Author's personal copy - University of...

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Landscape and Urban Planning 87 (2008) 117–128

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / landurbplan

Public perception as support for scenic quality regulation in a nationallytreasured landscape

Anne R. Kearneya,∗, Gordon A. Bradleyb,1, Carl H. Petrichc,2, Rachel Kapland,3,Stephen Kaplane,4, Diane Simpson-Colebankc,2

a University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, 1135 20th Avenue E, Seattle, WA 98112, USAb University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100, USAc Logan Simpson Design Inc., 51 West Third Street, Suite 450, Tempe, AZ 85281, USAd University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041, USAe University of Michigan, Department of Psychology, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1109, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 2 April 2007Received in revised form 9 April 2008Accepted 14 May 2008Available online 24 June 2008

Keywords:Regional planningScenic resource managementLand use policyLake Tahoe BasinVisual preference

a b s t r a c t

Opponents of the Scenic Review Ordinance for controlling the visual effects of development in the LakeTahoe Basin argue that the regulations do not meaningfully reflect general public attitudes. In part toaddress this concern, Tahoe’s federally mandated regional authority commissioned a study to assess pub-lic perception of the scenic resource. The 392 survey respondents were comprised of tourists, membersof local environmental groups, and lakefront property owners. Survey results, based on responses toboth photographs and written questions, show substantial agreement across different stakeholder groupsincluding those most vocally opposed to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Although the mag-nitude of preferences differed somewhat, all groups preferred development that included more nature(particularly trees), was not “run down”, was less visually bulky, and contrasted less with the environment(e.g., darker colors and without large expanses of windows). These findings lend credibility to TRPA’s ScenicOrdinance criteria, which encourage developers and homeowners to break up visible structural mass oftheir construction and reduce the perceived contrast of structures with their surroundings. Study impli-cations are discussed in terms of the future of TRPA efforts and in terms of the effectiveness of studiessuch as these in bridging the gap between planning and successful policy implementation.

© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Effective design review and creation of design standardsrequires knowing about people’s landscape preferences and theirdesires for the future of the landscape. It also requires deter-mining whether or not there is consensus of perceptions amongdifferent interest groups and, if there is not, where and howperceptions diverge. There is a direct connection between theseneeds and the work of environmental psychologists. The fieldof environmental psychology not only brings a wealth of gen-eral information about landscape perception, but the methodsand tools of the field can be applied to particular planning

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 206 325 2722.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.R. Kearney),

[email protected] (G.A. Bradley).1 Tel.: +1 206 685 0881; fax: +1 206 685 0790.2 Tel.: +1 480 967 1343.3 Tel.: +1 734 763 1061.4 Tel.: + 1 734 764 0426.

situations to increase understanding of region or site-specific per-ceptions, to inform planning and policy and, ultimately, to increaseacceptance of resulting policies. Such a research-based planningapproach may be particularly useful in the context of visuallysensitive and other high stakes landscapes. One such landscapeis the Lake Tahoe Basin, straddling the California–Nevada bor-der.

After a brief review of landscape preferences and an overviewof the Lake Tahoe Basin and its scenic quality issues, the remainderof this manuscript reports on a visual preference study conductedin the Basin. The purpose of the study was to explore visual prefer-ences and perceptions among the Basin’s major interest groups,to determine whether and how group preferences differed, andto gain insight into the level of support for the Tahoe RegionalPlanning Authority’s proposed scenic regulations. The study isalso interesting as a case study in applying environmental psy-chology tools and techniques in a real-world planning context.In addition to case-specific results, the implications of using aphoto-questionnaire to address contentious scenic beauty issuesare discussed.

0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.05.005


118 A.R. Kearney et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 87 (2008) 117–128

1.1. A brief overview of landscape aesthetics

The considerable body of research on the aesthetic perceptionsof landscapes shows with remarkable consistency that people tendto prefer natural to human-influenced environments (Coeterier,1996; Hartig, 1993; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Smardon, 1988;Ulrich, 1983; Van den Berg et al., 1998). Development and itsaccompanying man-made structures are, however, a fact of life.The question, then, is often not whether to develop, but how todevelop in a way that minimizes negative visual impacts. This ques-tion is particularly important for development in visually sensitivelandscapes, such as waterfront, scenic areas, and historic districts.

Given the near-universal high preference for nature, it is hardlysurprising that development incorporating natural elements is gen-erally preferred over development without natural elements (Evansand Wood, 1980; Herzog, 1989; Kaplan, 1983; Kaplan and Kaplan,1989; Sheets and Manzer, 1991). Sullivan (1994) and Ryan (2006),for instance, found that residential developments with included oradjacent woods, farmland, and other open space were more pre-ferred than similar developments that did not contain such naturalfeatures. Studies in other countries have shown similar results.Arriaza et al. (2004), for example, explored preferences for agri-cultural landscapes in Southern Spain and found that perceivedvisual quality increased with the percent of visible vegetation,water views, and presence of mountains on the horizon. In contrast,perceived visual quality decreased with the presence of “negative”man-made elements such as roads, industries, and electric powerlines.

The presence of trees, in particular, is associated with increasedpreference across a range of developed settings (Kaplan and Kaplan,1989), including residential neighborhoods (Stamps, 1997), road-sides (Brush et al., 2000; Sullivan and Lovell, 2006), urban freeways(Wolf, 2003a), and commercial business districts (Wolf, 2003b).The positive effect of trees on landscape preference is so strongthat, in some cases, developed areas that have a large number ofmature trees are preferred to undeveloped green areas withouttrees. Sullivan and Lovell (2006), for example, explored preferencesfor roadside scenes in an agricultural setting. They found that themoderate preferences for the existing agricultural scenes plum-meted with the addition of commercial development, but then roseagain when trees were added—in some cases to higher levels thanthe initial preferences.

1.2. Development pattern and compatibility

Although the intensity of development and the amount ofnearby nature, particularly trees, clearly affect landscape prefer-ences, it is not just the absolute amount of each that matters. Thepattern and style of development and its relationship to the sur-rounding environment are also important. In his study of ruralcharacter in New England, Ryan (2006) found that residential sub-divisions perceived as compatible with rural character not only hadsignificant visible nature, but the natural features were arrangedso as to limit the number of units that could be seen from any onevantage point.

The concept of compatibility is also important in understandingthe effect of development on landscape preference. Stamps (1994),for example, found that preference in residential neighborhoodswas related to the degree of match, in terms of scale and char-acter, of neighboring houses. In some cases, development that isperceived as compatible, or in character, with the surrounding envi-ronment is associated with higher preference than undevelopedlandscapes. In their study of preferences for roadside scenes in ruralConnecticut, Kent and Elliot (1995) found higher preference for nat-ural landscapes with culturally appropriate built elements (such as

stone walls and farm structures) than for undeveloped cropland.Even when development is not so picturesque, its compatibilitywith the surrounding landscape is important. In his study of pref-erence for shoreline scenes in British Columbia, Miller (1984) foundthat although preference was highest for wooded natural shoreline,preferences were still relatively high for scenes containing smallstructures (e.g., single-family homes) in natural settings. In fact,these scenes where the built elements were in harmony with thenatural settings were more preferred than scenes of undeveloped,yet flat and undifferentiated, shoreline.

1.3. Preference differences

Landscape perception is a function of the interaction betweenpeople and the landscape (Zube et al., 1982). As discussed above, theproperties of the landscape itself has an enormous effect on visualperception and preference. Also important, however, are the char-acteristics of the individual perceiver—their previous knowledgeand experience, familiarity with the landscape, attitudes, and cul-tural background (Bradley and Kearney, 2007; Kaplan and Kaplan,1989; Karjalainen, 1996; Ribe, 2002; Virden and Walker, 1999). Wewould expect, and indeed we find, differences in landscape per-ception and preference based on individual or stakeholder groupdifferences (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Van den Berg et al. (1998),for example, found that farmers in the north part of The Nether-lands showed higher preference than residents and visitors forhuman-influenced landscapes, particularly cultivated landscapes.Similarly, Tress and Tress (2003) found that development optionsfor a rural area in Denmark were evaluated differently by differentstakeholder groups.

Some of the most significant differences in preference fordeveloped or otherwise human-manipulated landscapes can beexplained, in part, by expertise. Ryan (2006) explored differencesand similarities among local residents, planners, and homebuilderswith respect to their perceptions of alternative forms of residen-tial development and found that, in some cases, the planners (the“expert” group) had a more limited view of compatible devel-opment than either the other groups. Calavita and Daves (1994)found that planners have different attitudes than residents regard-ing growth in urban areas. Others have found differences betweenexperts, such as planners and design review board members, andthe public with respect to their aesthetic preferences for proposeddevelopment in high-tech office buildings (Hubbard, 1997), com-mercial waterfront buildings (Hudspeth, 1986), residences (Stamps,1992), and other development projects (Stamps, 1991; Stamps andNasar, 1997).

Differences in preference between experts and other groups canbe particularly problematic in situations where experts are makingdecisions about landscape aesthetics on behalf of the public or otherinterest groups. Research shows that not only do certain groupstend to see things differently, but they often hold misconceptionsabout the perspectives of other groups (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989;Kearney et al., 1999; Miller, 1984; Strumse, 1996), which might leadthem to assume their perspectives are either more shared or morepolarized than they really are. In Miller’s (1984) study of preferencefor shoreline scenes, for example, he asked nine resource managersto predict how the public would respond. Although the plannerssuccessfully predicted the preference extremes (i.e., the most andleast preferred types of scenes), they were not very successful atpredicting preferences for those scenes in-between the extremes.

1.4. Preference and design standards

Today, most cities in the US and many cities around the worldhave some form of design review for new development (Duerksen


A.R. Kearney et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 87 (2008) 117–128 119

and Goebel, 1999; Lightner, 1993). In the US, the ability for govern-ment to impose design standards to control community aestheticquality dates to a 1954 Supreme Court decision (Berman v. Parker).In that decision, Associate Justice William O. Douglas affirmed, “Theconcept of public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it repre-sents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary.It is within the power of the legislature to determine that a com-munity should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well asclean.”

At their best, design standards promote growth and develop-ment in a way that reflects public perceptions of what the city orregion should look like (Schiffman, 1989). This positive scenario,however, is based on the “consensus assumption” (see Van denBerg et al., 1998)—that is, the assumption that there is reasonableconsensus on what an environment should look like, and that simi-larities in preferences across a large group outweigh the differencesamong individuals. In many instances, this assumption seems to bea valid one; a large body of research has shown that preference ismuch more a function of the physical environment than of individ-ual characteristics (Daniel and Boster, 1976; Kaplan, 1987; Kaplanand Kaplan, 1989; Stamps and Nasar, 1997; Wellman and Buyhoff,1980). But does this assumption still hold when looking beyondthe “general public?” Given what we know about preference dif-ferences, can one assume consensus in a high stakes landscapewith varied interest groups? Can one assume that the “experts”on a design review board can accurately predict and plan for publicpreferences?

2. The Lake Tahoe Basin

The Lake Tahoe Basin is a national alpine treasure on theCalifornia–Nevada border. The Lake, with its 75 miles of lakeshore,is the third deepest in North America and one of the clearest lakesof its size in the world (Twiss, 2004). The Lake Tahoe Basin’s totalland area is over 207,000 acres, with about 80% administered bythe United States Forest Service and 7% managed by California andNevada State Parks. Although only a small portion of the Basin’stotal land area is lakeshore, much of the development pressure isconcentrated along the shore and efforts to control lakeshore scenicquality have been particularly controversial (TRPA, 1987).

From the 2000 Census, the Basin’s residential population is over56,000. The Basin’s average daily population, however, fluctuatesbetween 200,000 and 300,000, depending on the season. About 70%of visitors are from California and 15% from Nevada. The remaining15% come from other western states, the rest of the United States,or are foreign visitors (Kauneckis et al. (2000), as cited in Sabatieret al., 2003). The Basin’s population has increased 5-fold since theinitial development and urbanization boom began in the 1960s. TheBasin has roughly 20 developed towns and other communities, withSouth Lake Tahoe, on the south shore, being the only incorporatedcity (Davis, 1976).

2.1. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) is a unique bi-stateregional planning agency created by the governors and lawmak-ers in California and Nevada and ratified by the United StatesCongress in 1969, to oversee development and coordinate protec-tion of the Basin’s environmental resources (The bi-state TahoeRegional Planning Compact, Public Law No. 96-551, 94 Stat. 3233,1980). Development projects are not permitted in the Basin withoutobtaining the review and approval of TRPA.

Among other qualities that TRPA is mandated to help protectare scenic values which, in part, concerns the scenic quality of the

built environment. According to TRPA policy, stated in its first 20-year Regional Plan, in 1987 (TRPA, 1997), it will cooperate with localjurisdictions to ensure that “the height, bulk, texture, form, mate-rials, colors, lighting, signing, and other design elements of new,remodeled, and redeveloped buildings be compatible with natu-ral, scenic, and recreational values of the region.” Since that time,however, scenic quality has continued to decline (TRPA, 2002).

2.2. TRPA’s Scenic Review Ordinance and the ensuing controversy

In an effort to stanch the accelerating decline in visual qualityin the Basin, in 2002 TRPA developed and implemented a moreobjective scenic review system—the Scenic Review Ordinance. TheOrdinance relies on a system of calculating the “visual magnitude”of a structure and coupling this with a means of assessing how wella proposed structure would blend with its surrounding environ-ment. Increased structural visibility can be offset with increased“scenic muting” (use of darker paints, stains, or roofing materials;use of nonreflective glass; or use of trees and other vegetation toscreen sections of the facade). The desired effect is to break up visi-ble structural mass and reduce the perceived contrast of structureswith their surroundings.

TRPA uses the Visual Magnitude/Color Contrast curve (Fig. 1) tohelp determine acceptable trade-offs between visibilities on theone hand, and architectural style, color contrast, and vegetativescreening on the other hand. For example, someone proposing aproject that is to have expansive exposure to the lake (higher valueson the Y-axis) would need to make design and material decisionsthat would lower the proposed structure’s contrast with the naturalenvironment (i.e., move to the left on the X-axis).

TRPA believed the Scenic Review Ordinance was a reasonedmiddle-ground that would be acceptable both to environmentalgroups and to owners of lakeshore homes; however, the proposedordinance, first introduced to the public in August 2001, precipi-tated a flurry of controversy and what eventually became nearly 40TRPA-sponsored public meetings, presentations, and workshops.Finally, property rights organizations, which had balked at imple-mentation of the new ordinance, filed a lawsuit in 2003. Theybelieved the ordinance was developed solely by experts withoutgrounding in true public perception and that it unfairly and illegallyconstrained owners’ rights to develop private property as they sawfit.

Fig. 1. TRPA’s VisMag/Color Contrast curve. Structures can be conforming, or non-conforming depending on the amount of exposed facade, architectural massing anddegree of structural articulation, fenestration, color contrast, vegetative screening,etc.



The lawsuit was eventually dismissed by the U.S. District Courtin Reno, with presiding Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr., affirming thatTRPA has both the duty and authority to regulate scenic qualityin the Basin (The Committtee for Reasonable Regulation of LakeTahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, March 29, 2004). By thistime, however, it was clear to TRPA and other groups that moreinformation was needed about public perceptions and scenic val-ues among the Basin’s various interest groups (North Lake TahoeBonanza, 2002a,b).

3. Method

In 2003, TRPA contracted with an independent consulting firmto conduct a study of visual perceptions among the Basin’s stake-holders. A mail survey was used to assess public preferences forroadside and lakeshore development in the Lake Tahoe Basin, todetermine whether or not these preferences differed among differ-ent interest groups, and to determine whether or not preferenceswere in alignment with TRPA’s Scenic Review Ordinance. The studywas limited to roadside and lakeshore views because that is wheremost development in the Basin, and certainly the most visibledevelopment, is occurring.

3.1. Participants

TRPA identified three major stakeholder groups whose percep-tions needed to be captured for the survey to have credibility:tourists, lakeshore homeowners, and environmental groups.Lakeshore homeowners and environmental groups, in particu-lar, were perceived to hold polarized and entrenched positions(Sabatier et al., 2003). Tourists, predominantly users of the area’smyriad recreational opportunities, are transient and hence are nottypically represented at all or are underrepresented in most surveysand public meetings regarding the Basin. Several additional groupsin the Basin (Chambers of Commerce, realtors’ associations) werealso surveyed, but the sample sizes for these groups were very smalland they are not included in the analysis.

3.2. Questionnaire structure

The 12-page questionnaire, the first page of which served asthe cover letter and the final page of which provided instruc-tions for returning the survey, contained a photo-questionnairealong with a number of other structured and open-ended ques-tions. The photo-questionnaire comprised 7 pages and contained30 lakeshore images and 12 roadside images. The photographs wereselected to portray a wide range of development styles and imple-mentation, including single-family, multi-family, and commercialdevelopment of different sizes and incorporating a range of nat-ural elements. Some photos were taken from TRPA archives andothers were taken specifically for the study. Photos of existing casi-nos (20-plus-story structures near the lakeshore) and of publiclyowned wildland areas were excluded because, in the case of theformer, they will not be permitted to be built in that manner in thefuture, and, in the latter case, these lands are not subject to develop-ment. The images were printed in black and white, with six scenesto a page.

Participants were asked to rate each photograph using a 5-pointscale printed under each scene (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Thequestion posed was, “How well does each of the following pho-tographs represent development that you feel is appropriate toLake Tahoe Basin’s scenic quality?” A “1” rating meant the respon-dent believed the image was “highly inappropriate” for the Basin’sscenic quality; a “5” rating meant the respondent felt the image

was “highly appropriate.” Numerous studies have shown that peo-ple enjoy evaluating scenes and readily perform such a task (e.g.,Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Petrich, 1984; Swihart and Petrich, 1988).

In addition to the photographs, the questionnaire included avariety of questions assessing: participants’ concern about the cur-rent and future scenic quality of the area, perceptions regardingtrends in current development, and demographic characteristics.Overall level of concern regarding current and future scenic condi-tions in the Basin was assessed with two separate questions; theresponses for each were recorded on a 5-point scale, with 5 indi-cating greatest concern. In order to capture perceptions regardingtrends in current development, participants were asked to con-sider how different kinds of development and the condition of theforest might impact the overall image of the Basin in the com-ing years. Responses to the 20 items were recorded on a 5-pointscale, where “1” indicated a very negative impact and “5” indicateda very positive impact. Demographic questions assessed partici-pants’: residency and visiting patterns to the region, organizationalaffiliations, gender, age, and occupation.

In addition to these structured questions, several open-endedquestions gave participants additional opportunities to share theirconcerns and thoughts regarding development in the Basin. Thecombination of visual and textual material in the survey providesa fuller appreciation of the respondents’ preferences and perspec-tives than either method alone.

3.3. Survey design

Because the survey was slated to go out in the Fall, which is nota peak tourist time at Lake Tahoe, a field team approached peoplethroughout the Basin at primary tourist sites during August 2003,and asked them of their willingness to participate in a survey thatwould be sent to them later in the Fall. In addition, three environ-mental organizations and the Tahoe Lakefront Owner’s Association(TLOA) agreed to send the survey to their members.

Tourists, whose addresses were obtained during the Augustfieldwork, were sent the survey directly. The environmental orga-nizations and TLOA were each sent a batch of sealed questionnairesthat were then resent by each organization to a random member-ship subset. Questionnaires were unobtrusively marked to identifythe recipient groups.

A total of 948 questionnaires were distributed in late 2003:521 to tourists, 211 to environmentalists, and 216 to lakeshorehomeowners. Ten of these questionnaires were returned as unde-liverable. Three hundred and ninety two (392) people from thethree groups responded to the questionnaire by the close-offdate, for an overall response rate of 42%. This response rate com-pares favorably to surveys of this type (i.e., “single-wave” surveyswhere follow-up reminders are not possible because of privacyconstraints) where response rates of 20–30% are typical aver-ages (North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2004). Of therespondents, 142 were tourists (a response rate of 28%), 127 werefrom environmental groups (response rate of 61%), and 123 werefrom the TLOA (response rate of 57%).

3.4. Data analysis

The preference ratings for the 12 roadside scenes and the 30lakeshore scenes were subjected to two separate exploratory factoranalyses in order to shed light on the underlying dimensions driv-ing preference. In each case, a principal components factor analysiswith varimax rotation was used. The criterion for factor selectionwas eigenvalues greater than or equal to one. The cut-off value forloading of individual scenes on a particular factor was 0.50. Scenesthat loaded on more than one factor were eliminated. Factors with



internal consistency estimates of reliability greater than or equal to0.70, as computed by Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, were retainedfor subsequent analysis.

The 20 items assessing the perceived impact of development onthe Basin’s future were grouped into a priori factors. For each factor,an internal consistency test of reliability was computed using Cron-bach’s coefficient alpha; scales with alphas greater than or equal to0.70 were retained for subsequent analysis.

Following these data reduction steps, a series of multivari-ate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests was used to exploredifferences among the sub-populations in terms of their pref-erences for the roadside and lakeshore factors and in terms oftheir perception of the impact of the range of development typeson the future of the Basin. MANOVAs were used rather thanseparate univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests for eachfactor because of some significant correlations among the fac-tors. Comparisons among the groups on their overall level ofconcern about scenic resources in the Basin were done withANOVA tests. The software package SPSS was used for all testsand a p-value of 0.05 was used to determine statistical signifi-cance.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Respondent characteristics

Interpretation of the survey results and consideration of theirpotential policy implications require knowing something about thecharacteristics of the respondent groups. Overall, the respondentstended to be middle-aged and well educated; a series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, however, did show somedifferences among the groups (Table 1). Significant differenceswere found among the groups both in terms of age (F(2) = 23.98;p = 0.001) and education (F(2) = 8.32; p = 0.001). Dunnett C post hoctest results show that the property owners are significantly olderthan the tourists and environmentalists and are significantly moreeducated than the tourists. It should be noted that there was someoverlap between the environmentalists and the property owners:23% of the property owners belonged to a local or national environ-mental group (though not necessarily one of the ones included inthe study sample) and 15% of the environmentalists also belongedto a lakeshore homeowners association (though not necessarily theTLOA).

Chi-square tests (Table 1) show a significant difference in gen-der among the three groups (Pearson Chi-square = 10.32; p = 0.006)with the tourists and environmental groups consisting of roughlyequal numbers of men and women and the property own-ers consisting of approximately two-thirds men. The groupsalso differed significantly in terms of the percentage of retirees

(Pearson Chi-square = 11.14; p = 0.004), with the property own-ers consisting of somewhat more retirees than the other twogroups (44%, 30%, and 25% for the percent of retirees amongthe property owners, environmental groups, and tourists, respec-tively).

In addition to these demographic descriptors, we synthesizedthe information respondents provided on their occupation and/orjob title in order to develop a rough proxy for socio-economic status.Although nearly all respondents are generally well educated, withmany professionals represented, the differences among the groupsare substantial. Fig. 2 displays the dominance of high-end pro-fessionals, business owners, and investors among TLOA members.There is much less homogeneity in the other two groups, particu-larly among the tourists, where there is no substantial dominanceby any particular occupation(s).

4.2. Concern about scenic resources

Overall, all groups showed high concern for the Basin’s scenicresources, particularly with respect to potential future changes.In order to explore differences in the level of concern amongthe three respondent groups, two separate analysis of variance(ANOVA) tests were run (exploring concern for current and futureconditions of Lake Tahoe’s scenic resources). ANOVA results doshow some small yet significant differences in concern among thegroups both in terms of current conditions (F(2) = 14.01; p < 0.001)and in terms of future conditions (F(2) = 10.06; p < 0.001). Tukeypost hoc test results show that in both cases, environmentalistswere somewhat more concerned about the Basin’s scenic resourcesthan the tourists and property owners. Results are shown inTable 2.

4.3. Factor analysis results for scenes

Factor analytic procedures permit one to discern patterns in theratings that are based not only on the degree of preference but alsoon similarities of responses to particular scenes.

4.3.1. Roadside scenesThe 12 roadside scenes loaded on three factors (Fig. 3). The first,

Nature, consists of the two natural-appearing scenes (i.e., no vis-ible development) and was the most preferred factor by all threegroups—a finding that echoes the results of numerous other stud-ies (Kaplan et al., 1972; Kent and Elliot, 1995; Ribe, 1989; ScenicAmerica, 1992; Schroeder and Daniel, 1981). Four scenes comprisethe Large-Scale Development factor, which consists of newer look-ing, relatively large-scale (i.e., continuous in form) development.Three scenes comprise the Small-Scale Development factor, whichconsists of older, smaller scale development. Table 3 shows the

Table 1Selected demographic statistics by respondent group

Tourists (n = 144) Environmental groups (n = 129) Property owners (n = 119)

Agea Mean = 4.47*; S.D. = 1.44 Mean = 4.77*; S.D. = 1.56 Mean = 5.64; S.D. = 1.15Highest level of educationb Mean = 3.44*; S.D. = 1.33 Mean = 3.74*; S.D. = 1.02 Mean = 4.02*; S.D. = 0.97

GenderMale 48%* 54%* 68%Female 51% 46% 32%

RetiredYes 25%* 30%* 44%No 75% 70% 56%

a 4 = 41–50 years, 5 = 51–60 years, 6 = 61–70 years.b 3 = college degree, 4 = some graduate-level studies, 5 = graduate-level degree.* Means within each row followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p = 0.05.



Fig. 2. Respondent groups’ main occupations (by percentage).

Table 2Differences among environmentalists, tourists, and property owners in level of concern about the Tahoe Basin’s Scenic Resourcesa

Environmental groups (n = 120) Tourists (n = 127) Property owners (n = 108)

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Concern about current conditions 4.44 0.79 3.86b 1.10 3.80b 1.19Concern about potential future changes 4.69 0.62 4.19b 1.03 4.27b 1.07

a Concern was recorded on a 5-point scale with 5 indicating highest concern.b Means within each row followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p = 0.05.

mean ratings and factor alphas for each of the roadside factors. Theoverall average preference for the Large-Scale Development fac-tor was unexpectedly slightly higher than that for the Small-ScaleDevelopment factor; closer examination of the factors show that

the scenes loading on the Small-Scale Development factor tended todepict older developments that in some cases looked run-down.Others have similarly found that the degree of maintenance, orupkeep, of an area has a significant influence on preference (Nasar,

Fig. 3. Representative images for roadside factors.



Table 3Factor analysis results for roadside scenes

Scale Mean S.D. Factor alpha N

Nature 4.54 0.56 0.77 379Large-scale development 2.93 0.92 0.69 379Small-scale development 2.86 0.83 0.75 378

1987) and that perceived care is a significant determinant of per-ceived attractiveness (Nassauer, 1988).

