Virtual forests: a review on emerging questions in the use and application of 3D data in forestry

References

• Abe M, Yoshimura T, Koizumi S, Hasegawa N, Osaki T, Yasukawa N, Koba K, Moriya K, Sakai T. 2005. Virtual forest: design and evaluation of a walk-through system for forest education. J For Res. 10(3):189–197. doi:10.1007/s10310-004-0131-x.
   Google Scholar
• Abegg M, Kükenbrink D, Zell J, Schaepman ME, Morsdorf F. 2017. Terrestrial laser scanning for forest inventories—tree diameter distribution and scanner location impact on occlusion. Forests. 8(6):184. doi:10.3390/f8060184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Astner T. 2018. Forest thinning in VR: a VR application with the theme of forest thinning. [Bachelor’s thesis]. Mid Sweden University.
   Google Scholar
• Baek N, Yoo KH. 2020. An accelerated rendering scheme for massively large point cloud data. J Supercomput. 76(10):8313–8323. doi:10.1007/s11227-019-03114-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates-Brkljac N, Dupras M. 2001. The virtual forest: integrating VRML worlds and generative music. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Generative Design, Politecnico di Milano University. Milan: CUMINCAD. p. 25–30.
   Google Scholar
• Bergen SD, McGaughey RJ, Fridley JL. 1998. Data-driven simulation, dimensional accuracy and realism in a landscape visualization tool. Landsc Urban Plan. 40(4):283–293. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00091-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biljecki F, Ledoux H, Stoter J. 2016. An improved LOD specification for 3D building models. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 59:25–37. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.04.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonnaffe F, Jennette D, Andrews J. 2007. A method for acquiring and processing ground-based lidar data in difficult-to-access outcrops for use in three-dimensional, virtual-reality models. Geosphere. 3(6):501. doi:10.1130/GES00104.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botev J, Viegas A. 2020. Forest SaVR - A Virtual-Reality Application to Raise Awareness of Deforestation. In: Weyers B, Lürig C, Zielasko D, editors. GI VR/AR Workshop; Sep 24–25; Trier. Trier (Germany): Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.
   Google Scholar
• Boukherroub T, D’amours S, Rönnqvist M. 2018. Sustainable forest management using decision theaters: rethinking participatory planning. J Clean Prod. 179:567–580. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozgeyikli E, Raij A, Katkoori S, Dubey R. 2016. Point & teleport locomotion technique for virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. Austin, Texas, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, New York (NY), United States. p. 205–216.
   Google Scholar
• Brockerhoff EG, Barbaro L, Castagneyrol B, Forrester DI, Gardiner B, González-Olabarria JR, Lyver PO, Meurisse N, Oxbrough A, Taki H, et al. 2017. Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv. 26(13):3005–3035. doi:10.1007/s10531-017-1453-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckley DJ, Ulbricht C, Berry J. 1998. The virtual forest: advanced 3-D visualization techniques for forest management and research. In: ESRI 1998 User Conference. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. p. 27–31.
   Google Scholar
• Burdea G. 2003. Virtual reality technology. 2nd ed. Hoboken (N.J): Wiley-Interscience.
   Google Scholar
• Burt A, Disney M, Calders K. 2019. Extracting individual trees from lidar point clouds using treeseg. Methods Ecol Evol. 10(3):438–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cabo C, Del Pozo S, Rodríguez-Gonzálvez P, Ordóñez C, González-Aguilera D. 2018. Comparing terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) and wearable laser scanning (WLS) for individual tree modeling at plot level. Remote Sens. 10(4):540. doi:10.3390/rs10040540.
   Google Scholar
• Calders K, Burt A, Origo N, Disney M, Nightingale J, Raumonen P, Lewis P. 2016. Large-area virtual forests from terrestrial laser scanning data. In: 2016 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS). Beijing, China: IEEE. p. 1765–1767.
