Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166

Improving the visual quality of commercialdevelopment at the rural–urban fringe

William C. Sullivan ∗, Sarah Taylor Lovell

The Environmental Council, University of Illinois, NRES Department, 1101 W. Peabody Drive, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

Received 18 February 2004; received in revised form 19 January 2005; accepted 19 January 2005Available online 31 March 2005

Abstract

Rapid growth at the rural–urban fringe has resulted in increased commercial development along arterial roads connecting citiesand the countryside. These developments, often termed “commercial strips” or “linear commercial complexes”, are characterizedby a mix of many different types of businesses that often lack any separation from the road, spatial definition, or natural featuressuch as trees. The result is too often an open, barren, confusing setting with little aesthetic appeal. Could a change in thedesign of the commercial setting or the addition of natural features improve the visual quality of the roadway at the rural–urbanfringe? This study examines the extent to which local citizens prefer various development patterns for a roadway corridor atthe fringe of a medium-sized community. Participants responded to a photo-questionnaire that included images of alternativedesign treatments for the roadside and written items dealing with visual quality. The results revealed moderate preference forthe existing condition that showed a typical Midwestern US agricultural setting. The addition of various types of commercialdstaad©

K

1

c

f

0

evelopment to the settings caused preference ratings to plummet. However, the addition of trees to the commercial developmentcenes increased preference ratings substantially. In fact, this low cost alteration in the design not only caused preference ratingso rebound, but actually exceed the ratings for the existing condition. Ratings were higher still for scenes in which trees weredded to the existing condition. The findings suggest that nature plays an important role in the aesthetics of developed settingst the rural–urban fringe, and that trees in particular can be used to improve visual quality. This study has implications for theesign of roadways and commercial developments at the fringe.

2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

eywords: Rural–urban fringe; Sprawl; Commercial development; Land use; Landscape preferences; Roadway design

. Introduction

Where rural arterial roads approach cities, they be-ome magnets for urban commercial expansion. When

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 217 244 5156;ax: +1 217 244 1507.

E-mail address: wcsulliv@uiuc.edu (W.C. Sullivan).

approaching a city from the countryside, these roadstoo often present visually chaotic settings consist-ing of commercial development that represents theworst of urban sprawl—settings that are open, bar-ren, monotonous, and overwhelmingly ugly. Designedfor maximum visibility and convenience, commercialstrips along the roads of the rural–urban fringe include

169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.01.008

W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166 153

enormous parking lots in front of superstores that areset a great distance from the road, with a striking open-ness and lack of spatial definition or trees that mightblock views to a store, its merchandise, or its advertise-ments. The result is a landscape that people dislike, butsomehow tolerate.

Should we relegate commercial strip developmentat the rural–urban fringe to the visual category of land-scape that includes industrial sites and junkyards? Orare there inexpensive ways to improve the visual qual-ity, and ultimately, the experience of the users of suchsettings? In this paper, we explore the extent to whichtypical commercial development in a Midwestern USagricultural landscape impacts the visual quality of thecountryside. We also explore the reactions of nearbyresidents to alternative patterns of commercial devel-opment at the rural–urban fringe.

We begin by examining commercial development atthe rural–urban fringe and the resulting landscape thatit too often creates. Next, we review recent research re-garding preferences for various landscape settings, fo-cusing on roadsides, scenic corridors, and central busi-ness districts. Finally, reporting the results of a newstudy, we examine the extent to which local citizensprefer various development patterns for a roadway cor-ridor at the fringe of a medium-sized community anddiscuss the implications of the findings for planningcommissions, designers, and businesses.

2

ottWifuvf

2

ot

sity in land uses, with many areas in continuous tran-sition (Friedberger, 2000). An assortment of settle-ments including farmsteads, dispersed housing, andcommercial strips make up this transitional space be-tween countryside and city (Daniels, 1999, p. 87). Therural–urban fringe has become a target for rapid com-mercial development by a range of businesses includingcar dealerships, superstores, and fast food restaurants.The consequences of this development include the de-struction of trees, settling of floodplains, developmentof businesses and monotonous housing (Friedberger,2000).

Despite problems with development at the fringe,the popularity of this area continues to grow. Manyindividuals are drawn to the fringe because it offers thebucolic atmosphere of a semi-rural area (Lapping etal., 1989; Daniels, 1999), without sacrificing theconveniences of the nearby city. Advances in trans-portation and telecommunication have added to thepopularity of fringe settings by allowing individualsto live further from their jobs (Edwards and Edwards,1999). For many individuals, the rural–urban fringeseems like the perfect place to call home—a peacefulenvironment with all modern conveniences close by.

2.2. Commercial development at the fringe

With rapid growth at the rural–urban fringe, commu-nities are experiencing a change in the location of com-mercial development. Many businesses have movedfdabsBfwC

opfilfblr

. Background

In order to better understand the how the designf commercial strips can alter the visual quality ofhe rural–urban fringe, we provide a critical review ofhe literature that addresses several essential questions.

hat is the rural–urban fringe and why is it grow-ng? How has commercial development evolved at theringe? What do previous studies tell us about individ-al’s preferences for various settings that might pro-ide insight into a better design for development at theringe?

