Greenways across a range of landscapes from urban to natural serve society as both transportation corridors and recreational pathways. Because of these dual functions, planning and management of greenways warrant an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates frameworks from the fields of transportation and outdoor recreation. Research was conducted to (a) investigate the relationship between transportation and recreation from a greenway user's perspective, (b) consider and integrate transportation and recreation frameworks that measure quality of greenway travel, and (c) determine the significance of settings in user perceptions of quality. On-site surveys of users (n = 841) across three greenways in northern New England were administered to learn how travelers used and perceived the quality of these facilities. Findings showed that greenways were used primarily for recreation but often incorporated varying elements of transportation. Furthermore, traveler perceptions of quality differed across settings. Transportation and recreation planning frameworks can be integrated to provide a more holistic approach to greenway planning and management.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LittleC.Greenways for America. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md., 1990.
2.
Highway Capacity Manual. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
3.
Transportation Planning Handbook. Denver Service Center, National Park Service, Denver, Colo., 1999.
4.
YuK.The Evolution of Greenways in China. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 76, 2006, pp. 223–239.
5.
SearnsR.The Evolution of Greenways as an Adaptive Urban Landscape Form. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 33, 1995, pp. 65–80.
6.
TurnerT.Greenway Planning in Britain: Recent Work and Future Plans. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 76, 2006, pp. 240–251.
7.
ConineA.Planning for Multi-Purpose Greenways in Concord, North Carolina. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 68, 2004, pp. 271–287.
8.
RyanR., FábosJ. G., and AllanJ. J.Understanding Opportunities and Challenges for Collaborative Greenway Planning in New England. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 76, 2006, pp. 172–191.
9.
FábosJ.New England Greenway Vision Plan. Fábos Landscape Planning and Greenway Symposium, 2007. http://www.umass.edu/greenway.
10.
GobsterP.The Human Dimensions of Urban Greenways: Planning for Recreation and Related Experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 68, 2004, pp. 147–165.
11.
ShaferC.A Tale of Three Greenway Trails: User Perceptions Related to Quality of Life. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 49, 2000, pp. 163–178.
12.
KrizekK., El-GeneidyA., and ThompsonK.A Detailed Analysis of How an Urban Trail System Affects Cyclists’ Travel. Transportation, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2007, pp. 611–624.
13.
Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
14.
FlanneryA., WochingerK., and MartinA.Driver Assessment of Service Quality on Urban Streets. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1920, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 25–31.
15.
DowlingR.G., ReinkeD. B., FlanneryA., RyusP., VandeheyM., PetritschT. A., LandisB.W., RouphailN.M., and BonnesonJ.A.NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
16.
VirklerM.R., and BalasubramanianR.Flow Characteristics on Shared Hiking/Biking/Jogging Trails. In Transportation Research Record 1636, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 43–46.
17.
LandisB.W., VattikutiV. R., and BrannickM. T.Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level of Service. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 119–126.
18.
DemerathL.The Social Qualities of Being on Foot: A Theoretical Analysis of Pedestrian Activity, Community, and Culture. City and Community, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2003, pp. 217–237.
19.
ManheimM. L.Reaching Decisions About Technological Projects with Social Consequences: A Normative Model. Transportation, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1973, pp. 1–24.
20.
KaneL., and Del MistroR.Changes in Transport Planning Policy: Changes in Transport Planning Methodology?Transportation, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2003, pp. 113–131.
21.
StankeyG., ColeD., LukasR., PetersonM., FrisselS., and WashburneR.The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1985.
22.
GraefeA., KussF., and VaskeJ.Visitor Impact Management: The Planning Framework. National Park and Conservation Association, Washington, D.C., 1990.
23.
The Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) Framework—A Handbook for Planners and Managers. Denver Service Center, National Park Service, Denver, Colo., 1997.
24.
ManningR.Visitor Experience and Resource Protection: A Framework for Managing the Carrying Capacity of National Parks. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2001, pp. 93–108.
25.
ManningR.Parks and Carrying Capacity: Commons Without Tragedy.University of Vermont Press, Lebanon, N.H., 2007.
26.
ManningR.Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 2011.
27.
VaskeJ., and WhittakerD.Normative Approaches to Natural Resources. In Society and Natural Resources: A Summary of Knowledge. Modern Litho, Jefferson, Mo., 2004, pp. 283–294.
28.
ManningR., and KrymkoskiD.Standards of Quality for Parks and Protected Areas: Applying Normative Theory and Methods in the U.S. National Parks. International Journal of Sociology, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2010, pp. 11–29.
29.
JacksonJ.A Conceptual and Measurement Model for Norms and Roles. Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1966, pp. 35–47.
30.
WhittakerD., ShelbyB., ManningR., ColeD., and HaasG.Capacity Reconsidered: Finding Consensus and Clarifying Differences. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2011, pp. 1–20.
31.
ManningR.Parks and People: Managing Outdoor Recreation at Acadia National Park. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2009.
Regional Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Update. Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, Winooski, Vt., 2008. http://www.ccmpo.us/library/bikeped.
37.
ManningR., and FreimundW.Use of Visual Research Methods to Measure Standards of Quality for Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2004, pp. 552–579.
38.
SteinitzC.Toward a Sustainable Landscape with High Visual Preference and High Ecological Integrity: The Loop Road in Acadia National Park, U.S.A.Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1990, pp. 213–250.
39.
HalloJ., and ManningR.Transportation and Recreation: A Case Study of Visitors Driving for Pleasure at Acadia National Park. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2009, pp. 491–499.
