e is that 2& main data !cadastral map, 2& topograph%, 2& modelling of pipelines" is onl% ver% limited available' 2& topograph% of b$ildings is not available, /hich therefore have to be constr$cted from scratch based on 2& data, s$ch as the GBEN' To -one the $ndergro$nd, additional data is needed /hich not ever% m$nicipalit% has in its possession'' 0or e1ample, /hen -ones li5e noise -ones have to be modelled in 2&, data is needed to constr$ct the bo$ndaries of the -one' 0or noise -ones this /o$ld probabl% mean that field/or5 has to be done to get data of the noise levels' fo$rth iss$e concerns the navigation thro$gh a -oning plan' Navigating in a 2& environment co$ld lead to a lac5 of overvie/ on the map and one co$ld get di--%' Therefore, navigating thro$gh the map has to be convenient for a citi-en' This can be done for e1ample /ith a small 2& map on the screen, li5e Google 8treet 9ie/, to have a better $nderstanding of the position in the map' visible and readable for the $ser of the -oning plan' nother iss$e concerning navigating is ho/ te1t and semantics sho$ld be incl$ded in a 2& -oning plan to 5eep it

3.& /onclusions
The c$rrent vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan in 2& has several clear limitations' 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan is abstract and therefore can be diffic$lt to interpret b% its $sers, s$ch as citi-ens' 0or citi-ens it can be hard to get an impression of the heights of b$ildings /hen it is onl% described as te1t' 0$rthermore, $ndergro$nd -oning and mi1ed -oning are aspects /hich are more s$itable to vis$ali-e in 2&'

41

The limitations of representing a -oning map in 2& as5 for a 2& vis$ali-ation, /hich sho$ld res$lt in 2& vis$ali-ation offering an added val$e in comparison to 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plans' 0rom the pilots several concl$sions can be dra/n' The first concl$sion is that 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan offers an added val$e in vis$ali-ing the allo/ed height levels -oning plan ob6ects, /hich /ill be easier for citi-ens to interpret in comparison to a traditional -oning plan, /hich sho/s AflatB b$ildings' In addition, more detail of b$ildings and m$ltiple -oning of one b$ilding can be vis$ali-ed' .o/ever, 2& vis$ali-ation can lead to visibilit% problems, beca$se ob6ects can overlap each other, li5e b$ildings and safet% -ones, /hich ma5es it challenge to vis$ali-e it clearl% for the $ser' lso navigating thro$gh the map is comple1 in 2&'

The second concl$sion is that vis$ali-ation of the -oning plan ob6ects in 2& is m$ch more comple1 and different than in 2&' 9is$ali-ing ob6ects in 2& is more comple1 to design d$e to the addition of the third dimension and the more realistic modelling of the real /orld' The levels of detail of the ob6ects, 2& topograph% of b$ildings, /a%s to vis$ali-e different t%pes of -ones are e1amples of aspects /hich raise ne/ 4$estions' The third concl$sion is that 2& data is hardl% available' 0or e1ample 2& topograph% of b$ildings and 2& data of the $ndergro$nd is hardl% or not available in 2&, especiall% m$nicipalities do not possess m$ch 2& data' This ma5es it more time:cons$ming to constr$ct the data before developing a 2& -oning plan' final concl$sion is that the pilots sho/ that technicall% the 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan offers man% possibilities, b$t that the transformation from these techni4$es to the reg$lations of a -oning plan is a challenge and especiall% to ma5e it $nderstandable for the $sers' 2& vis$ali-ation as5s for different and vis$ali-ation techni4$es than for 2& vis$ali-ation and in 2& other aspects are important, li5e the level and realism' In the ne1t chapter a literat$re st$d% /ill be done on 2& vis$ali-ation and the $nderstanding of vis$ali-ations and the role of 2& vis$ali-ation in spatial planning and especiall% in -oning plans /ill be anal%-ed'

41

&. 3D geo.isualization in spatial planning and the role in zoning plans

This chapter /ill disc$ss important aspects of 2& geovis$ali-ation, the role of 2& geovis$ali-ation in the planning process and especiall% ho/ it can be related to -oning plans' ' 0irst, the role of comm$nication in the planning process /ill be disc$ssed and the gro/ing importance of e: participation' 8econdl%, geovis$ali-ation /ill be defined and important factors for geovis$ali-ations /ill be e1plained' Thirdl%, spatial interpretation of vis$ali-ation /ill be disc$ssed and ho/ it can be relevant for this research' The fo$rth part deals /ith the role of 2& geovis$ali-ation in the planning process and some e1amples /ill be disc$ssed' This chapter ends /ith concl$sions'

&.1 ,ole of co--unication in the planning process &.1.1 /o--unicati.e planning

Comm$nication has become more important in the planning process in the last decades' In the last 20 %ears in the Netherlands the role of governments are changing on ho/ spatial planning is implemented !)o$/ et al' 2002"' 8ince the 1@@0s, a Acomm$nicative t$rnB in planning can be observed !.eale%, 1@@2"' Governments have ta5en a different position in planning and this can be characteri-ed b% interactions /ith different governments and other actors' This sit$ation is different from a central government ma5ing plans and ta5ing decisions thro$gh bl$eprint planning' ccording to 9an den Brin5 et al' !200=" the changing role of the government to governance and the trend of comm$nicative planning ma5e it necessar% to reconsider the role of participation in planning' Citi-ens increasingl% /ant to have more infl$ence in the decision ma5ing process' Citi-ens become more and more critical and emancipated in defining their needs and /ishes' The trend of participator% planning and governance as5s for a more interaction process /ith different actors' In an interactive process citi-ens are enco$raged to pla% a more active role in the spatial planning process' This does not mean that citi-ens onl% critici-e e1isting plans, b$t that the% deliver ideas to contrib$te to the planning process' In that sense, citi-ens are a so$rce of 5no/ledge and the% become responsible for the interactive process !3delenbos and Monni5hof, 2001"' Involvement of citi-ens /ill rise /hen the% have the feeling their !different" opinions are ac5no/ledged in the process'

&.1.! +$participation
In the c$rrent conte1t of IT development, internet is becoming an important part of the process of comm$nication and $se of planning models' Traditional methods of involving the p$blic in the planning process are $s$all% limited in their scope and effect and are often determined b% the organisational str$ct$res /ithin a local planning a$thorit% !0orester, 1@@@"' Internet developments, li5e *eb 2'0 ma5e it possible for governments to $se their decision:ma5ing processes for citi-ens to participate over the internet, called e:participation' 3:participation has the potential to establish more

41

transparenc% b% the government b% allo/ing citi-ens to $se ne/ channels of infl$ence that red$ce barriers to p$blic participation in polic% ma5ing !+N 200?"' dvantages of e:participation tools over traditional participation tools are that comm$nication no longer is bo$nd to a specific location and a specific time' ccording to a st$d% of Eoe5oe5 et al' !200@" e:participation has the potential to involve more citi-ens than traditional participation meetings do and seems to attract a different p$blic' $ser: friendl% application that offers t%pical normative and instr$mental participation f$nctions can be seen as a precondition for an effective e:participation pro6ect' In spatial planning geovis$ali-ation can be $sed to s$pport the comm$nication and participation in the planning process, s$ch as in the planning process of -oning plans' In a s$rve% of B$rgerICverheid'nl !2002" to stim$late the digital government from the perspective of citi-ens, @=D of the respondents mention m$nicipalities sho$ld place the -oning plans on the internet' 0$rthermore, =0D /o$ld li5e to have a voice in the -oning plan via the internet' In 2002 -oning plans /ere not %et re4$ired to be presented on the internet, this is the case from 2010 !see chapter 2"' B% offering the -oning plans on the internet, people can get access to -oning plans from their home and can vie/ the -oning plan at ever% time the% /o$ld li5e' It can be concl$ded from this section that comm$nication has become an important iss$e in the planning process and co$ld as /ell be for -oning plans' Geovis$ali-ations can be effective tools to comm$nicate information to citi-ens, therefore the ne1t section /ill foc$s on the topic of geovis$ali-ation'

4.2 )eovisuali&ation
In this section geovis$ali-ation /ill be defined and important factors of geovis$ali-ation /ill be e1plained' 0$rthermore some frame/or5s of geovis$ali-ations /ill be disc$ssed and -oning plans /ill be positioned in the frame/or5s'

&.!.1 0eo.isualization defined

Geovis$ali-ation is concerned /ith the vis$ali-ation of geographical information' Geovis$ali-ation provides theor%, methods and tools for the vis$al e1ploration, anal%sis, s%nthesis and presentation of geospatial data !Mac3achren and Eraa5, 2001"' It is a relativel% ne/ and m$ltidisciplinar% field that combines h$man vis$al potential and technolog% in order to ma5e spatial conte1ts andGor problems visible !Mac3achren et al' 1@@@"' !2002": commonl% $sed definition for geovis$ali-ation is made b% Eraa5

JGeo0visuali*ations are visual geospatial displa(s designed to e)plore data and through that e)ploration to generate h(potheses, develop pro,lem solutions and construct knowledge& 1aps and other linked graphics pla( a ke( role in this process&2

41

&%5es state that geovis$ali-ation is abo$t people, maps, process and the ac4$isition of information and 5no/ledge' It can lead to enlightenment, tho$ght, decision:ma5ing and information satisfaction, b$t can also res$lt in fr$stration !&%5es et al 200>"' The emphasis is on information insight for the f$rther $se in spatial models $pon /hich decisions can be based' In the ne1t section important factors in geovis$ali-ation /ill be disc$ssed'

&.!.! The 1I2 factors of geo.isualization

To create and $se geovis$ali-ations fo$r important factors can be named' These factors are:, interaction, intelligence, information intensit%, and immersion of ob6ects !Mac3achren, 1@@@"' The first factor is interaction' Interaction has a broad meaning and can simple be panning and -ooming on a static map, $se of animations /ith a temporal dimension or more complicated interaction s$ch as the abilit% of manip$lating data in a 2& environment, for e1ample pic5ing $p ob6ects !8loc$m, 2001"' 9an )ammeren and .ooger/erf !2002" ma5e a distinction bet/een geovis$ali-ations /hich can s$pport interaction in the virt$al environment and of the virt$al environment' Interactions in the environment can be s$bdivided into: orientation, movement, navigation, manip$lation, e1planation and elaboration' Interaction of the environment means that the $ser is able to define the vie/er settings to infl$ence the /a% the environment is e1perienced b% the $ser !Brin5 et al' 200="' nimations can be part of interaction and can be ver% $sef$l in clarif%ing trends and processes as /ell as in e1plaining insight into spatial relationships !Eraa5 and Crmeling, 2002"' moving a slider to sho/ for e1ample spatial patterns nimations can be interactive b% nimations can be divided into temporal and

non:temporal animations' *hen dealing /ith temporal animations, a direct relation e1ists bet/een displa% time and /orld time, for e1ample vis$ali-ing spatial patterns of migrations over a certain period of time' &ispla% time in non:temporal animations is not directl% lin5ed to /orld time, and is $sed to e1plain spatial relations b% presenting individ$al map images in a logical se4$ence !Eraa5 and Crmeling, 2002"' The second factor, intelligent ob6ects, is abo$t the e1tent to /hich components in the environment /ith a certain behavio$r, /hich can be characteri-ed as AintelligenceB !Mac3achren, 1@@@"' Batt% et al' !1@@?" performed a st$d% /here comp$tational agents /ere $sed to model individ$al behavio$r in $rban landscapes and ho/ it coincide /ith the behavio$r of $sers in the same environment' Cther e1amples can be agents assisting in navigating thro$gh and $nderstanding virt$al landscapes !Cart/right, 1@@@"' Intelligent ob6ects can also be in the form of avatars, moving cars, /al5ing behavio$r of to$rists in a cit% centre' Information intensit% deals /ith the level of detail of ob6ects /hich are represented in geovis$ali-ations !Mac3achren, 1@@@"' Information intensit% is related to three factors: the soft/are $sed, /hich determines the level of detail the ob6ects are vis$ali-ed, the geographical data $sed, /hich

41

can differ in 4$alit%, e1tent andGor resol$tion and thirdl% the person designing the vis$ali-ation and the design is done, depending on the personBs 5no/ledge, s5ills and e1perience !van )ammeren et al' 200="' 8everal levels of detail can be defined !see fig$re 12"' )o&1 defines a b$ilding as a simple bloc5 model and the most detailed )o&< allo/s for representation of the interior of b$ildings' Nat$rall% resol$tion level is increase from )o&0 to )o&<' )o&0 is the 2'>& level, over /hich an aerial image or a map ma% be draped !GrKger et al', 200;"' )o&1 is a bloc5 model /itho$t an% roof str$ct$res' b$ilding in )o&2 has a distinctive roof str$ct$re and larger b$ilding installations li5e balconies and stairs' )o&2 contains architect$ral models /ith detailed /all and roof str$ct$res, doors and /indo/s' )o&< adds more detail to an ob6ect b% adding interior str$ct$res, li5e rooms, stairs and f$rnit$re'

5igure *'6 Level of Detail (source CityGML, 2010

The fo$rth factor is immersion' Immersion can be defined as ALa ps%chological state characteri-ed b% perceiving oneself to be enveloped b%, incl$ded in, and interacting /ith an environment that provides a contino$s stim$li and e1periencesM !*itmer and 8inger 1@@?"' Mac3achren !1@@@" describes it as Abeing inB the virt$al environment' Immersion can be ph%sical !f$ll" or mental !partial" immersion' Mental immersion is the state in /hich the h$man mind feels the presence of being in the virt$al /orld' 31amples of mental immersions are high resol$tion C#T screens and an e1ample of ph%sical immersion is the C 93 /here the $ser steps into a ph%sical room /ith digital screens /hich provides a strong sense of immersion' Tho$gh a stronger sense of immersion co$ld lead to better perceived and more effective geovis$ali-ations, cartograph% has been s$ccessf$l, especiall% since abstraction is helpf$l to $nderstand the comple1it% of the /orld !8loc$m et al', 2001"'

41

&.!.3 0eo.isualization fra-e3or4s

Mac3achren !200<" proposes a concept$al c$be for anal%sing $ses and t%pes of vis$al media that co$ld also be applicable for 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plans !see fig$re 12"' Map $se is defined contin$o$sl% along the three a1es of the three:dimensional space of the c$be: The dimensions of the interaction space are defined b% three contin$a: from map $se that is private !for individ$al needs" to p$blic !designed for a gro$p of $sers"H map $se that is directed to/ards revealing $n5no/ns !e1ploration" vers$s presenting 5no/ns !presentation"H from map $se that has high interaction vers$s lo/ interaction' There are no clear bo$ndaries in this h$manNmap interaction space' ll vis$alisation /ith maps involves some comm$nication and all comm$nication /ith maps involves some vis$alisation' The distinction made is in emphasis' Geographic vis$alisation is e1emplified b% map $se in the private, e1plorator%, and high interaction corner' Cartographic comm$nication is e1emplified b% the opposite corner'

Figure 13. Mac#achren$s cube representing %ey dimensions related to "isualizaton and communication& 'ource: (Mac#achren (())*)&

The 3:Interaction Comm$nication ,rotocol !3C," c$be !van )ammeren et al, 200=" contin$es on the frame/or5 of Mac3achren !200<"' In this frame/or5, comm$nication technolog% offers several options in certain space and time slots' 8everal space and time slots are mentioned /hich are fitted in the frame/or5: same place and time !8,G8T"H same place and different time !8,G&T"H different place and same time !&,G8T" andH different place and different time !&,G&T"' !see fig$re 1<"' n e1ample of different place and same time is 8econd )ife /here $sers can meet each other virt$all%, b$t being on different places' In the 3C, c$be the place time components are divided into an immersive and a

41

non:immersive half, in the frame/or5 represented as bl$e planes' The frame/or5 also incl$des different comm$nication relationships: man% to man% !M:M", one to man% !I:M" and man%:to:one !M:N"'

Figure 14. #+interaction communication protocol cube ("an ,ammeren et al& ())-).

&.!.& ,elating geo.isualization fra-e3or4s to zoning plans

In the frame/or5 of Mac3achren !200<", a -oning plan can be considered as geovis$ali-ation tool for the p$blic and presenting m$ch 5no/n information to the p$blic' 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plans /ill emphasi-e especiall% on the comm$nication /ith citi-ens, since in 2& an easier interpretation can be represented, rather than $sing the -oning plan for anal%sis' 0$rthermore, 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan co$ld also emphasi-e on interactivit%, for e1ample b% navigating thro$gh an area, activating la%ers, clic5ing on ob6ects to get more information' in this research' nimations co$ld be $sed to sho/ the different stages of the -oning plan !preliminar% design and final design", b$t this /ill not be incl$ded

41

n attempt can be made to place this research /ithin the 3C, c$be' given time and different place /ith internet'

-oning plan offered on the

internet is an e1ample of different time and different space slot' 7oning plans can be cons$lted at an% 2& -oning plan can be characteri-ed as non:immersive, since $sers are not being in the virt$al environment, /hich is more the case /ith a C 93 /here $sers have more the feeling being inside a virt$al environment' )oo5ing to the comm$nication mode, a -oning plan is especiall% a 1:N relationship, /here the -oning plan is presented on the internet b% the m$nicipalit% as being the sender to the citi-ens and other actors, being the receiver' 0eedbac5 on the -oning plan can be given, ho/ever ma5ing ob6ections on the -oning plan via the internet can c$rrentl% not be done'

4.3 !patial interpretation of geovisuali&ations

Cne of the challenges in geovis$ali-ation is that vis$ali-ations sho$ld be able to comm$nicate and be $nderstandable for vario$s $sers' The acc$rac% of the vis$ali-ations, $nderstanding of the process of vis$ali-ation and the 4$alit% of data are essential !T%rvainen et al' 200;"' The code of ethics 8heppard !2001" presents general principles for optimal vis$ali-ations' This /ill be disc$ssed in this section'

&.3.1 (ser definition

The $se of geovis$ali-ation heavil% depends on the $ser and the p$rpose of the vis$ali-ation !Nielsen, 1@@2"' This /ill have implications for the t%pe of modelling and degree of realism' .o/ever, 8loc$m et al' !2001" note, AB a clear specification of tas5s !and sometimes of $sers" is often not possible d$e to the e1plorator% and interactive nat$re of geovis$ali-ation'M There have been some efforts to design s%stems that address the e1plicit needs of specific $ser t%pes and researchers have cond$cted a n$mber of st$dies regarding the $sabilit% of geovis$ali-ation !0$hrman et al', 200>"' ndrien5o et al' !200;" for e1ample did a research to test the $sabilit% of interactive maps in CommonGI8 and the% fo$nd o$t that $sers /ere able to $nderstand and adopt the ne/ ideas of map interactivit% and manip$labilit%, ho/ever a clear introd$ction /as needed to ma5e the people $nderstand the p$rposes of the interactive tools' Not onl% for the vis$ali-ation it is $nderstandable, also the interface for the geovis$ali-ation pla%s an important role, since the interface transmits the vis$ali-ation to the $ser and determines ho/ the vis$ali-ation is perceived b% the $ser, /hich interaction and vis$ali-ation options the interface is offering !)ammeren et al' 200="' In spatial planning, $rban planners often gather aro$nd large paper or digital maps to disc$ss spatial plans' These maps are also $sed for disc$ssions at meetings /ith citi-ens and organi-ations' In these cases, m$ltiple $sers can be identified /ith different bac5gro$nds $sing the same maps'

41

&.3.! 0eneral principles for the interpretation of geo.isualizations

Geovis$ali-ations needs to be $nderstandable, sho/ credibilit% and sho$ld be bias:free !8heppard, 2001"' *ergles and M$har !200@" state that planners have to ta5e into acco$nt that Jaltho$gh vis$ali-ations are not considered realit%, the% are regarded as a design commitmentM !p'1?2"' B% this the% mean that the realit% /ill be compared to vis$ali-ations and a mismatch can lead to a feeling of deceit' .o/ever, if vis$ali-ations are considered as a means of comm$nication instead of a realistic representation of the real /orld, then leaving o$t some of the details are part of the AcodeB of non: verbal comm$nication' This of co$rse, has to be clearl% comm$nicated to the $ser !8heppard, 2001"' More importance has to be p$t into matching vis$ali-ations /ith the comm$nication needs of the targeted vie/ers !*ergles and M$har, 200@"' 8heppard !200>" s$ggests a code of ethics /hich sho$ld be ta5en into acco$nt of landscape vis$ali-ations for a f$ll $nderstanding b% the $sers:

cc$rac%: 9is$alisations sho$ld sim$late the act$al or e1pected appearance of the landscape, /itho$t distortion and at an appropriate level of abstractionGrealism for the intended p$rpose' #epresentativeness: 9is$alisations sho$ld represent t%pical or important vie/sGconditions of the landscape' 9is$al clarit%: The details, components, and overall content of the vis$alisation sho$ld be clearl% comm$nicated' Interest: 9is$alisations sho$ld engage and hold the interest of the a$dience' )egitimac%: 9is$alisations sho$ld be defensible and their level of acc$rac% demonstrable' ccess to vis$al information: 9is$alisations sho$ld be readil% accessible to the p$blic via a variet% of formats and comm$nication channels' 0raming and presentation: Important conte1t$al and other relevant information sho$ld be presented in a clear, ne$tral fashion, along /ith the vis$alisation imager%'

cc$rac% has implications for the realism of the model' The third dimension creates ne/ 4$estions abo$t elements that are insignificant for 2& representations' 0or e1ample, in 2& the s$rface represents a b$ilding and no attention is paid to /indo/s, doors, roofs etc' In 2&, a b$ilding can be vis$ali-ed as a simple bloc5 model, /ith roofs or /ith a /indo/s, doors, etc'' Th$s, in 2& significantl% more detail and realism can be represented of ob6ects in comparison to 2& ob6ects' *ilson and McGa$ghe% !2000" state that the lac5 of realism is in certain respects an advantage in not providing too precise an image of the /orld' The abilit% to interpret comp$ter graphics correctl% is also believed to increase thro$gh practice, altho$gh there appears to be /ide variation bet/een individ$als in the abilit% to $nderstand s$ch images !,ietsch, 2000"' high level of realism is re4$ired /ith nonprofessionals, high degree of especiall% /ith local residents in an $rban area !Ear6alainen and T%rvainen, 2002"'

