COASTAL VIEWSCAPES OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Report for the Coast Protection Branch South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage Dr Andrew Lothian 2005 Scenic Solutions, PO Box 385, Mitcham 5062 Cover photograph of lighthouses on the South Australian coast: Beachport (SE) Cape Banks (SE) Cape Borda (KI) Cape du Couedic (KI) Robe (SE) Cape Northumberland (SE) Corny Point (YP) Point Lowly (upper Spencer Cape Willoughby (KI) Gulf) Dr Andrew Lothian Principal Scenic Solutions Environmental Policy Solutions ABN 55 275 407 146 PO Box 385 Mitcham South Australia 5062 E: [email protected] P: 0439 872 226 COASTAL VIEWSCAPES OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Report for the Coast Protection Branch South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage Dr Andrew Lothian Principal Scenic Solutions 2005 i South Australian Coastal Viewscapes Project COASTAL VIEWSCAPES OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Requirements in Australia and overseas. Virtually all the studies examined applied various criteria to The Coastal Protection Branch of the what was believed to constitute attractive Department for Environment and Heritage landscapes and then analysed them engaged Dr Andrew Lothian of Scenic accordingly. A typical methodology involved Solutions to measure and map the scenic the classification of areas of similar landscape quality of the South Australian coastline. character and the application of criteria such as naturalness, pattern, form, line and texture The Branch recognised that increasing to each area. The scores would then be added developmental pressures on the coast were and its landscape quality thus derived. This threatening the very qualities that the method is heavily dependent on the selection community value. Development pressures of factors to be scored and this varied widely included housing and land division, marinas, from study to study. The selection of factors aquaculture, wind farms and access roads and tended to be those which were measurable trails. and were treated as of equal importance. This reductionist approach in which the whole is the The outcomes of the project were intended to sum of the parts is contrary to the holistic way assist in the development of planning policy in which landscapes are viewed and judged. and the assessment of development The alternative is community rating of scenes applications. which is the method used in this project. The project tasks were to: The nature of aesthetics as an affective quality was then reviewed. Aesthetic preferences do • Develop and apply a methodology to not derive from cognitive analysis but rather measure the scenic value of the South from affective preferences. The influence of Australia’s coast; culture and individual differences (e.g. age, • Provide recommendations for the gender) on preferences was examined; it incorporation of the methodology into the being shown that the similarities in Policy, Planning and Development preferences across cultures and individuals Assessment processes; were greater than the differences. Theories of • Map scenic value at a scale sufficient for landscape aesthetics have an evolutionary planning and policy development; perspective which argues that people’s • Report on the findings of the project; landscape aesthetics reflect what is survival enhancing. Studies which have examined the The project commenced in mid December influence of water on landscape preferences 2004 and was completed by the end of June were summarised. 2005 with the exception of the mapping of scenic quality. This was completed in October The use of photographs on which to assess 2005. landscape aesthetics was examined, it being shown from a range of studies that providing Approach to the Task the photographs meet certain criteria (e.g. colour, common format, not-composed) the In essence the approach involved classifying preferences would be similar to those derived the coast into units of similar characteristics, from field-based studies. sampling these by the use of photographs, selecting photographs for an Internet-based Acquiring the Data survey, arranging for the scenic quality of these scenes to be rated by participants, The principles and criteria which guided the analysing and modelling the results, and using taking of coastal photographs were described. the results as the basis for mapping the scenic The entire accessible coast was traveled, quality of the South Australian coastline. covering over 10,000 km during which nearly 1700 photographs were taken. Aesthetics and Coastal Landscapes At the consultant’s request, DEH Environment The project commenced with a review of Information prepared a set of maps showing previous studies of coastal scenic quality both the land that can be seen from the sea. This © Dr Andrew Lothian, Scenic Solutions ii South Australian Coastal Viewscapes Project viewshed comprises land with a sea view height of land forms. Each was scored by which is likely to come under greater small groups of participants. development pressure than land without this