Landscape Inventories for Research and Monitoring

Fifth Section of Litton's Article: Descriptive Approaches to Landscape Analysis

Landscape Inventories for Research and Monitoring:

Litton explains that if professionally prepared landscape inventories and their supporting elements are prepared using the proper criteria, it also considered an expert’s document.  Such criteria include Litton’s concepts of using landform features or spatial enclosures as inventory elements.  An evaluation of these concepts (Chaik 1972, Zube et. al. 1974) noted 

 

…a high level of agreement between the visual perception of lay persons and that of the professional.  In another example of psychological research directed toward landscape displays, visual relationships of elements found …in the environment…are subjects of perceptual response and evaluation (pg. 82).

Since the criteria used is also utilized by practicing professionals who are trained in aesthetic evaluation and have an understanding of visual values and opinions identified by the public, it can be assumed that the inventory’s results would be agreeable with the needs of the majority of people. 

In a study on the Connecticut River Valley, Litton developed landscape prescriptions to manipulate visual relationships between silvicultural techniques and roadside forest land.  Inventories of existing vegetation were conducted and sample plots of visual landscape “before” and “after” prescriptions were developed.  The author describes how landscape inventory with visual samples serve as devices for “monitoring the appearance of natural and man-made changes over time” (pg. 83).  He goes on to add that even though some changes may appear to be insignificant, they may accumulate over time and become seriously degrading.  Litton also argues that “no judgment about shifting changes in scenic quality is possible without the visual base line of how the landscape looked at a specific time in the past” (pg. 83).

Landscape Inventories for Research and Monitoring applied to Vista Management:

Guided by Litton’s approach and using his terminology, I was able to properly evaluate and inventory landscape elements.  I was able to inventory existing vegetation and develop visual simulations that would depict the results of selected treatments such as “windowing”, “layering”, and “clearing”.   Then I would create a visual simulation of what changes might occur over the next several years.  If a majority of changes were beneficial, and there were no significant negative impacts, then the treatment would become a practical alternative to the exciting condition.  From these results, a preferred alternative was agreed upon by the Park team, and then further developed into a detailed landscape prescriptions or recommendations for vista management.

 Litton’s suggestion of using past landscape conditions as a visual base line was also incorporated, because it is important to understand the original intent of the vista.  However, many vistas were previously managed as panoramic views without regard for plant communities who might inhabit the clearing as a part of natural succession.  Successful vista management must protect the integrity of the view and while still encouraging desired native plants to dominate the vista clearing.  The clearings would continue to be monitored to ensure that no further changes needed to be made to the management plan and that any unforeseen impacts would be resolved.  According to research of other national park vista management plans, vista management should be cyclic to prevent large re-clearings from being necessary.  By monitoring these clearings over a period of seven years (it is assumed it will take seven years for tree species to grow tall enough impact the view), I will be able to track the rate of regrowth of both desired and undesired plants within the clearing and alter or confirm the suggested cyclic vista management frequency.