Perceptions of the View from the Road AIMS II

274 Pages·2006·4.42 MB·English

Perceptions of the View from the Road
AIMS II: A Statewide Web Survey
Joan Iverson Nassauer
Erik S. Dayrell
Zhifang Wang
Cover photograph courtesy of Scott Bradley
Inside cover photograph courtesy of David Larson
Perceptions of the View from the Road
AIMS II: A Statewide Web Survey
Aesthetic Initiative Measurement System: Phase II
June 2006
Joan Iverson Nassauer, Erik S. Dayrell, and Zhifang Wang
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Landscape Ecology, Perception and Design Lab
www-personal.umich.edu/~nassauer/Labfinal.htm
Prepared for the
Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of
the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

“Design involves a balanced judgment about many factors, of which visual
requirements are only one set. We are convinced, however, that these
requirements are among the most important that a road must satisfy.”
Donald Appleyard, Kevin Lynch and John Myer.
The View From the Road.
1963

Contents
List of Tables IV Landscape Variables and Treatments 13
List of Figures VI Context 14
Acknowledgements XI
Walls 15
Executive Summary XIII
Mowing 17
Vegetation 18
Introduction 1

All mown turf 18
Purpose of Project 3

Weedy 18
Key Concepts and Definitions 3

Brome 18
Summary of Related Literature 4

Prairie flowers 19
Aims I 4

Sumac 19
Other related literature 7

Evergreens 19
AIMS II Goals and Summary 8
Evergreens and deciduous 19
Methods 9 Naturalized woodland 19

AIMS II Development 11 Woody islands 21

Stakeholder Participation 11 Bridge rails 21

i
AIMS II • 12/2005
Simulation of Landscape Views 23 Responses as cases 52
Web Questionnaire 24 Urban context and effects of 53
vegetation
Avoiding Bias in Treatment Evaluation 30
Rural context and effects of 56
Survey Sample of Minnesota Drivers 31
vegetation
Representativeness of the survey sample 32
Individual respondent differences 60
Differences by gender 37
Bridges and the Panoramic View 62
Effects of Wall Design 64
Analysis of Results (Chapter Heading) 39
Effects of Mowing 70
Overall Trends in Landscape Attractiveness 41
Effects of Mowing and Vegetation 72
Comparing Perceptions of Attractiveness, 45 Combinations
Naturalness, Maintenance and Safety
Comparing the Effects of Landscape Treatments 46 Conclusions and Recommendations 77
Landscape views as cases 46
References 84
Urban context and effects of 48
vegetation
Rural context and effects of 50
vegetation
ii
AIMS II • 12/2005
Appendices 85
Appendix 1: Simulated Landscape Views 87
in the Factorial Design Table
Appendix 2: Web Questionnaire 95
Appendix 3: View Order for the Six 145
Randomizations of the Web Questionnaire
Appendix 4: Tests for Significant Differences 149
among Randomizations
Appendix 5: Invitation Email to Web Survey 153
Respondents
Appendix 6: Minnesota County Respondent 157
Frequencies Compared with 2000 US Census

Appendix 7: Bivariate correlations for the 161
112 highway corridor landscape views
Appendix 8: Statistical Results Comparing 169
Wall Designs
Appendix 9: Statistical Results Comparing 219
Mowing and Vegetation Combinations
iii
AIMS II • 12/2005
Tables
Table 1 The combination of variables used to produce the HCL views. 13
Table 2 Household income for the 2000 US Census. 33
Table 3 Household income for respondents of the AIMS II web-based survey. 33
Table 4 Bivariate correlations of the preference ratings showed that all were positively correlated. 45
Table 5 Effect of vegetation on attractiveness of urban HCL – views as cases. 48
Table 6 Effect of vegetation on perceived naturalness of urban HCL – views as cases. 48
Table 7 Effect of vegetation on perceived maintenance of urban HCL – views as cases. 49
Table 8 Effect of vegetation on perceived safety of urban HCL – views as cases. 49
Table 9 Effect of vegetation on attractiveness of rural HCL – views as cases. 50
Table 10 Effect of vegetation on perceived naturalness of rural HCL – views as cases. 50
Table 11 Effect of vegetation on perceived maintenance of rural HCL – views as cases. 51
Table 12 Effect of vegetation on perceived safety of rural HCL – views as cases. 51
Table 13 Effect of vegetation on attractiveness of urban HCL – responses as cases. 53
Table 14 Effect of vegetation on attractiveness of urban HCL – gender balanced response as cases. 53
Table 15 Effect of vegetation on perceived naturalness of urban HCL – responses as cases. 54
Table 16 Effect of vegetation on perceived naturalness of urban HCL – gender balanced responses as cases. 54

Table 17 Effect of vegetation on perceived maintenance of urban HCL – responses as cases. 55
Table 18 Effect of vegetation on perceived maintenance of urban HCL – gender balanced responses as cases. 55
Table 19 Effect of vegetation on perceived safety of urban HCL – responses as cases. 55
iv
AIMS II • 12/2005