Some Streets of San Francisco: Preference Effects of Trees, Cars, Wires, and Buildings

Many researchers have reported on the preference effects of various components of streetscapes. However, there appears to be relatively little data on the relative importances of those design components on preference. In this paper the relative effects of trees, cars, wires, and building facades on preferences for residential blocks are discussed. Clean estimates of these effects were obtained by combining contemporary digital technology with a formal experimental design. It was found that trees had a moderate positive effect on preferences for streetscapes, wires had a small negative effect, and cars had a trivial effect. It was also found that the effect of building facade ranged from trivial to moderate.

[1]  H. Schroeder,et al.  Environmental Perception Rating Scales , 1984 .

[2]  R. Hanka.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis , 1994 .

[3]  J. Wohlwill.  Environmental Aesthetics: The Environment as a Source of Affect , 1976 .

[4]  Kevin Lynch,et al.  The Image of the City , 1960 .

[5]  Clare Cooper Marcus,et al.  People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space , 1997 .

[6]  Donald Appleyard,et al.  The Environment as a Social Symbol: Within a Theory of Environmental Action and Perception , 1979 .

[7]  K. Lynch,et al.  Managing the sense of a region , 1976 .

[8]  A. Stamps.  Simulation Effects on Environmental Preference , 1993 .

[9]  D. Appleyard.  Styles and Methods of Structuring a City , 1970 .

[10]  R. Sommer,et al.  An Exploratory Study of Preferred Tree Form , 1995 .

[11]  J. Nasar.  Urban Design Aesthetics , 1994 .

[12]  Arthur E. Stamps,et al.  People and Places: Variance Components of Environmental Preferences , 1996 .

[13]  A. Stamps.  Of Time and Preference: Temporal Stability of Environmental Preferences , 1997, Perceptual and motor skills.

[14]  H. Schroeder,et al.  Public Preference for Tree Density in Municipal Parks , 1985, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[15]  Arthur E. Stamps.  Bootstrap Investigation of Respondent Sample Size for Environmental Preference , 1992 .

[16]  Brian Orland,et al.  The Effect of Street Trees on Perceived Values of Residential Property , 1992 .

[17]  William N. Cannon,et al.  The Esthetic Contribution of Trees to Residential Streets in Ohio Towns , 1983, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[18]  J. Nasar,et al.  DESIGN REVIEW AND PUBLIC PREFERENCES: EFFECTS OF GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, PUBLIC CONSENSUS, SENSATION SEEKING, AND ARCHITECTURAL STYLES , 1997 .

[19]  Donald Appleyard,et al.  Why Buildings Are Known , 1969 .

[20]  A E Stamps,et al.  Validating Contextual Urban Design Photoprotocols: Replication and Generalization from Single Residences to Block Faces , 1993 .

[21]  Arthur A. Stamps.  A Study in Scale and Character: Contextual Effects on Environmental Preferences , 1994 .

[22]  Daniel Solomon,et al.  Redesigning the American Dream@@@ReBuilding@@@Local Code: The Constitution of a City at 42 N Latitude@@@The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream@@@Visions for a New American Dream: Process, Principles, and an Ordinance to Plan and Design Small Communities , 1995 .

[23]  Robert Sommer,et al.  Comparison of Four Methods of Street Tree Assessment , 1993, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[24]  Ralph L. Rosnow,et al.  Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis , 1984 .

[25]  Arthur Stamps,et al.  Advocacy Membership, Design Guidelines, and Predicting Preferences for Residential Infill Designs , 1993 .

[26]  W Hamula,et al.  Site planning. , 1997, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[27]  Donald Appleyard,et al.  Livable Streets: Protected Neighborhoods? , 1980 .

[28]  J. Nasar.  Environmental aesthetics: Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes , 1988 .

[29]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective , 1989 .

[30]  Robert Sommer,et al.  Surveying Householder Response to Street Trees , 1990, Landscape Journal.

[31]  Stimulus and Respondent Factors in Environmental Preference , 1995 .

[32]  Dennis B. Propst,et al.  Interval scaling of landscape preference by direct- and indirect-measurement methods , 1981 .

[33]  A. Stamps.  Comparison of Normal and Angular Response Functions for Environmental Scaling , 1991 .

[34]  T. Daniel,et al.  Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method , 1976 .