{"id":900,"date":"2016-06-23T11:00:56","date_gmt":"2016-06-23T09:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lviz.org\/?p=900"},"modified":"2016-06-23T12:20:43","modified_gmt":"2016-06-23T10:20:43","slug":"research-paper-comparing-2d-versus-3d-landscape-visualisations-with-regard-to-economic-valuation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lviz.org\/?p=900","title":{"rendered":"Research paper comparing 2D versus 3D landscape visualisations with regard to economic valuation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"2D<\/a>
2D seminar room (a); and 3D presentation in the spatial
lab (b) of the Vienna University of Technology (source: Getzner et al. 2016)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In this fully open access paper, Michael Getzner, Barbara Faerber and Claudia Yamu compare 2D versus (stereoscopic) 3D landscape visualisations of different landscape scenarios in the Alps. Although there have been previous studies of landscape visualizations of alpine scenarios, I found that this paper is adding a couple of particularly new perspectives: a) the use of stereoscopic (anaglyph) visualisations and b) the link to the economic valuation of different landscapes through the participants. It should be said that this study like many others was conducted with students. However, I think it provides the legitimization to use landscape visualisations for other studies on the economic valuation of such landscapes.<\/p>\n

Keywords: <\/em> Alpine landscape<\/a>; valuation of natural and cultural heritage<\/a>; travel behavior<\/a>; revealed\/stated preferences<\/a>; 3D vs. 2D (stereoscopic vs. non-stereoscopic) modes of presentation<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Link to the Open Access repository <\/a><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Save<\/span><\/p>\n

Save<\/span><\/p>\n

\r\n
\r\n
<\/div>\r\n