Community Design of a Light-Rail Transit Oriented Development Using Casewise Visual Evaluation (CAVE)

Abstract This paper proposes the casewise visual evaluation or CAVE, methodology and discusses its application to the participatory design of a transit-oriented development (TOD) in Louisville, Kentucky. CAVE is a fuzzy logic-based non-linear visual preference modeling system designed to provide design element guidance from composite visual scenarios under conditions of sparse data. The context of application in a low-income urban neighborhood is detailed. An architectural expert's design vocabulary allows model input and output to be structured. A small set of image samples was scored for preference using anonymous electronic polling in distributed neighborhood forums. Using fuzzy set theoretic software a community preference knowledge base (PKB) was built and interrogated. Four critical TOD design dimensions were selected: height, typology, density, and open space type. Preferred TOD design combinations were identified using the PKB and discussed. This project shows that CAVE can provide context-specific guidance for urban designers and that its strengths in effectively devolving design input and capturing local preferences are recognized by the community. The paper highlights the necessity for advanced geovisual analytic methods to be embedded into a structured public involvement (SPI) process.

[1]  P. N. Smith,et al.  Applications of Fuzzy Sets in the Environmental Evaluation of Projects , 1994 .

[2]  R. W. Saaty,et al.  The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used , 1987 .

[3]  Arthur E. Stamps,et al.  Physical Determinants of Preferences for Residential Facades , 1999 .

[4]  H. Dittmar,et al.  The new transit town : best practices in transit-oriented development , 2004 .

[5]  R. Cervero,et al.  TWENTY YEARS OF THE BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS , 1997 .

[6]  P. Newman,et al.  The land use—transport connection: An overview , 1996 .

[7]  Edward S. Neumann,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF VISUAL IMPACTS OF AGT GUIDEWAYS , 1984 .

[8]  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 .

[9]  Marlon G. Boarnet,et al.  TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY: THE INCREMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION OF A PLANNING IDEA , 1999 .

[10]  Donald Rodriguez,et al.  Picking Publics Properly: An Artful Science , 2000 .

[11]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Fuzzy set analysis for behavioral and social sciences , 1988 .

[12]  Peter Tyson.  North by whatever , 1996 .

[13]  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 .

[14]  Mark Ridgley,et al.  A Fuzzy Logic Model to Predict Coral Reef Development under Nutrient and Sediment Stress , 1998 .

[15]  Robert Shipley,et al.  Visioning in Planning: Is the Practice Based on Sound Theory? , 2002 .

[16]  Y. W. Lee,et al.  FUZZY DECISION MAKING IN GROUND WATER NITRATE RISK MANAGEMENT , 1994 .

[17]  Theodore H. Grossardt,et al.  Structured Public Involvement: Problems and Prospects for Improvement , 2003 .

[18]  Frank R. Rijsberman,et al.  Multicriteria evaluation in a policy analysis of a Rhine estuary , 1992 .

[19]  D. Kolb,et al.  Planning in the Face of Power. , 1988 .

[20]  Tim Richardson,et al.  Placing the public in integrated transport planning , 2001 .

[21]  John L. Renne,et al.  IDEAS IN MOTION: FACILITATING THE FINANCING AND DEVELOPMENT OF 'SMART GROWTH' , 2002 .

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

[23]  Bart Kosko.  Fuzzy thinking , 2018, New Scientist.

[24]  Lucien Duckstein,et al.  Fuzzy Rule-Based Modeling with Applications to Geophysical, Biological and Engineering Systems , 1995 .

[25]  T B Bates,et al.  PART 6: Light Rail Transit: We Can’t Hear You! San Diego’s Techniques for Getting Balanced Community Input in Major Investment Studies , 1997 .

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

[27]  D. Nelson.  ESSENTIALS FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: ANALYSIS OF NON-WORK ACTIVITY PATTERNS AND A METHOD FOR PREDICTING SUCCESS , 2002 .

[28]  Joel Brumm,et al.  Towards Structured Public Involvement in Highway Design: A Comparative Study of Visualization Methods and Preference Modeling using CAVE (Casewise Visual Evaluation) , 2001 .

[29]  Peter Cheeseman,et al.  Fuzzy thinking , 1995 .

[30]  A. Stamps.  Entropy, Visual Diversity, and Preference , 2002, The Journal of general psychology.

[31]  M. Ridgley,et al.  Optimization of economic policies and investment projects using a fuzzy logic based cost-effectiveness model of coral reef quality: empirical results for Montego Bay, Jamaica , 1999, Coral Reefs.

[32]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[33]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  A Comparative Institutional Evaluation of Public-Private Partnerships in Dutch Urban Land-use and Revitalisation Projects , 2002 .

[34]  Ervin H. Zube,et al.  Landscape perception: Research, application and theory , 1982 .

[35]  Iain Docherty,et al.  Civic Culture, Community and Citizen Participation in Contrasting Neighbourhoods , 2001 .

[36]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  A Meta-analytical Evaluation of Sustainable City Initiatives , 1998 .

[37]  A E Stamps.  Measures of Architectural Mass: From Vague Impressions to Definite Design Features , 1998 .

[38]  Rob Law,et al.  Incorporating the rough sets theory into travel demand analysis , 2003 .

[39]  M. Ridgley,et al.  Multiple criteria analysis integrates economic, ecological and social objectives for coral reef managers , 1999, Coral Reefs.

[40]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Fuzzy Sets , 1996, Inf. Control..

[41]  Theodore H. Grossardt,et al.  Integrating Visualization into Structured Public Involvement: Case Study of Highway Improvement in Central Kentucky , 2002 .

[42]  Kiyotaka Fukahori,et al.  The role of design elements on the cost-effectiveness of streetscape improvement , 2003 .

[43]  R O'Connor,et al.  STATE OF THE PRACTICE: WHITE PAPER ON PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT , 2000 .

[44]  H Landphair,et al.  Evaluation and development of visualization technology for highway transportation , 1992 .

[45]  Henk Voogd,et al.  The Communicative Ideology in Spatial Planning: Some Critical Reflections Based on the Dutch Experience , 1999 .

[46]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  A comparative analysis of the performance of urban public transport systems in Europe , 2001 .

[47]  Habib M. Alshuwaikhat,et al.  Visualizing Decisionmaking: Perspectives on Collaborative and Participative Approach to Sustainable Urban Planning and Management , 2002 .

[48]  P. Katz.  The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community , 1993 .

[49]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  A Combinatorial Assessment Methodology for Complex Transport Policy Analysis , 2003 .

[50]  Frederick R. Steiner,et al.  Public Involvement in Visual Assessment: The Verde River Corridor Study , 1995, Landscape Journal.

[51]  George J. Klir,et al.  Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Systems - Selected Papers by Lotfi A Zadeh , 1996, Advances in Fuzzy Systems - Applications and Theory.

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

[53]  Theodore H. Grossardt,et al.  Analytic Minimum Impedance Surface: Geographic Information System-Based Corridor Planning Methodology , 2001 .

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