41

realism, ho/ever, is often perceived the same as a high degree of acc$rac% and a$thorit%, /hich is not al/a%s the case !McO$illan, 1@@?"' *hen the act$al conse4$ences of a plan do not match the vis$ali-ation, people become disappointed' l:Eodman% !1@@@" arg$es that photo:realistic vis$ali-ations can be effective tools to inform citi-ens and he arg$es that the reason is that these vis$ali-ations are a ver% close representation of realit% and participants need little interpretation to $nderstand this information' Cn the other hand, mis$nderstanding' 9is$al clarit% is also an important aspect of the ethics of vis$ali-ation named b% 8heppard !2001" and /hich can have several iss$es, s$ch as the content choice, vie/point chosen and /eather and light conditions' 0$rthermore, 8heppard and Ci-e5 !200@" state that the field of comp$ter vis$ali-ation is especiall% technolog% driven, b$t iss$es /ith deep $nderstanding, tr$th and safe and more informed decisions ma% not al/a%s solved b% the technolog% to establish a AgoodB vis$ali-ationB' nother iss$e of concerning vis$al clarit% is that $sers mention that the% feel lost in the environment' This has to do /ith immersion, alread% mentioned in section <'1' In virt$al /orlds the core problems associated /ith ma5ing $sers lost are lin5ed to the interface $sed for navigation, ho/ it is $sed for orientation, the displa% space itself and ho/ $sers related that displa% space to the geographic space it depicted !8loc$m et al' 2001"' ppleton and )ovett !2002" pa% attention to the fact that high level of detail /ithin geovis$ali-ation ma% ca$se negative effects, li5e bias and

8heppard and Ci-e5 !200@" $se f$rther the concepts of validit% and reliabilit% in the conte1t of legitimac%' 9alidit% refers to /hether an instr$ment or res$lt is correct, defensible and appropriate' &aniel and Meitner !2001" $se the term Arepresentational validit%B /here vis$ali-ations sho$ld be correct, ne$tral /itho$t ma5ing val$e 6$dgements' #eliabilt% refers to consistenc% in repeated applications

&.3.3 Spatial interpretation and .isualization of zoning plans

,lacing the ethics of vis$ali-ation in the conte1t of this research, several remar5s can be made' Concerning acc$rac% and realism, -oning plans sho$ld be acc$rate b% sho/ing e1actl% the bo$ndaries of the different -oning f$nctions' 3speciall% in the case of -oning plan this is ver% important, since -oning plans are 6$ridical bonded plans and therefore the -oning plan sho$ld be acc$rate to prevent legal iss$es' This is also relates to the aspect of legitimac%' In addition, a -oning plan sho$ld be vis$ali-ed in s$ch a /a% it represents the relevant ob6ects and clearl%, so that it is eas% interpretable for the $sers, therefore sho/ing no more detail then is re4$ired' 3speciall% in 2& more details can be sho/n ho/ a b$ilding sho$ld loo5 li5e, b$t the danger is to sho/ too m$ch architect$ral details, /hich can lead to s$ggestions ho/ a b$ilding sho$ld loo5 li5e'

41

9is$al clarit% is ver% important for -oning plans' 7oning plans are abstract plans, consisting of man% !detailed" information and diffic$lt concepts' This ma5es a -oning plan diffic$lt to interpret, especiall% for people not familiar $sing -oning plans' Therefore, a -oning plan sho$ld be clear and not sho/ing more details than necessar% to ma5e it interpretable for the $ser' The aspect of accessibilit% is also relevant for -oning plans, since it sho$ld be easil% accessible b% citi-ens, /ith minimal hard: and soft/are bo$ndaries, else it co$ld lead to lo/er accessibilit% and less people are able to cons$lt the -oning plan on the internet' In the ne1t section the role of 2& geovis$ali-ation as a comm$nication tool in the planning process /ill be disc$ssed and /ill be related to -oning plans'

4.4 3% geovisuali&ation as communication tool in the planning process

This section /ill disc$ss the role of 2& geovis$ali-ation in the planning process' Comm$nication is an important aspect in this, since it can help citi-ens to better $nderstand and ma5e them more involved in the planning process'

&.&.1 3D geo.isualization as co--unication tool

2& geovis$ali-ation is a tool /hich can contrib$te to a better comm$nication bet/een professionals and citi-ens' It offers ne/ possibilities for comm$nication of ideas and disc$ssion of design alternatives' Bishop !1@@<" arg$es that there is a need for effective /a%s of comm$nicating spatial planning information to a /ider a$dience, and this becomes ver% important if a broad comm$nit% involvement in the planning process is to be achieved' 9is$alisations are recogni-ed as the common lang$age to /hich both technical and non:technical participants can relate and vis$ali-ation can improve aspects of the decision:ma5ing process !Crland et al' 2001"' In addition, 2& vis$ali-ation can offer more insight and $nderstanding of relations !topolog%" and dimensions !geometr%" !Bos et al, 1@@?" and 2& offers ne/ f$nctionalities, /hich in 2& are impossible' Man% m$nicipalities and $rban designers are in process of discovering these ne/ f$nctionalities !7latanova et al' 200?, Eibria 200?"' 2& geovis$ali-ation tools can stim$late spatial realit% and allo/ the vie/er to more 4$ic5l% recogni-e and $nderstand changes in elevation !B$lmer, 2001:="' 0or e1ample, in a 2& -oning plan the allo/ed height levels of b$ildings can be vis$ali-ed' If the presentation fits better to the dail% vis$al references !Bishop et al, 2002" then it /ill improve comm$nication' 9is$ali-ations are promising in opening $p the planning process to more participation

41

!,ietsch, 2000" especiall% /hen comm$nicating /ith people less familiar /ith traditional vis$ali-ation methods s$ch as plan vie/s, etc' Nielsen !200>" states that 2& geovis$ali-ation can be easil% interpretable, highl% interactive and distrib$table' 3speciall% d$e to the increasing comple1it% of spatial planning iss$es and the increasing demand of emancipated citi-ens for ta5ing part in designing and deciding on spatial plans, a 4$alit% boost is needed in comm$nication processes bet/een governmental actors and citi-ens abo$t land $se' 2& geovis$ali-ation can res$lt in that the citi-ens or actors become more involved in the planning process, b% responding to the plan !thro$gh internet" and getting the feeling that the% are act$all% contrib$ting to the process ! l:Eodman%, 2002"'

&.&.! 3D geo.isualization in the planning process

M$ch research has been done that disc$ss the gro/ing importance of comp$ter:aided vis$ali-ations in the planning process' Elosterman !1@@=" states that vis$ali-ation has emerged as a AAcommon c$rrenc%BB /hereb% citi-ens can readil% eval$ate the /or5 of the planners, and the opport$nities for misinterpretations of information are red$ced'

)ange !2001" s$ggests that vis$ali-ations sho$ld form an integral part of the planning process' *arren:Eretschmar and .aaren !200>" report on the $se of vis$ali-ations thro$gho$t the landscape planning process, /hereb% interactivit%, photo:realism, acc$rac% and preparation time pla% a 5e% role in determining the appropriate vis$ali-ation methods for a planning tas5' .ooger/erf et al' !200;" made a frame/or5 for the $se of geovis$ali-ation for participator% spatial planning processes' Eibria !200?" modified this frame/or5 specificall% for the $se of 2& geovis$ali-ation' 8i1 components can be identified consisting of actors !sta5eholders", planning phases, participation level, comm$nication protocol, interface and 2& vis$ali-ation !see fig$re 1>"' ccording to .ooger/erf et al !200;", 2& geovis$ali-ation in spatial planning consists of m$ltiple actors /ho interact /ith each other thro$gh vis$ali-ation in different planning phases' The a$thors have stated that 2& vis$ali-ation sho$ld interpret the preferences of the vario$s involved actors' In the different spatial planning phases, 2& vis$ali-ation sho$ld s$pport the different activities in the planning process and sho$ld vis$ali-e and process the information appropriatel%' In addition, 2& vis$ali-ation sho$ld s$pport the ma1im$m participation of the actors'

41

Figure 1 . Conceptual framework for +D geovisuali*ation, 3oogerwerf et al& ("##4%, modified ,( 5i,ria ("##6%&

Thro$gh the comm$nication protocol, 2& vis$ali-ation can be $sed at the same time and same place !li5e meetings" or at different time and place !li5e interactive /ebsites /ith maps"' 2& vis$ali-ation sho$ld be s$pported b% devices, /hich facilitates vario$s forms of interaction bet/een actors and geovis$ali-ations, called the interface component'

#iedi65 et al !200;"' developed a model describing the relationship bet/een geovis$ali-ation effects !see fig$re 1;"' It sho/s that geovis$ali-ation has t/o main direct effects, /hich event$all% sho$ld res$lt in other effects' These main effects are the improved comm$nication bet/een the actors in the process and a better $nderstanding of spatial iss$es among the actors' The difference bet/een those t/o main effects is that comm$nication involves the information available to the actors and therefore more inp$t for disc$ssion bet/een the interest gro$ps' The improved $nderstanding incl$des a better insight in the o$tp$t of the plans' This is relevant for -oning plans, since geovis$ali-ation can help in $nderstanding the -oning plan reg$lations b% presenting it on a map, /hich can be cons$lted b% the citi-ens'

41

Geovisuali'atio n

(etter understanding of the spatial issue Improved communication

Willing to ma"e compromises

Acceptance of the proposed plans

Figure 16. .elationship between geo"isualization effects (.ietdi/% et al& ())0)

The potential of 2& vis$ali-ation can be demonstrated b% a n$mber of st$dies' 8chai5 !2010" performed a st$d% to the $se of interactive 2& vis$ali-ation for p$blic cons$ltation for o$tdoor environments' 8chai5 concl$ded that interactive 2& vis$ali-ation of o$tdoor environments can be $sef$l and can have a strong potential in s$pporting p$blic:cons$ltation activities'' )e/is and 8heppard !200;" compared 2& vis$ali-ations /ith map representations' The% fo$nd that 2& vis$ali-ations led to a better $nderstanding of proposed management options than simple maps on their o/n' The vis$ali-ations promoted more in:depth and livel% gro$p disc$ssion and seemed to facilitate the artic$lation of participantsB preferences for landscape conditions' *ergles and M$har !200@" did an e1periment to test the ade4$ac% of vis$ali-ations for the comm$nication of $rban design proposal' The% concl$de that vis$ali-ations can be benefit planners to ma5e ideas and concepts tangible, /hich can stim$late disc$ssion' .o/ever, vis$ali-ation can be perceived differentl% as compared to real /orld landscapes' In some cases, vis$ali-ations /ere $nable to conve% information on s$btle height differences, attrib$tes of ob6ects s$ch as materials, s$rface te1t$ring and age' 8everal /ere even being misinterpreted' .o/ever, 2& does not al/a%s have to be a benefit' &oc5ert% et al' !200;" compared static vis$ali-ation /ith 2& real:time landscape models of potential polic% and climatic infl$ences on f$t$re agric$lt$ral landscapesH 2& representation /as not preferred over static vis$ali-ation to eval$ate the potential conse4$ences of choices, b$t the a$thors noted that a lac5 of e1perience /ith comp$ters ma% have had infl$ences on the $sersB responses'

41

&.&.3 +'a-ples of 3D geo.isualization in urban planning

&$e the fast gro/ing field of information technolog% the $se of 2& vis$ali-ation in spatial planning is gro/ing and improving and becoming more interactive !8toter, 7latanova, 2002"' 2& vis$ali-ation thro$gh the /eb is also progressing' 9#M) !9irt$al #ealit% Mar5$p )ang$age" is $s$all% $sed for 2& $rban planning models !.$ang et al' 2001"' .etherington et al' !200=" proposed to appl% P2& standard to accommodate 2& $rban plans for interactive *eb vis$ali-ation of proposals for site developments' Ne1t to 9#M) and P2&, EM) !Ee%hole Mar5$p )ang$age" has become a common format for 2& vis$ali-ation in tools as Google 3arth' 9is$ali-ation tools as Google 3arth are gro/ing rapidl% in pop$larit% and have fo$nd their /a%s into the *eb 2'0 societ%' These vie/ers offer navigation, interaction and e1change of data via the *eb and the vie/ers are an open and accessible platform to a /ider a$dience' Google 3arth can $pload 2& ob6ects modelled in 2& soft/are, for e1ample Google 85etch$p and via GI8 soft/are thro$gh EM)' This ma5es it possible for people to create their o/n 2& model themselves and scientists and e1perts can $se Google 3arth to comm$nicate science to the people !8heppard, 200@"' In the Netherlands some cities have introd$ced virt$al cities for planning p$rposes' Cebra B'9', a &$tch Compan% has that developed the technolog% behind 9irt$ocit%' 9irt$oCit% Groningen sho/s for a large part the m$nicipalit% of Groningen in 2& as it is no/ and also f$t$re developments are vis$ali-ed' The model sho/s the f$t$re ro$te of the regional tram, /hich might be developed in the f$t$re' lso plans for another development pro6ect can be added to the model, s$ch as the east /all on the Grote Mar5t' Citi-ens can freel% move aro$nd in the streets of the to/n' In fig$re 1= the Grote Mar5t is depicted /ith the proposed ro$te of the #egion tram' Cther cities interactive virt$al cities are 9irt$oCit% Tilb$rg, peldoorn and .elmond' These

applications also sho/ the c$rrent cit% and f$t$re plans' the plans come alive and bridges the gap bet/een the m$nicipalit% and its inhabitants, facilitating the gro/ing need for participation and comm$nication bet/een government and the p$blic' fears and pre6$dices !9I Matri1, 2010"' ccording to a civil servant of peldoorn, citi-ens can $nderstand the plans better and the disc$ssion is no/ more abo$t the contents than abo$t

41

Figure 17. VirtuoCity Groningen

The m$nicipalit% of .elmond is a great s$ccess' Man% visitors have alread% been able to ta5e a realistic loo5 at the past, present and f$t$re of a part of .elmond c$rrent being redeveloped' 9isitors can also p$t their 4$estions and opinions to representatives of the m$nicipal a$thorities !#iedi65 et al' 200;"'

4. 3% geovisuali&ation of &oning plans in the planning process

In the previo$s section <'< the potential of 2& geovis$ali-ation in spatial planning /as disc$ssed and some e1amples /ere sho/n, demonstrating 2& geovis$ali-ation can be $sef$l in the planning process and ho/ it can enhance comm$nication bet/een governmental bodies and citi-ens and citi-ens can be better involved in the planning process thro$gh interactive 2& geovis$ali-ation' This section /ill disc$ss ho/ 2& geovis$ali-ation can be $sef$l for -oning plans and ho/ it can contrib$te to better comm$nication and interaction' 0$rthermore, this section /ill come $p /ith a concept$al frame/or5 for the 2& geovis$ali-ation of -oning plans, based on the literat$re revie/ disc$ssed in this chapter'

&.5.1 3D geo.isualization of zoning plans as a co--unication tool

2& geovis$ali-ation can be ver% helpf$l for -oning plans and to comm$nicate information to people' 0irst of all, 2& can offer a better impression of an area in comparison to 2&, /hich is more abstract' B% vis$ali-ing heights in 2&, people can get a better impression of /hat the heights described in the -oning plan mean and people can compare the heights to other heights in the 2& environment' 0$rthermore, since 2& can offer a better impression of heights, it can be easier to interpret than a c$rrent 2& -oning plan'

41

2& geovis$ali-ation can also lead to more interaction in the $se of -oning plans' 7oning plans can be made interactive, b% letting the $ser to do simple -ooming and panning, navigating thro$gh the area, vie/ the -oning plan from different perspectives, activating and deactivating la%ers, clic5ing on ob6ects' The aspect of time can also be implemented in -oning plans, b% sho/ing the old and ne/ sit$ation of a -oning plan and $sers can observe the differences bet/een the old and ne/ sit$ation' Internet and information technolog% can enhance the participation and comm$nication of the p$blic in the planning process of -oning plans' )i5e a c$rrent -oning plan, it sho$ld be presented on the /ebsite of the m$nicipalit%, so that people can vie/ the -oning plan ever% time and on ever% place ' Ne1t to internet, other technolog% can be $sed, s$ch as a to$ch table !see fig$re 1?"' This map table co$ld be $sed for sessions, /here the p$blic can disc$ss a -oning plan /ith the m$nicipalit%, /hich can lead to a more interactive planning process'
Figure 18. 1se of interacti"e map table in planning process of zoning plans

-oning plan consists of several stages' The first part of the planning process deals /ith the design of the -oning plan and the p$blic has to opport$nit% to react on the plan' The second part of the planning process is /hen the -oning plan is made active and no reactions can be given' The first part contains a more active comm$nication /hen the p$blic has the opport$nit% to participate in the decision:ma5ing process of the design of the -oning plan b% reaction on the plan' This co$ld for e1ample be done b% clic5ing on an ob6ect in the -oning plan to have the opport$nit% to t%pe a reaction, /hich /ill be send to the m$nicipalit%' nother option to enhance participation co$ld a disc$ssion for$m or a chatbo1' The second part of the planning process is characteri-ed b% a more passive comm$nication, /hen the -oning plan is made active and the p$blic onl% can cons$lt the plan' If a person has 4$estions abo$t a certain -oning plan an option can be to as5 4$estions via the interface and the -oning plan specialists of the m$nicipalit% receive the 4$estion and can ans/er bac5'

41

&.5.! /onceptual -odel

Based on the concept$al frame/or5 of geovis$ali-ation b% .ooger/erf et al' !200;" !see <'2'2" a concept$al model can be made specified on the 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plans' Infor-ation (sers Planning procedure Interface

1I2factors $ interaction $ information intensity

3D visualization of zoning plans

+thics of .isualization $ visual clarity

Participation

DP6DT protocol ,esponses

Figure 19. 2onceptual model of 3D "isualization of zoning plans

(sers Citi-ens are a main gro$p /hich co$ld cons$lt the -oning plan' Citi-ens are mostl% interested in /hat is allo/ed on /hat place and to /hich height it is allo/ed to be b$ild, s$ch as is it allo/ed to b$ild a shed in the bac5%ard or can someone open a p$b belo/ a home' Interest of citi-ens can be divided into t/o gro$ps: 1' /hat is allo/ed for the citi-en itself and /hat constraints there are on their o/n propert%' 2' citi-ens are interested /hat the -oning plan means for their neighbo$rhood !B$rgerICverheid, 2002"' Citi-ens can f$rther be divided into different gro$ps, s$ch as age and ed$cation' The $sers of -oning plan are a broad gro$p /ith different bac5gro$nds and this has implications for the design of the -oning plan, since a -oning plan sho$ld be interpretable for ever% $ser, /hether the% are %o$ng or old, lo/:ed$cated or high:ed$cated' Qo$ng people are generall% more e1perienced /ith $sing the internet and /ith virt$al environments, s$ch as games, /here older people generall% have more problems getting $sed to the internet environment !C-a6a and 8harit, 1@@?"' Ne1t to citi-ens, organisations can be interested in -oning plans' This can be for e1ample architects, real estate agencies and b$ilding companies' These actors co$ld be interested in ne/ locations for development, /here the -oning plan sho/s reg$lations of /hat is allo/ed and /hat is not' Planning procedure The -oning plan consists of several proced$ral steps, /here citi-ens have the opport$nit% to react on the plan' In the first phase the -oning plan is being prepared and a preliminar% design is made of the

41

-oning plan, /here citi-ens have the possibilit% to react'

fter processed the reactions, the design

-oning plan is developed and can be cons$lted for si1 /ee5s' Then the m$nicipal co$ncil /ill decide on the design of the -oning plan and it /ill be p$blished' 0rom then, the plan can onl% be appealed b% going to co$rt !m$nicipalit% of Groningen, 2010"'

Participation rnstein !1@;@" mentions five levels of participation: informing, cons$lting, advising, co:prod$cing and co:deciding' -oning plan is in general abo$t informing the p$blic /hat is allo/ed concerning b$ilding reg$lations and land $se' .o/ever, people can have a voice in the design phase of the -oning plan' C$rrentl%, reactions on the -oning plan can be made orall% or /ritten' In the f$t$re, this co$ld be done more easil% /hen people can react via the interface of 2& vis$ali-ation of the -oning plan' ,eople co$ld for e1ample clic5 on a certain area or ob6ect in the plan and s$bse4$entl% a men$ pops $p /here the people have the opport$nit% to t%pe a reaction' In this /a%, a citi-en can easil% ma5e a comment' 0$rthermore, as alread% said in the previo$s section, a map table can improve participation of the p$blic in the planning process' DP6DT protocol -oning plan sho$ld be offered on the internet, so citi-ens can easil% cons$lt the plan'

-oning plan

offered on the internet is an e1ample of different time !&T" and different place !&,8" slot', also mentioned in the 3C, c$be !van )ammeren et al' 200="' 7oning plans can be cons$lted at an% given time and different place /ith internet, this ma5es the plan more accessible'

Interface The interface for the 2& geovis$ali-ation of -oning plans pla%s an important role, since it transmits the vis$ali-ation to the $ser and determines ho/ the vis$ali-ation is perceived b% the $ser, /hich interaction and vis$ali-ation options the interface is offering !van )ammeren et al' 200="' The interface sho$ld be easil% in $se, to ma5e s$re citi-ens can /or5 /ith the plan, /itho$t diffic$lt men$s and diffic$lt f$nctions' 0$rthermore, an interface sho$ld have a clear instr$ction ho/ it /or5s and a clear legend /hat the ob6ects in the -oning plan represent' This sho$ld res$lt in lo/ barriers for $sers to $se the -oning plan on the internet'

1I2 factors In section <'2'2' AIB factors of geovis$ali-ation /ere disc$ssed' 3speciall% t/o factors, interaction and information intensit% or relevant for this research' The factor of interaction can be $sef$l for the 2& vis$ali-ation -oning plans, since interaction can be $sed from letting people navigate thro$gh a -oning plan area, clic5 on ob6ects to get information abo$t the -oning plan reg$lations' 0$rthermore, interaction ma5es it possible for $sers to vie/ a -oning plan in different perspectives, b% -ooming in

