Turning highways into main streets: Two innovations in planning methodology

Journal of the American Planning Association

Volumn 71, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 269-282

  Ewing, Reid ^a   King, Michael R ^b   Raudenbush, Stephen ^c   Clemente, Otto Jose ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b New York offices of Nelson Nygaard   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INNOVATION; PLANNING METHOD; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING; URBAN TRANSPORT; VISUAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 25444452467     PISSN: 01944363     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01944360508976698     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Anderson, L. M., and Schroeder, H. W., 1983. Application of wildland scenic assessment methods to the urban landscape. Landscape Planning, 10:219–237.
2. Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. 2002. Visual preference survey of bus riders' perceptions of personal safety http://rip.trb.org/browse/orgprj.asp?i=164&n=Ann+Arbor +Transportation+AuthorityRetrieved September 6, 2003, from
3. Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J. F., Canas-Madueno, J. A., and Ruiz-Aviles, P., 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69:115–125.
4. Buhyoff, G. J., and Arndt, L. K., 1981. Interval scaling of landscape preference by direct and indirect measurement methods. Landscape Planning, 8:257–267.
5. Buhyoff, G. J., Gauthier, L. J., and Wellman, J. D., 1984. Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation measurements. Forest Science, 30 (1):71–82.
6. Cervero, R, and Bosselmann, P., 1998. Transit villages:Assessing the market potential through visual simulation. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 15 (3):181–196.
7. City of Iowa City. 2004. A community's visual preferences:How Iowa City voted during the visual preference survey conducted spring 2004 http://www.icgov.org/pcd/urbanplan-ning/visualsurvey/results.htmRetrieved August 11, 2004, from
8. City of Orlando. Visual preference survey http://www.cityoforlando.net/ planning/visual_pref/front_cover.pdf(n. d.)[Electronic presentation]. Retrieved September 6, 2003, from
9. Clay, G. R., and Smidt, R K. 2004. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 66:239–255.
10. 7
11. Elshestaway, Y., 1997. Urban complexity:Toward the measurement of the physical complexity of streetscapes. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 14:301–316.
12. Envision, Utah., 2000. Envision Utah process:Greater Wastach Area http://www.envisionutah.org/eushow/index.htm[Electronic presentation]. Retrieved September 6, 2003, from
13. Ewing, R., 2001. Using a visual preference survey in transit design. Public Works Management & Policy, 5 (4):270–280.
14. Ewing, R., 2002. Impediments to context-sensitive main street design. Transportation Quarterly, 56:51–64.
15. Ewing, R, and Cervero, R. 2001. Travel and the built environment. Transportation Research Record, 1780:87–114.
16. Ewing, R, and King, M., 2002. Flexible design of New Jersey's main streets http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/publicat/pdf/FlexDesign/cover.pdf(Report prepared by the Voorhees Transportation Policy Institute, Rutgers University, for the New Jersey Department of Transportation). Available on-line at
17. Ewing, R, Schmid, T., Killingsworth, R, Zlot, A., and Raudenbush, S., 2003. Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18 (1):47–57.
18. Heft, H., and Nasar, J., 2000. Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment and Behavior, 3:301–323.
19. Herzog, T. R., 1985. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5:225–241.
20. Herzog, T. R., 1989. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9:27–43.
21. Herzog, T. R., 1992. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12:237–248.
22. Herzog, T. R, Kaplan, S., and Kaplan, R. 1982. The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment, 5 (1):43–59.
23. Herzog, T. R, and Leverich, O. L., 2003. Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior, 35 (4):459–477.
24. Herzog, T. R, and Miller, E. J., 1998. The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30 (4):429–449.
25. Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2001. long range transportation plan:Chapter 2 public involvement http://www.hillsboroughmpo.org/plans/PDFS/2025%2oLRTP/Ch-2_color_compressed.pdf202; Retrieved September 6, 2003, from
26. Hudspeth, T. R., 1986. Visual preference as a tool for facilitating citizen participation in waterfront revitalization. Journal of Environmental Management, 23:373–385.
27. Hull, R. B., Buhyoff, G. J., and Daniel, T. C., 1984. Measurement of scenic beauty:The law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures. Forest Science, 30 (4):1084–1096.
28. Im, S. B., 1984. Visual preferences in enclosed urban spaces:An exploration of a scientific approach to environmental design. Environment and Behavior, 16 (2):235–262.
29. Kaplan, R, Austin, M. E., and Kaplan, S., 2004. Open space communities:Resident perceptions, nature benefits, and problems with terminology. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70 (3):300–312.
30. Kaplan, R, and Kaplan, S., 1989. The experience of nature—A psychological perspective, New York:Cambridge University Press.
31. Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., and Sullivan, W. C., 1998. Transforming inner-city landscapes:Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30 (1):28–59.
