Next Article in Journal
Optimization Model for Mitigating Global Warming at the Farm Scale: An Application to Japanese Rice Farms
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustaining Cultural and Natural Heritage in Albania
Previous Article in Journal
Vulnerability Assessment Models to Drought: Toward a Conceptual Framework
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cultural Attitudes as WTP Determinants: A Revised Cultural Worldview Scale
Open AccessArticle

2D Versus 3D: The Relevance of the Mode of Presentation for the Economic Valuation of an Alpine Landscape

1
Department of Spatial Planning, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna 20140, Austria
2
Department of Planning and Environnent, University of Groningen, Groningen 9700, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Victor T. King
Sustainability 2016, 8(6), 591; https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060591
Received: 13 May 2016 / Revised: 13 June 2016 / Accepted: 20 June 2016 / Published: 22 June 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability of Cultural and Natural Heritage)
In order to value the transformation of landscapes from an economic perspective, survey respondents are usually presented with pictures of various landscapes with the aim to visualize differences in their appearance. The current paper presents a classroom experiment ascertaining differences, and potential advantages and disadvantages, of 2D versus 3D (stereoscopic) presentations of landscape changes. The landscape to be valued was a traditional Alpine pasture in the Austrian Alps as a prominent example of natural and cultural heritage (traditional economy and specific ecology). Two alternative scenarios included, on the one hand, changes in agricultural uses, leading to natural afforestation (reforestation) and decay of existing infrastructure (e.g., hiking trails). On the other hand, significantly extended tourism infrastructure (e.g., new attractions for visitors) was presented. Two groups were presented manipulated pictures (2D/non-stereoscopic), and 3D (stereoscopic) presentations with 3D glasses, respectively. Both groups were then asked for their perception of landscape changes. It turns out that significant differences between the two groups could be detected in terms of the frequency of vacations at Alpine pastures. For instance, respondents in the 3D stereoscopic group stated a significantly higher frequency of trips. However, on the other hand, they did not state a significantly different willingness-to-pay to prevent landscape changes disadvantageous in terms of sustainability. The study results thus suggest that the mode of presentation may affect the valuation of landscape changes depending on the valuation instrument. View Full-Text
Keywords: Alpine landscape; valuation of natural and cultural heritage; travel behavior; revealed/stated preferences; 3D vs. 2D (stereoscopic vs. non-stereoscopic) modes of presentation Alpine landscape; valuation of natural and cultural heritage; travel behavior; revealed/stated preferences; 3D vs. 2D (stereoscopic vs. non-stereoscopic) modes of presentation
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Getzner, M.; Färber, B.; Yamu, C. 2D Versus 3D: The Relevance of the Mode of Presentation for the Economic Valuation of an Alpine Landscape. Sustainability 2016, 8, 591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060591

AMA Style

Getzner M, Färber B, Yamu C. 2D Versus 3D: The Relevance of the Mode of Presentation for the Economic Valuation of an Alpine Landscape. Sustainability. 2016; 8(6):591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060591

Chicago/Turabian Style

Getzner, Michael; Färber, Barbara; Yamu, Claudia. 2016. "2D Versus 3D: The Relevance of the Mode of Presentation for the Economic Valuation of an Alpine Landscape" Sustainability 8, no. 6: 591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060591

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop