Many researchers have reported on the preference effects of various components of streetscapes. However, there appears to be relatively little data on the relative importances of those design components on preference. In this paper the relative effects of trees, cars, wires, and building facades on preferences for residential blocks are discussed. Clean estimates of these effects were obtained by combining contemporary digital technology with a formal experimental design. It was found that trees had a moderate positive effect on preferences for streetscapes, wires had a small negative effect, and cars had a trivial effect. It was also found that the effect of building facade ranged from trivial to moderate.
AppleyardD, 1979, “The environment as a social symbol: Within a theory of environmental action and perception”Journal of the American Planning Association45142–152
6.
AppleyardD, 1981Livable Streets (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
7.
BuhyoffG JArndtL K, 1981, “Interval scaling of landscape preference by direct- and indirect-measurement methods”Landscape Planning8257–267
8.
City of Sumner, 1992Sumner Comprehensive Plan Update City of Sumner, 1104 Maple Street, Sumner, Washington 98390
9.
CohenJ, 1988Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ)
10.
CooperH M, 1989Applied Social Research Methods Series 2 (Sage, Newbury Park, CA)
11.
CooperHHedgesL V, (Eds), 1994The Handbook of Research Synthesis (Russell Sage Foundation, New York)
12.
MarcusC CooperFrancisC, 1990People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Spaces (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York)
13.
CullenC, 1961The Concise Townscape (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York)
14.
DanielT CBosterR S, 1976, “Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method”, USDA Forest Service research paper RM-167, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO
15.
HedgesL VOlkinI, 1985Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis (Academic Press, Orlando, FL)
16.
HochbergYTamhaneA C, 1987Multiple Comparison Procedures (John Wiley, New York)
17.
JacobsAAppleyardD, 1987, “Towards an urban design manifesto”Journal of the American Planning Association52112–120
18.
KaplanRKaplanS, 1989The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
19.
LeggM HHicksR R, 1976, “Public decision making in selecting trees for human settlements”, in Trees and Forests for Human Settlements Ed. AndresenJ W, Toronto Center for Urban Forestry Studies, University of Toronto, Canada, pages 275–285
20.
LynchK, 1960The Image of the City (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
LynchK, 1976Managing the Sense of a Region (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
23.
LynchK, 1981Good City Form (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
24.
LynchK, 1991City Sense and City Design (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
25.
NasarJ L, 1988, “Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes”, in Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications Ed. NasarJ L, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 228–253
26.
NasarJ L, 1994, “Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors”Environment and Behavior26377–401
27.
NelessenA C, 1993Visions for a New American Dream: Process, Principles, and an Ordinance to Plan and Design Small Communities (Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, MI)
28.
OrlandBViningJEbreoA, 1992, “The effect of street trees on perceived values of residential property”Environment and Behavior24298–325
29.
RosenthalRRosnowR L, 1985Contrast Analysis: Focused Comparisons in the Analysis of Variance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
30.
RosenthalRRosnowR L, 1991Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis (McGraw-Hill, New York)
31.
SchroederH W, 1984, “Environmental perception rating scales: A case for simple methods of analysis”Environment and Behavior15573–598
32.
SchroederH WCannonW N, 1983, “The aesthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns”Journal of Arboriculture9237–243
33.
SchroederH WGreenT L, 1985, “Public preferences for tree density in municipal parks”Journal of Aboriculture11272–277
34.
SimsB, 1978, “Environmental design research: Some emerging directions”Man–Environment Systems867–74
35.
SommerRGuentherHBarkerP A, 1990, “Surveying householder response to street trees”Landscape Journal979–85
36.
SommerRGuentherHBarkerP ASwensonJ, 1993, “Comparison of four methods of street tree assessment”Journal of Aboriculture1927–34
37.
SommerRSummitJ, 1995, “An exploratory study of preferred tree form”Environment and Behavior27540–557
38.
StampsA E, 1991, “Comparison of normal and angular response functions for environmental scaling”Perceptual and Motor Skills73715–719
39.
StampsA E, 1992, “Bootstrap investigation of respondent sample size for environmental preferences”Perceptual and Motor Skills75220–222
40.
StampsA EMillerS D, 1993, “Advocacy membership, design guidelines and predicting preferences for residential infill designs”Environment and Behavior25367–409
41.
StampsA E, 1993a, “Simulation effects on environmental preference”Journal of Environmental Management38115–132
42.
StampsA E, 1993b, “Validating contextual urban design photoprotocols: Replication and generalization from single residences to block faces”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design20693–707
43.
StampsA E, 1994, “A study in scale and character: Contextual effects on environmental preferences”Journal of Environmental Management42223–245
44.
StampsA E, 1995a, “Beauty is in …?”, in Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association Eds NasarJ LGrannisPHanyuK, (EDRA, Oklahoma City, OK) pp 48–53
45.
StampsA E, 1995b, “Stimulus and respondent factors in environmental preference”Perceptual and Motor Skills80668–670
46.
StampsA E, 1996a, “Using a scientific dialectical brief in peer review”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Baltimore, February 1996; copy available from the author
47.
StampsA E, 1996b, “People and places: Variance components of environmental preferences”Perceptual and Motor Skills82323–334
48.
StampsA E, 1996c, “Of time and preference: Temporal stability of environmental preferences”Environment and Behavior forthcoming
49.
StampsA ENasarJ L, 1997, “Design review and public preferences: Effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural style”, submitted to Journal of Environmental Psychology
50.
UlrichR S, 1983, “Aesthetic and affective response to natural enviornment”, in Behavior and the Natural Environment: Human Behavior and Environment. Advances in Theory and Research, Volume 6 Eds AltmanIWohlwillJ F, (Plenum, New York) pp 85–125
51.
Vernez-MoudonA, 1987Public Streets for Public Use (Columbia University Press, New York)
52.
WinerB JBrownD RMichelsK M, 1991Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (McGraw-Hill, New York)
53.
WinkelG H, 1973, “Visual attributes of the environment: Introduction”, in Environmental Design ResearchVolume 1 Ed. PreisserW F E, (Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA) pp 60–61
54.
WohlwillJ F, 1976, “Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect”, in Human Behavior and the Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. Volume 1 Eds AltmanIWohlwillJ F, (Plenum, New York) pp 37–86
55.
WohlwillJ F, 1983, “The concept of nature: A psychologist's view”, in Behavior and the Natural Environment: Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research, Volume 6 Eds AltmanIWohlwillJ F, (Plenum, New York) pp 85–125
56.
ZubeE HPittD GAndersonT W, 1974Perception and Prediction of Scenic Resource Values of the Northeast publication R-74-1, Institute for Man and his Environment, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