41

and o$t and seeing more detail and an option co$ld be to react on the -oning plan thro$gh the interface' Information intensit% is also an important factor aspect for -oning plans' 7oning plans are generall% not meant to sho/ m$ch detail, b$t sho$ld be represented abstract' It is not an architect$ral plan, sho/ing a detailed map or a virt$al cit% model, vis$ali-ing a cit% highl% detailed and realisticall%' In the case of -oning plans, )o&1 or )od2 seems to be more s$itable' 8ho/ing more detail co$ld give the $ser the /rong impression the b$ildings have to loo5 li5e it is presented in the plan' The other t/o factors, intelligence of ob6ects and immersion are not ver% relevant for -oning plan and therefore /ill not be incl$ded in this research' Intelligence of ob6ects is not ver% relevant, since a -oning plan does not consists of ob6ects having some 5ind of behavio$r' The factor immersion is not ver% relevant as /ell, since a -oning plan is not a reflectance of the real /orld /here a person /ill have the feeling Jbeing inM the environment, /here in for e1ample virt$al cities a person /o$ld have more this feeling of immersion' -oning plan is more abstract than a virt$al cit% and the goal of a -oning plan is not to create a realistic model of the /orld' +thics of .isualization In this research the foc$s /ill be laid on of the criteria of ethics of vis$ali-ation !8heppard, 2001", vis$al clarit%' 9is$al clarit% has ver% m$ch to do /ith interpretation' To ma5e a -oning plan interpretable for the $ser is a challenge, since a -oning plan is abstract and consists of man% information' 3speciall% the c$rrent -oning plan in 2& is abstract, since it does not give a good impression of the heights' This ma5es a -oning plan diffic$lt to interpret, especiall% for people not familiar /ith $sing -oning plans' Therefore, a -oning plan sho$ld be clear and not sho/ing more details than necessar% to ma5e it interpretable for the $ser' -oning plan consists of man% reg$lations, ho/ever to 5eep the -oning plan clear choices have to be made /hat and /hat sho$ld not be incl$ded in the plan to 5eep it clear for the $ser' 8ho/ing too m$ch information in the plan, /o$ld res$lt in the $ser getting lost in the amo$nt of information sho/n in the plan' 3speciall% in 2& more details can be sho/n ho/ a b$ilding sho$ld loo5 li5e, b$t the danger is to sho/ too m$ch details, /hich can lead to people perceiving the -oning plan more as an architect$ral plan' In 2& this co$ld be vis$ali-ed better, ho/ever, people might not be familiar $sing 2& vis$ali-ations, so that is another challenge /hich /ill be interesting to research' The concept$al model, depicted in fig$re 1@, sho/s several important components of 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plans' This research /ill not aim to disc$ss and anal%se all of these components' This research /ill mainl% foc$s on vis$al clarit% and the AIB factors information intensit% and interactivit%'

41

4.* (onclusions
The literat$re revie/ in this chapter made clear that geovis$ali-ation and especiall% 2& geovis$ali-ation can be considered as po/erf$l tools to give insight in geographic data and /hich can help in $nderstanding geographical phenomena' 0$rthermore, geovis$ali-ation can stim$late interactivit% in spatial planning and involve citi-ens more in the planning process' Innovative technologies to present geographic data on the internet and vis$ali-ation tools s$ch as Google 3arth and 9irt$al cities can be $sef$l to share geographic information, ma5e spatial plans better accessible and to e1plore geographical data b% the $sers' In the perspective of this research, geovis$ali-ation co$ld also be considered as ver% $sef$l for -oning plans to vis$ali-e the -oning plan and present it on the internet so the p$blic can cons$lt the -oning plan, give reactions d$ring the planning proced$re and the p$blic can ma5e $se of interactive techni4$es in the map' The addition of 2& in the vis$ali-ation of -oning plans can res$lt in people getting a better impression of heights' These ass$mptions are mainl% based on literat$re and the case st$d% and s$rve% /ill ma5e clear ho/ and if geovis$ali-ation can be a po/erf$l tool in the vis$ali-ation of -oning plans in 2&' The AIB factors, interaction and information intensit% are stated to be relevant for this research' The factor of interaction is $sef$l for the 2& vis$ali-ation -oning plans, since interaction can be helpf$l letting people navigate thro$gh a -oning plan area and vie/ing a -oning plan from different perspectives' Information intensit% is also an important factor aspect for -oning plans' 7oning plans are generall% not meant to sho/ m$ch detail, b$t sho$ld be represented abstract' It is not an architect$ral plan, sho/ing a detailed map or a virt$al cit% model, in the case of -oning plans, sho/ing more detail co$ld give the $ser the /rong impression the b$ildings have to b$ild li5e it is presented in the plan' 8heppard !200>" disc$sses vis$ali-ation iss$es /hich are relevant /ithin this research and /hich can be considered as conditions for vis$ali-ations /hich can be interpreted b% the $sers' 3speciall% vis$al clarit% is relevant for this research' 9is$al clarit% has ver% m$ch to do /ith interpretation' To ma5e a -oning plan interpretable for the $ser is a challenge, since a -oning plan is abstract and consists of man% information' -oning plan sho$ld be clear and not sho/ing more details than necessar% to ma5e it interpretable for the $ser' The $ser can be a citi-en organi-ation /hich different bac5gro$nds, ma5ing it challenging developing a -oning plan geovis$ali-ation /hich is $nderstandable for all' 0$rthermore, in 2& more details can be sho/n, b$t the danger is to vis$ali-e too m$ch details, /hich can lead to people perceiving the -oning plan more as a an $rban plan' The res$lts of the s$rve%, /hich /ill be disc$ssed in chapter =, /ill point o$t ho/ the developed -oning plan is perceived b% the respondents' In ne1t chapter it /ill be disc$ssed ho/ the ob6ects of a -oning plan can be vis$ali-ed in 2&'

41

/hapter 5. ,e%uire-ents for 3D .isualization of zoning plan ob7ects

This chapter /ill disc$ss the planning ob6ects /hich sho$ld be vis$ali-ed in a 2& -oning plan' Important is ho/ planning ob6ects are described in the IM#C200? model, /hich is the g$ideline for -oning plans' 0rom the /a% planning ob6ects described in IM#C200? a translation sho$ld be made ho/ planning ob6ects sho$ld be vis$ali-ed in a 2&' 9is$ali-ation techni4$es are needed to be able to vis$ali-e the planning ob6ects in 2&, therefore re4$irements /ill be identified' This chapter /ill first start to describe the IM#C200? model, secondl% the planning ob6ects /hich are specific for -oning plans, thirdl% the planning ob6ects s$itable for 2& vis$ali-ation and finall% the re4$irements for vis$ali-ing the planning ob6ects in 2&'

.1 +"R,2--.
IM#C200? is the information model for the description and e1change of digital plans for spatial planning and instr$ments !-oning plans, frame/or5 visions"' These instr$ments are defined in the )a/ on 8patial ,lanning !*ro, 200?" and are developed for the different administration levels: m$nicipalit%, province and national' IM#C200? refers to and ma5es $se of reg$lations /hich are described in a n$mber of norms and standards' Norms are described on the national level at the &$tch Norms !N3N", /hich is a standard /here all &$tch norms are described' standard in relation to the IM#C200? model is N3N 2;10:200> Basis 8cheme Geo:information !N3N, 200>" /here terms, relations and general r$les for the e1change of information concerning the s$rface related spatial ob6ects are described' IM#C200? is an application of the Basis 8cheme Geo:information, /hich means that IM#C has to compl% /ith the r$les /hich are described in N3N 2;10' IM#C200? ma5es $se of the ob6ect classes described in N3N 2;10 and in addition, the ob6ects sho$ld as m$ch as possible be described according to the identified attrib$tes from N3N 2;10' .o/ever, the N3N 2;10 is a general model, /hich is not specific eno$gh in ever% case for the spatial planning' Therefore, in the IM#C200? model attrib$tes are disting$ished /hich are not provided in N3N 2;10 and more details are added to alread% e1isting attrib$tes of N3N 2;10'

IM#0200? consists of a n$mber of directives s$ch as the practical directives for -oning plans !,ra5ti65li6n Bestemmingsplannen, 200?" and standards for the representation of the -oning plans !8tandaard voor 9ergeli65baarheid Bestemmingsplannen"'

41

.2 ,bjects of +"R,2--.
In the directive doc$ment for -oning plans !,ra5ti65li6n Bestemmingplannen, 200?" the method of digiti-ing spatial instr$ments is described' /ebsite' -oning plan is based on -oning plan consists of a collection of geo:referenced three classes of ob6ects: -oning plan area ob6ects /hich are stored in a digital spatial information s%stem and /hich can be cons$lted via a !bestemmingsplangebied", -oning plane !bestemmingsvla5" and denotation !aand$iding"' The -oning plane is the area /here reg$lations are referring to and /hich sho$ld therefore be considered as one ob6ect' The -oning plane class e1presses -oning f$nctions divided into t/o t%pes, single -oning and do$ble -oning' 7oning plane classes are based on -oning f$nctions li5e, ho$sing, recreation, /ater, nat$re, c$lt$re etc' special -oning f$nction is the mi1ed f$nction, for ob6ects /hich consists of at least t/o f$nctions' &enotations !aand$idingen" describe the -oning plan area and the -oning plane in more detail' IM#C 200? names these ob6ect t%pes as classes' In fig$re 20 the schema of -oning plans is depicted' In the appendi1 the +M) diagram of the -oning plan scheme is sho/n'

area o zoning plan

zoning plane

denotation

single zoning

dou)le zoning

)uilding plane

unction denotatio n

)uilding denotation

measurements

image

area denotatio n

Figure 20. 'oning plan scheme (source7 8rakti!kli!nen 91/-"##6%

41

Figure 21: 4M.5())6 ob/ects

The main principle of the cohesion bet/een ob6ects can be considered as a n$mber of la%ers of geometrical determined ob6ects on top and related to each other !see fig$re 21"' Mostl% a denotation is lin5ed to a b$ilding plane !bo$/vla5"' meas$rements !maatvoeringen"' lso reg$lations can e1ist for a certain ob6ect, called nother ob6ect is image !fig$$r" /hich is not a plane, li5e the other

ob6ects, b$t it has its o/n geometr% !,ra5ti65li6n IM#0200?, 200?"' The ob6ect Ab$ilding planeB !bo$/vla5" is al/a%s inside or e4$al to the -oning plane' It is possible to have more b$ilding planes /ithin a -oning plane' The development plane relates to the -oning plane' B$ilding planes /hich are stretched o$t on m$ltiple -oning t%pes !AbestemmingenB" /ill be divided for each -oning t%pe, since the reg$lations of a -oning t%pe onl% appl% to the part of the development
Figure 22 . 7uilding plane

/hich is contained b% a -oning t%pe'

41

The ob6ects Af$nction denotationB !f$nctie aand$iding" and Ab$ilding denotationB !bo$/ aand$iding" can overlap /ith the ob6ect -oning plane or can consist of one or more parts /ithin this plane !fig$re 22"' These ob6ects can also sa% something abo$t other denotations' The ob6ect f$nction denotation relates to the belonging ob6ect -oning plane or another denotation' n e1ample of a b$ilding denotation is a t%pe of ho$sing, s$ch as detached
5igure '36 Denotations

ho$sing' n e1ample of a f$nction denotation is a cemeter%, cinema, bridge and garage etc'

The ob6ect Ameas$rementsB !maatvoering" describes !part of a" development plane or a !part of a" -oning plane, /hich depends of the reg$lations !fig$re 2<"' The ob6ect Ameas$rementsB can also sa% something abo$t the area denotation' The ob6ect relates to the ob6ect -oning plan, b$ilding plane or area denotation' n e1ample of a meas$rement is the ma1im$m b$ilding height /hich is allo/ed'
5igure '46 Measurements

The ob6ect AimageB !fig$$r" can, depending on the reg$lations describe one or more -oning t%pes !fig$re 2>"' The ob6ect relates to the belonging -oning plane, b$ilding plane, other denotations andGor -oning area' gas pipeline' The ob6ect Aarea denotationB !gebiedsaand$iding" characteri-es itself beca$se this denotation is independent from -oning planes !fig$re 2;"' It can be crossing a -oning plane, overlapping a -oning plane or fall /ithin a -oning plane' denotation is depicted as the hatched ellipsoid.
5igure '"6 Area denotations 5igure '/. Image

n e1ample of an image is a

e1ample of an area denotation is a safet% -one' The area

.3 /rom 2% &oning plan into 3% geovisuali&ation

41

The ob6ects of the IM#C200? model are developed for 2& and in the c$rrent model g$idelines for 2& are lac5ing' The third dimension creates ne/ 4$estions ho/ ob6ects sho$ld be vis$ali-ed and ho/ the -oning plan reg$lations sho$ld be ta5en into acco$nt in the 2& vis$ali-ation' n e1ample that in the IM#C200? model there are no descriptions to /hat depth a ho$se is allo/ed to be b$ild and in /hat detail b$ildings sho$ld be vis$ali-ed' Therefore, the IM#C200? model does not satisf% the re4$irements of 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan' .o/ever, the goal of this research is not to develop a ne/ IM#C model for 2& -oning plans, b$t /ill foc$s on the vis$ali-ation part, rather than the modelling part' Qet, 2& offers ne/ opport$nities to vis$ali-e ob6ects and /hich can enhance the interpretation of -oning plans' In 2& it is possible to vis$ali-e heights representing ma1im$m heights of b$ildings, /hich can helpf$l in the interpretation of citi-ens to have a better impression of heights' In 2& ob6ects can also be vis$ali-ed above and $nder each other' This gives the opport$nit% to vis$ali-e mi1ed -oning f$nctions' In 2& also ob6ects belo/ s$rface level can be better vis$ali-ed in comparison to 2&, s$ch as transport pipelines'

5.3.1 Di-ensions of .isualizations

Geovis$ali-ation can be represented in 2& and 2&, based on 2&, 2'>& or 2& data !see fig$re 2="' Most geographical data is stored as a 2& data model and is most obvio$sl% being vis$ali-ed in 2&' 2'>& is a simplified 2& s$rface representation that defines location in 2& space and adding height to the e1isting datasets s$ch as height data from conto$rs or techni4$es li5e G,8 or )I& # data' In a 2'>& map each P,Q location has one 7 val$e' 2'>& is also 5no/n as a &igital 3levation Model !&3M"'

a' 2& map

b' 2'> map

c' 2& model

Figure 27. 'patial representation in different dimensions

2& defines location e1tending thro$gh 2& space defined b% P, Q and 7 a1es' These locations position real:/orld spatial ob6ects /hich co$ld be reg$lar or irreg$lar in shape' Man:made ob6ects, s$ch as b$ildings are e1amples of reg$lar ob6ects, /hile terrain s$rfaces, forests and trees are e1amples of irreg$lar ob6ects ! bd$l:#ahman, ,ilo$5, 200?"'

41

In this research data and descriptions /ill be $sed from the c$rrent -oning plan and b% $sing height information the -oning plan ob6ects can be vis$ali-ed in 2&'

5.3.! 8b7ects of zoning plan 3ith third di-ension

The planning ob6ects described in IM#C200? /ill be the starting point for 2& vis$ali-ation' The first step is to define the ob6ects of a -oning plan /hich contain a third dimension' Not ever% planning ob6ect has a third dimension and reg$lations are not in ever% case s$itable to vis$ali-e in 2&' Table 1 sho/s /hich ob6ects of IM#C200? have a third dimension' is characteri-ed b% a -oning f$nction and does not consist of a 2& component'
Table 1. 3D component

-oning plane

Planning ob!e"t #$%&200' 7oning plane B$ilding plane Meas$rement !eg' ma1im$m heights" Images !eg' transport pipelines" B$ilding denotation !eg' roof t%pe" rea denotations !eg' noise -ones" 0$nction denotation !non:spatial"

(D "o)ponent no no %es %es %es %es no

b$ilding plane represents a certain -oning f$nctions and consists of meas$rements, /hich are specific b$ilding reg$lations s$ch as the ma1im$m b$ilding height, b$ilding percentages /hich are

41

related to a b$ilding plane' These ma1im$m heights are s$itable to vis$ali-e in 2&, since the% have a third dimension'

0$nction denotations are also part of a b$ilding plane, /hich are specific denotations of a -oning f$nction' 0$nction denotations do not have a third dimension, since it onl% gives a more specific description abo$t a -oning f$nction, s$ch as AschoolB for the -oning f$nction Asocial servicesB' .o/ever, in some cases f$nction denotations can be vis$ali-ed in 2&' n e1ample is /hen a b$ilding plane has -oning t%pe Asocial servicesB /ith the f$nction denotation Aho$singB' In the c$rrent reg$lations this is in some cases described as ho$sing is allo/ed Jon $pper level floorsM, ho/ever not specificall% on /hich floors' In 2& this can be vis$ali-ed, ho/ever a more specific definition /o$ld be needed /hich describes for ever% floor a certain f$nction denotation and this is not specificall% described in the c$rrent -oning plan reg$lations' nother denotation is the area denotation, s$ch as noise -ones and archaeological val$es contain a third dimension, /hich can be considered as virt$al vol$mes' 9irt$al vol$mes are more comple1 to define since the% have f$--% bo$ndaries' Noise differs in heights and therefore has a third dimension' rchaeological val$es are also s$itable to vis$ali-e in 2&, since the depth determines the location of the archaeological val$es' B$ilding denotations are reg$lations based on a b$ilding plane' It can describe for e1ample /hat roof t%pes or allo/ed or the ma1im$m slope a roof of a b$ilding is allo/ed to have' This co$ld therefore be vis$ali-ed in 2&' Images can also be vis$ali-ed in 2&' n e1ample is transport pipeline, /hich can be located on a

certain depth in the $ndergro$nd, ma5ing the height component relevant to vis$ali-e in 2&'

5.3.3 0eo-etric presentation of ob7ects

In 2& there are several /a%s to vis$ali-e ob6ects of a -oning plan, This /ill be disc$ssed in this section' Geometr% in 2& is different and more comple1 than 2& geometr%' The third dimension creates ne/ 4$estions abo$t elements that are insignificant for 2& representations' 0or e1ample, in 2& the s$rface represents a b$ilding and no attention is paid to /indo/s, doors, faRade ornaments, etc' bo1es indicating /indo/s, doors, etc' s a 2& representation, a b$ilding can be associated /ith a simple bo1, roofs or /ith a composite of several 2& ob6ect is constr$cted b% geometric feat$res li5e vertices, edges and faces, /hich determine the position, shape and si-e of the ob6ects !7latanova, 2000"' The geometr% can be simple, s$ch as a simple plane, sphere or a c$be ob6ect' These basic 2& ob6ects are called 2& primitives'

41

"a'i-u- heights
The ob6ect meas$rements, /ith reg$lations concerning ma1im$m heights can be vis$ali-ed in different /a%s' .eights can be vis$ali-ed b% vol$mes, s$ch as bloc5s and spheres or b% lines and planes on a certain height' nother option is to vis$ali-e a plane on the ma1im$m height !see fig$re 2?a"' nother option is to sho/ onl% lines on the fo$r angles of the b$ilding plane !see fig$re 2?b"' In this research the ma1im$m heights /ill be vis$ali-ed as a bloc5 vol$me !see fig$re 2?c"' This vol$me /ill be named Ab$ilding vol$meB, since it represents that /ithin the vol$me it is allo/ed to b$ild' 8ho/ing onl% lines might be harder to interpret and less clear than a vol$me' #epresenting heights b% a plane on the ma1im$m height, it ma5es it harder to see /hat the bo$ndaries are' a. b.

c.
Figure 28. Geometric options "isualizing maximum heights&

Area denotations
rea denotations are -ones /hich can overlap several -oning planes' n e1ample of a area denotation is a noise -one' In the c$rrent 2& -oning plan, onl% the area is vis$ali-ed s$rro$nded b% bo$ndaries' Noise has a third dimension and a noise -one is therefore s$itable to vis$ali-e in 2&' It can simpl% be vis$ali-ed b% e1tr$ding the area of the noise -one to a certain height and vis$ali-ing it as a bloc5 vol$me !see fig$re 2@c"' It can also be done b% being more e1act and vis$ali-e a noise -one based on meas$rements' This /a%, a noise -one /ill be vis$ali-ed as a certain sphere or isolines !see fig$re 2@a and 2@b"' 9is$ali-ing it as a bloc5 vol$me, it is abstract and /hen vis$ali-ing it as sphere based on

41

meas$rements, it is more realistic representation of a noise -one' In this research a noise -one /ill be vis$ali-ed as a sphere, since then a noise -one can be vis$ali-ed realisticall%'

a' sphere

b' isolines

c' bloc5 vol$me

Figure 29. Geometric options "isualizing noise zones

41

*uil+ing +enotations In a c$rrent -oning plan denotations related to the constr$ction of the b$ilding are described' 31amples of b$ilding denotations are ridge direction of a roof, t%pe of ho$sing, s$ch as detached and semi: detached' A b$ilding denotation can for e1ample impl% that a b$ilding ma% have a roof /ith a ma1im$m slope of ;0 percent !see fig$re 20"'

Figure 3 . 7uilding "olume with rooftop

ris5 b% sho/ing roofs is that this co$ld be misinterpreted b% people and people become disappointed !T%rvainen, 200;"' ,eople co$ld interpret it that rooftops sho$ld be constr$cted e1actl% the /a% it is vis$ali-ed' It can be an advantage not sho/ing too m$ch detail in order to s$ggest providing an image of the realit% !*ilson and McGa$ghe%, 2000"' Therefore, in this research b$ilding denotations /ill not be ta5en into acco$nt as ob6ects to be vis$ali-ed in 2&'

5.3.& Visual .ariables

Ne1t to geometric feat$res of ob6ects, ob6ects can f$rther be defined b% vis$al variables' Bertin !1@?2" proposed an approach to comm$nicate information b% vis$al means' .e lists seven basic vis$al variables: si-e, val$e, te1t$re, colorGh$e, orientation, shape, and position' These vis$al variables are foc$sed on 2& cartographic representation, b$t can to a certain degree be relevant for 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plans' 0or e1ample te1t$res can be $sed b% draping raster images on e1isting b$ildings' 8hape determines the impact of abstraction, generalisation, and the degree of homogeneit% /ithin a 2& vis$ali-ation'

41

Mac3achren !1@@>" e1tended the list of vis$al variables of Bertin !1@?2" and developed an approach containing t/elve variables /hich can be matched to nominal, ordinal or intervalGratio data /ith three degrees of appropriateness' Mac3achren added color sat$ration, resol$tion, crispness, transparenc% and arrangement to the list of variables of Bertin !1@?2"' 8at$ration is the colorf$lness of a color relative to its o/n brightness' rrangements means that patterns can be reg$lar or irreg$lar' Crispness, resol$tion and transparenc% are a composite of the vis$al variable clarit%' Transparenc% is s$ggested b% Mac3achren as an effective means of comm$nicating $ncertaint% val$es for 2& scenes' It the case of -oning plans transparenc% co$ld be $sed /hen ob6ects are overlapping each other, s$ch as /hen e1isting b$ilding and b$ilding vol$me overlap each other' nother vis$al variable is b% $sing animations to create d%namic vis$ali-ations !&iBiase et al' 1@@2"' The d%namic variables are d$ration, order and rate of change, fre4$enc%, displa% time and s%nchroni-ation' 0or 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plans this co$ld be $sef$l to incl$de shado/s in combination /ith a timeline to sho/ the shado/s on a certain time' The time component co$ld also be $sed to sho/ the old and the ne/ -oning plan, so people can see the changes in the ne/ sit$ation in comparison to the old sit$ation' Based on the vis$ali-ation variables and the geometric options to present ob6ects, /hich are disc$ssed, a concept$al model can be made !see fig$re 21"'