.1. The setting

The rural–urban fringe is the landscape located justutside of established cities and towns, where the coun-ryside begins. The fringe is characterized by diver-

rom urban centers or shopping malls to linear shoppingevelopments arranged parallel to the primary streetsnd highways that connect the countryside to the ur-an center. These developments, termed “commercialtrips” or “linear commercial complexes” (Davies andaxter, 1997), are characterized by mixing many dif-

erent types of businesses, both retail and non-retail,ith unrelated functions and activities (Reimers andlulow, 2004).

There are a number of reasons commercial devel-pment is attracted to the rural–urban fringe. First, theopularity of the fringe has resulted in a higher traf-c density along the roadways, as individuals travel

onger distances between home and work. This allowsor increased visibility of the store and better automo-ile access (Davies and Baxter, 1997). Second, greaterand availability for development results in lower taxes,ent, and land values and allows plenty of space for

154 W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166

parking compared with the urban settings where pastbusinesses resided (Lynch and Southworth, 1996). Ad-ditionally, the expansion of individual businesses ordevelopments can be made easily by extending thestrip lengthwise to consume more land. Finally, thecontrols on development are often not as strict as inother areas where ordinances and zoning restrictionscan severely suppress growth (Lynch and Southworth,1996). In many fringe areas, development permits arenot required or are easily obtained, and the involvementof city planners is very limited (Davies and Baxter,1997).

Commercial strips at the rural–urban fringe play animportant role in the experience of entering a city. Com-mercial strips can create a positive, or more likely neg-ative, impression of the city itself. Too often they arenoisy, confusing, monotonous areas that contribute to adecline in quality of the region (Lynch and Southworth,1996). Lynch and Southworth (1996, p. 584) suggestthe improvement of the roadway and commercial stripat the entrance of a city could enhance the public im-age and the social and economic value of a much widersurrounding district.

There are literally thousands of miles of commercialstrips within the rural–urban fringe in North Amer-ica. To what extent can these already built areas beimproved today? What changes could be made to thedesigns of future strip developments to improve theirvisual quality and functionality? Researchers have sug-gested using trees to help unify the strip or the road-wMoos

2

wmtqpvt

r

general landscape preferences. A large body of researchexamines preferences for various landscape settings,and the importance of nature in those preferencesis well established. People prefer natural landscapesto urban ones, and the inclusion of a high degree ofhuman influence in a scene is likely to decrease pref-erence (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989, pp. 43 and 61). Thepresence of trees is also an important indicator of pref-erence – scenes including trees typically receive higherpreference ratings than those that do not. The highestpreference ratings in many studies are earned by scenesthat include a combination of open natural space withtrees at the edges providing spatial definition (Kaplanand Kaplan, 1989, pp. 34–35; Sullivan, 1994).

There is evidence from rural settings that roadsidedevelopment reduces scenic quality. In a study of ascenic corridor in California, an increase in roadsidedevelopment caused a proportional decrease in per-ceived scenic quality, even with small or sympatheticchanges in development (Evans and Wood, 1980).In rural Wisconsin, landscapes characteristic of theurban edge were rated lower for enjoyability than farmand forest settings by all stakeholder groups (Brushet al., 2000). In that study all groups except farmersalso rated forested settings higher than farms, demon-strating that treed landscapes are preferred over openfarmland. And finally, preferences for a road corridorin Utah were most positive for scenes that containeda central open meadow framed by forest (Clayand Daniel, 2000). Taken together, these studiesswmhrb

daowsreta(fi

ays of the fringe (Lynch and Southworth, 1996;yers, 2002). The location of parking lots, the distance

f businesses from the road, and the size and placementf signs could also be altered in an effort to make thetrips more aesthetically pleasing and functional.

.3. Preferences for roadside landscapes

What does the literature tell us about the extent tohich individuals prefer typical patterns of develop-ent along roadsides at the rural–urban fringe? Al-

hough we found no evidence that directly address thisuestion, inferences can be drawn from research onreferences for landscapes in general, and for rural en-ironments, scenic corridors, and central business dis-ricts, in particular.

Preferences for the roadside development at theural–urban fringe are likely to be similar to other more

uggest that natural roadside settings, especially thoseith trees, are preferred over roadsides that exhibit hu-an influence. Do these patterns of responses predict

ow local residents will respond to a landscape at theural–urban fringe that is less dramatically beautiful toegin with?

There is evidence from urban settings that the ad-ition of trees to barren or lightly vegetated roadsidesnd streets has a strongly positive impact. In a studyf urban freeways, preference for roadsides increasedith increased vegetation and greater height and den-

ity of trees (Wolf, 2003a). Another study comparedeactions to central business districts with varying lev-ls of tree cover, and found those with trees were sys-ematically tied to more positive consumer experiencesnd a greater willingness to pay for goods and servicesWolf, 2003b). These studies help substantiate earlierndings that urban settings with trees are preferred over

W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166 155

those without trees (cf. Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Still,even with these recent findings, we lack a clear under-standing of how typical development patterns impactthe visual quality of the countryside landscape. In fact,to our knowledge, citizens’ reactions to a variety ofdevelopment patterns at the rural–urban fringe remainunexplored.

