Turning Highways into Main Streets: Two Innovations in Planning Methodology

Abstract In most visual preference surveys, citizens are shown a sample of scenes and asked to rate them on a preference scale. Scenes are then classified by type, and for each scene type, statistics are computed. In the end, results may suggest that one scene type is preferred to another, but that is about all that can be said. In this article, we offer an alternative: a visual assessment study. In our example, we find what qualities distinguish main streets from other highways. Main street stakeholders were shown photos and video clips of state highways and asked to score them on a “main street” scale. We then estimated a cross-classified random effects modelusing main street scores as the dependent variable, and characteristics of scenes and viewers as independent variables. This class of models is new to the planning field and is preferred when random effects are present and an outcome varies systematically in two dimensions, as do ratings of different scenes by different viewers. The model we estimated can now be used to qualify certain highways for special treatment as main streets or to redesign certain highways to be more main street-like.

[1]  R. K. Smidt,et al.  Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis , 2004 .

[2]  M. Arriaza,et al.  Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes , 2004 .

[3]  N. Choi,et al.  Diversity Within Diversity , 2000 .

[4]  Thomas R. Herzog,et al.  The Role of Mystery in Perceived Danger and Environmental Preference , 1998 .

[5]  E. Shafer,et al.  Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model , 1969 .

[6]  A. Stamps.  Demographic Effects in Environmental Aesthetics: A Meta-Analysis , 1999 .

[7]  Jack L. Nasar,et al.  The evaluative image of the city , 1997 .

[8]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  Searching for Legibility , 2003 .

[9]  Bo Shelby,et al.  Comparing methods for determining visitor evaluations of ecological impacts: site visits, photographs, and written descriptions , 1985 .

[10]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis , 2001 .

[11]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature , 1989 .

[12]  G. J. Buhyoff,et al.  Extension of visual quality models for urban forests , 1986 .

[13]  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 .

[14]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces , 1992 .

[15]  Terry C. Daniel,et al.  Measurement of scenic beauty: the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures , 1984 .

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

[17]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places , 1982 .

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

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

[20]  L. M. Anderson,et al.  Perceptions of the security and attractiveness of urban parking lots , 1985 .

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

[22]  L. M. Anderson,et al.  Application of wildland scenic assessment methods to the urban landscape , 1983 .

[23]  S. Raudenbush,et al.  Relationship between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity , 2003, American journal of health promotion : AJHP.

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

[25]  Carl Steinitz,et al.  Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity: the loop road in Acadia National Park, U.S.A. , 1990 .

[26]  William C. Sullivan,et al.  Transforming Inner-City Landscapes , 1998 .

[27]  J. Nasar.  Visual Preferences in Urban Street Scenes , 1984 .

[28]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Using a Visual Preference Survey in Transit Design , 2001 .

[29]  L. M. Anderson,et al.  Perception of Personal Safety in Urban Recreation Sites , 1984 .

[30]  A. Stamps.  Use of Photographs to Simulate Environments: A Meta-Analysis , 1990 .

[31]  J. Nasar.  The Effect of Sign Complexity and Coherence on the Perceived Quality of Retail Scenes , 1987 .

[32]  Stephen Kaplan,et al.  Open Space Communities: Resident Perceptions, Nature Benefits, and Problems with Terminology , 2004 .

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

[34]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

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

[36]  G. Buhyoff,et al.  Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation measurements , 1984 .

[37]  Arthur E. Stamps,et al.  Psychology and the Aesthetics of the Built Environment , 2000 .

[38]  Reid Ewing,et al.  IMPEDIMENTS TO CONTEXT-SENSITIVE MAIN STREET DESIGN , 2002 .

[39]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes , 1985 .

[40]  Seung-Bin Im,et al.  Visual Preferences in Enclosed Urban Spaces , 1984 .

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