Among the Large-Scale Development scenes, preference was low-est for the bulkiest development (a large, multi-story unit) andhighest for the scene with less visible bulk and slightly more nat-ural elements. Among the Small-Scale Development scenes, lowestpreference was for a scene depicting several small buildings withtrees in the background but no screening in front. The two scenesalso depicting multiple small buildings but with significantly moretrees were more preferred.

The correlation between the Small-Scale Development factor andthe Large-Scale Development factor was moderately high (0.51)while correlations among the other pairs of factors were quitelow (correlation between Small-Scale Development and Naturescenes = −0.06; correlation between Large-Scale Development andNature scenes = −0.06).

4.3.2. Lakeshore scenesThe 30 lakeshore scenes also loaded onto three factors (Fig. 4).

Eleven scenes loaded on the Less Visible Single Family DevelopmentFactor; these scenes were of single-family homes screened by veg-etation and generally darker in color. Ten scenes loaded on the MoreVisible Single Family Development factor; these scenes were gener-ally of larger single-family homes having minimal-to-no screening.Five scenes loaded on the Condominiums factor and depicted bothhigh-rise and linear multi-family developments. These three factorsare informative for showing the distinctions implicit in respon-dents’ perceptions of the lakeshore scenes: Specifically, the degreeto which structures are visible and dominate the view appears to bethe most critical characteristic in differentiating among the factors.The relative preference means among the factors (highest for LessVisible Single Family and lowest for Condominiums) also indicatesthat preference tends to be lowest when the development domi-nates the view. Table 4 shows the mean ratings and factor alphasfor each of the lakeshore factors.

Exploring the preference order of the scenes within each fac-tor is also informative. Among the Less Visible Single Family scenes,preference declined with increasing visibility of the structures andrelated development. The most preferred scenes tended to be ofhomes that are set back from the lakeshore, have retained vege-tation around them, are of darker colors (i.e., lower contrast withtheir surroundings), and do not have an extensive amount of win-dows or facade. Among the More Visible Single Family scenes, themore preferred scenes had darker colors with preference decliningas the dwelling and related development “pop out” as a function oflighter colors (higher contrast with surroundings), larger scale, lackof screening vegetation, and large expanses of windows. Amongthe Condominium scenes, preference declined as the height of thedevelopment increased. These findings lend credibility to TRPA’s

Table 4Factor analysis results for lakeshore scenes

Scale Mean S.D. Factor alpha N

Less visible single family development 3.82 0.75 0.95 388Visible single family development 2.69 0.95 0.95 386Condominium 1.92 0.81 0.86 388

VisMag criteria, which encourage developers and homeowners tobreak up visible structural mass of their construction and reducethe perceived contrast of structures with their surroundings.

Correlations among the three lakeshore development factorswere all moderately high: The correlation between Less Visible Sin-gle Family Development and Visible Single Family Development is0.64; the correlation between Less Visible Single Family Developmentand Condominiums is 0.35; the correlation between Visible SingleFamily Development and Condominiums is 0.65.

4.4. Difference among respondent groups

4.4.1. Group differences in preference for roadside factorsSignificant differences were found among the three groups in

terms of their preferences for the two roadside development factors(Wilk’s � F(4,762) = 7.77; p = 0.001). (Based on the KS-Lilliefors testfor normality and an examination of distribution plots, the Naturefactor was found to deviate from a normal distribution. Based onthese results, the Kruskall–Wallis test (the non-parametric versionof the ANOVA) was used to compare preference for roadside natureamong the three population groups. A MANOVA test was used toexplore differences in the groups’ preferences for the other twofactors.) In order to determine which specific preferences differed,analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests on each of the two prefer-ence factors were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA;using the Bonferroni method, each ANOVA was tested at the 0.025level (0.05/2). Significant differences among the population groupswere found for preference for both Small-Scale Roadside Develop-ment (F(2) = 7.26; p < 0.001) and Large-Scale Roadside Development(F(2) = 14.55; p < 0.001).

Tukey post hoc test results show that in the context of small-scale roadside development, the preferences of tourists were quitesimilar to the property owners while the preferences of environ-mentalists were lower than both these groups. In the context oflarge-scale development, however, the preferences of the touristswere quite similar to the environmentalists and both were sig-nificantly lower than the preferences of the property owners. Ineach case, the tourists’ preferences were between the other twogroups, suggesting that their responses represent a middle-ground.Kruskall–Wallis test results show no significant differences amongthe 3 groups in terms of their preferences for roadside naturescenes. Results are shown in Table 5.

Despite these differences among the groups in the magnitudeof their preferences for the roadside factors, the groups’ relativepreferences among the factors were identical. Preferences for allthree groups followed the same pattern, with the Nature scenesbeing the most preferred and the Small-Scale Roadside Developmentscenes being the least preferred.

4.4.2. Group differences in preference for lakeshore factorsSignificant differences were found among the three groups in

terms of their preferences for the lakeshore development scenes(Wilk’s � F(6,774) = 21.13; p = 0.001). Analysis of variance tests oneach of the three preference factors were conducted as follow-uptests to the MANOVA. Using the Bonferroni method, each ANOVAwas tested at the 0.017 level (0.05/3). Significant differences amongthe population groups were found for preference for Less VisibleSingle Family Development (F(2) = 15.78; p < 0.001), More Visible Sin-gle Family Development (F(2) = 31.01; p < 0.001), and Condominiums(F(2) = 7.72; p < 0.001). Post hoc test results show that propertyowners showed significantly higher preference for Less Visible Sin-gle Family Development than environmentalists and tourists andsignificantly higher preference for Condominiums than environ-mentalists. All three groups showed significant differences in termsof their preference for More Visible Single Family Development, with



Fig. 4. Representative images for lakeshore factors.

Table 5Differences among environmentalists, tourists, and property owners in preference for roadside developmenta



Small-scale roadside development 2.66 0.74 2.89b 0.81 3.05b 0.88Large-scale roadside development 2.75b 0.76 2.98b 0.84 3.31 0.81

a Preferences were recorded on a 5-point scale with 5 indicating highest preference.b Means within each row followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p = 0.05.

environmentalists having the lowest preference and property own-ers having the highest preference (Table 6).

Despite the differences found in the groups’ preferences,with property owners generally showing greater acceptanceof the visual aspects of development than the other groups,the consistency in the preference pattern across the groupswas remarkable. All groups showed highest preference forLess Visible Single Family Development followed by More VisibleSingle Family Development and finally, Condominium develop-ment.

These similarities in preference among the groups, however,belie the divergence of their expressed views. When given theopportunity to express their views about development in an open-ended format, many property owners expressed strong resentmentover TRPA’s actions, despite the alignment of their preferences withthe basic elements that the TRPA’s Scenic Review Ordinance laysout. Table 7 provides a sampling of these sentiments. The commentsof environmentalists and tourists tended to match their visual pref-erences; many expressed resentment over homes that are out ofscale and out of character.