   Google Scholar
• Chandler T, Richards AE, Jenny B, Dickson F, Huang J, Klippel A, Neylan M, Wang F, Prober SM. 2022. Immersive landscapes: modelling ecosystem reference conditions in virtual reality. Landsc Ecol. 37(5):1293–1309. doi:10.1007/s10980-021-01313-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çöltekin A, Lochhead I, Madden M, Christophe S, Devaux A, Pettit C, Lock O, Shukla S, Herman L, Stachoň Z, et al. 2020. Extended reality in spatial sciences: a review of research challenges and future directions. ISPRS Int J Geoinf. 9(7):439. doi:10.3390/ijgi9070439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cournède P-H, Guyard T, Bayol B, Griffon S, De Coligny F, Borianne P, Jaeger M, De Reffye P. 2009. A forest growth simulator based on functional-structural modelling of individual trees. In: Li B, Jaeger M, Guo Y, editors. 2009 Third International Symposium on Plant Growth Modeling, Simulation, Visualization and Applications. Beijing: IEEE. p. 34–41.
   Google Scholar
• Dalponte M, Coops NC, Bruzzone L, Gianelle D. 2009. Analysis on the use of multiple returns LiDAR data for the estimation of tree stems volume. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens. 2(4):310–318. doi:10.1109/JSTARS.2009.2037523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel TC, Meitner MM. 2001. Representational validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. J Environ Psychol. 21(1):61–72. doi:10.1006/jevp.2000.0182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dede C. 2009. Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science. 323(5910):66–69. doi:10.1126/science.1167311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunbar MD, Moskal LM, Jakubauskas ME. 2004. 3D visualization for the analysis of forest cover change. Geocarto Int. 19(2):103–112. doi:10.1080/10106040408542310.
   Google Scholar
• Fabrika M. 2021. Interactive procedural forest in game engine environment as background for forest modelling. In: Beiträge zue Jahrestagung 2021 DVFFA - Sektion Ertragskunde. DVFFA. p. 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Fabrika M, Valent P, Scheer L. 2018. Thinning trainer based on forest-growth model, virtual reality and computer-aided virtual environment. Environ Model Softw. 100:11–23. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.11.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fol CR, Murtiyoso A, Griess VC. 2022. Evaluation of azure kinect derived point clouds to determine the presence of microhabitats on single trees based on the swiss standard parameters. Int Arch Photogram Remote Sens Spatial Inform Sci. 43(B2–2022):989–994.
   Google Scholar
• Frey J, Kovach K, Stemmler S, Koch B. 2018. UAV photogrammetry of forests as a vulnerable process. a sensitivity analysis for a structure from motion RGB-image pipeline. Remote Sens. 10(6):912. doi:10.3390/rs10060912.
   Google Scholar
• Fujisaki I, Evans DL, Moorhead RJ, Irby DW, Mohammadi-Aragh MJ, Roberts SD, Gerard PD. 2008. Stand assessment through lidar-based forest visualization using immersive virtual environment technology. For Sci. 54(1):1–7. doi:10.1093/forestscience/54.1.1.
   Google Scholar
• Ghorpade J, Parande J, Kulkarni M, Bawaskar A. 2012. GPGPU processing in CUDA architecture. advanced computing. Int J. 3(1):105–120.
   Google Scholar
• Gollob C, Ritter T, Kraßnitzer R, Tockner A, Nothdurft A. 2021. Measurement of forest inventory parameters with Apple iPad pro and integrated LiDAR technology. Remote Sens. 13(16):3129. doi:10.3390/rs13163129.
   Google Scholar
• Granshaw SI. 2020. Photogrammetric terminology: fourth edition. Photogramm Record. 35(170):143–288. doi:10.1111/phor.12314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hackenberg J, Spiecker H, Calders K, Disney M, Raumonen P. 2015. SimpleTree —An efficient open source tool to build tree models from TLS clouds. Forests. 6(11):4245–4294. doi:10.3390/f6114245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hejtmánek L, Hůla M, Herrová A, Surový P. 2022. Forest digital twin as a relaxation environment: a pilot study. Front Virtual Real. 3:1033708. doi:10.3389/frvir.2022.1033708.