Figure 31. 2onceptual model for 3D "isualization of zoning plan

In this model the ob6ects are vis$ali-ed for ob6ects above and $nder the s$rface, sho/ing ho/ ob6ects can be positioned on top or $nder each other' lso ob6ects can be positioned inside another ob6ect, for

41

e1ample /ith the e1isting b$ildings /ithin a b$ilding vol$me'

b$ilding vol$me is a b$ilding plane

and e1tr$ded based on the height reg$lations' Cb6ects also can overlap, as can be seen /ith a noise -one, overlapping a b$ilding vol$me' More information in the $ndergro$nd can be vis$ali-ed, s$ch as a basement' In the ne1t section for each ob6ect, the re4$irements /ill be disc$ssed in more detail'

.4 Requirements 3% visuali&ation objects

This sections described for each ob6ect ho/ it sho$ld be vis$ali-ed in 2&' s disc$ssed in chapter <,

vis$al clarit% from the ethics of vis$ali-ation !8heppard, 2001", is the main re4$irement of the ob6ects to be vis$ali-ed in 2&' 0$rthermore, the geometric options of ob6ects and the vis$al variables, disc$ssed in section >'2 /ill be ta5en into acco$nt'

5.&.1 Zoning plane

-oning plane describes a -oning f$nction for a certain area' The -oning plane is not an ob6ect /ith a third dimension it is a t/o dimensional plane representing a certain -oning f$nction' This /ill be done b% giving the -oning plane a certain color, as alread% being done in the c$rrent -oning plan' The colors have to be clear to disting$ish it from the other colors' -oning plane is divided into single: and mi1ed -oning' 8ingle -oning f$nctions are f$nctions s$ch as ho$sing, retail, roads and /ater for one certain area' In the c$rrent IM#C200? model mi1ed -oning is vis$ali-ed on the map as a separate -oning f$nction, ho/ever more than one -oning f$nctions can be assigned to a -oning plane /hen it is mi1ed -oned' Cn a 2& map it is not visible /hich -oning f$nctions are allo/ed on a -oning plane' In 2& it is possible to vis$ali-e for each levelGfloor the -oning f$nction !see fig$re 22"' This /o$ld ho/ever mean that the reg$lations sho$ld be specified for 2& vis$ali-ation in s$ch a /a% that -oning f$nctions are assigned for each b$ilding level' In this research a distinction /ill be made for each level to specif% a certain -oning f$nction'

Figure 32. 8oning functions for each building le"el

41

5.&.! 9uilding plane

b$ilding plane represents the -oning f$nction and the reg$lations concerning for e1ample heights' The heights are the most important aspect of a b$ilding plane and therefore it can be vis$ali-ed as a vol$me' Beca$se of the addition of the third dimension, a better term for b$ilding plane /o$ld be b$ilding vol$me /hen vis$ali-ing in 2&' b$ilding vol$me /ill be created b% $sing the b$ilding b$ilding vol$me can be determined b% the b$ilding vol$me sho$ld plane and e1tr$ding it to the ma1im$m height level'

meas$rement attrib$tes, s$ch as the ma1im$m drain: and b$ilding height'

not sho/ too m$ch detail, s$ch as roof details, b$t sho$ld be vis$ali-ed /ith a lo/ of detail !)o&1" -oning plan is not an architect$ral plan and vis$ali-ing details can onl% lead to s$ggestions ho/ a b$ilding sho$ld loo5 li5e and other negative effects s$ch as mis$nderstanding ! ppleton and )ovett, 2002"' The $se of shado/s can be $sef$l for the vis$ali-ation of b$ilding vol$mes' B% this, citi-ens can see /hat the shado/ impact is of a b$ilding on its s$rro$nding environment' The b$ilding vol$mes sho$ld also be vis$ali-ed /ith a certain transparenc% to emphasi-e the vol$mes are virt$al' The transparenc% also ma5es it possible that the e1isting b$ildings /hich overlap /ith the b$ilding vol$mes are visible !see fig$re 22"'

Figure 33. 9isualisation of building "olumes

b$ilding plane can, li5e the -oning plane, sho/ information in a pop$p men$' It gives information abo$t the -oning f$nction, meas$rement data and a lin5 is given to the to the -oning plan reg$lations'

41

5.&.3 De.elop-ent percentage

The ob6ect b$ilding plane contains of a ma1im$m development percentage, /hich describes /hat percentage of the b$ilding plane is allo/ed for development' This is comple1 to vis$ali-e, since the development percentage does not describe /here on a b$ilding plane the development sho$ld ta5e place' B% e1tr$ding ;0D of the -oning plane, it /ill be misleading, since it is not 5no/n in advance /hich part of the b$ilding plane /ill be developed' Therefore it /o$ld be better to vis$ali-e the development percentage differentl%' vis$ali-ation techni4$e /o$ld be to vis$ali-e the development percentages as thematic data !see fig$re 2<"' Colo$rs in combination /ith heights can be $sed to sho/ the different development percentages' The green colo$rs sho/ a development percentage of 100D and red colo$rs' In addition, information concerning the development percentage can be sho/ed in a pop$p balloon, /hich pops $p /hen clic5ing on a b$ilding vol$me'

Figure 34. #xample of "isualization of de"elopment percentage

5.&.& Area denotations

rea denotations are described in -oning plan b% several different -ones, s$ch as noise -ones, safet% -ones, air traffic -ones and environmental -ones' In the -oning plan reg$lation normall% no third dimension is described' 0or e1ample in a -oning plan of the m$nicipalit% of Groningen, a noise -one aro$nd a road is onl% described /ith a certain ma1im$m decibel and onl% the 1 and % bo$ndaries of the -one are described' Therefore, additional data is needed to model a -one as 2& vol$me'

41

Figure 35. 9isualization of a safety zone of 3D zoning plan of #nschede (source 'tohr et al& ())-)&

In the pilot of the 2& -oning plan of the m$nicipalit% of 3nschede a safet% -one /as modelled in 2&, altho$gh no 2& data concerning -ones /as available !see fig$re 2>"' The vol$me /hich /as vis$ali-ed /as fictional and not modelled based on act$al data' In the pilot of 3nschede, the -one is modelled as a sphere' If these -ones /ill be $sed in a 2& -oning plan, transparenc% is needed for the vis$ali-ation, since the other ob6ects, s$ch as the b$ilding vol$mes sho$ld be visible'

5.&.5 Archaeological .alues

rchaeological val$es are -ones for the preservation of archaeological val$es, /hich are part of the f$nctions denotation ob6ects' In the c$rrent -oning plan, archaeological val$es are represented as planes and not as point locations' In addition, in a c$rrent -oning plan map archaeological val$es are represented /ith s%mbols on a -oning plane are categori-ed as a do$ble -oning f$nction, since it overlaps /ith more than one other -oning f$nction' The -oning plan reg$lations do not give information abo$t the depth of the archaeological val$e, /hich is necessar% to model it in 2&' In man% -oning plans archaeological research has not been done and therefore the precise locations of archaeological val$es are scarce and mostl% $n5no/n' Mostl%, archaeological findings are e1pected and therefore not 5no/ing e1actl% /here the% are located' This ma5es it hard to model it in 2&, since necessar% data is lac5ing' In -oning plans it is reg$lated that developments larger than 2>0 m2 an archaeological research is re4$ired' 0$rthermore, /hen digging in the gro$nd deeper 0'2 meters also an archaeological research is re4$ired' Therefore it /o$ld be s$itable to vis$ali-e archaeological val$es from a depth of 0'2' Normall% the ma1im$m depth is not predefined and depends on the planned

41

development'

The archaeological val$es /ill be made transparent, since other ob6ects, s$ch as

transport pipelines /ill be visible /hen the% overlap each other'

5.&.* I-ages
Transport pipelines are the main ob6ects of images' In a c$rrent -oning plan transport lined are described as a do$ble -oning t%pe, /hich can divided into more specific t%pes as can be seen in table 2'
Table 2. Tran!"ort "i"eline!

Transport pipeline 0$el Gas .igh 9oltage !.9" Cil 8e/er *ater

In a c$rrent -oning plan a transport line is being represented in a general /a%, meaning no distinction is made bet/een for e1ample gas and se/er pipelines' Cnl% in the reg$lations the specific pipelines are described' The transport pipelines can be vis$ali-ed differentl% b% $sing colo$rs !see fig$re 2;"' The depth of the transport pipelines are not described in the c$rrent -oning plan' .o/ever, from other so$rces it is 5no/n that gas pipelines are b$ild on a depth of at least 1'20 in the $ndergro$nd !N M, 2010"' lso images can be located above the s$rface, s$ch as high voltage lines' In the -oning plan reg$lations a ma1im$m height is described for high voltage lines'

Figure 36. 9isualization of transport pipelines in the underground

41

5.&.: +'isting buildings

In a c$rrent -oning plan the topograph% of the e1isting b$ildings !based on GBEN" is vis$ali-ed on the map' .o/ever, in the reg$lations there are no legal descriptions given concerning the b$ildings, therefore if the -oning plan /o$ld be strictl% considered, e1isting b$ildings sho$ld not be represented in 2& in the -oning plan' Tho$gh, incl$ding the e1isting b$ildings /o$ld ma5e a -oning plan more recogni-able for citi-ens in comparison /hen onl% the b$ilding vol$mes are vis$ali-ed' disadvantage is that it is time cons$ming to constr$ct the e1isting b$ildings' In spite of this disadvantage, vis$ali-ing the e1isting b$ildings in 2& /o$ld give an added val$e, since for citi-ens this /o$ld be $sef$l to recogni-e b$ildings' Man% researchers ! ppleton and )ovett, 2002H Bishop and #ohrmann, 2002" concl$ded that a higher level of detail s$pport a better mental representation of a landscape and for that similar responses' In addition, b% vis$ali-ing the e1isting b$ildings, one can be able to see if an e1isting b$ilding e1ceeds the allo/ed b$ilding heights represented b% the b$ilding vol$mes' To ma5e the e1isting b$ildings visible, the b$ilding vol$me sho$ld be made transparent'

Figure 37. ,e"el of Detail (2ityGM,: ();))

0or the 2& vis$ali-ation of e1isting b$ildings in the -oning plan it is important to $se a certain level of detail !see fig$re 2="' #epresenting a b$ilding as bloc5 is not s$fficient, since not eno$gh detail is represented, ma5ing a b$ilding not recogni-able for citi-ens' +sing )o&2 can considered as a more s$itable presentation method, since here a roof is vis$ali-ed' )o&2 and )o&< sho/ more architect$ral details, li5e /indo/s, doors, te1t$res, interiors, ho/ever in -oning plan reg$lations these levels of detail are not described' Tho$gh, from the perspective of citi-ens it co$ld be relevant to incl$de for e1ample photo images draped on b$ildings, /hich sho$ld res$lt in a better recognition of b$ildings'

. (onclusions
This chapter presented the re4$irements of ho/ the planning ob6ects described in IM#C200? of a -oning plan in can be vis$ali-ed in 2&' In comparison to 2&, the vis$ali-ation in 2& re4$ires more

41

aspects have to be ta5en into acco$nt, d$e to the addition of the third dimension' Cther vis$ali-ation techni4$es sho$ld be $sed and more data is needed to be able to vis$ali-e ob6ects in 2&' The IM#C200? model is s$itable for 2& vis$ali-ation' n$mber of ob6ects from the model have a

third dimension, s$ch as meas$rements describing the ma1im$m heights of b$ildings and are s$itable to vis$ali-e as a 2& ob6ect' These ob6ects can be vis$ali-ed in certain /a%s, s$ch as /ith lines, a bloc5 or a sphere' The /a% it sho$ld be vis$ali-ed depends on ho/ it can be done to ma5e it clear to the $ser and it depends on the -oning plan reg$lations' In general, the ob6ects sho$ld not be vis$ali-ed ver% detailed, it sho$ld be 5ept abstract' Important is to 5eep in mind that a -oning plan is not an architect$ral plan, therefore not m$ch detail sho$ld be vis$ali-ed' Ne1t to geometric options to present an ob6ect, several vis$al variables can be $sed' Transparenc% can be $sed be $sed /hen ob6ects are overlapping each other, s$ch as /hen e1isting b$ilding and b$ilding vol$me overlap each other' Not all ob6ects can easil% be vis$ali-ed to 2& vis$ali-ation' Cb6ects /ith a height component are not al/a%s described in 2& -oning plans, s$ch as for archaeological val$es and noise -ones' ob6ects lac5ing a third dimension, s$ch as a -oning plane' 31isting b$ildings are $sef$l to incl$de in for the recognition of an area' This /ill ma5e a -oning plan easier to interpret and recogni-able for citi-ens, /hich are important $sers of a -oning plan' In addition, b% incl$ding the b$ilding in the -oning plan it can be chec5ed /hether the b$ildings satisf% the -oning plan reg$lations' In the ne1t chapter a case st$d% /ill be done to implement the described vis$al re4$irements for the 2& vis$ali-ation of the -oning plan ob6ects' dditional research /ill be needed to ac4$ire the needed data to be able to vis$ali-e it in 2&' There are also

/hapter *. /ase stud# 0roningen

This chapter /ill cond$ct a case st$d% to appl% the vis$al re4$irements for the 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan, described in the previo$s chapter'

41

*.1 +ntroduction
n important reason for the vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan in 2& is to improve the comm$nication bet/een the m$nicipal government and its citi-ens, in order to involve citi-ens in the planning process of -oning plans' This /as emphasi-ed /hen a political part% in Groningen came /ith the initiative to present the m$nicipal -oning plans in a 2& environment !,vd Groningen, 2010"' B% presenting -oning plans in 2&, the% arg$ed, it /o$ld be m$ch clearer for the p$blic /hat the allo/ed heights of b$ildings are' This chapter /ill e1ec$te a case st$d% to develop a 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plan /hich sho$ld ma5e a -oning plan more $nderstandable for citi-ens'

*.2 !tud# area

*.!.1 ;istor#
Coendersborg is a neighbo$rhood in the so$th of the m$nicipalit% of Groningen, depicted as a p$rple s$rface in fig$re 2?' The name Coendersborg is named after a farm !/hich is named after a former castle from the famil% Coenders", no/ mostl% being $sed for parties' Coendersborg has a rich and long histor%'

1.000

Meters 2.000

Figure 38. ,ocation of 2oendersborg in Groningen

The area /as earl% b$ild /ith castles !borgen in &$tch" and villas of often aristocrat families'

good

e1ample is the estate Groenestein from 1;?>, /hich is c$rrentl% in possession b% individ$als' The neighbo$rhood is b$ild $p spacio$sl% and /ith lot of green spaces !M$nicipalit% of Groningen"' The old part of Coendersborg is characteri-ed b% mostl% social ho$sing from the 1@;0Bs and 1@=0Bs and the

41

ne/ part e1ists of mostl% high segment ho$sing' The neighbo$rhood contains a n$mber of services, sport fields and some shops'

*.2.2 Zoning plan (oendersborg

Figure 39. 8oning plan of 2oendersborg(source: municipality of Groningen)

Coendersborg is chosen for this case st$d%, depicted fig$re 2@ /ithin the blac5 borders, since it consists of a n$mber of interesting feat$res, s$ch as man% differences in the heights of b$ildings, $ndergro$nd -oning f$nctions s$ch as archaeological val$es and pipelines' 0eat$res /hich are not present in the area, s$ch as mi1ed -oning /ill also be incl$ded, since it is an important ob6ect class s$itable for vis$ali-ing in 2&' nother ob6ect /hich /ill be incl$ded is a noise -one'

*.3 !oft0are and data sets

*.3.1 Data sets
Table 3 #ata !et!

7ame bpGcoendersborg.dgn

Description ,oning plan area 6oendersborg

5ormat vector

8ype Polylines polygons

41

points HoogteGterrein.dgn GroningenGtenboerG4cm.e cw G(EG bpGbestemming and bpGmaatvoering from 7racle database Pit heights Aerial stereo photography 9+isting buildings ,oning plan attribute data vector image vector vector points raster polylines polygons

*.3.!. Soft3are
91/I Arc2ap 5.$.1 Arc1cene 5.$.1 )29 1afe 1oftware Google 1"etchup Pro >.1 (entley 2icrostation ?4 H2 9dition Google 9arth

*.3.3 ;ard3are<
1trabo+ P6

*.3.& Visualization tool

0or this case st$d% Google 3arth is $sed as vie/er for the 2& vis$ali-ation of the -oning plan' Google 3arth is gro/ing rapidl% in pop$larit% and is becoming more and more a platform that is $sed to e1plore, vis$ali-e and e1change 2& geo:information !8heppard and Ci-e5, 200?"' B$tler!200;" states that virt$al globe soft/are s$ch as Google 3arth can facilitate the comm$nication of spatial information bet/een sta5eholders and the government' Google 3arth can be lin5ed to 2& ob6ect modeling s$ch as Google 85etch+p and GI8 soft/are and can be e1ported to EM) e1ports, /hich creates an enormo$s potential !#odrSg$e- )loreta, 200? "' *ith Google 85etch$p it is possible to create %o$r o/n 2& models /hich can be e1ported to Google 3arth' In addition, Google 3arth is free/are, /hich ma5es it better accessible for people /anting to vie/ the -oning plan' 0$rthermore the -oning plan can be implemented in an e1isting environment, /hich places it in a better perspective and for citi-ens it /o$ld be eas% to recogni-e /here the -oning plan is located' disadvantage of the

41

vie/er is that $ndergro$nd -oning f$nctions cannot be vie/ed, since onl% ob6ects on and above the s$rface can be vis$ali-ed' The data format $sed for the vis$ali-ation in Google 3arth is EM), /hich can be imported into Google 3arth' EM) !Ee%hole Mar5$p )ang$age" is a PM) based I8C standard for geographical data' EM) describes a n$mber of feat$res !locations, placemar5s, images, 2& models, te1t, /hich can be represented in Google 3arth and GoogleMaps' The EM) specification describes ho/ placemar5s, image:overla%, screenoverla%, path and pol%gons are combined on the Google 3arth virt$al interface in different )C& and realism !CGC, 2010"'

*.4 "odelling process

This section /ill disc$ss ho/ the data is processed and it is vis$ali-ed in Google 3arth as can be seen in fig$re <0'

41

0nput data - 7oning plan Coendersborg

: ,itheights : Main b$ildings from GBEG : erial stereo photograph%

95+4
.reating terrain)o+el : &raping -oning planes on 2& file -pitheights 7oning plan Coendersborg

: ,it heights

0nput d

,tra)o;

Triangulation : Main b$ildings and o$ter - Triang$late -oning planes b$ildings from GBEG : &ata on -oning rg$lations from m$nicipal database <dding attri)ute infor)ation
.eight reg$lations B$ilding percentages 7oning f$nctions

$easuring heights - Meas$ring heights $sing aerial stereo photograph%

0nput d

5+4

,-trusion heights - 31tr$de heigths of e1isting b$ildings

0nput da<rc,cene
31tr$de b$ilding planes based on height reg$lations dd pop$p to ob6ects - 7oning plan Coendersborg dd colors

0nput d,ketch:p
$o+elling rooftops e1isting b$ildings

: ,itheights : Main b$ildings and o$ter b$ildings from GBEG !oogle 4arth from : &ata on -oning reg$lations m$nicipal 2& database vis$ali-ation

0nput d+icrostation
,-porting to /, - defining G3 placemar5s
31port as 5m-

-oning plan

Figure 4 . Modelling process for 3D "isualization of zoning plan in Google #arth

41

*.&.1 /reation of terrain -odel

The first step /as to create a terrain model /ith the -oning planes draped on it' The data from the c$rrent 2& -oning plan of Coendersborg is $sed and the -oning planes are imported into 0M3' .o/ever, b% importing the -oning planes, the problem occ$rred that the attrib$te information /as not /as imported' Therefore, the -oning planes are imported for the Basic 8ervices Groningen !Basis 9oor-ieningen Groningen", /hich is an Cracle database /ith all sort of geographical information from the m$nicipalit%' 2& file containing the pit heights !see fig$re <1" /as also imported into 0M3 in order to create a terrain model' The m$nicipalit% of Groningen has 11'000 pit heights /hich are located on the road net/or5' The pit heights are connected to each other based on the road net/or5 and the intermediate points are interpolated' The -oning planes from the 2& -oning plan file are draped on the 2& pit height file and as a res$lt the -oning planes are place on the terrain height, according to pit heights of the area' 0inall%, the draped -oning planes are triang$lated in order to ma5e it a terrain model !see fig$re <2"
Figure 41. $it %eig%t!

*.&.! Processing zoning plan data

Ne1t to -oning planes, information is needed concerning the meas$rements !maatvoeringen" s$ch as the reg$lated ma1im$m heights of b$ildings and the development percentage of the b$ilding planes' This information is not assigned to the -oning planes, b$t to the b$ilding planes bo$nded b%

41

differentiation bo$ndaries !differentiatiegren-en", since for these areas the reg$lations are assigned' &ifferentiation bo$ndaries are assigned /ithin a -oning plane /hen different heights are described, s$ch as heights for ho$sing and garages' In 0M3 this information is p$t into an attrib$te table and assigned for the different areas' Ne1t to information concerning the meas$rements also a lin5 to the -oning plan reg$lations is incl$ded' available' This has been done for the single -oning f$nctions' Ne1t, this information is converted into a shapefile, in order that it can be $sed in reg$lated heights' rc8cene to e1tr$de the b$ilding planes to the ma1im$m rc8cene has an option to incl$de a .TM) pop$p men$ /hen clic5ing on an ob6ect, so /hen clic5ing on a b$ilding vol$me, more information can be made

Figure 42. &oning "lane! 'it% a terrain (o)el

0M3 /as $sed to convert the data of the 2& -oning plan !dgn" into a shapefile'

41

Figure 43. *%a"e+ile 'it% ,oning "lane!