view. Such land with a sea view would also Analysis of Data have a higher scenic quality rating. These maps were subsequently used in mapping of The data set comprising the ratings of the 166 scenic quality. scenes by 2200 participants was analysed. The distribution of responses was close to The South Australian coast was classified into normal. five main landscape units: high cliffs, low cliffs & beaches, headlands & bays, beaches & Compared with the South Australian dunes, and the samphire-mangrove formation. community, the sample was better educated Each was described and its length measured. and more middle aged. However the ratings Dunes & beaches comprised 45% of the were similar across the range of participant coast, headlands & bays 28%, high cliffs 12%, characteristics (age, gender, education, low cliffs 3% and mangroves/samphires 10%. birthplace), reinforcing the finding earlier that The proportion of each landscape unit per ratings are similar across cultures and groups region provided the basis for the selection of of individuals. Participant familiarity with photographs. different regions of the South Australian coast was strongest nearest to Adelaide and The survey instrument was assembled using declined with distance. Familiarity with an area 138 coastal scenes plus 28 scenes from wider increased ratings slightly. South Australia to ensure the rating of the coastal scenes reflected a State-wide Appendix 10.3 contains all scenes with their perspective. The survey instrument ratings. Average ratings of scenes ranged commenced with instructions, demographic from a low of 3.38 (samphires near Whyalla) data, and 10 introductory scenes of the coast to a high of 8.65 (Admiralty Arch, Kangaroo and South Australia. The scenes were then Island). Scenes typical of ratings 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 shown in random order which was changed for and 8 were included in the report. The factor each participant. Ratings were on a 1 – 10 scores were also analysed to derive averages. scale (low-high). The ratings were automatically tallied in a data base. An The highest rating region was Kangaroo Island opportunity for comments was provided upon (7.15) while the lowest were the northern parts completion of the survey. of the two Gulfs, St Vincent (4.64) and upper Spencer Gulf (4.57). Averages for other The survey commenced on 7 April and The regions were: South East 6.79, Fleurieu Advertiser carried a 2-column article with a Peninsula 6.68, Adelaide coast 5.93, Yorke photograph on that day with the web address Peninsula 6.17, Eastern Eyre Peninsula 5.92, included. By its termination on 30 April, 3324 Western Eyre Peninsula/Nullarbor 7.02. The had participated of whom 2258, 68%, ratings by landscape unit were: high cliffs completed all 166 scenes. A further 58 were 7.84, low cliffs 6.32, headlands & bays 7.02, found to rate most scenes as 10 – a clear dunes & beaches 6.30, samphires & case of strategic bias, and were deleted mangroves 4.75. leaving 2200 for analysis. Of these participants, 679 offered comments, Content analysis of the scenes in each particularly about the importance and beauty landscape unit searched for possible of the coast. Their comments were included influences on the ratings and detected various on the CD. A sample of 2200 provided a factors, which contributed to the identification confidence interval of 2.09; i.e at 95% of factors to be scored. confidence level, the response will be +/- 2.09% of the true value. This is an Analysis of the ratings combined with the exceptionally small figure. scores for the factors identified (e.g. naturalness, height) found that the strongest The scenic quality of scenes varied reflecting influences were diversity, tranquillity-awe, and the presence or absence of certain features. naturalness. The presence of seaweed had a The presence of the following factors were negative influence on ratings. scored on a 1 – 5 scale: indentation of the coast, area of water, awe/ tranquillity scale, Multiple regression analysis was used to diversity, naturalness, quality of beach, and develop predictive models for the scenes. Its purpose was to identify the influence of the © Dr Andrew Lothian, Scenic Solutions iii South Australian Coastal Viewscapes Project various factors that had been scored on the 6. A brief description of the section covered scenic quality rating that had been obtained by 7. A table setting out the scenic quality the survey. Models were derived for all the ratings of scenes from 3 and 4, together scenes, and then for each of the landscape with the ratings derived for them by the units. The results of each model were tested predictive models against the survey ratings to assess their 8. The scenic quality rating for Zone 1 was accuracy. given as a range of half a unit, e.g. 6.5 – 7.0. The mapping showed the median Mapping Scenic Quality (6.75). 9. Ratings for Zones 2 and 3 were also The project required scenic quality to be provided. These differentiated ratings by mapped at a scale sufficient for planning and location and land cover; land with 1 km policy development.