   Google Scholar
• Herwig A, Paar P. 2002. Game engines: tools for landscape visualization and planning. GIS Trends in Environmental Planning: Internet GIS and Web Mapping, Mobile- and Virtual GIS; May 2; Anhalt, Germany. Wichmann. p. 172.
   Google Scholar
• Hettinger LJ, Riccio GE. 1992. Visually induced motion sickness in virtual environments. Presence. 1(3):306–310. doi:10.1162/pres.1992.1.3.306.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschmüller H. 2011. Semi-global matching motivation, developments and applications. Photogrammetric Week; Stuttgart, Germany. p. 173–184.
   Google Scholar
• Holopainen J, Mattila O, Pöyry E, Parvinen P. 2020. Applying design science research methodology in the development of virtual reality forest management services. For Policy Econ. 116:102190. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hristova H, Abegg M, Fischer C, Rehush N. 2022. Monocular depth estimation in forest environments. International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences. ISPRS Arch. 43(B2–2022):1017–1023.
   Google Scholar
• Huang J, Lucash MS, Scheller RM, Klippel A. 2020. Walking through the forests of the future: using data-driven virtual reality to visualize forests under climate change. Int J Geograph Inform Sci. 35(6):1155–1178. doi:10.1080/13658816.2020.1830997.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang J, Lucash MS, Scheller RM, Klippel A. 2021. Walking through the forests of the future: using data-driven virtual reality to visualize forests under climate change. Int J Geograph Inform Sci. 35(6):1155–1178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyyppa J. 1999. Detecting and estimating attributes for single trees using laser scanner. Photogramm J Finland. 16:27–42.
   Google Scholar
• Jaiswal RK, Mukherjee S, Raju KD, Saxena R. 2002. Forest fire risk zone mapping from satellite imagery and GIS. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinf. 4(1):1–10. doi:10.1016/S0303-2434(02)00006-5.
   Google Scholar
• Jerald J, Giokaris P, Woodall D, Hartbolt A, Chandak A, Kuntz S. 2014. Developing virtual reality applications with unity. In: 2014 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR); Mar 29–Apr 2; Minneapolis, MN, USA. p. 1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Johansson M, Roupé M, Bosch-Sijtsema P. 2015. Real-time visualization of building information models (BIM). Autom Constr. 54:69–82. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2015.03.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaartinen H, Hyyppä J, Yu X, Vastaranta M, Hyyppä H, Kukko A, Holopainen M, Heipke C, Hirschmugl M, Morsdorf F, et al. 2012. An international comparison of individual tree detection and extraction using airborne laser scanning. Remote Sens. 4(4):950–974. doi:10.3390/rs4040950.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalacska M, Arroyo-Mora JP, Lucanus O. 2021. Comparing UAS LiDAR and structure-from-motion photogrammetry for peatland mapping and virtual reality (VR) visualization. Drones. 5(2):36. doi:10.3390/drones5020036.
   Google Scholar
• Karjalainen E, Tyrväinen L. 2002. Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landsc Urban Plan. 59(1):13–28. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00244-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavanagh S, Luxton-Reilly A, Wuensche B, Plimmer B. 2017. A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes Sci Technol Educ. 10(2):85–119.
   Google Scholar
• Kharroubi A, Hajji R, Billen R, Poux F. 2019. Classification and integration of massive 3D points clouds in a virtual reality (VR) environment. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. XLII-2/W17(W17):165–171. doi:10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W17-165-2019.
   Google Scholar
• Klippel A, Zhao J, Jackson KL, La Femina P, Stubbs C, Wetzel R, Blair J, Wallgrün JO, Oprean D. 2019. Transforming earth science education through immersive experiences: delivering on a long held promise. J Educ Comput Res. 57(7):1745–1771. doi:10.1177/0735633119854025.