No/ a shapefile has been created, incl$ding the -oning planes and /ith meas$rements based on the b$ilding planes !see fig$re <2"'

*.&.3 +'trusion of building .olu-es

The ne1t step is to e1tr$de the b$ilding planes to the reg$lated heights, present in the attrib$te table' The b$ilding planes /ill be e1tr$ded thro$gh rc8cene, /hich is the 2& soft/are component of 38#I rcGI8' difference is made bet/een the heights, since b$ilding vol$mes can have drain heights, b$ilding heights or both drain heights in top heights' If for a b$ilding vol$me onl% drain heights are described, mostl% there is information is described concerning the ridge slope' 0or e1ample a b$ilding is allo/ed to have a ma1im$m of rope of ;0 D' This /ill be modelled in 85etch+p' In case /hen b$ilding vol$mes are described /ith ridgeGtop heights the b$ilding vol$mes /ill onl% be vis$ali-ed as a bloc5 model' Not all b$ilding planes /ill be e1tr$ded, this depends on the development percentage' 0or e1ample, a sport area in the -oning plane has a development percentage of >D /ith ma1im$m allo/ed b$ilding height of < meters' 31tr$ding the b$ilding plane to < meters co$ld be misinterpreted as that the /hole b$ilding vol$me can be b$ild, /here it is that onl% >D can be b$ild' Cnl% b$ilding planes having a b$ilding percentage of 100D /ill be e1tr$ded' 0$rthermore, the development percentage /ill be vis$ali-ed as a as a separate thematic map'

41

The do$ble -oning f$nction, in this -oning area of Coendersborg, the transport pipelines and archaeological val$es /ill be added separatel% and e1tr$ded do/n/ards' problem, /hich alread% came for/ard in the previo$s chapter, is that in the -oning plan reg$lations it is not described ho/ deep these -oning f$nctions are located' It is onl% described that for developments larger than 2>0 m2 an archaeological research is re4$ired and also for b$ilding in the $ndergro$nd deeper than 0'2 meters' In this case, the archaeological val$es /ill be located from 0'2 $ntil > meters belo/ the gro$nd s$rface' The gas pipelines /ill be located 1'2 meters belo/ gro$nd s$rface !N M, 2010"' rcGI8 has a f$nction that can e1port a shapefile to a EM)' The file /ill be compressed $sing the -ip compression and /ill have a 5m- e1tension and can be read into Google 3arth' Before e1porting the shapefile to EM), the pro6ected coordinate s%stem sho$ld be correct' The pro6ection of Google 3arth is *G8 1@?< !see fig$re <<"' Therefore the pro6ected coordinate s%stem /ill be converted'

Figure 44. 2on"ert pro/ection

Before e1porting the shapefile /ith the e1tr$ded b$ilding vol$mes into EM) the option to incl$de a .TM) pop$p men$ /ill be added' 0or -oning plans this /o$ld be ver% $sef$l, since not all information can be vis$ali-ed and also a lin5 can be given to the -oning plan reg$lations'

*.&.& +'isting buildings

The ne1t step is to incl$de e1isting b$ildings into Google 3arth' s alread% stated in the previo$s chapter, e1isting b$ildings are not part of a -oning plan, b$t can be ver% $sef$l to compare the b$ildings /ith the b$ilding vol$mes of the -oning plan, sho/ing the ma1im$m heights' In addition, for the recognition of an area it is also $sef$l to incl$de the e1isting b$ildings' The heights of the e1isting b$ildings /ill be done b% $sing 8trabo1' 8trabo1 is a stereo vie/ing s%stem that ma5e it possible to meas$re heights thro$gh stereo images $sing passive ,olaroid glasses !see fig$re <>" !Crbitgis, 2010"'

41

Figure 45. 'trabox 'tereo 9iewing 'ystem

The stereo images /hich are $sed for the meas$rements are from erodata and are meas$red in 2010' The GBEG data /ill be $sed as the s$rface on /here the b$ildings /ill be modelled' Not onl% the top heights /ill be meas$red, b$t also the drain heights, since this is essential to model b$ildings /ith a sloping roof' *hen the meas$rements are done, the% /ill be man$all% be important into Microstation on the GBEG footprint !see fig$re <;"'

Figure 46. G7<G with height measurements&

Ne1t, the GBEG /ith the height meas$rements are saved as a Microstation dgn file and imported into 0M3' In 0M3 the GBEG are e1tr$ded to the meas$red heights' The res$lts are sho/n in fig$re <='

41

Figure 47. #xtruded buildings

The file /ith the e1tr$ded b$ildings is then converted into a 85etch$p /here for b$ildings /ith drain heights, the rooftops /ill be modelled, depicted in fig$re <?' The other b$ildings have flat roofs and therefore nothing needs to be modelled'

Figure 48. #xisting buildings with rooftops in '%etch1p

The ne1t step is that the e1isting b$ildings are e1ported into Google 3arth' In 85etch$p it is possible to place a model into Google 3arth, ho/ever this is more s$itable for a small n$mber of ob6ects and not for a large area, /hich it is in this case of the -oning plan area' *hen tr%ing to e1port the -oning plan

41

to Google 3arth, it /as not placed correctl%' Beca$se of this, the choice is made to import the 85etch$p file into Microstation' Microstation has a f$nction to define so called JGoogle 3arth ,lacemar5 Mon$mentsM /hich refer to placemar5s made in Google 3arth' In Google 3arth, first a n$mber of placemar5s m$st be assigned, preferabl% at the edges of the -oning plan area' These placemar5s have to be saved in order that the% can be related to the placemar5s in Microstation' 8$bse4$entl%, placemar5s /ill be assigned at the same location, b$t then in Microstation and then the% /ill be related to the placemar5s in Google 3arth' *hen this is done, the file can be e1ported as a 5mfile so it can be imported into Google 3arth '

*.5 Visualizing zoning plan into 0oogle +arth *.5.1 9uilding .olu-es
The information /hich /ill be sho/ed in the attrib$te table /ill be the -oning f$nction, the reg$lated heights and development percentages and a lin5 to the -oning plan reg$lations' *hen vis$ali-ing the allo/ed heights of the b$ilding vol$mes it can be hard to get an idea /hat the ma1im$m height is' Therefore, b% clic5ing on an ob6ect this information can be generated' 7oning plan f$nctions are onl% vis$ali-ed thro$gh colo$rs and in the table of contents in Google 3arth the colo$rs and matching -oning f$nctions are given, ho/ever it /o$ld also be $sef$l to sho/ the information in the .TM) pop$p table' The vol$mes sho/ the b$ilding planes /ith a development percentage of 100D' The ne1t step is to e1port the EM) file into Google 3arth !see fig$re <@"'

Figure 49. 8oning plan in Google #arth

*.5.! "i'ed functions

s stated in chapter 2, mi1ed -oning is a feat$re /hich is more s$itable to vis$ali-e in 2& than in 2&, since a distinction can be given of the different -oning f$nctions, /here in a c$rrent -oning plan a b$ilding vol$me can onl% be assigned as a -oning f$nction Ami1edB' .o/ever, in the -oning plan area

41

of Coenderborg no mi1ed -oning e1ist, it /ill be incl$ded and vis$ali-ed' In rc8cene this is done' In rc8cene it is not possible to assign to different colo$rs to one ob6ect, therefore it has to be done separatel%' The b$ilding plane is copied and it is saved a ne/ shapefile' Then the b$ilding plane is e1tr$ded from the height of the b$ilding plane it is assigned to min$s the b$ilding vol$me %o$ /o$ld li5e to incl$de' 8o, if a b$ilding plane has a ma1im$m height of <0 meters and the b$ilding vol$me /ith the other -oning f$nction /hich /ill be incl$ded has a height from 20 to <0 meters, the starting height /ill be 20 meters and as a res$lt t/o different -oning f$nctions are vis$ali-ed on the same b$ilding plane !see fig$re >0"' disadvantage of this method is that the -oning f$nctions are not vis$ali-ed in one ob6ect, b$t e1ists o$t of t/o ob6ects'

Figure 5 . -i.e) ,oning +un/tion! 'it%in one buil)ing 0olu(e.

This method of vis$ali-ing t/o different -oning f$nctions on one location can also be applied for the ob6ect f$nction denotation' f$nction denotation gives more specific information on a -oning f$nction on a specific location' 0or e1ample a b$ilding plane has a -oning f$nction social service /ith as f$nction denotation ho$sing allo/ed on $pper floors' .o/ever, more a detailed description is re4$ired from /hich floor another f$nction is allo/ed'

*.5.3

oise zone

nother ob6ect /hich is not present in the -oning plan of Coendersborg is a -one, s$ch as a noise and safet% -one' .o/ever, a noise -one is s$itable to $se in this case st$d%, since noise has a 2& component' In c$rrent -oning plans no information e1ist concerning the heights of noise -ones and therefore additional field research is needed to ac4$ire the data' .o/ever, the m$nicipalit% of Groningen possess data abo$t noise -ones and this can be applied this case st$d%' The data is e1ists of conto$rs on different heights, /hich are meas$rements collected from field/or5' The conto$rs are

41

assigned to a certain height, s$bse4$entl% a pol%gon is made to the ne1t higher sit$ated conto$r' *hen this is done for all the conto$rs and pol%gons are created, the% can be triang$lated and e1ported as a EM) file' The res$lt are sho/n in fig$re >1' It is sho/n that some b$ildings are inside the conto$rs and some b$ildings are partl% inside and partl% o$tside the conto$r'

Figure 51. =oise zone

*.5.& +'isting buildings

The e1isting b$ildings are vis$ali-ed in Google 3arth and it can be seen if b$ildings arise above the b$ilding vol$mes of the -oning plan !see fig$re >2"' To ma5e the e1isting b$ildings better visible the b$ilding vol$mes are made transparent' .o/ever d$e to soft/are problems, the e1isting b$ildings do not get visible /hen the b$ilding vol$mes are made transparent'

41

Figure 52. #xisting buildings in the zoning plan "isualized in Google #arth

The e1isting b$ildings are not sho/ing m$ch detail' Cbli4$e image /o$ld be $sef$l to drape on the b$ildings to ma5e them more recogni-able, ho/ever no obli4$e images are available for the m$nicipalit%' In Google 85etch$p it is possible to place street vie/ images from Google Maps, b$t these images are not acc$rate eno$gh and not ever% b$ilding a image e1ists' Tho$gh the obli4$e images are missing, in Google 3arth 8treet vie/ images are implemented, /hich can help in the recognition of the environment'

*.5.5 (nderground zoning

In c$rrent -oning plan, -oning in the $ndergro$nd is not being described as e1tensivel% as -oning above the gro$nd' In 2& more options are available to vis$ali-e ob6ects in the $ndergro$nd and the $ndergro$nd is getting a more import role in spatial planning !see chapter 2"' In this st$d% area archaeological val$es and a gas pipeline are sit$ated' In the f$t$re, other ob6ects can be $sef$l to incl$de in a -oning plan, s$ch as basements, thermal energ% storage, ho/ever in this research ho/ it can be vis$ali-ed /ill not be investigated'

41

Figure 53. Vi!uali,ing ba!e(ent an) ar/%aeologi/al ,one

In fig$re >2 the gas pipeline and archaeological -one are depicted' To be able to sho/ the ob6ects in the $ndergro$nd, the gro$nd s$rface is raised' The gas pipeline is represented in blac5' The bl$e transparent -one represents the archaeological val$es'

*.5.* The-atic -aps

The development percentage and the ma1im$m heights can also be vis$ali-ed as thematic maps'

Figure 54. De"elopment percentages

41

&evelopment percentages are vis$ali-ed /ith different colo$rs and b% heights !see fig$re ><"' The red colo$r means a development percentage of 100D and the heights are represented as percentages' 8o, 100D development percentage is vis$ali-ed b% the colo$r red and the ma1im$m height' Green means onl% a development percentage of >D' Important to note here is that heights do not refer to the ma1im$m b$ilding heights, b$t sho$ld onl% see as thematic data' nother thematic map /hich can be made is based on the ma1im$m drain: and b$ilding heights'

Figure 55. 9isualization of maximum heights

The heights are depicted in fig$re >;' The highest heights are colo$red in green and given the correct heights' The lo/est heights are colo$red in red' In the legend of Google 3arth, the different heights can separatel% selected and can be t$rned on and off'

*.* (onclusion
The constr$ction of a 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan in Google 3arth is ver% different from the c$rrent 2& -oning plan' Cther aspects have to be ta5en into acco$nt and more data is needed to be able to vis$ali-e heights' The e1tr$sion of b$ilding planes, based on meas$rements described in the -oning plan reg$lations is not a diffic$lt tas5 and representing those heights can be considered as an added val$e in comparison to 2& -oning plans, since citi-ens can have a better impression of /hat these heights are' Cther height data, to be able to constr$ct a terrain model is not described in a c$rrent -oning plan, b$t the m$nicipalit% of Groningen possesses pit height data to constr$ct a terrain model, ho/ever not ever% m$nicipalit% /o$ld have this data' n option /o$ld be to $se height information

41

from

.N ! ct$eel .oogte Nederland" to develop a terrain model' To incl$de the e1isting b$ildings

in the -oning plan /as a time:cons$ming tas5, since all the b$ildings had to be meas$red /ith 8trabo1, be e1tr$ded to the meas$red heights, /hich /as done a$tomaticall% and roofs had be modelled man$all%' Tho$gh it /as time:cons$ming, it s$rel% has advantages to incl$de in the -oning plan, so citi-ens can recogni-e b$ildings and can compare the height of an e1isting b$ilding /ith the ma1im$m heights represented b% a b$ilding vol$me' +sing obli4$e photos co$ld improve the detail of the e1isting b$ildings, since it can lead to a better recognition of b$ildings' B$ilding percentage is hard to vis$ali-e, since it can create misleading vis$ali-ations, /hich can be interpreted the /rong /a% b% $sers' If b$ilding planes /ith a b$ilding percentage lo/er than 100D /o$ld be e1tr$ded to the ma1im$m heights and be vis$ali-ed, it co$ld be interpreted as that the complete b$ilding plane can be b$ild' To prevent this possible miscomm$nication, onl% the b$ilding planes /ith 100D are e1tr$ded' Tho$gh b% a thematic map, all development percentages are vis$ali-ed for the complete -oning plan' In addition a height map is incl$ded, /hich represents all the drain: and b$ilding heights, so citi-ens can get a good impression of /hat heights are allo/ed' In Google 3arth no ob6ects in the $ndergro$nd can be vis$ali-ed, ho/ever for vis$ali-ation means, some $ndergro$nd ob6ects are vis$ali-ed b% setting the terrain model on a higher height' Information concerning the depth of ob6ects, s$ch as transport pipelines are lac5ing in the c$rrent -oning plan, therefore additional information is needed to be able to vis$ali-e a -oning plan in 2&' The IM#C200? model sho$ld be modified and ad6$sted to 2& vis$ali-ation' This also can be said for noise -ones, /hich also have no description of heights in the c$rrent -oning plan, ho/ever in 2& it can be ver% $sef$l to vis$ali-e' lso concl$sions relating to soft/are can be made' 8ome disadvantages of EM) are that it is not possible sho/ shado/s, /hich can be $sef$l to vis$ali-e the impact of the ma1im$m heights of b$ildings, b% sho/ing their sho/s on the s$rro$ndings' 0$rthermore, clic5ing on ob6ects to get information is not optimal, since information from the lo/er is sho/n or it clic5s tro$gh b$ildings' The disadvantage is that EM) cannot be not vis$ali-ed /ithin the /eb page in 2&, b$t sho$ld be la$nched in a separate standalone application, s$ch as Google 3arth' Concerning accessibilit%, this co$ld be a constraint for citi-ens, since first Google 3arth has to be installed, /here /o$ld not be the case /ith an application /ithin a /eb page' In the ne1t chapter a s$rve% /ill be done to eval$ate the designed -oning plan and to verif% if the 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan is clear and $nderstandable to the $ser'

41

:. ,esults of sur.e#
This chapter eval$ates the res$lts of the 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan thro$gh a s$rve%' The main goal is to test if the 2& vis$ali-ation represented in Google 3arth is clear and if the application is $ser: friendl%'

1.1 !urve# population

total n$mber of >1 people /ere as5ed to fill o$t the s$rve%' 0rom this n$mber, 2? people participated in the s$rve%, /hich is ><,@D' 0rom the 2? respondents, 1? people /ere e1perienced /ith geovis$ali-ations, and 10 people had no e1perience /ith geovis$ali-ations' The age of the respondents ranged from 2< to ;2 %ears' 0rom the 2? people, > people are from the department of geo information of the m$nicipalit% of Groningen, the rest are randoml% pic5ed'

1.2 %esign of setup of the surve#

The s$rve% /as made available on the internet, via the online application thesistools' 9ia email, respondents got an invitation to fill o$t the s$rve%' In the email a short introd$ction /as given abo$t the topic of the s$rve%' lin5 /as given in the email to the /ebsite of the s$rve%' To fill o$t the s$rve%, the respondents /ere as5ed to vie/ the -oning plan in Google 3arth' The email contained an attachment /ith the -oning plan in 5m- format, /hich is the data format of Google 3arth' To be able to vie/ this file, the respondents had to have Google 3arth installed on their comp$ter' In case respondents did not have Google 3arth installed on their comp$ter, a lin5 /as given in the email to the /ebsite /here Google 3arth co$ld be do/nloaded' The s$rve% consisted of 2= 4$estions' Cf these 4$estions, 21 of the 4$estions of the s$rve% /ere m$ltiple choice' In most of the m$ltiple choice 4$estions a scale /as $sed !8trongl% disagree, &isagree, Neither agree nor disagree, gree, 8trongl% agree"' This scale is s$itable for this research, fe/ 4$estions dealt since the respondent is as5ed to give his or her opinion on the statements given' !8heppard, 200>", vis$al clarit%, e1plained in chapter <' The first 4$estions of the s$rve% dealt /ith the 2& -oning plan in Google 3arth, a fe/ 4$estions dealt /ith the c$rrent 2& -oning plan, /here the respondents /ere as5ed to compare the 2& vis$ali-ation in Google 3arth to the c$rrent -oning plan, offered on the m$nicipal /ebsite of Groningen' lin5 /as given to this /ebsite' 8ome of the m$ltiple choice dealt /ith the $sef$lness of certain components of the -oning plan and the ease of $se of Google 3arth' This can be related to the theor% of technolog% acceptance model !&avis, 1@?@"' T/o important concepts, perceived $sef$lness and perceived ease of $se are part of this theor%' The first concept is perceived $sef$lness, /hich is defined as Tthe degree to

/ith ho/ clear the -oning plan is' This relates to one of the criteria of the ethics of vis$ali-ations

41

/hich a person believes that $sing a partic$lar s%stem /o$ld enhance his or her 6ob performanceM !&avis, 1@?@"' The second concept, perceived ease of $se, is defined as Jthe degree to /hich a person believes that $sing a partic$lar s%stem /o$ld be free of effort !&avis, 1@?@"' This has to do /ith the application, in this case Google 3arth, /hether it is a $ser:friendl% vis$ali-ation tool' This is important, since it can have a s$bstantial infl$ence on ho/ a vis$ali-ation is perceived b% the $ser' Ne1t to the m$ltiple choice 4$estions, the s$rve% consisted of some open 4$estions, /here the respondents had the opport$nit% to elaborate more on some specific iss$es' In the ne1t section' the res$lts from the m$ltiple choice 4$estions /ill be sho/n, s$bse4$entl% the res$lts of the open 4$estions /ill be presented' The final section of this chapter /ill disc$ss the res$lts of the s$rve%'

1.3 "ultiple choice questions

;a.e #ou e.er dealt 3ith a zoning plan>
-on;Geo Geo 8
18 11 58 45 =igure 5*. Experience in zoning plans

I es 188 -o

.8

48 =

38

48

0ig$re >; sho/s the percentage of the respondents /hich have ever dealt /ith a -oning plan before' The res$lts are divided in people /ith and /itho$t e1perience in geovis$alisations, in this s$rve% named as geo and non:geo respectivel%' 1; people !?@D" of the geo gro$p have dealt /ith a -oning plan before, onl% one person o$t of 10 of the non:geo gro$p has ever dealt /ith a -oning plan before'

;a.e #ou e.er .ie3ed a zoning plan on the internet>

-on;Geo Geo 8 .8 .8 .. 48 38 48 >4 = I es -o

=igure 5:. Zoning plan on the internet

41

48

188

Not man% respondents have vie/ed a -oning plan on the internet before, in the geo gro$p, 22D and in the non:geo gro$p 20D' This lo/ percentage is not ver% s$rprising, beca$se m$nicipalities are onl% from 2010 obligated to present their -oning plans on the internet'

;a.e #ou e.er used 0oogle +arth before>

-on;Geo Geo 8 8 3 .8 48 = 38 48 188 I es 54 -o 188

=igure 5?. Use of Google Earth.

s can be seen in fig$re >?, almost all the respondents are familiar /ith Google 3arth, onl% one person had not $sed Google 3arth before' Google 3arth is a /idel% $sed application and this /as one of the main reason to $se this application for this research, since generall% people 5no/ ho/ to $se Google 3arth'
a.igating in 0oogle +arth is user$friendl#.
%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &isagree Disagree %trongly &isagreee 0
0 0 0 0 13 2! 13 1# " 7 *eo 'on+*eo

=igure 5@. Navigating in Google Earth.

20

!0 A

$0

#0

100

Most of the respondents from both gro$ps agree on the statement that navigating in Google 3arth is $ser:friendl% !>@D for geo and =>D for non:geo" and even 1?D and 12D for geo and non:geo respectivel% strongl% agree on the statement' None of the respondents disagree on the statement, and 2<D and 12D for the geo and non:geo gro$p respectivel% neither agree or disagree'

41

The 3D .isualisation of the zoning plan in 0oogle +arth is clear.

%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &isagree Disagree %trongly &isagreee 0
0 0 11 20 17 20 0 0 $0 72 *eo 'on+*eo

=igure *). 3D visualization of zoning plan in Google Earth.

20

!0 A

$0

#0

100

0ig$re ;0 sho/s that most of the respondents agree on the statement that 2& vis$ali-ation of the -oning plan, presented in Google 3arth is clear, =2D and ;0D for the geo and non:geo gro$p respectivel%' 8till a s$bstantial percentage 1=D and 20D !geo and non:geo" disagree and s$bstantial gro$p neither agrees or disagrees' 0$rthermore, a small difference bet/een the t/o gro$ps can be observed, since the geo gro$p agrees more on the statement than the non:Geo gro$p' the vis$ali-ation better than the non:geo gro$p' n e1planation co$ld be that most of the geo gro$p have e1perience /ith geovis$ali-ations and therefore can interpret

It is clear 3hat the different heights represent.

