In what may be the first application of visual preference methods to transit facilities, transit users, nonusers, and professionals were (a) shown a series of paired slides of bus stops, (b) asked to choose the stop from each pair at which they would prefer to wait, and (c) asked to rate each stop chosen as a place to wait. Subsequent analyses showed that transit-oriented design features most affecting both choices and ratings are (a) a bus shelter at the stop, (b) trees along the street leading to the stop, (c) a vertical curb at the stop, (d) the setback of the stop from the street edge, and (e) a continuous sidewalk leading to the stop. Such surveys may help transit planners choose the best transit stop locations and devote limited financial resources to the most promising transit stop amenities.
References
1.
American Institute of Architects (AIA) . (1992). Design your town. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Anderson, D. (1992). Estimating availability effects in travel choice modeling: A stated choice approach. Transportation Research Record1357, 51-65.
3.
Anderson, L. M. , & Schroeder, H. W. (1983). Application of wildland scenic assessment methods to the urban landscape. Landscape Planning, 10, 219-237.
4.
Arthur, L. M. , Daniel, T. C.,& Boster, R. S. (1977). Scenic assessment: Anoverview. Landscape Planning, 4, 109-129.
5.
Beaton, W. P. (1992). Assessing the effectiveness of transportation control measures: Use of stated preference models to project mode split for work trips. Transportation Research Record1346, 44-52.
6.
Briggs, D. J. ,& France, J. (1980). Landscape evaluation: Acomparative study. Journal of Environmental Management, 10, 263-275.
7.
Buhyoff, G. J. , Leuschner, W. A.,& Arndt, L. K. (1980). Replication of a scenic preference function. Forest Science, 26, 227-230.
8.
Carls, E. G. (1974). The effects of people and man-induced conditions on preferences for outdoor recreation landscapes. Journal of Leisure Research, 6, 113-124.
9.
Cervero, R. , & Bosselman, P. (1998). Transit villages: Assessing the potential through visual simulation. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 15, 181-195.
10.
Coughlin, R. E. ,& Goldstein, K. A. (1970). The extent of agreement among observers on environmental attractiveness. Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute.
11.
Craik, K. H. (1972). Psychological factors in landscape appraisal. Environment and Behavior, 4, 255-266.
12.
Daniel, T. C. , & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
13.
Dearden, P. (1980). Astatistical technique for the evaluation of the visual quality of the landscape for land-use planning purposes. Journal of Environmental Management, 10, 51-68.
14.
Ewing, R. (1996). Pedestrian-and transit-friendly design. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Transportation.
15.
Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 225-241.
16.
Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 27-43.
17.
Herzog, T. R. , Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment, 5, 43-59.
18.
Herzog, T. R. , Kaplan, S.,& Kaplan, R. (1986). The prediction of preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior, 8, 627-645.
19.
Hudspeth, T. R. (1986). Visual preference as a tool for facilitating citizen participation in waterfront revitalization. Journal of Environmental Management, 23, 373-385.
20.
Hunt, J. D. , McMillan, P.,& Abraham, J. E. (1994). A stated preference investigation of influences on the attractiveness of residential locations. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
21.
Im, S. (1984). Visual preferences in enclosed urban spaces: An exploration of a scientific approach to environmental design. Environment and Behavior, 16, 235-262.
22.
Kaplan, R. ,& Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Khattak, A. J. , Koppelman, F. S., & Schofer, J. L. (1992). Stated preferences for investigating commuters’ diversion potential. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
24.
Kroes, E. P. ,& Sheldon, R. J. (1988). Stated preference methods: An introduction. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 22, 11-26.
25.
Lien, J. N. ,& Buhyoff, G. J. (1986). Extension of visual preference models for urban forests. Journal of Environmental Management, 22, 245-254.
26.
Malizia, E. , & Exline, S. (2000). Consumer preferences for residential development alternatives. Chapel Hill: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina.
27.
Moore, C. N. (1995). Participation tools for better land use planning. Sacramento, CA: Local Government Commission.
28.
Nasar, J. L. (1981-1982). A model relating visual attributes in the residential environment to fear of crime. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11, 247-255.
29.
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.
30.
Nelessen, A. C. (1994). Visions for a new American dream. Chicago: American Planning Association.
31.
Polak, J. ,& Jones, P. (1994). A tour-based model of journey scheduling under road pricing. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
32.
Schroeder, H. W. (1984). Environmental perception rating scales: A case for simple methods of analysis. Environment and Behavior, 16, 573-598.
33.
Schroeder, H. W. (1988). Environment, behavior, and design research on urban forests. In E. H. Zube & G.T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design(Vol. 2, pp. 87-117). New York: Plenum.
34.
Schroeder, H. W. ,& Anderson, L. M. (1984). Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 178-194.
35.
Shafer, E. L. (1969). Perception of natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 1, 71-82.
36.
Shafer, E. L. , & Richards, T. A. (1974). A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. Upper Darby, PA: Northeast Forest Experimental Station, USDA Forest Service.
37.
Shaffer, G. S. ,& Anderson, L. M. (1983). Perceptions of the security and attractiveness of urban parking lots. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 311-323.
38.
Shuttleworth, S. (1980). The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11, 61-76.
39.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment. New York: Plenum.
40.
Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29-44.
41.
Wardman, M. (1988). Acomparison of revealed preference and stated preference models of travel behaviour. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 22, 71-91.
42.
Zube, E. H. (1974). Cross-disciplinary and intermode agreement on the description and evaluation of landscape resources. Environment and Behavior, 6, 69-89.