   Google Scholar
• Krumm F, Lachat T, Schuck A, Bütler R, Kraus D. 2019. Marteloskope als Trainingstools zur Erhaltungund Förderung von Habitatbäumen im Wald. Schweiz Z Forstwes. 170(2):86–93. doi:10.3188/szf.2019.0086.
   Google Scholar
• Kükenbrink D, Gardi O, Morsdorf F, Thürig E, Schellenberger A, Mathys L. 2021. Above-ground biomass references for urban trees from terrestrial laser scanning data. Ann Bot. 128(6):709–724. doi:10.1093/aob/mcab002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kükenbrink D, Marty M, Bösch R, Ginzler C. 2022. Benchmarking laser scanning and terrestrial photogrammetry to extract forest inventory parameters in a complex temperate forest. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinf. 113(March):102999. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2022.102999.
   Google Scholar
• Laksono D, Aditya T. 2019. Utilizing a game engine for interactive 3D topographic data visualization. ISPRS Int J Geoinf. 8(8):361. doi:10.3390/ijgi8080361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau A, Bentley LP, Martius C, Shenkin A, Bartholomeus H, Raumonen P, Malhi Y, Jackson T, Herold M. 2018. Quantifying branch architecture of tropical trees using terrestrial LiDAR and 3D modelling. Trees. 32(5):1219–1231. doi:10.1007/s00468-018-1704-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li W, Guo Q, Jakubowski MK, Kelly M. 2012. A new method for segmenting individual trees from the LiDAR point cloud. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing. 78(1):75–84. doi:10.14358/PERS.78.1.75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim EM, Honjo T. 2003. Three-dimensional visualization forest of landscapes by VRML. Landsc Urban Plan. 63(3):175–186. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00189-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin W, Wang J. 2012. An integrated 3D log processing optimization system for hardwood sawmills in central Appalachia, USA. Comput Electron Agric. 82:61–74. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2011.12.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindner M, Fitzgerald JB, Zimmermann NE, Reyer C, Delzon S, van der Maaten E, Schelhaas M-J, Lasch P, Eggers J, van der Maaten-Theunissen M, et al. 2014. Climate change and European forests: what do we know, what are the uncertainties, and what are the implications for forest management? J Environ Manage. 146:69–83. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindner P, Miloff A, Hamilton W, Reuterskiöld L, Andersson G, Powers MB, Carlbring P. 2017. Creating state of the art, next-generation virtual reality exposure therapies for anxiety disorders using consumer hardware platforms: design considerations and future directions. Cogn Behav Ther. 46(5):404–420. doi:10.1080/16506073.2017.1280843.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lintermann B, Deussen O. 1999. Interactive modeling of plants. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 19(1):56–65. doi:10.1109/38.736469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu D, Dede C, Huang R, Richards J. 2017. Virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in education. Singapore: Springer. p. 247.
   Google Scholar
• Luetzenburg G, Kroon A, Bjørk AA. 2021. Evaluation of the Apple iPhone 12 Pro LiDAR for an application in geosciences. Sci Rep. 11(1):1–9. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-01763-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallet C, Bretar F. 2009. Full-waveform topographic lidar: state-of-the-art. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 64(1):1–16. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2008.09.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantovani F, Castelnuovo G, Gaggioli A, Riva G. 2003. Virtual reality training for health-care professionals. Cyberpsychol Behav. 6(4):389–395. doi:10.1089/109493103322278772.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Matthews D. 2018. Virtual-reality applications give science a new dimension. Nature. 557(7703):127–128. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-04997-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mattila O, Korhonen A, Pöyry E, Hauru K, Holopainen J, Parvinen P. 2020. Restoration in a virtual reality forest environment. Comput Human Behav. 107:106295. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzacca G, Grilli E, Cirigliano GP, Remondino F, Campana S. 2022. Seeing among foliage with LIDAR and machine learning: towards a transferable archaeological pipeline. In: 9th International Workshop 3D-ARCH; Mar 2–4; Mantova, Italy. p. 365–372.