2.4. Research questions

Several questions are pressing. Are there agricul-tural and development patterns that local people preferfor the roadway corridors bridging the city and coun-tryside? Can any of these patterns accommodate eco-nomic development and enhance the visual quality ofthe corridor? What role does nature (i.e., trees, prairieflowers, and grasses) play in people’s preferences forthe roadside settings in the rural–urban fringe?

3. Methods

In order to examine these questions, we developeda photo-questionnaire that included pictures and writ-ten items. The photo-questionnaire was distributed toa sample of individuals in Champaign County, Illinois.

3.1. Study area

The study was conducted in a portion of east-centralIUtvCnRavUfhscrtsi

3.2. Photo-questionnaire

A photo-questionnaire was used to develop a bet-ter understanding of the preferences of local residentsfor various land-use options for the Route 45 corridor.The photo-questionnaire included 36 black and whitephotographs showing a two-mile stretch of Route 45between the airport and the developed areas of greaterChampaign-Urbana. The questionnaire focused on therelationship between Route 45 as it existed (as a twolane road) and as it may exist in the future, based onsurrounding land-use and development patterns.

Four of the 36 photographs in the questionnaireserved as “base” images. The base images showedfarmland along Route 45 that may be lost or dramati-cally altered as a result of development. As such, thesescenes can be thought of as “before” scenes. The re-maining 32 photographs were composite images, de-veloped by computer simulation. The composite im-ages communicated how the corridor might look un-der 11 different conditions. These images were cre-ated through computer simulation by modifying oneof the four base photographs. For instance, to assesspreference for typical strip development along Route45, the base images were modified to include commer-cial strip development. Some of the simulated imageswere similar to the kinds of places that have typicallydeveloped along Route 45 within Champaign. Theseimages therefore represented the type of developmentwith which participates were already familiar. OthericcTd

trcavooatutr

llinois located between the urban core of Champaign-rbana and a rural area of Champaign County where

he nearest airport (Willard Airport) is located. Manyisitors to the Champaign area are introduced to Savoy,hampaign, and the University of Illinois as they driveorth from Willard Airport on Route 45. Currently, theoute 45 corridor is a transitional zone between thegricultural land use typical of central Illinois, and de-eloped areas including a number of local businesses.rban Planning students at the University of Illinois

ound that Route 45 was “disharmonious and inco-erent”, and many visitors and residents echo thoseentiments. The poor visual quality of the Route 45orridor, however, is not unusual for roadways in theural–urban fringe. In fact, many of the roadwayshat connect the countryside to the developed areashare characteristics that create this disharmonious andncoherent look.

mages included considerably more trees planted inlose association with buildings, parking lots, and agri-ultural lands than is the norm for the Route 45 corridor.wo to four images were presented for each of the 11ifferent conditions.

The 11 different conditions for the corridor fit intohree classes that relate to the research questions aboutoadside settings at the rural–urban fringe. The Typi-al Development and Development with Trees classesddress questions regarding preference for specific de-elopment patterns for roadway corridors. Comparisonf preferences for commercially developed areas withr without trees also focuses on the patterns that mightccommodate economic development while enhancinghe visual quality of the corridor. The third class, Nat-ral Additions, specifically addresses questions abouthe role that nature plays in people’s preferences foroadside settings. The conditions and number of images

156 W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166

Table 1Modifications to the base images of the Route 45 corridor

Type of modification Number of images inphoto-questionnaire

Class I: Typical DevelopmentBillboards 4Commercial strip development 3Development with large parking lot 3Development with small parking lot 3Utility lines 2

Class II: Development with TreesCommercial strip development 3Development with large Parking lot 2Development with small parking lot 3

Class III: Natural AdditionsPrairie flowers and grasses 2Trees in cluster 3Trees in row 4

representing each of these three classes are identifiedin Table 1.

Participants were asked to indicate their preferencefor each of the 36 pictures by circling a number ona five-point scale located beneath each photograph. A“1” on the scale denoted very low preference, while a“5” denoted very high preference.

Asking people to respond to pictures is one wayto investigate attitudes about design and development.Another way is to ask people to respond to written itemsthat deal with visual quality. In this study, participantsresponded to 24 such items concerning the develop-ment and visual quality of Route 45 by circling a num-ber on a five-point scale. A rating of “1” indicated a low

or negative assessment (e.g. “not at all”), while “5” in-dicated the highest or most positive assessment. Theresponses to written items were examined using factoranalysis to distill the items into related categories.

3.3. Participants

In order to identify participants for this study, wepurchased a mailing list of 1000 randomly selected in-dividuals from Champaign, Savoy, and Urbana, Illi-nois. We mailed each of these individuals a photo-questionnaire during the winter, and a reminder post-card 7 days later. Of the 1000 questionnaires mailed,the post office returned 16 as undeliverable. A total of984 questionnaires were delivered, 396 were filled outand returned, for a final return rate of 40.2%.

4. Results

The results examine participant’s ratings of the ex-isting conditions along Route 45 and make compar-isons to a variety of development and planting scenar-ios. The picture ratings are presented first followed byreactions to the written items on the questionnaire.

4.1. Base Images

How did participants react to the Base Images?Fta

Fig. 1. Two of the four Base Images: c

ig. 1 shows the Base Images—the unmanipulated pic-ures taken along Illinois Route 45. The Base Imagesre characterized by agricultural land with a vast, open,

ategory mean 2.71, S.D. 1.13.

W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166 157

Table 2Preference ratings for visual images along the Route 45 corridor

Category Mean rating S.D. Change from Base Image t-Value P-Value

Base Images 2.71 1.13

Typical DevelopmentBillboards 1.64 0.72 −1.07 18.2 <.0001Commercial strip development 1.81 0.82 −0.90 12.6 <.0001Development with large parking lot 1.85 0.87 −0.86 13.1 <.0001Development with small parking lot 1.97 0.91 −0.74 11.2 <.0001Utility lines 2.12 1.02 −0.59 12.1 <.0001

Development with TreesCommercial strip development 3.55 0.85 +0.84 11.6 <.0001Development with large parking lot 3.19 0.95 +0.48 5.6 <.0001Development with small parking lot 3.48 0.90 +0.77 9.2 <.0001

Natural AdditionsPrairie flowers and grasses 3.03 1.14 +0.32 9.9 <.0001Trees in cluster 3.88 0.93 +1.17 19.1 <.0001Trees in row 4.44 0.84 +1.73 25.2 <.0001

undistinguished foreground and a considerable amountof sky. Overall, the Base Images obtained a mean rat-ing of 2.7, with a range of 2.6–2.9. A mean of 2.7reflects a moderately low preference. The mean ratingobtained here is consistent with findings from previousresearch examining images that included open spaceswith undistinguished foregrounds (Kaplan and Kaplan,1989).

4.2. Typical Development

Each of the scenes in the five categories comprisingthe Typical Development class includes built elements

that were digitally added to the Base Images. As can beseen in Table 2, this class received the lowest overallratings, with category means ranging from 1.6 to 2.1.In fact, each category mean was significantly lowerthan the mean of the corresponding Base Images. Ina review of over two decades of preference research,Kaplan and Kaplan (1989, p. 42) report, “it is mostunusual to find a grouping . . . that is at 2.0 or lower.”It is clear that participants find these images undesir-able.

The Billboard category (Fig. 2) showed billboardsspaced at varying distances on both sides of Route45. This category obtained a mean rating of 1.6, with

Fig. 2. Two of the three images from the Billboards category: mean 1.6, S.D. 0.72.

158 W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166

Fig. 3. Two of the three images from the Commercial Strip Development category; category mean 1.81, S.D. 0.82.

a range of 1.5–1.9. The Billboard category earnedthe lowest preference rating of any category in thestudy.

The three scenes comprising the Commercial StripDevelopment category (Fig. 3) showed development onthe west side of Route 45, the side that contained agri-cultural land. These images are characterized by densecommercial development clustered close to Route 45.The mean for this category was 1.8, with a range of1.5–2.0, indicating very low preference for this type ofdevelopment.

Three scenes showing large parking areas next toRoute 45 were included in the Development with LargeParking Lot category (Fig. 4). The mean for this cat-egory was 1.8, with a range of 1.8–1.9. As with theprevious category, the category reflects very low pref-erence ratings.

The three scenes comprising the Development withSmall Parking Lot category (Fig. 5) show small scalecommercial development on the west side of Route 45.The mean for this category was 2.0, with a range of1.9–2.0. A rating this low indicates very low prefer-ence.

The final category in the Typical Development class,Utility Lines, included two scenes (Fig. 6). Thesescenes show how Route 45 might look if utility lineswere added along the east side of the corridor. Themean for this category was 2.1 and both images earnedan average of 2.1, indicating a very low preference forutility lines being place along the roadside.

In sum, the addition of built features to the exist-ing agricultural scenes resulted in a dramatic decreasein preference across each of the Typical Developmentcategories.

ith Larg

Fig. 4. Two of the three images from the Development W e Parking Lot category: category mean 1.85, S.D. 0.87.

W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166 159

Fig. 5. Two of the three images from the Development With Small Parking Lot category: category mean 1.97, S.D. 0.91.

Fig. 6. The two images from the Utility Lines category: category mean 2.12, S.D. 1.02.

4.3. Development with Trees

The three categories that make up the Developmentwith Trees class show trees added to three of the Typi-cal Development categories: Commercial Strip Devel-opment, Development with Large Parking Lot, and De-velopment with Small Parking Lot. In each case, thetrees added to these scenes were imported from pic-tures of trees that grew along other nearby roads in theChampaign County.

As Table 3 shows, survey participants rated the im-ages in the Development with Trees class significantlyhigher than the counterpart categories in the TypicalDevelopment class. Each category was also rated sig-nificantly higher than the Base Images. Category meansranged from 3.2 to 3.5, indicating a clear preference forthese scenes (see Table 2).

