Applying Analysis

After reviewing several literary articles, I have a better understanding of how visual analysis works, and how it can be used as a guide to vista management.  In order to describe the potential benefits of this analysis, I have decided to applying these methods and ideologies to Campbell Overlook, a prime example of an overgrown vista.  By using this analysis, I aim to reveal the challenges associated with each vista, determine the boundaries, observer's preferences, and unique focal points in the view, and develop specific clearing recommendations and management strategies for each vista.  To begin this process, I have assembled several photographs in Photoshop to create a panoramic image of Campbell Overlook.

As you can see, the encroaching vegetation has significantly limited the vista.  Research revealed that historically this vista offered a panoramic view of the ridge line, Balsam Point, and the valley below.  Today, you can barely see a third of the intended view, and within a few years this will be gone too.  Since nearly 6.5 million of the Park's 9.4 million visitors never leave their car and only see nature through auto touring, the lost of vistas directly contributes to the deterioration of the visitor's experience.

The first part of this analysis applies a study by the USDA entitled "Searching for the Value in a View" (Magill and Schwartz 1989) . 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. 

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)

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)

 Clearly, this vista is interrupted by numerous tall trees.

View distance zones are:

• Foreground (1/4 to 1/2 mile)

• Middleground (1/2 to about 5 miles)

• Background (over 5 miles)

The foreground is not labeled because it is not currently visible to the observer.