   Google Scholar
• McGaughey RJ. 1998. Techniques for visualizing the appearance of forestry operations. J For. 96(6):9–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mildenhall B, Srinivasan PP, Tancik M, Barron JT, Ramamoorthi R, Ng R. 2021. Nerf: representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Commun ACM. 65(1):99–106. doi:10.1145/3503250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milgram P, Kishino F. 1994. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans Inform Syst. E77–D:1321–1329.
   Google Scholar
• Mokroš M, Mikita T, Singh A, Tomaštík J, Chudá J, Wężyk P, Kuželka K, Surový P, Klimánek M, Zięba-Kulawik K, et al. 2021. Novel low-cost mobile mapping systems for forest inventories as terrestrial laser scanning alternatives. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinf. 104:102512. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2021.102512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokroš M, Výbošťok J, Tomaštík J, Grznárová A, Valent P, Slavík M, Merganič J. 2018. High precision individual tree diameter and perimeter estimation from close-range photogrammetry. Forests. 9(11):696. doi:10.3390/f9110696.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mostajeran F, Krzikawski J, Steinicke F, Kühn S. 2021. Effects of exposure to immersive videos and photo slideshows of forest and urban environments. Sci Rep. 11(1):1–14. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-83277-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murtiyoso A, Grussenmeyer P, Landes T, Macher H. 2021. First assessments into the use of commercial-grade solid state lidar for low cost heritage documentation. Int Arch Photogram Remote Sens Spatial Inform Sci. 43(B2–2021):599–604.
   Google Scholar
• Murtiyoso A, Hristova H, Rehush N, Griess VC. 2022. Low-cost mapping of forest under-storey vegetation using spherical photogrammetry. The international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences. XLVIII-2/W1-2022:185–190.
   Google Scholar
• Næsset E. 2002. Predicting forest stand characteristics with airborne scanning laser using a practical two-stage procedure and field data. Remote Sens Environ. 80(1):88–99. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00290-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nex F, Gerke M, Remondino F, Przybilla H-J, Bäumker M, Zurhorst A. 2015. ISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences. II3/W4:135–142.
   Google Scholar
• Nocerino E, Stathopoulou EK, Rigon S, Remondino F. 2020. Surface reconstruction assessment in photogrammetric applications. Sensors. 20(20):5863. doi:10.3390/s20205863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberdörfer S, Heidrich D, Birnstiel S, Latoschik ME. 2021. Enchanted by your surrounding? Measuring the effects of immersion and design of virtual environments on decision-making. Front Virtual Real. 2:679277. doi:10.3389/frvir.2021.679277.
   Google Scholar
• Ochmann S, Vock R, Wessel R, Klein R. 2016. Automatic reconstruction of parametric building models from indoor point clouds. Comput Graph. 54:94–103. doi:10.1016/j.cag.2015.07.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orland B. 1988. Video imaging: a powerful tool for visualization and analysis. Landscape Archit. 78(5):78–88.
   Google Scholar
• Orland B. 1994. Visualization techniques for incorporation in forest planning geographic information systems. Landsc Urban Plan. 30(1–2):83–97. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)90069-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Overpeck JT, Rind D, Goldberg R. 1990. Climate-induced changes in forest disturbance and vegetation. Nature. 343(6253):51–53. doi:10.1038/343051a0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palha A, Murtiyoso A, Michelin J-C, Alby E, Grussenmeyer P. 2017. Open source first person view 3D point cloud visualizer for large data sets. In: Ivan I, Singleton A, Horak J, Inspektor T, editors. The rise of big spatial data. Ostrava, Czech Republic: Springer; p. 27–39.
   Google Scholar
• Park H, Lee D. 2019. Comparison between point cloud and mesh models using images from an unmanned aerial vehicle. Measurement. 138:461–466. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2019.02.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkan M, Tuia D. 2015. Individual tree segmentation in deciduous forests using geodesic voting. 2015 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS); Milan, Italy. p. 637–640.