Three scenes made up the Commercial Strip De-velopment with Trees category (Fig. 7). These sceneswere identical to the other strip development cate-

Table 3Change in preference ratings between development categories with and without trees

Category Without trees With trees Rating change t-Value P-Value

Commercial strip development 1.81 3.55 +1.74 33.1 <.0001Development with large parking lot 1.85 3.19 +1.34 21.7 <.0001Development with small parking lot 1.97 3.48 +1.51 26.7 <.0001

160 W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166

Fig. 7. Two of the three images from the Commercial Strip Development With Trees category: category mean 3.55, S.D. 0.85.

gory except for the addition of two to four trees.The mean for this category was 3.5, with a range of3.4–3.7. The addition of two to four trees to thesescenes increased preference ratings an average of 1.7points—a considerable increase. A rating of 3.5 indi-cates a moderate preference for this type of develop-ment.

The two scenes that make up the Large Parking Lotwith Trees category (Fig. 8) show development on thewest side of Route 45 separated from the roadway by asingle row of four trees. The mean for this category was3.2, nearly a point and one-half higher than the samedevelopment without trees. A rating of 3.2 indicatesmoderate preference for this type of development.

The three scenes that make up the Small Parking Lotwith Trees category (Fig. 9) are identical to the previ-ous Small Parking Lot category, except for the addition

of three to five trees between the parking lot and theroadway. The mean for this category was 3.5, with arange of 3.4–3.6. Adding trees to these scenes increasedpreference ratings by one and one-half points.

4.4. Natural Additions

The final class of modifications to the Base Imagesincludes three categories, each of which shows treesor prairie plants added along the edge of Route 45.The trees added to these scenes were similar to thetrees added to the development scenes in that they grewalong nearby roads in Champaign County. Participantsrated the three categories in the Natural Additions classsignificantly higher than the Base Images. Categorymeans ranged from 3.0 to 4.4, indicating moderate tovery high preference (see Table 2).

ot With

Fig. 8. The two images from the Large Parking L Trees category: category mean 3.19, S.D. 0.95.

W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166 161

Fig. 9. Two of the three images from the Small Parking Lot With Trees category: category mean 3.48, S.D. 0.90.

Two scenes constitute the Prairie Flowers andGrasses category (Fig. 10). These scenes show the ad-dition of prairie flowers and grasses to the right-of-wayalong Route 45. In both cases, a strip of mowed grasslies between the prairie plantings and the roadway. Themean for this category is 3.0, an increase of nearly one-third of a point compared to the Base Images. A meanof 3.0 indicates moderate preference.

The three scenes that make up the Trees in Clus-ters category (Fig. 11) show small groupings of treesalong Route 45. Clusters of one to three trees appear onboth sides of the roadway. Considerable distance existsbetween each cluster. The mean for this category was3.9, with a range of 3.6–4.0. The mean was more thana point above the Base Images. Participants preferredthis category quite a bit.

The final category, Trees in Rows (Fig. 12), in-cludes four images, each with trees on both sides ofRoute 45. The trees in this category, while not touch-ing each other, are more densely planted than treesin the previous category. These trees appear approx-imately 100–125 ft apart. The mean for this categorywas 4.4, with a range of 4.3–4.5. The mean was nearlyone and three-quarter points higher than that of theBase Images. Category means above 4.0 are very high,and indicate a strong preference (Kaplan and Kaplan,1989).

To sum up thus far, citizens preferred the Base Im-ages over the Typical Development class (Table 2). Boththe Development with Trees class and Natural Addi-tions class earned higher ratings than the Base Images.We found dramatic changes in preference when trees

s and G

Fig. 10. The two images from the Prairie Flower rasses category: category mean 3.03, S.D. 1.14.

162 W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166

Fig. 11. Two of the three images from the Trees in Clusters category: category mean 3.88, S.D. 0.93.

were added to the Typical Development images. In eachcase, the images without trees earn very low preferenceratings, whereas those same images earned moderateto high preference ratings after trees were added alongthe roadway.

4.5. Written items

How did the responses to written items compare tothose for the visual images? We used Factor Analysisto distill the 24 written items to a set of five categories.Each category included items that had a strong relation-ship to one another. The five categories referred to Bill-boards, Economic Development, Nature Near Cities,Planting More Trees, and Requirements for Planting(Table 4).

The written items were consistent with the picturepreference results. The Billboard category earned thelowest mean (1.8), indicating citizens harbor notablynegative attitudes about billboards—a result also ev-ident in the picture preference data. The EconomicDevelopment category faired better, earning moder-ate support with a mean of 3.2. This finding is alsoconsistent with the results of the preference data.The final three categories, Nature Near Cities (mean4.1), Planting More Trees (mean 4.4), and Require-ments for Tree Planting (mean 4.6), indicate tremen-dous support for planting more trees along Route45. These findings are consistent with the prefer-ence data that showed the addition of trees alongthe roadway made significant contributions to visualquality.

es in Ro

Fig. 12. Two of the four images from the Tre ws category: category mean 4.44, S.D. 0.84.

W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166 163

Table 4Means and categories of written questionnaire items

Mean S.D.