4.5. Group differences in perceived impacts of development

One of the survey’s written questions asked respondents to con-sider how different kinds of development and the condition of theforest might impact the overall image of the Basin in the comingyears. The mean ratings for the six a priori determined factors, alongwith their associated items and factor alphas, are shown in Table 8.Striking in these results are the non-positive perceptions of the

future with respect to development. Resort Development, in partic-ular, was the most negatively perceived by all groups. Forest Health,by contrast, received more positive responses, indicating that foresthealth is an important component of the Basin’s overall image. Thecorrelations among the six factors are moderately high to high, withthe exception of Forest Health, which had low correlations with theother factors (Table 9).

Because of the relatively high correlations among the first 5factors, these were combined in a single multiple analysis of vari-ance (MANOVA). Forest Health was analyzed separately. Significantdifferences were found among the three groups in terms of theperceived impacts of development (Wilk’s � F(10,520) = 11.39;p = 0.001). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests on each of thefive preference factors were conducted as follow-up tests to theMANOVA. Using the Bonferroni method, each ANOVA was testedat the 0.01 level (0.05/5). Significant differences among the pop-ulation groups were found on all five factors: Residential Amount(F(2) = 41.21; p < 0.001), Residential Style (F(2) = 18.49; p < 0.001),Commercial Development (F(2) = 7.67; p < 0.001), Resort Development(F(2) = 5.84; p < 0.003), and Ski Development (F(2) = 25.70; p < 0.001).Post hoc test results show that all groups differed in their percep-tions of the impact that residential amount and ski developmentwould have on the future image of the Basin, with environmental-ists perceiving development most negatively and property ownersperceiving development somewhat more positively. In terms of per-ceived impacts of residential style, commercial development, andresort development, property owners had a somewhat more pos-itive perception of development than either environmentalists ortourists.

Table 6Differences among environmentalists, tourists, and property owners in preference for lakeshore developmenta



Less visible single family developmentb 3.57c 0.81 3.72c 0.73 4.28 0.44Visible single family development 2.07 0.80 2.67 0.88 3.06 0.88Condominiumsb 1.64 0.65 2.09c 0.80 2.01c 0.88

a Preferences were recorded on a 5-point scale with 5 indicating highest preference.b Dunnett C post hoc test used.c Means within each row followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p = 0.05.


A.R

.Kearney

etal./Landscape

andU

rbanPlanning

87(2008)

117–128125

Table 7Selected respondent comments on development issues in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Tourists Tahoe Lakefront Owners’ Association Environmental groups

Big (huge) houses on small lots areobliterating the view of the lake fromthe road and beyond.

Scenic mitigation overdone. This property owner does notenjoy seeing the lake, and frankly [the house] looks rathersilly covered in trees.

Monster homes are inappropriate.

Hideous—was anyone living behindthis monstrosity who lost a view? Thisbelongs on an Interstate, not at Tahoe.

To think otherwise [to designing your house’s appearancefrom the lake as you see fit] is socialist.

Too many monster homes.

Too big, too close, too bright. Trophyhomes meant to be seen areinappropriate along the lakeshore.

Concerned that changes in regulations are not based uponscience, [but rather] on opinion.

Homes recently are obscenely huge.

All money and ego. Meant to be seen,not to blend in. UGH! (style OK,location horrible)

Our guests want to see the shoreline houses (with bigwindows) from the lakeside during our boat excursions.And that’s why [name of personal boat] comes close to[exclusive residential developments]. People like to seeattractive development!!!

Bigger is badder, in every case.

We have always enjoyed taking boat rides to see thelakefront homes. This is part of Tahoe. Some houses mightjust as well be in a forest.

Big, bright, ugly boxes should not be allowed to dominate views.

Fight the “Never-to-the-rich” syndrome. The large redevelopments are an abomination.The rampant residential development, particularly the proliferation of lakeshore “Trophy Homes” has substantiallydiminished the scenic beauty of Lake Tahoe, which should not be made into a showcase for people’s status symbol.Most people do not deserve to enjoy what Tahoe has to offer. All they care about is, “Well, I have the money.” And thatis what talks! So, if we really want to “save Lake Tahoe,” we should stop developing it all and leave it alone.Large homes exhibiting wealth of millions of dollars do not represent a sustainable culture and come at great loss tothose who bear the true cost and the environment. Such exhibitions should not be encouraged.It’s funny, but some people actually think other people go out of their way to see the “new development” on the lake.How disgusting!!!Any homes that are more or less hidden in the trees are in keeping with Tahoe’s image—good trend to keep up!I think that the Lake Tahoe Basin is in big trouble at the current growth rate. I feel people need to slow down, stop andstep back, and remember what it is about Tahoe that makes it such a special, wonderful place to come to or live. If wecome in with the selfish frame of mind that so many possess, the only thing that matters is if you can afford it! Tahoeshould not be about megamoney! It should be about the serenity and beauty that so many come from all around theworld to see for themselves.



Table 8Descriptive statistics and alphas for factors related to the perceived impact of devel-opment on the Basin’s Future Image

Scale name and items Scale mean Scale S.D. Alpha N

Residential development amount 2.56 0.94 0.91 341Overall amount 2.41 1.08Along upland roadways 2.76 1.02View from lake 2.53 1.25On mountainsides 2.70 1.11Size of individual homes 2.38 1.17

Residential development style 2.98 0.99 0.78 324Style of individual homes 2.98 1.18Variety of residential types 2.99 0.98

Commercial development 2.59 1.01 0.94 328Location 2.59 1.18View from lake 2.31 1.13Style 2.76 1.17Size 2.43 1.15Variety 2.80 1.06

Motel or resort development 2.28 1.02 0.91 323Quantity 2.17 1.09View from roadways 2.44 1.12View from lake 2.19 1.11

Ski run development 2.70 1.07 0.93 296Quantity 2.71 1.15View from roadways 2.75 1.09View from lake 2.68 1.19

Forest health 3.26 1.33 0.88 332Density of growth 3.17 1.34Overall health 3.37 1.46

Note: Respondents were asked, “Consider how you think the Lake Tahoe Basin willlook in the coming years. How much do you think each of these characteristics islikely to shape that overall image?” Responses were recorded a 5-point scale from1 = very negative impact to 5 = very positive impact.

Table 9Correlations among the factors related to the perceived impact of development onthe Basin’s Future Image

1 2 3 4 5

1. Residential amount2. Residential style 0.65***

3. Commercial development 0.67*** 0.66***

4. Resort development 0.68*** 0.55*** 0.72***

5. Ski development 0.60*** 0.50*** 0.56*** 0.60***

6. Forest health 0.08 0.12* 0.13* 0.11* 0.12*

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).