   Google Scholar
• Picchi G, Sandak J, Grigolato S, Panzacchi P, Tognetti R. 2022. Smart Harvest Operations and Timber Processing for Improved Forest Management. In Tognetti R, Smith M, Panzacchi P, editors. Vol. 40, Climate-Smart Forestry in Mountain Regions. Managing Forest Ecosystems. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, Cham; p. 317–359.
   Google Scholar
• Pichler G, Poveda Lopez JA, Picchi G, Nolan E, Kastner M, Stampfer K, Kühmaier M. 2017. Comparison of remote sensing based RFID and standard tree marking for timber harvesting. Comput Electron Agric. 140:214–226. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2017.05.030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pretzsch H, Grote R, Reineking B, Rötzer TH, Seifert ST. 2008. Models for forest ecosystem management: a European perspective. Ann Bot. 101(8):1065–1087. doi:10.1093/aob/mcm246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranta P. 2009. Added values of forestry machine simulator based training. In: Proceedings of the International conference on multimedia and ICT education; Apr 22–24; Lisbon, Portugal. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Rehush N, Abegg M, Waser LT, Brändli U-B. 2018. Identifying tree-related microhabitats in TLS point clouds using machine learning. Remote Sens. 10(11):1735. doi:10.3390/rs10111735.
   Google Scholar
• Remondino F, Rizzi A. 2010. Reality-based 3D documentation of natural and cultural heritage sites-techniques, problems, and examples. Appl Geomat. 2(3):85–100. doi:10.1007/s12518-010-0025-x.
   Google Scholar
• Risse B, Mangan M, Stürzl W, Webb B. 2018. Software to convert terrestrial LiDAR scans of natural environments into photorealistic meshes. Environ Model Softw. 99:88–100. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.09.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rupnik E, Pierrot-Deseilligny M, Delorme A. 2018. 3D reconstruction from multi-view VHR-satellite images in MicMac. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 139:201–211. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.03.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rusu RB, Cousins S. 2011. 3D is here: Point Cloud Library (PCL). In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; Shanghai, China. p. 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Sankey T, Donager J, McVay J, Sankey JB. 2017. UAV lidar and hyperspectral fusion for forest monitoring in the southwestern USA. Remote Sens Environ. 195:30–43. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2017.04.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schenk T. 2005. Introduction to photogrammetry. Columbus, OH, USA: The Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Schütz M, Ohrhallinger S, Wimmer M. 2020. Fast out-of-core octree generation for massive point clouds. Comput Graph Forum. 39(7):155–167. doi:10.1111/cgf.14134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheppard SRJ, Meitner M. 2005. Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. For Ecol Manage. 207(1–2):171–187. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonntag-Öström E, Nordin M, Lundell Y, Dolling A, Wiklund U, Karlsson M, Carlberg B, Järvholm LS. 2014. Restorative effects of visits to urban and forest environments in patients with exhaustion disorder. Urban Green. 13(2):344–354. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2013.12.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stathopoulou EK, Remondino F. 2020. Multi view stereo with semantic priors. The international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences. XLII-2/W15:1135–1140.
   Google Scholar
• Stava O, Pirk S, Kratt J, Chen B, Měch R, Deussen O, Benes B. 2014. Inverse procedural modelling of trees. Comput Graph Forum. 33(6):118–131. doi:10.1111/cgf.12282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stock C, Bishop ID. 2006. Linking GIS with real-time visualisation for exploration of landscape changes in rural community workshops. Virtual Real. 9(4):260–270. doi:10.1007/s10055-006-0023-9.
   Google Scholar
• Stoltman AM, Radeloff VC, Mladenoff DJ. 2004. Forest visualization for management and planning in Wisconsin. J For. 102(4):7–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoltman AM, Radeloff VC, Mladenoff DJ. 2007. Computer visualization of pre-settlement and current forests in Wisconsin. For Ecol Manage. 246(2–3):135–143. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.02.029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland IE. 1964. Sketchpad a man-machine graphical communication system.Cambridge, MA, USA: Sage Publications Sage CA.
