Searching for the Value of a View

The USDA Forest Service paper entitled “Searching for the Value of a View” discusses the strong correlation between the view quality of a site and property values.  The authors Arthur W. Magill and Charles F. Schwarz clearly assessed “the trade-offs between market and nonmarket products” by arguing that even though “scenic quality is a resource that is not quantifiable in monetary terms”, it can still be used to “define relative dollar values for physical dimensions and objects in a view” (pg. i). This study examines the variables that describe the “extent or continuity of a view” not the “contents of the view”.

The authors used basic terms to describe the view content; “physical landscape features such as  mountains, valleys, and lakes; vegetation types such as conifer or hardwood forests and meadows; and various constructed features such as roads, power lines, and buildings that might influence view quality” (pg. 2).  The authors intended to describe “how the view was seen, not what was seen” (pg. 5).  The terminology they used aimed to identify variables that contributed to the value of the view, not those that detracted from it.  

Observer Position:

• Inferior (observer looks up toward the view) 
•  Normal (observer is level with the view)
• Superior (observer looks toward the view)

 The following view composition types were used by Litton (1968) to “provide a visual framework for landscape descriptions and analysis” (pg. 5):

•  Panoramic (wide, unobstructed views – largely a horizontal view variable and describes a viewing situation)
•  Feature (a dominant or distinctive object  such as a lake, meadow, mountain, ridge, or peak – describes unspecified objects)
• Enclosed (strongly defined, contained spaces; e.g. a meadow surrounded by trees – describes the conditions of the site; not of the view)
• Focal (landscape elements focus attention; e.g. trees to the right and the left focus attention straight ahead – largely a horizontal view variable and describes a viewing situation)
• Canopied (under a forest canopy – describes the conditions of the site; not of the view)

 

 View distance zones are:

• Foreground (1/4 to 1/2 mile) 
•  Middleground (1/2 to about 5 miles) 
•  Background (over 5 miles)

 

 The authors also used terms for natural view values.  Some views were obstructed by either constructed objects (roads, buildings, power lines, etc.) or natural objects (existing trees or trees that grow into the view):

• Interrupted view (trees or buildings destroy the continuity of a relatively wide view)
• Filtered view (a view seen through trees stems or foliage not dense enough to block the view)
• Narrow view (a view greatly limited in width by trees, rocks, or buildings, directly in line of sight down a corridor)
• Unobstructed view (a view with no potential for becoming blocked)

 

The results of the study “suggest that landscape components cannot be used as indicators of the value of views” because the value “cannot be predicted from the relation between asking or selling prices of view lots and the land, water, and vegetation elements that define the landscape character” (pg. 5).  The authors argue that value of the view can only be determined by removing the value of the site’s elements from the total price; this reduced price represents a site without a view.  Once this new “non-view” price is subtracted from the original price, a relatively accurate view value is revealed.  The authors believe this approach to reveal realistic results (pg. 5).

The study concludes by suggesting that the only way to determine the value of the view is by removing the market value from the site.  A pilot test of this approach revealed that “visual quality judgments by natural resource professionals, ranging from no view to best view, are not related to real estate prices.  Realtors typically assign lot prices increasing from no view to best view” (pg. 8).  However, the authors acknowledge that realtors are often influenced by their understanding of site conditions unrelated to the site’s scenic quality.  They explain that view quality evaluations by the public are influenced by view premiums set by realtors and general scenic knowledge to assign relatively accurate monetary values for landscape views.  The authors argue that “these values could be used to evaluate market and non-market trade-offs between alternative uses of wildland resources” (pg. 8).

I think that the authors’ approach to determining realistic view values was extremely easy to understand.  However the scenic views or vistas within the national parks are priceless; typically revealing the most beautiful preserved nature left in America.  Even though this topic does not address these vistas directly, the terminology, variables, and attributes used in this study will be extremely helpful in describing the view quality of scenic vistas.