Abstract
In a period of climatic breakdown, the instruments of sensing environmental change are critical. Aerial photography was the first tool in the development of modern remote sensing, and various technologies have historically ‘stacked’ and ‘fused’ together to offer new possibilities in terms of coverage, definition and automation (Cureton, Drone Futures: UAS in Landscape & Urban Design. New York: Routledge, 2020). For Landscape Urbanism, Waldheim (Aerial Representation and the Recovery of Landscape. In J. Corner (Ed.), Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture (p. 135). New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999) has asserted the indexical trace of aerial photography for the recovery of landscape as a subject, and Kullmann (Landscape Research, 43(7), 906–907, 2018) has identified the unique relationship of remote sensing including drones, to the field with concurrent developments in GIS datasets and accessible satellite data which supported large-scale analysis, design and planning intervention for regions. The forms of the socio-technical practice of drones through a media ecology approach have been discussed (Milligan, Journal of Landscape Architecture, 14(2), 20–35, 2019) and the mobilities of the drone and volumetric operations have been unpacked (Jensen, Visual Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2020.1840085, 2020). The current state of research raises questions around repositioning the drone to make the climate crisis more visible. This chapter discusses the requirements for this repositioning, with the author’s assertion via case studies and speculative projections, of seeing the drone as an epistemological engine, which moves through three phases. The first phase is the sensing capability of the drone ‘as matter of fact’ in terms of precision ‘reality capture’ of spaces through photogrammetric processes and other sensing payloads. The second phase is in terms of the invisible mobilities that are novel in drone deployment which we term ‘matters of concern’ (waymarked paths, flight logs, sensing instructions, tracking, navigation of regulatory geo-fences etc…) which contribute to debates of atmosphere, volumetrics and airspace. Thirdly, the post-processing of imagery through AI results in a socio-technical relationship in the interpretation of aerial time-based data or ‘drone knowledge’ for design and planning decisions made upon resulting models. This critical repositioning corrects misconceptions of the aerial drone medium as a 2D static representational tool, but as a dynamic device shaping the future sociology of the sky actively changing the terrain below.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
See for example the RTPI, Section 1.3, Planning Enforcement Handbook for England (18/05/2020). https://www.rtpi.org.uk/practice/2020/may/planning-enforcement-handbook-for-england/#_Toc40421027.
- 3.
References
Adey, P. (2010). Aerial life: Spaces, mobilities, affects. Wiley-Blackwell.
Adey, P. (2014). Security atmospheres or the crystallisation of worlds. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(5), 834–851.
Batty, M. (2018). Digital twins. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(5), 817–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808318796416
Bratchford, G., & Zuev, D. (2020). Aerial visibilities: Towards a visual sociology of the sky introduction to the special issue. Visual Studies, 35(5), 402–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2020.1843283
Corner, J. (1999). The agency of mapping, speculation, critique and invention. In D. Cosgrove (Ed.), Mappings. Reaktion.
Corner, J. (2000). Taking measures across the American landscape. Yale University Press.
Cureton, P. (2020). Drone futures: UAS in landscape & urban design. Routledge.
Cureton, P., Griffiths, R., & Dunn, N. (2022). Above and Beyond Aerial Technologies, Atmosphere and Landscape. In K. Bishop & L. Corkery. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Urban Landscape Research (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003109563
Cureton, P., & Hartley, E. (2024). Geodesign & Urban Futures. NewYork: Routledge.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. E. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
Duffy, J. P., Anderson, K., Shapiro, A., Spina Avino, F., DeBell, L., & Glover-Kapfer, P. (2020). WWF Conservation Technology Series, 1(5).
Duffy, J. P., Pratt, L., Anderson, K., Land, P. E., & Shutler, J. D. (2018a). Spatial assessment of intertidal seagrass meadows using optical imaging systems and a lightweight drone. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 200, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.11.001
Duffy, J. P., Cunliffe, A. M., DeBell, L., Sandbrook, C., Wich, S. A., Shutler, J. D., Myers-Smith, I. H., Varela, M. R., & Anderson, K. (2018b). Location, location, location: Considerations when using lightweight drones in challenging environments. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 4, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.58
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press.
DuRussel, L., & Singh. A. (2018). Hunter’s Point South Waterfront Park, phase 1 methods. The Landscape Performance Series. Landscape Architecture Foundation. https://doi.org/10.31353/cs1371
Elden, S. (2013). Secure the volume: Vertical geopolitics and the depth of power. Political Geography, 34, 35–51.
Gabrys, J. (2016). Program Earth: Environmental sensing technology and the making of a computational planet. University of Minnesota Press.
Gaillardet, J. (2020). The critical zone, a buffer zone, the human habitat. In B. Latour & P. Weiel (Eds.), Critical zones. The science and politics of landing on Earth (pp. 122–129). MIT Press.
Garrett, B., & Anderson, K. (2018). Drone methodologies: Taking flight in human and physical geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 43, 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12232
George, B. H., & Park, K. (2020). Flying high: A case study of the integration of drones into a landscape architecture curriculum. Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture, 5, 246–253.