%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &is agree Disagree %trongly &isagreee 0
0 10 11 10 10 2# 0 0 $1 70

=igure *1. Heights

*eo 'on+*eo

20

!0 A

$0

#0

100

The -oning plan sho/s heights of the c$rrent b$ildings and of the ma1im$m heights b$ildings are allo/ed to have' Most of the respondents agree /ith the statement that the different heights presented in the -oning plan are clear' .o/ever, still, of the geo gro$p 2?D does not agree or disagree on the statement, /hich is a s$bstantial percentage'

The the-e -ap sho3ing the building percentages is clear.

%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &is agree Dis agree %trongly &isagreee 0
$ 11 11 2# 0 0 2# 33 3"

*eo
!!

'on+*eo

20

!0
A

$0

#0

100

41

Figure 62. 7uilding percentages

The theme map sho/ing the b$ilding percentages is not clear according to ma6orit% of the respondents of both gro$ps, see fig$re ;2' Cnl% 2?D and 22D for the geo and non:geo gro$p respectivel% agrees on the statement' possible e1planation /h% the theme map is not clear is beca$se the b$ilding percentages are vis$ali-ed in heights, /hich are not ArealB heights, b$t thematic heights, /hich can be conf$sing' 0$rthermore, the concept of b$ilding percentages might not be a familiar among the respondents'
The the-e -ap sho3ing the -a'i-u- heights is clear.
%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &isagree Dis agree %trongly &is agreee 0
0 11 20 20 20 3" 11 3" !0

Figure 63. Maximum heights

*eo 'on+*eo

20

!0 A

$0

#0

100

The res$lts of the statement on the theme map sho/ing the ma1im$m heights of b$ildings /ith a b$ilding percentage of 100D are scattered' >0D of the geo gro$p agrees or strongl% agrees on the statement and 2@D disagrees and 11D neither agrees nor disagrees on the statement, so the theme map is not clear to ever%bod%' The same can be said for the non:geo gro$p' possible e1planation is that, 6$st as the previo$s statement, the meaning of b$ilding percentages might be $nclear to the respondent'

The a-ount of infor-ation sho3n in the zoning plan in 0oogle +arth is sufficient.
%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &is agree Disagree %trongly &isagreee 0
0 0 11 17 22 22 0 11 $1 *eo 'on+*eo

Figure 64. >mount of information

41

20

!0

$0

#0

100

The ma6orit% of the respondents agree /ith the statement on the amo$nt of information in the -oning plan' The statement is given to as5 respondents if the -oning plan does not sho/ too m$ch information /hich can ma5e the plan too f$--%' It co$ld also mean that it contains too little information, ma5ing it $nclear /hat is meant' geo:gro$p' difference can be observed bet/een the t/o gro$ps, /here the non:geo gro$p has a significantl% higher percentage of respondents disagreeing the statement, comparing the possible e1planation is that the non:geo gro$p /o$ld li5e to see more information'

The zoning plan in 0oogle +arth should contain -ore te't.

%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &isagree Disagree %trongly &isagreee 0
0 $ 11 10 30 3" 11 10 33 0 *eo 'on+*eo

=igure *5. More text.

20

!0 A

$0

#0

100

The statement in fig$re ;> concerns the amo$nt of te1t in the -oning plan to clarif% the different maps' The res$lts are scattered' Cf the geo gro$p <<D agree or even strongl% agrees and <>D disagrees or strongl% disagrees' The res$lts of the non:geo gro$p sho/s that that the ma6orit% agrees or strongl% agrees on the statement !;0D", /hile 20D disagrees'

The principle of the popup -enu 3hich appears 3hen #ou clic4 on an ob7ect is useful.
%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &isagree Disagree %trongly &isagreee 0
0 0 $ 11 10 10 10 17 $7 70 *eo 'on+*eo

=igure **. Popup menu.

20

!0 A

$0

#0

100

41

The pop$p men$ gives information on the ob6ects on the map and a lin5 is given to the -oning plan reg$lations' The res$lts of both gro$p are similar, the ma6orit% of the respondents of both gro$p agree that the pop$p men$ is $sef$l, =2D of the geo gro$p and ?0D of the non:geo gro$p are positive on this statement'

Including the e'isting buildings in the zoning plan is useful.

%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &isagree Disagree %trongly &isagreee 0
0 $ 10 20 3 " $0 *eo 'on+*eo

=igure *:. Existing uil!ings.

0 0

10

20

!0 A

$0

#0

100

lso this statement /as agreed b% the ma6orit% of both gro$ps, ma5ing the choice to incl$de the e1isting b$ildings in the -oning plan 6$stifiable'

Adding photos on the e'isting buildings 3ould be useful.

%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &isagree Disagree %trongly &isagreee 0
0 0 $ 11 10 20 20 2# 0 $ *eo 'on+*eo

=igure *?. "!!ing photos on existing uil!ings.

20

!0 A

$0

#0

100

In the case st$d% no photos are draped on the e1isting b$ildings, since data /as not available' .o/ever, the great ma6orit% of the respondents agree on the statement that adding the photos /o$ld be $sef$l' dding photos can ma5e the e1isting b$ildings better recogni-able for $sers'

Bhat is in #our opinion the -ost i-portant ad.antage of the use of 3D .isualization in co-parison to !D .isualisation of a zoning plan>
no a&vantage somet(ing else more user option clearer visualizing (eig(ts 0
0 0 0 " 1 2! 2! !2 *eo 3# !$ 'on+*eo

=igure *@. "!vantages 3D in comparison to #D.

41

20

!0

$0

#0

100

In this 4$estion respondents co$ld choose more than one ans/er' Most of the geo:gro$p ans/ered that vis$ali-ing heights is an advantage, /here from the non:gro$p no respondent choose for this option' Most of the non:geo gro$p respond the 2& -oning plan is clearer and has more $ser options, s$ch as navigating thro$gh the environment'

Bhat is in #our opinion the -ost i-portant disad.antage of the use of 3D .isualization in co-parison to !D .isualization of a zoning plan>
no &isa&vantage somet(ing else too muc( information unclear navigating 0
1# 1# 1# 1# 23 27 " " 27 32 *eo 'on+*eo

Figure 7 . Disad"an+ tages 3D in comparison to (D&

20

!0 A

$0

#0

100

s in the previo$s 4$estion, respondents co$ld choose more than one ans/er' 0rom the geo gro$p 22D of the respondents choose for the ans/er Asomething elseB' In the open 4$estion respondents have the opport$nit% to elaborate more on the disadvantages' 0rom the non:geo gro$p 2=D choose also for the ans/er Asomething elseB and the same percentage can also be observed for the option that the 2& -oning plan is $nclear in comparison to the c$rrent -oning plan'

Visualizing the -a'i-u- heights is useful.

%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &is agree Dis agree %trongly &isagreee 0
0 0 0 $ !0 10 3 "

*eo 'on+*eo

Figure 71.9isuali+ zing maximum heights

20

!0 A

$0

#0

100

41

The goal of the statement sho/n in fig$re =1 /as to get an impression if the respondents state vis$ali-ing the ma1im$m heights is $sef$l' The res$lts of the geo gro$p clearl% sho/s that the% agree on the statement' >0D of the non:geo gro$p agrees on the statement, ho/ever still a s$bstantial percentage of <0D neither agrees nor disagrees on the statement'

The 3D .isualization of the zoning plan is clearer than the current zoning plan.
%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &isagree Disagree %trongly &isagreee
0 0 10 11 10 20 20 !0 $0 #0 100 2# 11 20 !0 0

Figure 72.2om parison (D to 3D&

*eo 'on+*eo

Most of the respondents agree or strongl% agree /ith the statement that 2& vis$ali-ation of the -oning plan is clearer than the c$rrent -oning plan, for the geo gro$p ;1D sho/ a positive res$lt, for the non: geo gro$p the percentage is ;0D' .o/ever, 20D of the non:geo gro$p does not agree on the statement'
Adding shado3s to the .olu-es representing the -a'i-u- heights 3ould be useful.
%trongly agree )gree 'eit(er agree nor &isagree Disagree %trongly &isagreee 0
0 0 17 11 22 30 $ 10 !! $0 *eo 'on+*eo

Figure 73. >dding shadows&

20

!0 A

$0

#0

Google 3arth does not

have a f$nctionalit% to sho/ shado/s, /hich can be $sef$l to sho/ the shado/ effects of the ma1im$m heights of b$ildings' The shado/ effects can give an impression of the impact of the ma1im$m heights on the s$rro$nding environment' 3speciall% the non:geo gro$p is positive abo$t the statement !=0D", for the geo gro$p the percentage is >0D' plan' s$bstantial percentage of the geo gro$p disagrees /ith the statement !2@D", ma%be beca$se the% arg$e shado/s sho$ld not be part of a -oning

41

The possibilit# of -easuring the heights of buildings #ourself 3ould be useful

'o opinion 'o ,es 0 20 !0 A
17 30 33 20 0 0 *eo 'on+*eo

$0

#0

100

Figure 74. Measu+ring heights&

The statement sho/n in fig$re =< deals /ith interactivit% /hich enables the $ser to meas$re the b$ildings themselves' In Google 3arth it is not possible to meas$re verticall%, onl% hori-ontall%, b$t it co$ld be a $sef$l interactive f$nctionalit% to give the p$blic to meas$re b$ildings' This option of to incl$de meas$ring heights /as ans/ered positivel% b% >0D of both gro$ps'

1.4 ,pen questions

The open 4$estions are made to give respondents the opport$nit% to ans/er on some specific iss$es'

1. 0hat is 1our overall opinion after vie2ing both 3oning plans: visuali3ing the 3oning plan in (D or in 2D4 The general opinion is that 2& gives a good impression of heights of b$ildings, sho/s more detail and is clearer than a c$rrent -oning plan' 0$rthermore, some respondents state that in 2& an environment is more recogni-able than a c$rrent -oning plan and that it is more $ser:friendl% than in 2&' lso some dra/bac5s of vis$ali-ing a -oning plan in 2& are stated' Cne respondent states that a citi-en might interpret the -oning plan as an $rban plan, b% seeing the vol$mes as f$t$re b$ildings' 8ome respondents mention that 2& vis$alisation of a -oning plan sho$ld be considered ne1t to a c$rrent -oning plan and not as a replacement of the c$rrent -oning plan' In addition, the legal aspect of

41

vis$ali-ing a -oning plan is 4$estioned, since the c$rrent -oning plan is fitted to 2& and descriptions for 2& are lac5ing' 2. 0hat are +efi"ien"ies of the (D visualisation in /oogle ,arth4 Most of the respondents state that the legend in Google 3arth is $nclear, ma5ing the -oning plan more diffic$lt to interpret, since the respondents might not 5no/ /hat all the ob6ects vis$ali-ed in Google 3arth represent' Navigating is also an aspect /hich is e1perienced b% some respondents as hard' This might be beca$se people are not $sed to navigate in a 2& environment' 8ome respondents mentions clic5ing on ob6ects is not /or5ing /ell, beca$se sometimes the /rong information pop$p' lso a comment is made that the plan sho/s too m$ch information mi1ed thro$gh each other' This probabl% deals /ith the different la%ers, representing different maps, /hich might be conf$sing' .o/ever, in Google 3arth it is possible to activate and deactivate la%ers, to see one la%er at a time' (. 0hat fun"tions or +ata +i+ 1ou not li5e in this appli"ation4 Man% respondents state the la%er of b$ilding percentages is not clear' possible e1planation is that

most of the respondents do not 5no/ /hat b$ilding percentages mean' The respondents can also interpret the b$ilding percentages as real heights, ho/ever the b$ilding percentages are representing percentages as thematic heights' nother dra/bac5 /hich /as stated b% man% respondents /as the lac5 of a clear legend' In addition, the lac5 of an e1planation of all the la%ers of the -oning plan /as named b% a n$mber of respondents as a negative aspect' This made the interpretation of a -oning plan harder to interpret, especiall% for people not familiar /ith -oning plans' 6. 0hat fun"tions or +ata 2oul+ 1ou have li5e+ to use in this appli"ation4 respondent came /ith the idea to incl$de heights of green ob6ects, s$ch as trees or other large ob6ects in the plan' This co$ld res$lt in a better recognition of the area' dding historical material in the plan /as also mentioned as an improvement of the plan' 0$rther, adding photos on e1isting b$ildings and incl$ding a clear e1planation of the -oning plan for people not familiar /ith -oning plans /ere mentioned as aspects missing' . 0hat suggestions +o 1ou have 2hi"h "oul+ i)prove the 3oning plan4 s stated before man% respondents s$ggest a clear legend, /hich is lac5ing in Google 3arth' nother

s$ggestion, /hich /as mentioned before, /as to incl$de a clear e1planation of all the la%ers in the -oning plan and e1planations of the $ser options in the interface' Cther s$ggestions are made, s$ch as the possibilit% to sho/ the old sit$ation of the -oning plan, so it can be compared to the ne/ -oning plan' lso it /as s$ggested to incl$de a lin5 to the mon$mental stat$s of b$ildings' nother interesting s$ggestion /as made to create maps for different $sers, s$ch as for citi-ens, architects and $tilit%

41

companies' 3ach of these gro$ps have different interest in -oning plan, therefore specific maps for each gro$p might be $sef$l'

1. %iscussion of results
The s$rve% has given a good insight on ho/ the -oning plan is perceived' 8everal concl$sions can be made relating to the criterion vis$al clarit% from 8heppard !200>" and the concepts perceived $sef$lness and ease of $se from &avis !1@@2"'

:.5.1 Visual clarit#

In general the respondents ans/ered that the -oning plan presented in Google 3arth is clear and gives a good impression of the ma1im$m heights b$ildings are allo/ed to have' In the open 4$estions it also came for/ard that in 2& the environment is more recogni-able and can give a better overvie/ of the plan' The most important advantages of 2& vis$ali-ation of a the -oning plan in comparison to the c$rrent -oning plan /ere that 2& is clearer and gives a good impression of the heights than 2&' The most disadvantages /ere the $nclear legend of Google 3arth and some people had tro$ble navigating thro$gh the plan' In addition, the thematic map /ith the development percentages /as not clear for most of the respondents' n aspect /hich made the -oning plan $nclear /as the lac5 of an e1planation of the -oning plan' Man% respondents mentioned this in the open 4$estions, therefore this sho$ld have been incl$ded' The p$blic does not have the 5no/ledge of /hat ever%thing means /hat is vis$ali-ed in a -oning plan and tho$gh 2& can ma5e the interpretation easier b% for e1ample vis$ali-ing heights an e1planation and $ser g$ide is re4$ired to ma5e the plan $nderstandable'

:.5.! Percei.ed usefulness and ease of use

The m$ltiple 4$estions on $sef$lness /ere generall% ans/ered positivel%, for e1ample on the incl$sion of e1isting b$ildings' The proposals to improve the -oning plan, b% adding shado/s /ere also ans/ered positivel%' Google 3arth /as stated b% the respondents as a $ser:friendl% in

41

Figure 75. ?he legend used in the case study (left image) and an example of an impro"ed legend with a explanation of one of the maps (right image)&

navigating thro$gh the plan, tho$gh a fe/ respondents had some tro$ble /ith navigating, for e1ample one respondent did not have a good overvie/ of the plan' )oo5ing to the concept of ease of $se respondents ans/ered more criticall%' The legend of Google 3arth /as said not be eas% in $se, beca$se it not clear /hat all the ob6ects and colors of -oning plan meant !see fig$re =>"' The $nclear legend also relates to the criterion of vis$al clarit%, beca$se it deals /ith ho/ $nderstandable the -oning plan is' Clic5ing of ob6ects to get additional information /as named b% some respondents as not /or5ing /ell'

:.5.3 0eneral conclusions

Concerning the pop$lation of the s$rve% a fe/ comments can be made' The res$lts of most of the ans/ers on the m$ltiple choice 4$estions of both gro$ps do not differ greatl% from each other' The geo gro$p is more e1perienced in geovis$ali-ations, b$t this does not clearl% come for/ard in the m$ltiple choice 4$estions' 0or e1ample the 4$estion on the thematic map of b$ildings percentages, more of the non:geo gro$p ans/ered it /as clear than the geo gro$p, /here one /o$ld e1pect it /o$ld be the other /a% aro$nd' small difference can be observed /hether the respondents thin5 the 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan is clearer than the c$rrent -oning plan' 0or the non:geo gro$p, 20D disagrees or strongl% disagrees on this statement, /here for the geo gro$p this is 11D' This can be e1plained b% the lac5 of e1perience of the non:geo gro$p to interpret the -oning plan' 0$rthermore, the application lac5s of an e1planation of the -oning plan' This have infl$ence on ho/ the -oning plan is perceived' the plan' comment on the pop$lation is that a pop$lation /ith a more e4$al rate bet/een the n$mber of e1perienced and non:e1perienced respondents in geovis$ali-ations /o$ld have been better to ma5e a better comparison bet/een the t/o gro$ps' .o/ever, the s$rve% /as $sef$l for this research and gave -oning plan is a diffic$lt plan and for a person /itho$t e1perience in -oning plans it can be hard to interpret

41

interesting insights, especiall% the open 4$estions, /here the respondents co$ld specif% their comments'

41

?. /onclusions and discussion

In this chapter the main research 4$estion /ill be stated again and /ill be ans/ered s$bse4$entl%' 0$rthermore, the res$lts of this research /ill be disc$ssed and this chapter ends /ith some directions for f$t$re research'

..1 2ns0ering the research question

In the introd$ction the follo/ing main research 4$estion /as form$lated:

How can a zoning plan be visualized in 3D and how can it be visualized such that it is understandable?

The last co$ple of %ears, the -oning plan /ent thro$gh a n$mber of developments' In 2000 the pro6ect &+#,, /hich stands for the digital e1change in spatial processes, /as introd$ced b% the Ministr% of .o$sing, 8patial ,lanning and the 3nvironment !9#CM" to ma5e the spatial planning process more effective and efficient thro$gh the digitali-ing and standardi-ation of the development, $se and e1change of spatial plans' ' In the light of these developments 2& co$ld be the ne1t step in the development of -oning plans' In addition, a c$rrent -oning plan has several limitations' Cne the main limitations of the vis$ali-ation a c$rrent -oning plan in 2& deals /ith the interpretation of -oning plans, in partic$lar the interpretation of heights' 2& maps are abstract and can be hard to $nderstand' 0rom literat$re, it is stated that b% vis$ali-ing in 2&, $sers can get a better $nderstanding and impression of a plan' This research has e1plored ho/ a -oning plan can be vis$ali-ed in 2& and ho/ it can be done it is $nderstandable for the p$blic' In chapter < the role of 2& geovis$ali-ation in -oning plans /as anal%-ed and specific aspects of 2& geovis$ali-ation /ere disc$ssed /hich are of importance regarding -oning plans' The case st$d% and the s$rve% in chapter ; and = /ere done to e1plore ho/ a -oning plan can be vis$ali-ed in 2& and to verif% if it is $nderstandable for the p$blic' Important factors of geovis$ali-ation /hich are relevant for this research, disc$ssed in chapter <, /ill be reflected belo/ against the res$lts of the case st$d% and s$rve% ' It /as ass$med in chapter < that geovis$ali-ation can be considered as a ver% $sef$l tool for -oning plans, since a -oning plan can be made more $nderstandable thro$gh the addition of 2&' n important

41

techni4$e is b% sho/ing heights in 2&' B% vis$ali-ing the ma1im$m heights according to the -oning plan reg$lations, the p$blic sho$ld get a better impression of /hat these heights impl%' In the case st$d% ma1im$m heights /ere vis$ali-ed in 2& and the s$rve% sho/ed that vis$ali-ing heights in 2& gives a good impression of heights in a -oning plan and /as considered as an important advantage in comparison to 2&' 0$rthermore, respondents stated that in 2& an environment is more recogni-able than c$rrent -oning plan' nother vis$ali-ation method $sed /as the implementation of e1isting b$ildings into the -oning plan' B% incl$ding e1isting b$ildings, the p$blic can recogni-e b$ildings easier and can compare the height of an e1isting b$ilding /ith the ma1im$m heights' The s$rve% made clear the ma6orit% of the respondents arg$ed incl$ding e1isting b$ildings is $sef$l, tho$gh it co$ld have been done in more detail' nother important factor of geovis$ali-ation is interactivit%' It /as ass$med in chapter < that geovis$ali-ation can stim$late interactivit% /hen for e1ample the p$blic can give reactions on the -oning plan d$ring the planning process' This co$ld be done b% giving the p$blic the opport$nit% to react via the interface of 2& vis$ali-ation of the -oning plan' +sers co$ld for e1ample clic5 on a certain area or ob6ect in the plan and s$bse4$entl% a men$ pops $p /here the people have the opport$nit% to t%pe a reaction or to re4$est an e1planation on a part of a -oning plan' In the case st$d% a pop$p men$ /as $sed, ho/ever $sers co$ld onl% $se this to get more information /hen clic5ing on an ob6ect' The s$rve% made clear that $sing a pop$p men$ is $sef$l, ho/ever in Google 3arth this techni4$e did not optimall% /or5' In the case st$d% other interactive techni4$es, s$ch as navigating /ere also being positivel% 6$dged' The s$rve% co$ld not ma5e clear that interactivit% leads to a better $nderstanding of a -oning plan' Ne1t to interactivit%, information intensit% is an important factor in geovis$ali-ations /hich is relevant for this research' Information intensit% is abo$t the level of detail /ith /hich ob6ects are represented in geovis$ali-ations' 7oning plans are generall% not meant to sho/ a high level of detail, b$t it sho$ld be represented abstract, since it is not an architect$ral plan, sho/ing a detailed map or a detailed vie/ of an area' In 2&, ob6ects can be vis$ali-ed in man% different geometric shapes and the choice /as made to vis$ali-e the ob6ects in a lo/ level of detail and as simple bloc5s' Therefore, in the case st$d% the -oning plan ob6ects are vis$ali-ed abstract' The s$rve% co$ld not implicitl% point o$t that the -oning plan sho/s too m$ch or too less detail, b$t it co$ld point o$t that the ma6orit% of the respondents ans/ered that the -oning plan does not sho/ too m$ch information' .o/ever, some respondents mentioned e1isting b$ildings co$ld be vis$ali-ed in more detail b% draping photos on the b$ildings' Interpretation of geovis$ali-ations /as also stated to be important and this t$rned o$t to be tr$e in this research' Interpretation of geovis$ali-ations is related to vis$al clarit%, one of the criteria of the ethics of vis$ali-ation' Interpretation of -oning plans is ver% important, since it determines ho/ the $ser e1perience the vis$ali-ation and if the p$blic is able to $nderstand /hat is vis$ali-ed b% the -oning

