Transportation and land use planning are generally poorly coordinated, and the preferences of the general public are not well integrated into either activity. Appropriate land use patterns that meet the needs and desires of the public and the public sector are difficult to develop because of their extreme complexity and potential for disproportionate impacts on citizens. A structured public involvement protocol was developed to allow large groups of citizens to participate efficiently and effectively in the comprehensive planning process for a moderate-sized town in Indiana and to help in partially overcoming this problem. CommunityViz was used as the visualization tool to help residents understand better the differences between potential land development patterns. Fuzzy set modeling was used to derive the complex interplay of development pattern properties that were most and least preferred by citizens. The development patterns varied by percentage mixture of housing types, percentage mixture of land use types, percentage given over to greenspace, ratio of sidewalk to total paved area, and connectivity of the road network. These five parameters were chosen as the most useful and fundamental measures of differences between development patterns. Citizens’ preferences were derived on that basis. Public input for this town was successfully modeled. Resulting preference patterns were made available to city planners for use in updating their comprehensive plan. This research demonstrates a practical way to involve citizens in an orderly, useful manner in questions of joint transportation and land use planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
NewmanP. and KenworthyJ.. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence.Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
2.
CampbellH. and MarshallR.. Public Involvement and Planning: Looking Beyond the One to the Many. International Planning Studies, Vol. 5, No. 32000, pp. 321–344.
3.
GrossardtT. and BaileyK.. Justice and the Public's Involvement in Infrastructure Planning. Practicing Planner, Vol. 5, No. 12007, pp. 21–31.
4.
MargerumR.Evaluating Collaborative Planning: Implications from an Analysis of Growth Management. American Planning Association Journal, Vol. 68, No. 22002, pp. 179–193.
5.
Campbell-JacksonM.Public Involvement in Transportation: Collaborating with the Customers. Transportation Research News, No. 220, 2002, p. 3.
6.
KhistyC. J.Education and Training of Transportation Engineers and Planners Vis-à-Vis Public Involvement. In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 171–176.
7.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas. Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-Making. FHWA, Washington, D.C., 1996. www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/cover.htm. Accessed May 15, 2006.
8.
Planning Public Involvement and Its Role in Project Development.FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2003. www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/pi_p_d.htm. Accessed May 16, 2006.
BaileyK. and GrossardtT.. Addressing the Arnstein Gap: Improving Public Confidence in Transportation Planning and Design through Structured Public Involvement (SPI). In Proc., 11th International GeoMultimedia Symposium (SchrenkM., ed.), CORP2005, CORP Association, Vienna, Austria, 2006, pp. 337–341.
11.
BaileyK.BrummJ. and GrossardtT.. Integrating Visualization into Structured Public Involvement: Case Study of Highway Improvement in Central Kentucky. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1817, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 50–57.
12.
McCannE.Where Do You Draw the Line? Landscape, Texts and the Politics of Planning. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 15, No. 61997, pp. 641–661.
13.
GrossardtT. and BaileyK.. Grounding Justice in Public Meeting Practice. In Proceedings of Real CORP 007 (SchrenkM.PopovichV. and BenediktJ., eds.), CORP Association, Vienna, Austria, 2007, pp. 291–296.
14.
AnM. and ChenM.. Estimating Nonmotorized Travel Demand. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2002, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 18–25.
15.
NelessenA.Visions for a New American Dream: Process, Principles and an Ordinance to Plan and Design Small Communities.American Planning Association Press, Washington, D.C., 1994.
16.
WhitmoreW.CookE. and SteinerF.. Public Involvement in Visual Assessment: Verde River Corridor Study. Landscape Journal, Vol. 14, No. 11995, pp. 26–45.
17.
BaileyK.BrummJ. and GrossardtT.. Towards Structured Public Involvement in Highway Design: A Comparative Study of Visualization Methods and Preference Modeling using CAVE (Casewise Visual Evaluation). Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, Vol. 6, No. 12001, pp. 1–15.
18.
BaileyK.GrossardtT. and Pride-WellsM.. Community Design of a Light Rail Transit-Oriented District Using CAVE (Casewise Visual Evaluation). Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 41, No. 32007, pp. 235–254.
19.
BaileyK. and GrossardtT. H.. Structured Public Involvement in Context-Sensitive Noise Wall Design Using Casewise Visual Evaluation. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1984, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 112–120.
20.
BaileyK.GrossardtT. H.RipyJ.TooleL.WilliamsJ. B. and Diet-rickJ.. Structured Public Involvement in Context-Sensitive Large Bridge Design Using Casewise Visual Evaluation: Case Study of Section 2 of Ohio River Bridges Project. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2028, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 19–27.
21.
StamatiadisN.BaileyK.GrossardtT. H.RipyJ. and StrombotneA.. Use of Context-Sensitive Methods to Influence Operating Speeds: Case Study of Rural Highway by Casewise Visual Evaluation. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2025, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 90–97.
22.
GrossardtT.BaileyK. and BrummJ.. Structured Public Involvement: Problems and Prospects for Improvement. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1858, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 95–102.
23.
ZadehL.Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, Vol. 8 No. 3, 1965, pp. 338–353.
24.
LeeD.PietruchaM. and SinhaS.. Use of Fuzzy Sets to Evaluate Driver Perception of Variable Message Signs. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1937, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 96–104.
25.
MeegodaJ. Framework for Automatic Condition Assessment of Culverts. Presented at 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.
26.
ChengH.DuH.HuL. and GlazierC.. Vehicle Detection and Classification Using Model-Based and Fuzzy Logic Approaches. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1935, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 154–162.
27.
PeetaS.ZhouW. and ZhangP.. Modeling and Mitigation of Car–Truck Interactions on Freeways. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1899, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 117–126.
28.
BerryM.CartwrightW. and PetitC.. Geographical Visualization: A Participatory Planning Support Tool for Imagining Landscape Futures. Applied GIS, Vol. 2, 2007, pp. 1–17.
29.
De VriesS.VerheijR. A.GroenewegenP. P. and P. Spreeuwenberg. Natural Environments—Healthy Environments? An Exploratory Analysis of the Relationship Between Greenspace and Health. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 35, No. 102003, pp. 1717–1731.
30.
McPhersonE. G.Accounting for Benefits and Costs of Urban Greenspace. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 22, No. 11992, pp. 41–51.
31.
KahnP. H.Jr. The Human Relationship with Nature: Development and Culture.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1999.
32.
JimC. Y. and ChenW. Y.. Recreation-Amenity Use and Contingent Valuation of Urban Greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 75, Nos. 1–2, 2006, pp. 81–96.
