The relationship between landscape installations and safety or pedestrian activity was evaluated in pilot studies. The sites selected for study were those adjacent to or within the areas often referred to as the “clear zone” of the transportation corridor, an area shared by pedestrians and driver perception. Case study research on the impact of environmental mitigation on driver safety is summarized to identify the landscape installations in the clear zone that appear to have an effect on safety. This is followed by case study research on the identification of variables that encourage walking for health purposes. Preliminary findings indicate that the improved definition of spatial edge resulting from typical curbside and median landscape treatment in the clear zone appears to solicit positive behavioral responses by either attracting pedestrian activity or improving driver safety. It is not possible to draw definitive conclusions from the results because of the small sample sizes in the pilot studies (a pedestrian survey included 52 responses), but indications are that the landscape in the clear zone may be having a positive impact on safety or pedestrian activity under certain circumstances. Both pilot studies were conducted separately in Canada and the United States.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WilliamsonD. F.The Prevention of Obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 341, No. 15, Oct.7, 1999, pp. 1140–1141.
RosenblattJ., and BaharG.. An Integrated Approach to Environmental Impact Mitigation and Safety Management: Case Studies in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Proc., XIIIth World Meeting of the International Road Federation, Roads/Transportation and the Environment Session, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1998.
4.
SallisJ. F., BaumanA., and PrattM.. Environmental and Policy Interventions to Promote Physical Activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1998, pp. 379–397.
5.
BallK., BaumanA., LeslieE., and OwenN.. Perceived Environmental Aesthetics and Convenience and Company Are Associated with Walking for Exercise Among Australian Adults. Preventative Medicine, Vol. 33, 2001, pp. 434–440.
6.
Giles-CortiB., and DonovanR. J.. The Relative Influence of Individual, Social, and Physical Environment Determinants of Physical Activity. Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 54, 2002, pp. 1793–1812.
7.
HandyS., BoarnetM., EwingR., and KillingsworthR.. How the Built Environment Affects Physical Activity: Views from Urban Planning. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, Vol. 23 (Suppl. 2), 2002, pp. 64–73.
8.
PikoraT., Giles-CortiB., BullF., JamrozikK., and DonovanR.. Developing a Framework for Assessment of the Environmental Determinants of Walking and Cycling. Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 56, No. 8, 2002, pp. 1693–1703.
Roadside Design Guide. Task Force for Roadside Safety of the Standing Committee on Highways Subcommittee on Design, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1996.
11.
Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Plan, Initial Draft of a Compendium of Strategies. Project 17-18(3). TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
12.
ZeiglerA. J.Risk of Vehicle–Tree Accidents and Management of Roadside Trees. In Transportation Research Record 1127, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 37–43.
13.
ZeiglerA. J.Guide to Management of Roadside Trees. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1986.
14.
Vegetation Control for Safety: A Guide for Street and Highway Maintenance Personnel. Publication FHWA-RD-90-003. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1990.
15.
HunterW., CouncilF., and DuttA.. Project Selection for Roadside Hazards Elimination. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, 1977.
16.
TurnerD. S., WaltersJ. V., HuttJ. M., and PatrickJ. E.. Survey of State Utility Manual Clear Zone Provisions. In Transportation Research Record 1233, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1989, pp. 164–177.
17.
CerveroR., and RadischC.. Travel Choices in Pedestrian Versus Automobile Oriented Neighborhoods. Transport Policy, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1996, pp. 127–141.
18.
SouthworthM.Walkable Suburbs?Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, 1997, pp. 28–44.
19.
PeponisJ., RossC., and RashidM.. The Structure of Urban Space, Movement and Copresence: The Case of Atlanta. Geoforum, Vol. 28, No. 3–4, 1997, pp. 341–358.
20.
A Little Walking Goes a Long Way. Harvard Heart Letter, Vol. 10, No. 4, Dec.1999, pp. 1–4.
21.
Exercise: A Good Health Prescription. Harvard Women’s Health Watch, Vol. 8, No. 11, July2001, pp. 6–11.
22.
KhistyC. J.Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities: Beyond the Level-of-Service Concept. In Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 45–50.
23.
MoriM., and TsukaguchiH.. A New Method for Evaluation of Level of Service in Pedestrian Facilities. Transportation Research A, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1987, pp. 223–234.
24.
SarkarS.Determination of Service Levels for Pedestrians, with European Examples. In Transportation Research Record 1405, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 35–42.
25.
LandisB. W., VattikutiV. R., OttenbergR. M., McLeodD. S., and GuttenplanM.. Modeling the Roadside Walking Environment: Pedestrian Level of Service. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 82–88.
26.
SeneviratneP. N., and MorrallJ. F.. Level of Service on Pedestrian Facilities. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 39. No. 1, 1985, pp. 109–123.
27.
FruinJ. J.Pedestrian Planning and Design. Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, Inc., 1971.
28.
FruinJ. J.Designing for Pedestrians: A Level-of-Service Concept. In Highway Research Record 355, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1971, pp. 1–15.
29.
DixonL. B.Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems. In Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 1–9.
30.
HelbingD., MolnarP., FarkasI., and BolayK.. Self Organizing Pedestrian Movement. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 28, 2001, pp. 361–383.
31.
IsaacsR.The Urban Picturesque: An Aesthetic Experience of Urban Pedestrian Places. Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2000, pp. 145–181.
32.
AppleyardD.Motion, Sequence and the City. In The Nature and Art of Motion (KepesG., ed.), George Braziller, Inc., New York, 1965.
33.
BishopI., WherrettJ., and MillerD.. Assessment of Path Choices on a Country Walk Using a Virtual Environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 52, No. 4, 2001, pp. 225–237.
34.
JacobsA.Great Streets. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1993.
35.
KaplanR., KaplanS., and RyanR.. With People in Mind. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1998.
36.
NaderiJ. R., and RamanB.. Design Considerations in Simulating Pedestrian Environments. Presented at 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2002.
37.
QuinlanJ. R.C4.5. Programs for Machine Learning, San Mateo, Calif., 1993.