   Google Scholar
• Szabó C, Š K, Sobota B. 2012. Data processing for virtual reality. In: Advances in robotics and virtual reality. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; p. 333–361.
   Google Scholar
• Talton JO, Lou Y, Lesser S, Duke J, Měch R, Koltun V. 2011. Metropolis procedural modeling. ACM Trans Graph. 30(2):11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang H, Bishop ID. 2002. Integration methodologies for interactive forest modelling and visualization systems. Cartogr J. 39(1):27–35. doi:10.1179/caj.2002.39.1.27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thormann -J-J, Allenspach-Schliessbach K, Bugmann H, Frehner M, Junod P, Rosset C, Kühne K. 2019. Bedeutung von Marteloskopen für Praxis und Lehre in der Schweiz. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Forstwesen. 170(2):60–68. doi:10.3188/szf.2019.0060.
   Google Scholar
• Ullrich T, Schinko C, Fellner W-D. 2010. Procedural modeling in theory and practice. In: Proceeding of the 18th WSCG International Conference on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision; Pilsen, Czech Republic. p. 5–8.
   Google Scholar
• Uusitalo J, Orland B. 2001. Virtual forest management: possibilities and challenges. Int J For Eng. 12(2):57–66. doi:10.1080/14942119.2001.10702447.
   Google Scholar
• Vega C, Hamrouni A, Mokhtari AE, Morel M, Bock J, Renaud JP, Bouvier M, Durrieue S. 2014. PTrees: a point-based approach to forest tree extractionfrom lidar data. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinf. 33(1):98–108. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2014.05.001.
   Google Scholar
• Wang J, Liu J, LeDoux CB. 2009a. A three-dimensional bucking system for optimal bucking of central appalachian hardwoods. Int J For Eng. 20(2):26–35. doi:10.1080/14942119.2009.10702580.
   Google Scholar
• Wang J, Shan J 2009b. Segmentation of LiDAR point clouds for building extraction. In: American Society for Photogramm. Remote Sens. Annual Conference, Baltimore, MD. p. 9–13.
   Google Scholar
• Wang J, Sharma BD, Li Y, Miller GW. 2009. Modeling and validating spatial patterns of a 3D stand generator for central Appalachian hardwood forests. Comput Electron Agric. 68(2):141–149. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2009.05.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang L, Chu CH. 2009. 3D building reconstruction from LiDAR data. In: 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics; San Antonio, TX, USA. p. 3054–3059.
   Google Scholar
• Wang X, Song B, Chen J, Zheng D, Crow TR. 2006. Visualizing forest landscapes using public data sources. Landsc Urban Plan. 75(1–2):111–124. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.12.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu C, Agarwal S, Curless B, Seitz SM. 2011. Multicore bundle adjustment. CVPR 2011; Colorado Springs, CO, USA. p. 3057–3064.
   Google Scholar
• Yang X, Koehl M, Grussenmeyer P. 2018. Automating parametric modelling from reality-based data by revit api development. In: Remondino F, Georgopoulos A, González-Aguilera D, Agrafiotis P, editors. Latest developments in reality-based 3D surveying and modelling. Basel (Switzerland): MDPI; p. 307–325.
   Google Scholar
• Yu CP, Lee HY, Luo XY. 2018. The effect of virtual reality forest and urban environments on physiological and psychological responses. Urban Green. 35:106–114. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.08.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zerman E, Ozcinar C, Gao P, Smolic A. 2020. Textured mesh vs coloured point cloud: a subjective study for volumetric video compression. In: 2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX); Athlone, Ireland. p. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou Q-Y, Park J, Koltun V. 2018. Open3D: a modern library for 3D data processing. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1801.09847.
   Google Scholar