Billboards 1.76 0.85Having more billboardsAdding billboards

Economic development 3.17 0.86Encouraging growth and economic development in non-urban areasAttracting new residents to the countyHaving more urban development leads to a higher quality of lifeEncouraging new commercial developmentEncouraging new residential developmentEncouraging commercial development with landscape guidelines

Nature near cities 4.14 0.73Preserving rural characterHaving nature near the cityFinding ways to preserve agricultural land in the countryProtecting rivers, woodlands, and other natural featuresIt is important to maintain green, open space, between citiesThere should be a green buffer zone around urban areasPreserving agricultural land near urban centers is importantPreserving the agricultural character

Planting more trees 4.44 0.71Planting more trees along the roadwaysPlanting more treesImproving the visual attractiveness

Requirements for tree planting 4.55 0.84New commercial and professional buildings should have requirements for tree planting

5. Discussion

This study examined the extent to which local citi-zens preferred various designs for the roadside marginsat the rural–urban fringe. The results revealed moderatepreference for the existing agricultural landscape pre-sented in the base images. The addition of typical formsof development to the existing condition reduced visualquality considerably. The addition of trees to the typicaldevelopments, a low cost and simple intervention, im-proved visual quality of the commercial settings evenbeyond that of the existing agricultural landscape. Theaddition of trees to the existing condition was the mosteffective intervention, resulting in the highest prefer-ence ratings. The responses to written items producedsimilar results, demonstrating strong support for treesalong the roadside and negative attitudes regarding bill-boards.

These findings provide new information about pref-erences for nature in roadside settings, suggest design

alternatives for land use at the rural–urban fringe, andraise new questions regarding the role of roadside na-ture in human functioning.

5.1. Contributions

This work contributes to our understanding of theimportance of vegetation as a part of the rural–urbanfringe. A decrease in vegetation reduced the visualquality of the settings, while an increase improved vi-sual quality considerably. Individuals also respondedpositively to statements about preserving rural charac-ter and agricultural land, as well as protecting naturalfeatures such as rivers and woodlands. These findingsare consistent with previous work on landscape prefer-ences at rural–urban fringe. In a study of rural–urbanfringe communities in Michigan, residential settingscontaining a combination of woods, farmland, and openspace were highly preferred for residential develop-ment over settings that either ignored or did not con-

164 W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166

tain such natural features (Sullivan, 1994). On work-ing farms located at the fringe, the use of agriculturalbuffers containing natural features was also found to bea highly approved management option (Sullivan et al.,2004). The study presented here extends our previousknowledge by demonstrating that the addition of nat-ural features to commercial sites can have a dramaticimpact on visual quality.

A second contribution of the work concerns the ex-tent to which trees in particular influence perceptionsof the roadside landscape. The results here, demon-strating higher preference for undeveloped land withtrees compared to undeveloped land without trees, arenot surprising. A number of studies have found thatindividuals prefer settings containing trees over similartypes of settings without trees (Kaplan and Kaplan,1989; Kent and Elliot, 1995; Brush et al., 2000;Erickson et al., 2002; Sullivan, 2003). What is newhere is that the results indicate a preference for devel-oped areas with trees over undeveloped agriculturalland without trees. The findings provide new evidenceregarding the tremendously positive impact of thetrees and their capacity to mitigate the negative re-action people universally have for barren commercialdevelopment. It is important to note that the scenescontaining commercial development with trees didallow views of the commercial buildings. Because thetrees in the scenes covered mostly the sky, they did notscreen or block views to features such as large parkinglots or buildings. Rather, the trees created an edge andpotro

taotbMtwrgsm

5.2. Implications

The results from this work have implications forthe design and management of roadway corridors ofthe rural–urban fringe. Although land planners and de-velopers explore many different layers of design inlandscape planning and land development, one layeris usually missing—a layer for green infrastructure.The findings here suggest roadways are an ideal placeto establish a connected, innervated, green infrastruc-ture. With the growth of commercial and residentialdevelopment at the rural–urban fringe, roadways arelikely to be added or expanded. Planners and design-ers should take the opportunity to incorporate roadsidenature in the planning process from the beginning. Thecost of improving the quality and quantity of roadsidenature in the early planning process is surely lowerthan making changes after the roadways are developed(Myers, 2002). With existing roadways, low cost ap-proaches such as adding a few trees or native vegeta-tion could improve the view. Some management ap-proaches, such as selecting native prairie species andallowing them to grow naturally could decrease mainte-nance costs by eliminating the need for repeated mow-ing. This study demonstrates that commercial develop-ment can be combined with natural features to producea setting that is both visually appealing and functional.

The findings also suggest that citizens’ preferencesshould be considered in the design of the rural–urbanfringe. Sullivan (1993) presented evidence that indi-voddqimeas

ttbgsls

rovided a strikingly positive element. The additionf trees is an example of a simple, low cost design al-ernative that can greatly improve the visual quality ofural–urban fringe landscapes where aesthetics areften neglected.

A third contribution of the work is to demonstratehe impact that negative features such as billboardsnd commercial development have on visual qualityf the roadside. Billboards are known to be a nega-ive feature of the roadside landscape, because theylock views and increase visual clutter (Flad, 1997;yers, 2002; Wolf, 2003a). Our work demonstrates

hat, similar to billboards, commercial developmentithout trees is not acceptable for roadsides of the

ural–urban fringe. As growth at the fringe continues,reater regulation may be needed to establish minimumtandards for visual quality of commercial develop-ent.

iduals prefer more sustainable approaches to devel-pment over approaches that are purely economicallyriven. The research reported here indicates currentevelopment patterns are missing the mark on visualuality because these developments too often fail toncorporate natural features such as trees. This failure

ay come at a considerable expense to the shop keep-rs because, as Wolf (2003b) has shown, individualsre willing to pay more for goods they purchase fromtores that are surrounded by a healthy tree canopy.