41

plan' Cne of the criteria ethics of vis$ali-ations !8heppard, 200>" is vis$al clarit% and deals /ith ho/ the details and overall content of the vis$ali-ation can clearl% be comm$nicated to the $ser' The s$rve% made clear that the -oning plan applied in the case st$d% is clear and gives a good impression of the ma1im$m heights b$ildings are allo/ed to have' The most important advantages of 2& vis$ali-ation of a the -oning plan in comparison to the c$rrent -oning plan /ere that 2& is clearer and gives a good impression of the heights than 2&' .o/ever, some aspects /ere $nclear' Cne of the main components of the -oning plan /hich /as $nclear /as thematic map sho/ing b$ilding percentages' In the case st$d%, a map /as made sho/ing the development percentages as thematic heights' The s$rve% pointed o$t that most of the respondents ans/ered the map /as not clear' possible reason co$ld be that the b$ilding percentages are vis$ali-ed as heights, representing the b$ilding percentages, /hich are not ArealB heights, /hich can be conf$sing' 0$rthermore, this co$ld partl% be e1plained that most of the respondents are not familiar /ith the -oning plan ob6ect of development percentages' The interface $sed for the case st$d%, Google 3arth, had a s$bstantial infl$ence on the interpretation of the -oning plan' The s$rve% made clear that most of the respondents stated that navigating in Google 3arth /as $ser friendl%, b$t the legend of Google 3arth /as $nclear, ma5ing it harder to $nderstand /hat is vis$ali-ed in Google 3arth' 0$rthermore, an e1planation of the -oning plan /as lac5ing, /hich is re4$ired to ma5e the -oning plan more $nderstandable' The general concl$sion from this research is that 2& can stim$late the interpretation of -oning plans, beca$se $sers can get a better impression of the plan b% vis$ali-ing heights and is less abstract than a c$rrent 2& -oning plan' .o/ever, the interpretation of a -oning plan, also in 2&, is comple1' -oning plan is a comple1 and an abstract plan and this research has attempted to find methods to develop a 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan /hich is $nderstandable for $sers' 0or a s$bstantial part this research s$cceeded in this goal' The case st$d% delivered a -oning plan /hich thro$gh a s$rve% /as in general 6$dged positivel% b% the respondents, ho/ever some aspects co$ld have been better or /ere missing, leading to misinterpretations'

..2 %iscussion
This section /ill reflect on the research done and some directions for f$t$re research /ill be given'

41

?.!.1 /hoice of 0oogle +arth

The $se of Google 3arth for this case st$d% seemed to be legitimate, since it is a /idel% $sed application and eas% is $se' This also became clear in the s$rve%' .o/ever, Google 3arth has some disadvantages' Cne of the main disadvantages /as that in Google onl% ob6ects above the s$rface can be vis$ali-ed' 3speciall% in the case of -oning plans, the $ndergro$nd is interesting to vis$ali-e in 2&, ob6ects s$ch as archaeological val$es and transport pipelines' 0or the f$t$re, other ob6ects co$ld also be vis$ali-ed in 2& /hich are c$rrentl% not described in -oning plans, s$ch as basements and locations for thermal energ% storage' nother disadvantage is related to the legend of Google 3arth' legend /hich is comple1 and can be hard to $nderstand' colo$r is sho/n' Clic5ing on ob6ects to get a pop$p men$ sho/ing more information abo$t an ob6ect /as another disadvantage, mainl% /ith 2& ob6ects' Cften /hen clic5ing on an ob6ect, the /rong information pops $p, beca$se lo/est la%er /ill pop$p' In fig$re =;, this problem is depicted' The pop$p men$ sho$ld sho/ information abo$t the b$ilding vol$me, depicted in %ello/, b$t it sho/s the -oning f$nction Aver5eerB' main problem of Google 3arth is the

$ser cannot easil% see the colo$rs on the

map and ho/ the% are e1plained in the legend, the $ser has to open the la%er in the legend $ntil the

Figure 76. 2lic%ing on ob/ects

The $se of transparenc% did also not optimall% /or5' Transparenc% /as meant for the b$ilding vol$mes, indicating these vol$mes are not real' 0$rthermore, it had an important f$nction to be able to see the e1isting b$ildings thro$gh the transparent b$ilding vol$mes, b$t this did not /or5'

?.!.!. ,esults of the case stud#

The case st$d% sho/ed that the development of a -oning plan in Google 3arth in 2& is comple1' In comparison to a c$rrent 2& -oning plan, other aspects have to be ta5en into acco$nt and more data is

41

needed to be able to vis$ali-e heights' The e1tr$sion of b$ilding planes, based on meas$rements described in the -oning plan reg$lations /as not a diffic$lt tas5' The incl$sion of e1isting b$ildings in the -oning plan /as a time:cons$ming tas5, since all the b$ildings had to be meas$red, be e1tr$ded to the meas$red heights and roofs had be modelled man$all%' Tho$gh this /as time:cons$ming, the s$rve% made clear that incl$ding the e1isting b$ildings in the -oning plan /as $sef$l' s alread% pointed o$t in the previo$s section, the ob6ects in the $ndergro$nd cannot be vis$ali-ed in Google 3arth' .o/ever, some vis$al re4$irements have been described and disc$ssed in the case st$d% !see chapter > and ;", b$t ho/ the ob6ects in the $ndergro$nd are perceived b% the $sers /as not tested in the s$rve%' That /as a limitation of this research'

?.!.3 Sur.e#
The s$rve% gave a good insight in the interpretation and $se of the 2& vis$ali-ation of the -oning plan' 3speciall% the open 4$estions ret$rned $sef$l ans/ers from the respondents' 0or e1ample the ans/ers of the open 4$estions sho/ed that the legend /as $nclear and an e1planation of the -oning plan /as re4$ired' disadvantage of $sing m$ltiple choice 4$estions is that it onl% gives ans/ers if respondents agree or disagree, b$t not the reasoning b% their ans/ers' Therefore it might have been better to incl$de more open 4$estions in the s$rve%' comment on the pop$lation of the s$rve% is that a pop$lation /ith a more e4$al rate bet/een the n$mber of e1perienced and non:e1perienced respondents in geovis$ali-ations /o$ld have been better to ma5e a better comparison bet/een the t/o gro$ps' The s$rve% co$ld have been more foc$ssed on the difference bet/een 2& and 2&' In the s$rve% a fe/ 4$estions /ere related to the difference bet/een 2& and 2&, b$t this co$ld have been done in more detail' comparison co$ld have been made bet/een the c$rrent -oning plan and to the -oning plan of the case st$d%, /here the respondents had to score the both -oning plans based on factors as vis$al clarit%, information intensit%, interactivit% and the $se of the application' B% ma5ing this comparison a better verification co$ld have been given ho/ the respondent interprets and perceives the -oning plan developed in the case st$d%'

..3 /uture research

This research has sho/n that 2& vis$ali-ation of a -oning plan has man% advantages, b$t it cannot %et be considered as the replacement of a c$rrent -oning plan' .o/ever, this research can be considered as a step to/ards a 2& -oning plan and the research made clear that 2& can give a good insight in the heights and can help in the interpretation of the plan, b$t the interpretation of a -oning plan in 2& is comple1' To offer a 2& -oning plan to the p$blic more aspects have to be researched' Cne aspect deals /ith t/o criteria of the ethics of vis$ali-ation !8heppard, 200>", acc$rac% and legitimac%' -oning plan is a binding instr$ment and it has to be acc$rate and 6$ridical correct, /hich is not %et the case in

41

2&, since the reg$lations of a -oning plan do not fit to the re4$irements of 2&' The IM#C200? model is made s$itable for 2& and not 2&, therefore an IM#C model for 2& needs to be developed' to vis$ali-e ob6ects in 2&, for e1ample for noise -ones and $ndergro$nd -oning' nother aspect deals /ith the availabilit% of data' 2& data is not easil% available or has to be capt$red in order nother important notion is that in order to develop a 2& -oning plan, the approach sho$ld be to consider 2& as the starting point in the process of developing a -oning plan and not b% considering 2& as a starting point, /hich /as the case in this research' This research did not foc$s on possibilities to vis$ali-e ob6ects in 2& /hich are not described in the c$rrent IM#C model' 31amples of these ob6ects are basements, locations for thermal energ% storage etcetera' Therefore, it /o$ld be interesting to research ho/ those ne/ ob6ects can be implemented in a 2& -oning plan' The $ser pla%s an important part in the interpretation of vis$ali-ations' In this research, a case st$d% /as being done and re4$irements /ere made based on literat$re and not based on a $ser need anal%sis' Cnl% a s$rve% /as done after the -oning plan /as created to test ho/ the plan /as being interpreted' Cond$cting a $ser need anal%sis co$ld given a good insight in the preferences and re4$irement of /hat $sers e1pect of a -oning plan' .o/ever, in general $sers mostl% do not 5no/ /hat to e1pect, since the% do not have the 5no/ledge /hat is !technologicall%" possible' This research co$ld have been improved the validation of the case st$d% b% e1ec$ting an e1pert test ne1t to the s$rve%' This co$ld be done b% organi-ing a /or5shop /here -oning plan e1perts are invited to disc$ss the -oning plan applied in the case st$d%' This co$ld res$lt in more inp$t and perhaps more specific comments on the -oning plan' In this research, Google 3arth /as $sed, ho/ever, not all the f$nctionalities are s$itable for 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plans, so a tailor:made application for 2& vis$ali-ation of -oning plans can be a sol$tion' $sef$l feat$re to incl$de in this application co$ld be the addition of shado/s, sho/ing lso the abilit% to the shado/ effects of the b$ilding vol$mes on the s$rro$nding environment' f$nction Aho$singB /ith a ma1im$m height of 1> meters' address co$ld be $sef$l'

perform 4$eries co$ld be $sef$l, s$ch as a 4$er% sho/ing all the b$ilding vol$mes from the -oning lso the possibilit% to search on a specific nother option co$ld be to give the $ser the opport$nit%, d$ring the planning

stages of a -oning plan, to react via the interface' B% clic5ing on a certain area in the -oning plan a screen pops $p /here the $ser can give a reaction' 8$bse4$entl%, this reaction /ill send to the m$nicipalit%' nother interactive option deals /ith b$ilding percentages' The $ser co$ld be given the opport$nit% to dra/ a pol%gon in a b$ilding plane /ithin the ma1im$m b$ilding percentage of the b$ilding plane, so the $ser can dra/ a part of the b$ilding plane heGshe /ants to $se for a certain development'

41

41

%eferen"es
bd$l:#ahman, , M' ,ilo$5 !200?", Spatial Data 1odelling for +D G9S' Ne/ Qor5: 8pringer Berlin .eidelberg' l:Eodman%, E' !1@@@" A+sing vis$ali-ation techni4$es for enhancing p$blic participation in planning and design: process, implementation, and eval$ationB' Landscape and .r,an 8lanning 9ol' <>, !1", pp' 2=:<>' l:Eodman%, E' !2002"' A9is$ali-ation Tools and Methods in Comm$nit% ,lanning: 0rom 0reehand 85etches to 9irt$al #ealit%'B :ournal of 8lanning Literature 1=, !2", pp' 1?@:211' ppleton, E' and )ovett, ' !2002"' AGI8:based vis$ali-ation of r$ral landscapes: defining Us$fficientU realism for environmental decision:ma5ingB' )andscape and +rban ,lanning ;>, pp' 11=:121. rnstein, 8'#' !1@;@" J ladder of citi-en participation'M :ournal of the American 9nstitute of 8lanners 2> !<",pp' 21;:22<' Batt%, M' !200=", J,lanning 8$pport 8%stems: ,rogress, ,redictions and 8pec$lations on the 8hape of Things to ComeM' .CL orking 8apers Series& ,aper 122' Bertin, (' !1@?2", 8emiolog% of Graphics: &iagrams, Net/or5s, Maps' Madison, *I: +niversit% of *isconsin ,ress !translation from 0rench 1@;= edition"' Bi6l, )' and (' 8toter !200;", 2& bestemmingsplannen, dilemmaBs bi6 het bestemmen van de ondergrond: ,ilots eerste aan-et tot driedimensionale planvis$alisatie Geo09nfo 2 !12"' Bos, 8', ' Bregt, et al' !1@@?"' TCverdracht van r$imteli65e informatie door 2&: en 2&:vis$alisaties'T Eartografisch Ti6dschrift, 1<!<": 1?:2<' B$lmer, &' !2001"' A.o/ can comp$ter sim$lated vis$ali-ations of the b$ilt environment facilitate better p$blic participation in the planning processFB -nline 8lanning :ournal, http:GG///'onlineplanning'org, p$blication date: 12:11:01' CCB !200<", Cndergrondse Crdening: Naar een meerdimensionale benadering van bestaande pra5ti65en' 8tichting Centr$m Cndergronds Bo$/en, Go$da' C-a6a, 8'(', (' 8harit !1@@?" ge differences in ttit$des to/ard Comp$ters' ;he :ournals of Gerontolog(7 Series <& 9ol >2 !>", pp' 22@:2<0' &iBiase, &', Mac3achren, ' M', Er%gier, ('B' and #eeves' C' !1@@2" nimation and the role of maps design in scientific vis$ali-ation, Cartograph( and Geographic 9nformation S(stems, 9ol' 1@!<", pp' 201:21< &%5es, (' Mac3achren, 'M' and Eraa5, M'(', !200>"' 31ploring Geovis$ali-ation' 3lsevier, msterdam, =20 pp'

41

3delenbos, (' and #' Monni5hof !ed'" !2001"' )o5ale interactieve beleidsvorming' 3en vergeli65end onder-oe5 naar de conse4$enties van interactieve beleidvorming voor het f$nctioneren van de locale democratie' +trecht: +itgeveri6 )3MM B9' 0al$di, ', ' van der 9al5 !1@@<", #$le and Crder &$tch ,lanning &octrine in the T/entieth Cent$r%' &ordrecht: El$/er cademic ,$blishers' 0$hrmann, 8', honen:#ainio, ,', 3dsall, #', 0abricant, 8'I' Eo$a, 3')', Tolon, C',*are, C' and *ilson, 8', !200>"' Ma5ing +sef$l and +seable Geovis$ali-ation: &esign and 3val$ation Iss$es' In (' &%5es, 'M' Mac3achren and M'('Eraa5 !3ditors", Geovisuali*ation& 3lsevier, msterdam, pp'>>2: >;;' Geonov$m !200?", IM#C200? Informatiemodel #$imteli65e Crdening !IM#C" 200?' .eal%, ,' !1@@2"' ,lanning thro$gh debate: the comm$nicative t$rn in planning theor%' In 0ischer, 0', and (' 0orester, 3ds', The arg$mentative t$rn in polic% anal%sis and planning' &$rham, NC: &$5e +niversit% ,ress' .etherington, #', 0arrimond, B', V Cl%nch, ,' !200="' Interactive /eb vis$ali-ation of proposals for site developments' In ,roceedings of the 11th international conference information vis$ali-ation !pp' ;12N;22"' 7$rich, 8/it-erland, ($l% <N;' .$ang, B', (iang, B', and )in, .' !2001"' n integration of GI8, internet and virt$al realit% for the vis$alisation, anal%sis, and e1ploration of spatial data' 9nternational :ournal of Geographical 9nformation Science, 9ol' 1>!>", <2@N<>;' Ear6alainen, 3', T%rvainen, )', 2002' 9is$ali-ation in forest landscape preference research: a 0innish perspective' )andscape and +rban ,lanning >@, 12N 2?' Eibria, M'8' !200?", 0$nctionalities of geo:virt$al environments to vis$ali-e $rban pro6ects' Msc thesis Geographical Information Management and pplications !GIM "' Elosterman, !1@@=", #' Elosterman, ,lanning s$pport s%stems: a ne/ perspective on comp$ter:aided planning, :ournal of 8lanning Education and /esearch 1= !1",pp' <>N><' Eraa5, M':(' !2002"' AGeovis$ali-ation ill$stratedB' 9S8/S :ournal of 8hotogrammetr( = /emote Sensing >=, pp' 2@0:2@@' )ange, 3'!2001" The limits of realism: perceptions of virt$al landscapes, Landscape and .r,an 8lanning >< !1", pp' 1;2N1?2' )o$/, 3, 3' van der Erabben, .' ,riem$s !2002"' 8patial development polic%: changing roles for local and regional a$thorities in the Netherlands' Land .se 8olic(, 9ol 20 !<", pp 2>=:2;;' Mac3achren, 'M', !1@@>"' .o/ Maps *or5: #epresentation, 9is$ali-ation and &esign' G$ilford ,ress, Ne/ Qor5, )ondon, >12 pp' Mac3achren, ' and Eraa5, M':(', !2001"' #esearch Challenges in Geovis$ali-ation' Cartograph( and Geoinformation Science, 9ol' 2? !1", pp' 2:12'

41

Mac3achren, ' M', M' *acho/ic-, #' 3dsall, &' .a$g and #' Masters !1@@@" AConstr$cting 5no/ledge from m$ltivariate spatiotemporal data: integrating geographical vis$ali-ation /ith 5no/ledge discover% in database methods'B 9nternation :ournal Geographical 9nformation Science 12!<", pp' 211:22<' Martin, (', !1@@1", #apid pplications &evelopment' )ondon: MacMillan' McO$illan, 'G', 1@@?' .onest% and foresight in comp$ter vis$ali-ation' (o$rnal of 0orestr%' 9ol' @; !;", pp'1>:1;' Metta$, ,' and I' 9ersch$$r !2001"' T&igitale $it/isseling van r$imteli65e plannen is meer dan ICT pro6ect'T 9I Matri1 november 2001' N3N !200>", N3N 2;10 Basic scheme for geo:information N Terms, definitions, relations and general r$les for the interchange of information of spatial ob6ects related to the earthBs s$rface' Nielsen, ' !200>", J9is$al representations, $sabilit% and $rban planning in real:time 2& geovis$ali-ation' ?th GI)3 Conference 3storil, ,ort$gal' http:GGplone'itc'nlGagileWoldGConferenceGestorilGpapersG<0W netteD20Nielsen'pdf Nielsen, (', !1@@2"' +sabilit% 3ngineering' cademic ,ress, Ne/ Qor5 Cpen Geospatial Consorti$m, Inc' !200=", CpenGI8 Geograph% Mar5$p )ang$age !GM)" 3ncoding 8tandard' Crland, B', B$dthimedhee, E' and +$sitalo, (', !2001"' Considering virt$al /orlds as representations of landscape realities and as tools for landscape planning' Landscape and .r,an 8lanning >< !1", pp' 12@N1<?' ,etch, ('#' and &'3' #eeve !1@@@", GI8 Crganisations and ,eople: )ondon: Ta%lor and 0rancis' 8ocio:technical pproach'

,ietsch, 8'M', 2000' Comp$ter vis$alisation in the design control of $rban environments: a literat$re revie/' 3nvironment and ,lanning' B, ,lanning and &esign 2=, >21N >2;' ,vd Groningen !2010"' Initiatief voorstel bestemmingsplannen' http:GG///'pvdagroningen'nlGarti5elG212='htm !last visited on the 2nd of March 2010"' #iedi65, ' vanH 9elde, #'(' van deH ,lei-ier, I'&'H .ooger/erf, T'C'H )ammeren, #'(' ' vanH Balt$ssen, *'.'M'H (ansen, ('H *%nia, ,'H +$m, ('.' vanH *ilgenb$rg, #' van !200;"' Virtual >etherlands 7 Geo0visuali*ations for interactive spatial planning and decision0making7 ?rom ow to impact& Definition stud(' msterdam: 9ri6e +niversiteit' 8heppard, 8'#'(', ,' Ci-e5 !200@" AThe ethics of Google 3arth: Crossing thresholds from spatial data to landscape vis$ali-ationB' :ournal of Environmental 1anagement& 9ol' @0 !;", pp 2102:211=' 8heppard, 8'#'(' !2001" AG$idance for cr%stal ball ga-ers: developing a code of ethics for the landscape vis$ali-ationB' Landscape and .r,an 8lanning& 9ol' >< !2001" 1?2: 1@@' 8ieber, #' !200;", ,$blic participation geographic information s%stems: literat$re revie/ and frame/or5' Annals of the Association of American Geographers, @;, <@1:>0='

41

8loc$m, T' ', Blo5, C', (iang, B', Eo$sso$la5o$, ', Montello, &'#', 0$hrmann, 8' and .eadle%, N' !2001", Cognitive and $sabilit% iss$es in geovis$ali-ation' Cartograph( and Geographic 9nformation Science, 2?: ;1:=>' 8tohr, (', #' Mathi6sen and #' van .o$tert !200="' #CC ,ilot 2& bestemmingsplan' Ministerie 9#CM &G #$imte and B#C' 8toter, (' and 8' 7latanova, !2002", 2& GI8 /here are /e standingF' (oint *or5shop on 8patial, Temporal and M$lti:&imensional &ata Modelling and nal%sis, 2:2 Cctober, O$ebec cit%, Canada' 8tr$i5sma, (' !200?"' .et s%steem van het r$imteli65e ordeningsrecht' 7aandam: (' 8tr$i5sma' T$nnissen, M'(' !200@", .et bestemmingsplan: een 6$ridische best$$rli65e inleiding in de r$imteli65e ordening' lphen aan den #i6n: El$/er T%rvXinen, )', #' G$stavsson, C' Eoni6nendi65 and ' Cde !200;", 9is$ali-ation and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of $rban /oodlands' ?orest 8olic( and Economics 9ol' ? !?", pp' ?11:?22' +N' !200?"' +N e:government s$rve%: from e:government to connected governance' Ne/ Qor5: &epartment of 3conomic and 8ocial ffairs: &ivision of ,$blic dministration and &evelopment Management' 9al5, ' van der !2002"' JThe &$tch ,lanning 31perienceM, Landscape and .r,an 8lanning& >? !2", p' 201:210' 9I Matri1 !2010", Gemeente peldoorn: 6onge en d%namische /er55ring' 9I Matri1' 9ol' 1? !2"' 9#CM !200<"' Beleidsbrief r$imteli65e ordening ondergrond' 9#CM !200?", #C:Cnline: dY toegangspoort voor r$imteli65e plannen' 9ol5sh$isvesting #$imteli65e Crdening en Milie$' ///'vrom'nlGget'aspFfileZdocsGp$blicatiesG?2@2'pdfVdnZ?2@2VbZvrom' 9#CM !200="' &igitale plannen verplicht met nie$/e *et r$imteli65e ordening' http:GG///'vrom'nlGget'aspFfileZdocsGp$blicatiesG9#CM=1@1'pdfVdnZ=1@1VbZvrom *arren:Eretschmar, B', C v' .aaren, !200>", Cnline landscape planning[*hat does it ta5e' case st$d% in EKnigsl$tter am 3lm' In: 3' B$hmann, C' v' .aaren and *'#' Miller, 3ditors, 8roceedings at Anhalt .niversit( of Applied Sciences, -nline landscape architecture, *ichmann, .eidelberg !200>", pp' 100N110' *ergles, N', ' M$har', !200@", The role of comp$ter vis$ali-ation in the comm$nication of $rban design[ comparison of vie/er responses to vis$ali-ations vers$s on:site visits' Landscape and .r,an 8lanning @1, pp' 1=1N1?2