Despite these small differences among the groups, however,none of the groups believed that further development would havea strong positive impact on the Basin’s image. Results are shown inTable 10.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run among thegroups to explore differences in their perception of how forest

health would impact the future of the Basin. Although the ANOVAtest was significant (F(2) = 3.26; p = 0.04), Tukey post hoc test resultsshowed no differences among any of the group pairs. The overallmean rating of 3.26 for this factor indicates that the groups mod-erately endorse the perspective that having healthy forests wouldhave a positive effect on the future of the Basin.

5. Implications and conclusions: The Lake Tahoe Basin andbeyond

One of the most important findings of this study is that par-ticipants from different groups hold similar relative preferencesfor the development in the Basin, although the absolute magni-tudes of the preference ratings vary somewhat. As numerous otherresearchers have found (e.g., Evans and Wood, 1980; Herzog, 1989;Kaplan, 1983; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Sheets and Manzer, 1991;Sullivan, 1994), more vegetation was generally related to higherpreference. In addition, the compatibility of the development withthe surrounding landscape was important. Study results show thatall respondents tended to prefer development that blended withthe natural setting, though use of darker colors, smaller scale, andvegetative screening. These results echo those of others (e.g., Kentand Elliot, 1995; Ryan, 2006; Stamps, 1994) who have similarlyshown the important role of perceived compatibility, or “fit”, withthe surrounding environment in landscape preference.

Given the demographic and socio-economic differences amongthe respondent groups and the apparent polarization on the issuesin question, the similarities in the groups’ preferences were sur-prising. Before distribution of the survey, one of the leaders ofan environmental group was pessimistic that anyone would learnanything not already known from the survey, and predicted thatit would be merely an exercise in voicing fiercely defended,entrenched opinions through a different medium than traditionalpublic meetings. The results of the survey did not bear out that pes-simism. Property owners, who frequently object to the elements ofthe ordinance, expressed the same perception and preference pat-terns as environmental group members, who strongly endorse theregulations. Tourists, who have little familiarity with the contro-versy surrounding this ordinance, also displayed similar perceptionpatterns.

These findings lend credibility to the basic premise of TRPA’sscenic ordinance: the focus on reducing the “visual magnitude” ofdevelopment reflects a cross-section of the broader public’s percep-tions and preferences. The survey results suggest that the energiesthat all interests have expended in staking out or defending turfcould now be focused on the Basin community’s shared percep-tions regarding scenic resources. The strong expressions of concernby all groups about the Basin’s scenic resources could be used as aunifying force in TRPA-led collaborative efforts.

The mandates of government bodies such as TRPA are likely tolead to controversy. It is hardly surprising that homeowners and

Table 10Differences among environmentalists, tourists, and property owners in their perceptions of the impact of development on the Basin’s Future Imagea



Residential amount 2.14 0.82 2.50 0.75 3.19 0.93Residential style 2.75b 0.98 2.76b 0.92 3.49 0.85Commercial development 2.34b 0.93 2.48b 0.99 3.03 0.96Resort developmentc 2.05b 0.97 2.17b 0.89 2.61 1.14Ski development 2.19 0.86 2.81 1.15 3.18 1.02

a Responses were recorded a 5-point scale from 1 = very negative impact to 5 = very positive impact.b Means within each row followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p = 0.05.c Dunnett C post hoc test used.



developers would perceive public agencies as overreaching theirauthority when the protection of scenic resources restricts theirpersonal actions (Bobrowski, 1995; Bosselman et al., 1973). Theimplications of such controversy are serious, often including agencydistrust and lengthy legal battles, yet at the same time this studymakes clear that the volume and extent of public outcry cannotnecessarily be taken as an indication of the public’s interest.

How can planners move beyond such controversy? In this study,the use of a photo-questionnaire allowed for an expression of per-ceptions in a way that did not invoke entrenched positions. In fact,the discovery of a large degree of shared perspectives among groupsmay facilitate a resolution of the controversy. Arguably, an evenmore effective strategy would have been to conduct a survey ofrelevant groups as a starting point for a scenic ordinance. Thisconsensus-based approach would likely lead to better outcomesthan sole reliance on agency legal authority (Sabatier et al., 2003).In order to have credibility however, such a study would have to bewell-conceived and conducted and results would have to be takenseriously. It is a perfect opportunity for the methods and tools ofenvironmental psychology to inform and impact public policy.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agencythrough a contract with Logan Simpson Design Inc., an envi-ronmental planning and landscape architectural firm, and itssub-consultants. The authors especially thank John Hitchcock ofTRPA for his assistance and support throughout the project.

References

Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J.F., Canas-Madueno, J.A., Ruiz-Aviles, P., 2004. Assess-ing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69,115–125.

Brush, R., Chenoweth, R.E., Barnam, R., 2000. Group differences in the enjoyabilityof driving through rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 47, 39–45.

Bobrowski, M., 1995. Scenic landscape protection under police power. Boston CollegeEnvironmental Affairs Law Review 22, 697.

Bosselman, F.P., Callies, D., Banta, J., 1973. The Takings Issue Prepared for the Councilon Environmental Quality. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Bradley, G.A., Kearney, A.R., 2007. Public and professional responses to the visualeffects of timber harvesting: different ways of seeing. Western Journal of AppliedForestry 22 (1), 42–54.

Calavita, N., Daves, R., 1994. Planners’ attitudes toward growth: a comparative study.Journal of the American Planning Association 60 (4), 483–500.

Coeterier, J.F., 1996. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of theDutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 34, 27–44.

Daniel, T.C., Boster, R.C., 1976. Measuring landscape aesthetics: The scenic beautyestimation method. Forest Service Report RM-167. Fort Collins, Colorado, USDAForest Service.

Davis, K.P., 1976. Land Use. McGraw Hill, New York, NY, pp. 179–207.Duerksen, C.J., Goebel, R.M., 1999. Aesthetics, community character, and the law.

American Planning Association, Service Report Number 489–490. Chicago, IL.Evans, G.W., Wood, K.W., 1980. Assessment of environmental aesthetics in scenic

highway corridors. Environment and Behavior 12 (2), 255–273.Hartig, T., 1993. Nature experience in transactional perspective. Landscape and

Urban Planning 25, 17–36.Herzog, T., 1989. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of

Environmental Psychology 9, 27–43.Hubbard, P., 1997. Diverging attitudes of planners and the public: an examination of

architectural interpretation. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 14(4), 317–328.

Hudspeth, R., 1986. Visual preference as a tool for facilitating citizen participationin urban waterfront revitalization. Journal of Environmental Management 23,373–385.

Kaplan, R., 1983. The role of nature in the urban context. In: Behavior and the NaturalEnvironment, In: Altman, I., Wohlwill, J.F. (Eds.), Human Behavior and Environ-ment: Advances in Theory and Research, vol. 6. Plenum Press, New York, pp.127–161.