32. Lien, J. N., and Buhyoff, G. L., 1986. Extension of visual quality models for urban forests. Journal of Environmental Management, 22:245–254.
33. Malizia, E. E., and Exline, S., 2000. Consumer preferences for residential development alternatives, Chapel Hill:Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina.
34. Nasar, J. L., 1984. Visual preferences in urban street scenes:A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15 (1):79–93.
35. Nasar, J. L., 1987. The effect of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of retail scenes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53:499–509.
36. Nasar, J. L., 1988. “ Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes ”. In Environmental aesthetics:Theory, research, and application, Edited by:Nasar, J. L., 275–289. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
37. Nasar, J. L., 1998. The evaluative image of the city, Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
38. National Association of Realtors. 2001. Community and housing preference survey http://www.realtor.org/SG3.nsf/files/CommHousePrefSurvey.pdf/FILE/CommHousePrefSurvey.pdfRetrieved September 6, 2003, from
39. Nelessen, A. C., 1994. Visions for a new American dream:Process, principles, and an ordinance to plan and design small communities, Chicago:APA Planners Press.
40. Nelessen, A. C, and Constantine, J., 1993. Understanding and making use of people's visual preferences. Planning Commissioners Journal, http://plannersweb.com/wfiles/w500.html[Article excerpt]. Retrieved September 6, 2003, from
41. Raudenbush, S. W., and Bryk, A. S., 2002. Hierarchical linear models:Applications and data analysis methods, 2nd ed., Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
42. Sanoff, H., 1991. Visual research methods in design, New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold.
43. Schroeder, H. W., 1984. Environmental perception rating scales:A case for simple methods of analysis. Environment and Behavior, 16 (5):573–598.
44. Schroeder, H. W., and Anderson, L. M., 1984. Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 16 (2):178–194.
45. Seattle Department of Transportation. 2001. ph Avenue NE streetscape design project:Visual preference survey results http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/pdf/ VisualPreferenceSurveyResults.pdfRetrieved September 6, 2003, from
46. Shafer, E. L., Hamilton, J. F., and Schmidt, E. A., 1969. Natural
47. landscape preferences:A predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research, 1 (i) 1–19.
48. Shaffer, G. S., and Anderson, L. M., 1983. Perceptions of the security and attractiveness of urban parking lots. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5:311–323.
49. Shelby, B., and Harris, R., 1985. Comparing methods for determining visitor evaluations of ecological impacts:Site visits, photographs, and written descriptions. Journal of Leisure Research, 77 (1):57–67.
50. Shuttleworth, S., 1980. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11:61–76.
51. Stamps, A. E., 1990. Use of photographs to simulate environments:A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71:907–913.
52. Stamps, A. E., 1992. Bootstrap investigation of respondent sample size for environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75:220–222.
53. Stamps, A. E., 1993. Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 38:115–132.
54. Stamps, A. E., 1996. People and places:Variance components of environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82:323–334.
55. Stamps, A. E., 1997. Meta-analysis in environmental research, Edited by:Amiel, M. S., and Vischer, J. C., 114–124. Edmond, OK:Environmental Design Research Association. Space design and management for place making:Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Environmental Design Research Association
56. Stamps, A. E., 1999. Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics:A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14 (2):155–175.
57. Stamps, A. E., 2000. Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment, Netherlands:Kluwer Publishers.
58. Stamps, A. E, and Miller, S. D., 1993. Advocacy membership, design guidelines, and predicting preferences for residential infill design. Environment and Behavior, 25 (3):367–409.
59. Stamps, A. E, and Nasar, J. L., 1997. Design review and public preferences:Effects of geographic location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17:11–32.
60. State of Delaware. 2001. Livable Delaware:Community and housing preference survey results http://www.state.de.us/planning/livedel/summit/slidei.htmRetrieved September 6, 2003, from
61. Steinitz, C., 1990. Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity:The Loop Road in Acadia National Park, U.SA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19:213–250.
62. What Michigan Wants. What Michigan wants:A statewide visual preference survey http://results.whatmichiganwants.com/(n. d.)Retrieved September 7, 2004, from
63. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., and Anderson, T. W., 1976. “ Perception and prediction of scenic resources values of the Northeast ”. In Landscape assessment:Values, perceptions, and resources, Edited by:Zube, E. H., Brush, R O., and Fabos, J. G., 151–167. Stroudsberg, PA:Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
64. Zube, E. H., Vining, J., Law, C. S., and Bechtel, R B. 1985. Perceived urban residential quality:A cross-cultural bimodal study. Environment and Behavior, 17 (3):327–350.