A cognitive approach to visual quality assessment and scenic designation for Connecticut highways.

The landscape assessment literature suggests that experts and the public exhibit only moderate agreement regarding visual quality. A goal of this inquiry was to compare the preferences of experts and local residents for three highways in Northeast Connecticut. The investigation focused on landscape attributes potentially affecting scenic quality, including land cover and land use types and categories resulting from a nonmetric factor analysis of preference scores for landscape scenes. Study scenes were also examined in terms of psychological predictors previously linked with visual quality. These approaches all produced significant outcomes helping to explain preference for roadside landscapes. Study participants were 95 individuals residing along state highways, 127 citizens of nearby communities, and 27 professionals employed by the Connecticut Department of Transportation. Each participant rated 36 scenes (four examples of nine land cover and land use types) for preference and responded to verbal items regarding attributes and features of scenic routes and reasons for driving them. Examined separately, psychological predictors explained 74% of the variance in preference, while land cover and land use accounted for 50%. Combining both sets of variables explained 87% of the variance, and coherence, mystery, church and residential were individually significant predictors. Factor analysis indicated perception of these landscapes was largely influenced by the nature and degree of human intervention. Most preferred scenes contained prominent churches and residences; by contrast, rural environments with farm structures were least admired. Primarily natural scenes comprised two groups, differing particularly in smoothness of ground cover and distribution of trees. The expert sroup differed from the other two groups in rating many scenes. Where differences existed, experts provided lower ratings, suggesting local residents viewed their proximate landscape more favorably. The expert group had a high education level, was older, and more predominantly male. Scenic designation based primarily on expert judgments does not well serve the local citizenry, but decision makers can acquire meaningful information from the public through photographic and verbal questionnaires. Although land cover and land use partially explain scenic appreciation, psychological predictors more powerfully predict landscape response and therefore constitute more potent tools for enhancing visual quality through design.PhDArchitectureCommunication and the ArtsGeographySocial SciencesUrban planningUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/129131/2/9332102.pd