*ilson, McGa$ghe%, #'(', 2000' ,resenting landscape scale forest information: /hat is s$fficient and /hat is appropriate' (o$rnal of 0orestr% @? !12", 21N 2=' *ro !200?"' *et op de #$imteli65e Crdening' fdeling 2' Bestemmingsplannen, arti5el 10'

41

7latanova, 8' !2000", 2& GI8 for +rban &evelopment' &elft +niversit% of Technolog%, &elft, The Netherlands' 7latanova, 8', )' Itard, M' 9an &orst !200?"' +ser #e4$irements for 9irt$al 3nvironments +sed to Model B$ildings at the +rban 8cale' IB,8 :N9) 200? 3vent, @ october, 3indhoven' 7$ndert, ('*' van' !200;", .et bestemmingsplan: een 6$ridisch best$$rli65e inleiding in de r$imteli65e ordening' lphen aan de #i6n: El$/er cademic ,$blishers' &aniel, T'C', M'M' Meitner !2001"' #epresentational validit% of landscape vis$ali-ations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic bea$t% of forest vistas' :ournal of Environmental 8s(cholog( 21 !2001", pp' ;1N=2' 8heppard, 8'#'(', 200>' 9alidit%, reliabilit%, and ethics in vis$ali-ation' Chapter >' In: Bishop, I', )ange, 3' !3ds'", Visuali*ation in Landscape and Environmental 8lanning7 ;echnolog( and Applications' Ta%lor and 0rancis, )ondon, pp' =@N@='

41

Appendi' A Sur.e#
Sur.e# %uestions
+ultiple choice -uestions
1. Ben u een man o een vrou>? 2an ?rouw !. @at is u> lee ti.d? 3. Aee t u ervaring met !eogra ische 0n ormatie ,ystemen? Ja -ee &. Aee t u >eleens met een )estemmingsplan te maken gehad? Ja -ee 5. Aee t u >eleens een digitaal )estemmingsplan op het internet )ekeken? Ja -ee *. Aee t u !oogle 4arth >eleens vaker ge)ruikt? Ja -ee :. Aet navigeren in !oogle 4arth is ge)ruiksvriendeli.k6 helemaal mee oneens oneens niet mee eensKoneens eens helemaal mee eens ?. De 3D visualisatie van het )estemmingsplan in !oogle 4arth is overzichteli.k6

41

helemaal mee oneens oneens niet mee eensKoneens eens helemaal mee eens @. Aet is duideli.k >at de verschillende hoogten aangeven6 helemaal mee oneens oneens niet mee eensKoneens eens helemaal mee eens

1). De themakaart die de )e)ou>ingspercentages laat zien is duideli.k6 helemaal mee oneens oneens niet mee eensKoneens eens helemaal mee eens 11. De themakaart die de ma;imale )ou>hoogten laat zien is duideli.k6 helemaal mee oneens oneens niet mee eensKoneens eens helemaal mee eens 1!. De hoeveelheid in ormatie op de kaart in !oogle 4arth is voldoende6 helemaal mee oneens oneens niet mee eensKoneens

41

eens helemaal mee eens 13. Aet )estemmingsplan in !oogle 4arth moet meer tekst )evatten6 helemaal mee oneens oneens niet mee eensKoneens eens helemaal mee eens 1&. Aet principe van het popup menu dat verschi.nt >anneer u op een o).ect in het )estemmingsplan is handig6 helemaal mee oneens oneens niet mee eensKoneens eens helemaal mee eens 15. De )estaande )e)ou>ing hee t een toegevoegde >aarde op de kaart6 helemaal mee oneens oneens niet mee eensKoneens eens helemaal mee eens 1*. Aet toevoegen van otoBs op de )estaande )e)ou>ing zou nuttig kunnen zi.n helemaal mee oneens oneens niet mee eensKoneens eens helemaal mee eens 1:. Aier is een link naar een huidig 'D )estemmingsplan:

41

http:CC le;imap6groningen6nlCgnmapsC)estemmingsplannenC @at vindt u het grootste voordeel van ge)ruik van 3D visualisatie tov 'D visualisatie van )estemmingsplannen? (meer ant>oorden mogeli.k) tonen hoogte duideli&"er meer gebrui"smogeli&"heden iets anders 9r 'i&n geen voordelen 1?. @at vindt u het grootste nadeel van ge)ruik van 3D visualisatie tov 'D visualisatie van )estemmingsplannen? (meerdere ant>oorden mogeli.k) navigeren onduideli&" teveel informatie iets anders 1@. Aet visualiseren van ma;imale hoogten die ge)ou>en mogen he))en in 3D is een meer>aarde6 helemaal mee oneens oneens niet mee eensKoneens eens helemaal mee eens !). De 3D visualisatie van het )estemmingsplan is duideli.ker dan het huidige )estemmingsplan6 helemaal mee oneens oneens niet mee eensKoneens eens helemaal mee eens !1. Aet toevoegen van schadu> van de volumes met ma;imale )ou>hoogten zou nuttig kunnen zi.n6 helemaal mee oneens

41

oneens niet mee eensKoneens eens helemaal mee eens !!. Aet zel kunnen meten van de hoogte van ge)ou>en zou nuttig kunnen zi.n6 Ja -ee Weet niet

8pen %uestions<

!3. Bat is u3 alge-een oordeel na het be4i74en .an beide beste--ingsplannen in 3D en in !D> I5 vind 2& een enorme voor$itgang tov 2&' *e -ien alles dageli65s in <& !d$s 2& \ ti6d"' 2& is voor mensen d$s heel nat$$rli65' lles /at 6e -iet in 2& vis$alisatie is dan oo5 direct her5enbaar en d$ideli65']r]nCo5 basis5aarten -o$den in 2& gemaa5t moeten /orden' 3en bestemmingsplan gevis$aliseerd in 2& heeft naar mi6n opvatting een toegevoegde /aarde, maar 5an een 2& bestemmingsplan5aart niet vervangen' &aarvoor mis 6e teveel informatie']r]n&aarnaast is het van groot belang om te bepalen voor /ie 6e een bestemmingsplan5aart maaa5t, m'a'/' /ie 5i65t ernaar en 5an het begri6pen' .et /e5t voor een lee5 op grafisch gebied ga$/ de indr$5 van een stedebo$/5$ndige inv$lling van het gebied' 2&]r]n2& 5an meer en over-ichteli65 informatie bevatten' .et geeft een d$ideli65 beeld' Geeft een mooi totaalbeeld van het plan t'o'v -i6n omgeving' an en afvoer/egen -i6n goed her5enbaar en event$eel capaciteits anal%ses 5$nnen /orden $itgevoerd' ,rogramma is gebr$i5svriendeli65 en pra5tisch ge-ien er meerdere opties 5$nnen /orden aangevin5t' niet in plaats van maar additioneel &e-e pilot geeft aan dat er /el mogeli65heden -i6n om een bestemmingsplan in 2& te vis$aliseren, maar oo5 dat een 6$ridisch sl$itende afba5ening in 2& lastig is' &eels 5omt dit door de magere vis$alisatie mogeli65heden van Google 3arth, /aardoor 6e niet gema55eli65 meerdere lagen !bv' &$bbelbestemmingen" over el5aar heen 5$nt leggen' ]r]nBestaande elementen -oals bebo$/ing of overige topografie is lastig te vis$aliseren en neemt al snel een te prominente plaats in' Toch heeft met name het opnemen van bestaande bebo$/ing /el n$t voor de her5enbaarheid' .ier -al nog verder onder-oe5 naar moeten plaats vinden']r]n.et is een goede vonst om het 2& bestemmingsplan op te delen in meerdere lagen, /aardoor 6e de mogeli65heid hebt om te scha5elen t$ssen themalagen' .oe/el de themalagen door het ontbre5en van een legenda /el /eer lastig leesbaar -i6n' .et bestemmingsplan in 2& is een st$5 d$ideli65er dan het bestemmingsplan in 2&' .et bestemmingsplan in 2& geeft veel meer informatie' .et is een mooie aanv$lling ter verd$ideli65ing, maar $iteindeli65 is een 5aart nog alti6d het meest pra5tisch, den5 i5' 2d 5an d$ideli65er -i6n maar den5 dat het alti6d n$ttig is om op de lo5atie te 5i65en' Goed' Goede toevoeging, met name doordat gebo$/en n$ met el5aar te vergeli65en -i6n'

41

&at het 2d plan toegevoegde /aarde heeft voor mensen die er dageli65s mee /er5en' 9oor le5en -al het ond$ideli65er /orden ivm vis$alisering van hoogtes die eigenli65 een /aarde hebben en geen hoogte -i6n' I5 -o$ liever met een bestemmingsplan in 2& /er5en, omdat i5 dat over-ichteli65er vind' .et idee is op -ich /el d$ideli65, dat het e1tra vis$ele informatie moet geven' Maar het /ordt er niet alti6d over-ichteli65er van !te veel informatie"' 3en 5li5 op een gebo$/ en 6e hebt de-elfde informatie in een over-ichteli65e tabel bi6 el5aar' 9oor /ie is de 2& 5aart bedoeldF ls b$rger 5i65 6e meestal naar de eigen beper5ingen van 6e perceel en dan li65t mi6 een tabel voldoende' &at de gel$idsconto$r er -o mooi overheen sch$ift is /el heel handig' I5 ben alti6d voor 2&' I5 ben vis$eel ingesteld, d$s een idee van hoogte maa5t 6e orientatie veel beter' 3n met 2& is 2& oo5 mogeli65 door er ge/oon loodrecht boven te gaan hangen' *o/, respect voor de applicatie' &it is de toe5omst van het vis$aliseren van bestemmingsplannen' &aar ben i5 n$ van overt$igd' Geeft goede indr$5 van hoogte en schaal van gebo$/en #ealistischer dan 2& In-ichteli65er 2& bestemmingsplannen -i6n veel te globaal, dan moet achteraf nog $itge-ocht /orden /el5e straat in /el5 gebied ligt' Gebr$i5svriendeli65er Meer detail tov 2&' .er5enbaarheid .et 5$nnen -ien van bo$/hoogten is echt een voordeel, maar /anneer er -oveel 5aartlagen door el5aar 5omen, is het niet meer d$ideli65' mss 5le$rtegenstellingen d$ideli65er ma5en, of /atermer5' ,rima, het is ma55eli65er voor te stellen' helder, d$ideli65 , realistisch' 7eer aangenaam: een ple-ier om in rond te vliegen' Gedetailleerd /eergegeven bebo$/ing'

!&. Bat zi7n de te4ort4o-ingen .an de 3D .isualisatie in 0oogle +arth> )egendaGlagen en men$ Teveel info en door el5aar 2& is $itermate geschi5t als model van de !toe5omstige" /er5eli65heid' &at is een bestemmingsplan niet' 3en probleem is dat niet iedereen goed over/eg 5an met digitale 2&:bestanden' .angt van gebr$i5er af' Misschien /at meer te5st en $itleg' Cmgeving^ I5 /eet niet hoe de hoogte van de gebo$/en -i6n tov de omgeving .et is lastig meerdere lagen over el5aar te plaatsen' an5li55en van de ob6ecten leverde niet alti6d het 6$iste ob6ect op, maar bv een die er achter ligt' &e legenda is niet goed ontsloten' .et navigerenH geen direct over-icht op alles' &at het maar een beeld is op de comp$ter niet echt' 3en d$ideli65e legenda ontbree5t' (e moet goed in de gaten ho$den /el5e lagen 6e aan en $it hebt staan' Geen d$ideli65e $itleg /at 6e moet doen en /at 6e dan -iet' .et 5ost veel ti6d om $it te vinden hoe het precies /er5t en hoe 6e er naar moet 5i65en' 9oor een lee5 is dit best lastig' I5 -o$ me voor 5$nnen stellen dat het voor een professional /el handig -o$ 5$nnen -i6n' geen d$ideli65e legenda per thema' Third part $sage !verplicht gebr$i5 van google 3arth ipv standaard benadering !via een pl$gin" via de /ebbro/ser"' &e legendaf$nctie' I5 5an de legenda met 5le$ren niet vinden, maar dat 5an aan mi6 liggen' Mocht die ontbre5en dan -o dat /el een handige toevoeging -i6n' te veel info en voor een lee5 staat er veel te veel door el5aar' Navigatie 1' ls !-oals bi6 aanvang" meerdere la%ersGlagen aanstaan geeft dit een /at ver/arrend beeld met verschillende 5le$renGlegenda]UsGoverlap door el5aar heen' 2' &e lin5 t$ssen 5le$r en bete5enis vGd 5le$r 5an nog d$ideli65er' N$ bli65t dit alleen via het aan-ettenG$it-etten van een la%er en niet $it een legenda'

41

!5. Bel4e gebrui4ers functies of data .ond u -inder geslaagd in deze applicatie> &e vol$mes van de bebo$/ingspercentages -i6n /at ver/arrend, het li65t om een f%sie5e hoogte te gaan ipv percentages' )egenda is /at ond$ideli65, 6e moet teveel bladeren in het men$ lin5s bebo$/ings100DF .et in-oomen en het ontbre5en van een d$ideli65e legenda' Maar de 2d bestemmingsplannen vond i5 s$per onhandig d$s dit is al een hele verbetering' N$ is oo5 d$ideli65 /aar de bestemmingen op r$sten, op /el5e straten e'd' bebo$/ingspercentages, gel$idsconto$r' voordeel is /el /eer dat 6e die ge/oon $it 5an -etten''' &e bebo$/ingspercentages 1' Bi6 het aan5li55en oo5 meteen een /eergave van d$bbelbestemmingen' 2' 3en gebo$/ in 5$nnen G 2' Cndergronds 5$nnen Thema5aart bebo$/ingspercentages 5an ond$ideli65 -i6n als 6e niet /eet /at de hoogte in de 5aart inho$d' *at volgens mi6 belangri65 is dat i5 een indr$5 5ri6g van het plan en gevolgen voor bestaande gebo$/en en omgeving etc' Met aan: en $itvin5en van bi6voorbeeld hoogtes, be/oning etc heb i5 die indr$5 niet ge5regen' &e themalaag bebo$/ingspercentages geeft niet /eer /at 6e -o$ den5en, omdat het percentage is omge-et in een hoogte, .et /as misschien een mogeli65heid ge/eest de themalaag ma1imale bo$/hoogte in te 5le$ren met een 5le$rtint die het bebo$/ingspercentage /eer geeft' &e themalaag bestaande bebo$/ing leidt af van de bestemmingsplandata' *ellicht is dat anders als de-e laag bepla5t is met gevelfoto]Us, /aardoor de representatie een d$ideli65 andere ]Uloo5]U -o$ 5ri6gen dan de bestemmingsplandata' I5 begri6p niet /at er met bebo$/ingspercentage bedoeld /ordt, maar /eten diegenen die ermee moeten /er5en onget/i6feld /el''' misschien de e1tra men$]Us met de regels maar den5 dat 5omt door dat i5 het nooit gebr$i5' !va5er gebr$i5en" &at pop$p' &aar moet veel meer info in' N$ heeft het geen /aarde' .et bli6ft voor le5en ond$ideli65 dat /aarden een hoogte 5ri6gen in een 2& vis$alisatie' &e ori_ntatiep$nten /aren niet alti6d d$ideli65, er /as /el erg veel informatie' Cntbre5en van een d$ideli65e legenda'

!*. Bel4e functies of data had u graag 3illen gebrui4en .oor deze 4aart> !.oogte van" stedeli65 groen en andere grote ob6ecten historisch materiaal 5enmer5en van een gebo$/ verschi6nen -odra 6e over dit gebo$/ heen gaat met de m$is fotoBs op bestaande bebo$/ing de toolf$nctie geschiedenis hoe het vroeger /as voorbeeld 20 6aar geleden 0otos met mogeli65e $it-ichten 31tra data $it-etten en dat de 5enmer5en van een gebo$/ verschi6nen -odra 6e over dit gebo$/ heen gaat met de m$is' over-ichteli65e legenda' 1' Bi6 het aan5li55en oo5 meteen een /eergave van d$bbelbestemmingen' 2' 3en gebo$/ in 5$nnen G 2' Cndergronds 5$nnen .oogtemeting 8chatting van het aantal /oningenGappartementen en 5antoorr$imte' .et gaat hier om een bestemmingsplan en niet om een b$$rt 2& te ma5en /aar andere data van belang 5an -i6n' 9olgens mi6 -it alles /at een bestemmingsplan betreft er /el in' meer -i6 aan-icht )egenda !:. Bel4e suggesties heeft u o- de 4aart te .erbeteren )egenda

41

31tra informatie bestemmingsplan Mogeli65heid voor 2& /eergave )aag met o$de sit$atie tov nie$/e sit$atie Cndergrondse gegevens )in5 naar mon$mentenstat$s, c$lt$$rhistorische /aarde 9erd$ideli65ing bete5enis gel$idsconto$r &$ideli65e $itleg bestemmingsplan en /er5ing applicatie Eaarten voor verschillende gebr$i5ers ma5en !le5en, architecten, !n$ts"bedri6ven"' Misschien /at meer van vroeger hoe het vroeger /as' 0otos met mogeli65e $it-ichten fotos op bestaande bebo$/ing /ellicht biedt toepassing in 9it$el Cit% nog meer mogeli65heden 3en hele goede $itleg op nivea$ Tlee5T om het goed te 5$nnen gebr$i5en' .ogere resol$tie enGof meer detail van bestemming +itleg plan en man$al voor gebr$i5 !met $itleg /at bedoeld /ordt" &$ideli65er aangeven /aar precies in de stad het bestemmingsplan betre55ing op heeft' d$ideli65e legenda]Us toevoegen per thema5aart, n$ is het veel door5li55en Cptie om schad$/en aan te vin5en' 0oto lin5s' Indien het ob6ect in 2& is toegevoegd -ie 6e d$ideli65 of het stri6dig is met het bestemmingsplan of niet' I5 5an me voorstellen dat mensen op basis daarvan bi6 de gemeente aan de bel tre55en om opheldering te vragen' /ellicht handig om via een h%perlin5 naar de betreffende !scan van" ontheffing te 5$nnen gaan' 1' 9olledigheid, d$s voor el5 st$56e Groningen !-o/el bovengronds als ondergrond en -o/el voor infrastr$ct$$r, bebo$/ing, groen etc" de mogeli65heid het aan te 5li55en !oo5 als er geen 2&:elementen een rol spelen" 2'Co5 een /eergaveGver/i6-ing naar niet in het bestemmingsplan genoemde, maar /el van belang -i6nde -a5en !-oals een mon$mentenstat$s, een c$lt$$rhistorische /aarde, andere niet in het bestemmingsplan 6$ridisch geregeld, maar /el van belang -i6nde enGof /etteli65 geregelde aspecten"'

!?. ;eeft u .ragen of op-er4ingen die niet in deze en%uCte .er-eld zi7n> Belangri65 is de snelheid /aarmee -o]Un 2&:bestemmingsplan aan het p$blie5 ]Ugeleverd]U 5an /orden' .et h$idige 2&:bestemmingsplan laadt -ich op internet nameli65 vaa5 -eer traag' 2' .oe -it het met de schaalF Is 2& oo5 te gebr$i5en voor fietsenho55en, de /eergave van bomen en andere 5leine stadslandschapselementenF .oe betro$/baar -i6n de vla55enF *el5e rechtsgeldigheid 5ent het 2&: bestemmingsplanF ls i5 in-oom op mi6n h$is, /ordt de !bi6v" af/i65ende bo$/hoogte van mi6n h$is ten op-ichte van de b$ren dan oo5 precies correct /eergegevenF !m'a'/' betro$/baarheid" 3n f$nctioneert 2& oo5 in een lastigere te digitaliseren omgeving met -eer $iteenlopende gebo$/vormen: en hoogtes, -oals in de binnenstadF &oor het gemaa5t te hebben 5$nnen /e een goede disc$ssie voeren over de /aarde van een 2& bestemmingsplan'

41

Appendi' 9 Inter.ie3s Inter.ie3s 3ith "unicipalit# of ,otterda- and +nschede

,+ van 7t ,rve 8 $uni"ipalit1 of ,ns"he+e Di"5 *os"h - $uni"ipalit1 of ,ns"he+e #gna"e van .a)penhout 8 $uni"ipalit1 of %otter+a)

1' *at /illen 6$llie met een 2& bestemmingsplanGondergrondse gegevensF 2' *at is het draagvla5 van de r$imteli65e plannersF 2' *at /aren 6$llie ver/achtingen met een 2& bestemmingsplanF <' *el5e mogeli65heden -ien 6$llieF >' *at -i6n volgens 6$llie de beper5ingen 2& !bestemmingsplan"F ;' *at doen 6$llie met hoogte van gebo$/en en maaiveldF =' *at voor 2& model hebben 6$llie gebr$i5tF ?' *at voor datasets hebben 6$llie gebr$i5tF @' *at voor detail hebben 6$llie ge5o-en voor het modellerenF 10' .ebben 6$llie er een database achter -ittenF 7o 6a /el5e, hoe hebben 6$llie dat gedaan, hoe - component opgeslagenF 11' *at doen 6$llie met meervo$dige bestemmingenF 12' *el5e beper5ingen 5/amen 6$llie tegen bi6 het 2& vis$aliserenF 12' *el5e ob6ecten van een bestemmingsplan -i6n volgens 6$llie vooral geschi5t voor 2&F 1<' *el5e soft/are pa55etten hebben 6$llie gebr$i5tF GI8 enGof C &GMicrostationF 1>' .oe /orden -ones !veiligheid, gel$ids-ones" gerepresenteerdF 1;' *at moet er nog verbeterd /orden aan het 2& modelF 1=' Is 2& vis$alisatie een meer/aarde, of is het nog te comple1 en past het niet binnen de r$imteli65e planprocessenF 1?' *at /illen 6$llie er in de toe5omst mee gaan doenF 1@' *el5e rol -ien 6$llie voor be/oners, om -e te betre55en bi6 het bestemmingsplanF

41