Kaplan, S., 1987. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental preference froman evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 19, 3–32.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., Wendt, J.S., 1972. Rated preferences and complexity for naturaland urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics 12, 354–456.

Karjalainen, E., 1996. Scenic preferences concerning clear-fell areas in Finland. Land-scape Research 21 (2), 159–173.

Kauneckis, D., Koziol, L., Imperial, M., 2000. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, TheEvolution of Collaboration. National Academy of Public Administration, Wash-ington, DC.

Kearney, A.R., Bradley, G., Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1999. Stakeholder perspectives onappropriate forest management in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science 45 (1),62–73.

Kent, R.L., Elliot, C.L., 1995. Scenic routes linking and protecting natural and culturallandscape features: a greenway skeleton. Landscape and Urban Planning 33,341–356.

Lightner, B.C., 1993. Survey of Design Review Practices. Planning Advisory ServiceMemo January 1993. American Planning Association, Chicago.

Miller, P.A., 1984. Visual preference and implications for coastal management: aperceptual study of the British Columbia shoreline. Unpublished Doctoral Dis-sertation. University of Michigan.

Nasar, J.L., 1987. Physical correlates of perceived quality in lakeshore development.Leisure Sciences 9 (4), 259–279.

Nassauer, J.I., 1988. The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. Horti-cultural Science 23 (6), 973–977.

North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2004. NCDOT, Productivity Services,Market and Opinion Research, Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved April 26,2004, from http://www.ncdot.org/financial/productivity/Research/faqs.html.

North Lake Tahoe Bonanza, 2002a. Scenic System Has a Foe. August 21. Incline Village,NV.

North Lake Tahoe Bonanza, 2002b. Washoe County Commissioner to Discuss TahoeBasin Scenic Regulation Issues. August 23. Incline Village, NV.

Petrich, C., 1984. EIA scoping for aesthetics: hindsight from the Greene CountyNuclear Power Plant EIS. In: Hart, S.L., et al. (Eds.), Improving Impact Assessment:Increasing the Relevance and Utilization of Scientific and Technical Information.Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 57–92.

Ribe, R.G., 1989. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical research taught us.Environmental Management 13 (1), 55–74.

Ribe, R.G., 2002. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influ-ence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environment andBehavior 34 (6), 757–780.

Ryan, R.L., 2006. Comparing the attitudes of local residents, planners, and developersabout preserving rural character in New England. Landscape and Urban Planning75, 5–22.

Sabatier, P., Weible, C., Hulsman, M., Nechodom, M., 2003. Stakeholder Belief Changein the Lake Tahoe Basin: 1970–2001. A final report to the USDA Forest ServicePacific Southwest Research Station, Berkeley, CA, USDA Cooperative Agreement# 01-JV-11272164-140. Center for Environmental Conflict Analysis, Davis, CA.

Scenic America, 1992. The Value of Scenery and Nature, vol. 1(3). Technical Infor-mation Service, Washington, DC.

Schiffman, I., 1989. Alternate Technologies for Managing Growth. Institute of Gov-ernmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

Schroeder, H.W., Daniel, T.C., 1981. Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corri-dors. Environment and Behavior 12 (3), 349–366.

Sheets, V.L., Manzer, C.D., 1991. Affect, cognitive and urban vegetation. Environmentand Behavior 3, 285–304.

Smardon, R.C., 1988. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review ofthe role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 15, 85–106.

Stamps, A.E., 1991. Comparing preferences of neighbors and a neighborhood designreview board. Environment and Behavior 23 (5), 616–629.

Stamps, A.E., 1992. Pre- and post-construction environmental evaluations. Percep-tual and Motor Skills 75, 481–482.

Stamps, A.E., 1994. A study in scale and character: contextual effects on environ-mental preferences. Journal of Environmental Management 42, 233–245.

Stamps, A.E., 1997. Some streets of San Francisco: preference effects of trees, cars,wires, and buildings. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24 (1),81–93.

Stamps, A.E., Nasar, J.L., 1997. Design review and public preferences: effects of geo-graphical location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles.Journal of Environmental Psychology 17, 11–32.

Strumse, E., 1996. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarianlandscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16, 17–31.

Sullivan, W.C., 1994. Perceptions of the rural–urban fringe: citizen preferencesfor natural and developed settings. Landscape and Urban Planning 29, 85–101.

Sullivan, W.D., Lovell, S.R., 2006. Improving the visual quality of commercial devel-opment at the rural–urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning 77, 152–166.

Swihart, M., Petrich, C., 1988. Assessing the aesthetic impacts of small hydropowerdevelopment. The Environmental Professional 10 (3), 198–210.

The Committee for Reasonable Regulation of Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional PlanningAgency, March 29, 2004, Case No. CV-N-02-0558-ECR (RAM).

The Bi-State Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, Public Law No. 96-551, 94 Stat. 3233(1980); N.R.S. §2777.200 et seq.; Cal. Gov’t Code §66801 et seq.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 1987. 1987 Regional Plan, Stateline, Nevada.Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 2002. 2001 Threshold Evaluation Report,

Stateline, NV.Tress, B., Tress, G., 2003. Scenario visualization for participatory landscape

planning—a study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning 64, 161–178.



Twiss, R., 2004. Planning and land regulation at Lake Tahoe: Five decades of expe-rience. In: Lapping, M., Furuseth, O. (Eds.), Big places, big plans: Large-scaleregional planning in north America. Ashgate Publishers, Aldershot, UK, pp.83–96.

Ulrich, S.R., 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: Alt-man, I., Wohlwill, J.F. (Eds.), Human Behavior and Environment: Advances inTheory and Research. Behavior and the Natural Environment, vol. 6. PlenumPress, New York, pp. 85–125.

Van den Berg, A.G., Vlek, C.A.J., Coeterier, J.F., 1998. Group difference in the aes-thetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multi-level approach. Journalof Environmental Psychology 18, 141–157.

Virden, R.J., Walker, G.J., 1999. Ethnic/racial and gender variations among meaningsgiven to, and preferences for, the natural environment. Leisure Sciences 21 (3),219–239.

Wellman, J.D., Buyhoff, G.J., 1980. Effects of regional familiarity on landscape pref-erences. Journal of Environmental Management 11, 105–110.

Wolf, K.L., 2003a. Freeway roadside management: the urban forest beyond the whiteline. Journal of Arboriculture 29 (3), 127–136.

Wolf, K.L., 2003b. Public response to the urban forest in inner-city business districts.Journal of Arboriculture 29 (3), 127–136.

Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape perception: research, applicationand theory. Landscape Planning 9, 1–33.

Author's personal copy - University of...

Documents

Transcript of Author's personal copy - University of...