The results also have implications for human func-ioning. The health benefits of being exposed to na-ure are widely documented (cf. Frumkin, 2001). Theseenefits are available to individuals who travel throughreen landscapes and to those who view such land-capes through a window (Kaplan, 2001; Kuo and Sul-ivan, 2001a, 2001b). A large number of studies nowhow that settings that contain nature, even urban envi-

W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166 165

ronments that have trees and grass, foster recovery frommental fatigue and restore mental functioning (Kaplanand Kaplan, 1990; Hartig et al., 1991; Kaplan, 1995,2001; Kuo and Sullivan, 2001a; Taylor et al., 2001,2002; Cimprich and Ronis, 2003). And that exposure tonearby nature enhances the ability to cope with and re-cover from physiological stress, cope with subsequentstress, and even recover from surgery (Parsons, 1991;Ulrich, 1984; Ulrich et al., 1991). Given that individ-uals are spending increasing amounts of time in auto-mobiles, the addition of natural elements such as treesand prairie plants to roadsides could have an importantimpact on their ability to function optimally, particu-larly while driving. Residents of the rural–urban fringecould be greatly affected by such efforts, since they arelikely to spend a significant amount of time commutingto and from work.

5.3. Generalizations and future research

Because the study focused on a single road corri-dor located in the Midwest, the results may not re-flect the attitudes of individuals living in differentsettings. In our study, the base images depicted theview of much of the rural landscape in the Midwest,with continuous fields and very few trees. Trees, how-ever, are more common in some rural areas, so thepreference for a commercial development setting withtrees over an agricultural setting might not hold inother areas—although we suspect that the findings herewtom

tctbgmvdadebs

Finally, future research should focus on the extentto which roadside nature improves human function-ing, particularly functioning while driving. Parsons etal. (1998) compared peoples’ responses to videotapedsimulated drives with settings dominated by naturalvegetation versus settings that were mainly built. Theyfound greater stress recovery and immunization fromfuture stresses for participants who viewed the nature-dominated drive. Still, the need exists to learn moreabout the importance of nature for drivers’ attentionand stress level through field experiments utilizing realdriving conditions. The results of such research couldprovide insight into very important driver safety issuessuch as “road rage” and “road hypnosis”.

6. Conclusions

At the rural–urban fringe, changes in the design andmanagement of public roads should be the result of pur-poseful decisions that consider citizens’ preferences.By doing so, the important visual characteristics thatattracted individuals to the fringe are more likely to bepreserved. The body of evidence is now strong enoughto support the argument that roadside nature, in theform of trees and other vegetation, is a key aspect of anynew development. Designers, planners, shop keepers,and citizens should insist upon a healthy tree canopyfor all new developments at the rural–urban fringe.

R

B

C

C

D

D

E

ould in fact generalize to a great variety of communi-ies. Future research should include locations outsidef the Midwest where trees or other natural features areore and less common.Another opportunity for future research would be

o compare the attitudes of different stakeholders tohanges in roadside design and management. The par-icipants in this study were residents of the nearby area,ut other stakeholders might have differing opinions re-arding roadside nature. Business owners, for example,ight be concerned that the trees would decrease the

isibility of their stores, advertisements, and merchan-ise. Roadside maintenance workers might be concernbout the increased maintenance required with the ad-ition of natural vegetation. By understanding the pref-rences of different stakeholder groups, we might beetter equipped to improve design of roadside land-capes.

eferences

rush, R., Chenoweth, R.E., Barman, T., 2000. Group differences inthe enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. LandscapeUrban Plan. 47, 39–45.

imprich, B., Ronis, D.L., 2003. An environmental intervention torestore attention in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.Cancer Nursing 26 (4), 284–292.

lay, G.R., Daniel, T.C., 2000. Scenic landscape assessment: theeffects of land management jurisdiction on public perception ofscenic beauty. Landscape Urban Plan. 49, 1–13.

aniels, T., 1999. When City and Country Collide: Managing theGrowth in the Metropolitan Fringe. Island Press, Washington,DC, USA.

avies, W.K.D., Baxter, T., 1997. Commercial intensification: thetransformation of a highway-oriented ribbon. Geoforum 28 (2),237–252.

dwards, P., Edwards, S., 1999. Working from Home: EverythingYou Need to Know about Living and Working under the SameRoof. Tarcher/Putnam, New York, NY.

166 W.C. Sullivan, S.T. Lovell / Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152–166

Erickson, D.L., Ryan, R.L., De Young, R., 2002. Woodlots in the rurallandscape: landowner motivations and management attitudes in aMichigan (USA) case study. Landscape Urban Plan. 58, 101–112.

Evans, G.W., Wood, K.W., 1980. Assessment of environmental aes-thetics in scenic highway corridors. Environ. Behav. 12 (2),255–273.