Hauser, K. (2007). Revenants in the landscape: The discoveries of aerial photography. In Shadow sites: Photography, archaeology, and the British landscape 1927–1955. Oxford Academic. Retrieved October 20, 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199206322.003.0009
Ihde, D. (2016). Husserl’s missing technologies. Fordham University Press.
Ingold, T. (2022). Imagining for real. Essays on creation, attention and correspondence. Routledge.
Ipsos UK. (2022, June). Future flight challenge—Mini public dialogue (Eds., J. G. Camilleri, M. Mackie, R. Patel, & M. Reynolds).
Jensen, O. B. (2020). Thinking with the drone—Visual lessons in aerial and volumetric thinking. Visual Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2020.1840085
Kaplan, C. (2020). Atmospheric politics: Protest drones and the ambiguity of airspace. Digital War, 1, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42984-020-00005-y
Kikuchi, N., Fukuda, T., & Yabuki, N. (2022). Future landscape visualisation using a city digital twin: Integration of augmented reality and drones with implementation of 3D model-based occlusion handling. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 9(2), 837–856. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcde/qwac032
Kleinschroth, F., Banda, K., Zimba, H., Dondeyne, S., Nyambe, I., Spratley, S., & Winton, R. S. (2022). Drone imagery to create a common understanding of landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 228, 104571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104571
Kullmann, K. (2018). The drone’s eye: Applications and implications for landscape architecture. Landscape Research, 43(7), 906–921. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1386777
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford University Press.
Latour, B., & Schultz, N. (2022). Notat om den nye økologisk klasse. Hans Retzels Forlag. [Note on the new ecological class].
Levitas, R. (2013). Utopia as method. The imaginary reconstitution of society. Palgrave Macmillan.
Lun, L., Silva, E. A., Wu, C., & Wang, H. (2017). A machine learning-based method for the large-scale evaluation of the qualities of the urban environment. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 65, 113��125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2017.06.003
Luo, J., Zhao, T., Cao, L., & Biljecki, F. (2022). Semantic Riverscapes: Perception and evaluation of linear landscapes from oblique imagery using computer vision. Landscape and Urban Planning, 228, 104569.
M’Closkey, K., & VanDerSys, K. (2022). Behind-the-Scenes: Multispectral imagery and land cover classification. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 17(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2022.2110417
Milligan, B. (2019). Making terrains: Surveying, drones and media ecology. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 14(2), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2019.1673565
Mubi Brighenti, A., & Pavoni, A. (2020). Vertical vision and atmocultural navigation. Notes on emerging urban scopic regimes. Visual Studies, 35(5), 430. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2020.1840089
Munck Petersen, R. (2021). Drone affect: Folded points of view as a co-affection method for empathy and care. Emotion, Space and Society, 41, 100842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2021.100842
Munck Petersen, R., Jerram, S., & Hewitt, M. (2018). The Rising Gale Affect event film. https://static-curis.ku.dk/potals/files/215141054/FINAL_Rising_Gale_Affect_event_film
Qiu, W., Li, W., Liu, X., & Huang, X. (2021). Subjectively measured streetscape perceptions to inform urban design strategies for Shanghai. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10, 493. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10080493
Roumpani, F. (2022). Procedural cities as active simulators for planning. Urban Planning, 7(2), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i2.5209
Schrotter, G., & Hürzeler, C. (2020). The digital twin of the city of Zurich for urban planning. PFG, 88, 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41064-020-00092-2
Szweszynski, B. (2020). The grammar of action in the critical zone. In B. Latour & P. Weiel (Eds.), Critical zones. The science and politics of landing on Earth (pp. 344–348). MIT Press.
Thompson, I. H. (2012). Ten tenets and six questions for landscape urbanism. Landscape Research, 37(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.632081
Urry, J. (2016). What is the future? Polity Press.
Waldheim, C. (1999). Aerial representation and the recovery of landscape. In J. Corner (Ed.), Recovering landscape: Essays in contemporary landscape architecture. Princeton Archite.
Waldheim, C. (2016). Urban Crisis and the Origins of Landscape. In Landscape as Urbanism: A General Theory (pp. 88–104). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcszzn2.10
Weller, R. (2008). Landscape (Sub)Urbanism in Theory and Practice. Landscape Journal, 27(2), 247–267. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43332451
Wright, F. L. (1932). The Disappearing City. New York: W.F. Payson.
Yin, L., & Wang, Z. (2016). Measuring visual enclosure for street walkability: Using machine learning algorithms and Google Street View imagery. Applied Geography, 76, 147–153. ISSN 0143–6228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.09.024
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jensen, O.B., Cureton, P. (2023). Repositioning Drone Sensing in Landscape Urbanism and Planning. In: Bratchford, G., Zuev, D. (eds) Vision and Verticality. Social Visualities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39884-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39884-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-39883-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-39884-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)