Flad, H.K., 1997. Country clutter: visual pollution and the rural road-scape. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 553, 117–129.

Friedberger, M., 2000. The rural–urban fringe in the late twentiethcentury. Agric. History 74 (2), 502–514.

Frumkin, H., 2001. Beyond toxicity: human health and the naturalenvironment. Am. J. Prev. Med. 20, 234–240.

Hartig, T., Mang, M., Evans, G.W., 1991. Restorative effects of nat-ural environment experience. Environ. Behav. 23 (1), 3–26.

Kaplan, R., 2001. The nature of the view from home—psychologicalbenefits. Environ. Behav. 33 (4), 507–542.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psycho-logical Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1990. Restorative experience: the healingpower of nearby nature. In: Francis, M., Hester Jr., R.T. (Eds.),The Meaning of Gardens: Idea, Place and Action. MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 238–243.

Kaplan, S., 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an inte-grative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 169–182.

Kent, R.L., Elliot, C.L., 1995. Scenic routes linking and protect-ing natural and cultural landscape features: a greenway skeleton.Landscape Urban Plan. 33, 341–356.

Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001a. Aggression and violence in theinner city: impacts of environment and mental fatigue. Environ.Behav. 33 (4), 543–571.

Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001b. Environment and crime in the in-ner city: does vegetation reduce crime? Environ. Behav. 33 (3),343–367.

Lapping, M.B., Daniels, T.L., Keller, J.W., 1989. Rural Planning andDevelopment in the United States. The Guilford Press, New York,

L

M

P

P

R

Sullivan, W.C., 1993. A yearning for conservation: the conflict be-tween citizen attitudes and economic development. In: Arias, E.,Gross, M. (Eds.), Equitable and Sustainable Habitats. EDRA,Oklahoma City, pp. 50–55.

Sullivan, W.C., 1994. Perceptions of the rural–urban fringe: citizenpreferences for natural and developed settings. Landscape UrbanPlan. 29, 85–101.

Sullivan, W.C., 2003. The savanna and the city: nature at home. In:Barlett, P. (Ed.), Urban Place: Reconnections with the NaturalWorld. The Academic Exchange, Emory.

Sullivan, W.C., Anderson, O.M., Lovell, S.T., 2004. Buffersat the rural–urban fringe: a strategy approved by farmers,residents, and scientists. Landscape Urban Plan. 69, 299–313.

Taylor, A.F., Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Coping with ADD: thesurprising connection to green play settings. Environ. Behav. 22,54–77.

Taylor, A.F., Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2002. Views of nature andself-discipline: evidence from inner city children. J. Environ. Psy-chol. 22, 49–63.

Ulrich, R.S., 1984. View through a window may influence recoveryfrom surgery. Science 224, 420–421.

Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A.,Zelson, M., 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natu-ral and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 11, 231–248.

Wolf, K.L., 2003a. Freeway roadside management: the urban forestbeyond the white line. J. Arboric. 29 (3), 127–136.

Wolf, K.L., 2003b. Public response to the urban forest in inner-citybusiness districts. J. Arboric. 29 (3), 117–126.

William Sullivan is an associate professor and a founder of theinterdisciplinary Human-Environment Research Laboratory in theDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences atthe University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Sullivan holds a Ph.D.from the University of Michigan with a concentration in Environmentabd

SooLetrgtqrra

NY.ynch, K., Southworth, M., 1974. Designing and managing the strip.

In: Banerjee, T., Southworth, M. (Eds.), City Sense and City De-sign: Writings and Projects of Kevin Lynch. MIT Press, Cam-bridge, MA, USA, pp. 579–616.

yers, M.E., 2002. One view from the road: where is the leadingedge of highway aesthetics to be found? A critical review ofa recent road inventory in Michigan. Landscape Architect. 10,80–87.

arsons, R., 1991. The potential influences of environmental percep-tion on human health. J. Environ. Psychol. 11, 1–23.

arsons, R., Tassinary, L.G., Ulrich, R.S., Hebl, M.R., Grossman-Alexander, M., 1998. The view from the road: implications forstress recovery and immunization. J. Environ. Psychol. 18 (2),113–140.

eimers, V., Clulow, V., 2004. Retail concentration: a comparison ofspatial convenience in shopping strips and shopping centers. J.Retailing Consumer Services 11 (4), 207–221.

nd Behavior. His research focuses on the psychological and socialenefits of urban nature, and citizen participation in environmentalecision-making.

arah Taylor Lovell is a postdoctoral scientist in the Departmentf Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences at the Universityf Illinois, where she is also working to obtain a Master’s Degree inandscape Architecture. She holds a PhD in agronomy (weed sciencemphasis), Master in agronomy, and Bachelor of Science in agricul-ural sciences from the University of Illinois. She has been a senioresearch biologist for Dow AgroSciences and field research biolo-ist for Zeneca Ag Products. Her research examines opportunitieso combine agricultural productivity, ecological integrity, and visualuality in the design and management of rural landscapes. Her cur-ent efforts focus on sustainable agricultural design, GIS mapping ofural landscapes, agroecology and food systems, restoration ecology,nd conservation buffers.