Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra

Visual characteristics of roads: A literature review of peoples

perception and Norwegian design practice
Christina Blumentrath , Mari Sundli Tveit
Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PB 5003, 1432 s, Norway

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 24 October 2012
Received in revised form 18 October 2013
Accepted 21 October 2013

Keywords:
Visual character
Road aesthetics
Perception
Terminology

a b s t r a c t
Several projects and measures have been developed to enhance the design of public roads.
Nevertheless, the critics of their design remain numerous. To further the discussion on road
aesthetics, this paper makes suggestions for a more consistent terminology and presents a
theoretical framework for assessing the visual quality of roads. Based on a literature
review, twelve visual characteristics are identied: coherence, imageability, simplicity,
visibility, maintenance, naturalness, integration, contrast, variety, aesthetics of ow,
legibility and orientation. These characteristics are presented and described and where
possible their theoretical and empirical backing is given. Only a few visual characteristics
in road design have been subjected to empirical perception studies, so their importance for
road users and residents remains unclear.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Norway was the rst of 37 countries to ratify the European Landscape Convention adopted by the Council of Europe (CoE)
in 2000. The convention aims to promote the protection, management and planning of European landscapes (CoE, 2010)
and emphasizes the importance of outstanding as well as every day and degraded landscapes (CoE, 2000, Art.2). Many of our
every day landscapes are affected or dominated by roads and streets, which are no longer seen as simple connections between places but as places in their own right (Jackson, 1994; Merriman, 2004). Additionally, roads represent one of the most
widespread modes of landscape perception today (Girot, 2010a) and often give us a rst impression of the landscapes we
are visiting (Junta da Andalucia, 2009, p. 39), underpinning their importance in our everyday life.
Nevertheless, critics targeting the design of roads and their elements, especially in suburban areas, have been and remain
numerous, claiming: a lack of individual character or identity, too gray in design, too functional or too monotone (cf.
Appleyard et al., 1966, p. 3; NRK, 2010). Results of landscape visual quality research also show that they are mostly perceived
as negative man-made elements (Arriaza et al., 2004; Clay and Daniel, 2000; Garr et al., 2009).
To address this, aesthetical issues have become more and more valued in the road planning praxis in the last decades, and
this is also true in Norway, where, for example, the National Tourist Routes project has received a lot of public and
professional attention (SVV, 2010b). The Norwegian Public Roads Administration Statens Vegvesen (SVV), which is responsible for the public national and county road network, has also strengthened its aesthetical emphasis in practice. It has, for
example, increased the number of landscape architects in their staff from 1 to 100 between 1975 and 2010, becoming the
countrys largest employer of landscape architects. Additionally, this authority recently enacted the Intern Strategy for
Promoting Good Architecture to promote life quality, welfare, and sustainability as well as attractive, functional and
universally designed places (SVV, 2012).

Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 99885868.

E-mail addresses: chbl@umb.no (C. Blumentrath), mari.tveit@umb.no (M.S. Tveit).
0965-8564/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.024

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

59

To encourage improved road design, the Norwegian Public Roads Administration introduced the Beautiful Road Award
(Vakre Vegers Pris) in 1988. This award, as well as the national road awards of the four Scandinavian neighbor countries
(introduced in the 1990s), uses aesthetical aspects as one of the major evaluation criteria, as well as innovation, safety and environmental aspects. In her work about the Beautiful Road Award in Norway Lset (2009, p. 2) claims that it has an inspiring
effect on aesthetical thinking in road projects, but that the ideas about what is a beautiful road vary greatly between the members of the jury, and apparently do not always conform to the professions ideal of a well-designed road (Lset, 2009, p. 62). In
fact, there is uncertainty about the professions ideal well-designed road, since none of these awards work with transparent
evaluation criteria to judge the beauty or good aesthetic qualities of a project. Actually, this is surprising, considering the
numerous existing aesthetical recommendations, which can be found in the road planning literature and praxis.
A comprehensive approach for assessing the aesthetical qualities of roads is missing not only in the Beautiful Road
Awards but also in the daily road planning, e.g. when reviewing or approving road projects. Discussion around the theory
of road aesthetics is very limited, despite the fact that roads are such an important part of our landscape. This lack of a theory
based approach to road aesthetics might also be the reason for the loose and varied terminology used in the eld. A
standardization of terminology is in turn necessary to develop means by which the more routinely successful designers
can record their observations and aesthetics advice for prosperity in meaningful terms so that it becomes easier to share
the results of studies and observations with colleagues (Burke, 2004). Forsyth et al. (2007, p. 83) also explain that having
a common language for assessing the particular strengths of roads, station areas, bridges, and other transportation related
places can do much to further public debate about such important concerns.
Public debate about road aesthetics is important, since roads, like architecture, have a strong public character. They are
not only often nanced with public resources, but people are exposed to them in their daily environments and can rarely
choose whether they want to experience them or not (Nasar, 1999, p. 1) One possible way to create roads and other public
spaces which match the taste and aesthetical demands of the public is to integrate extant knowledge of environmental preferences into design (Nasar, 1988, p. 393). This is of particular signicance as differences and discrepancies regarding the
road experience of laymen (e.g. residents, road users) and professionals have been widely recognized, in, for example, road
and landscape perception studies (Brown and Gifford, 2001; Brush et al., 2000; Forsyth et al., 2007, p. 73; Kaplan and Kaplan,
1989; Rogge et al., 2007; Tessin, 2008; Vouligny et al., 2009).
To study and understand peoples perception and evaluation of landscapes, several theories of landscape perception and
aesthetics (e.g. Bourassa, 1990), as well as frameworks for assessing landscape quality, have been developed in the eld of
landscape aesthetics. Here especially the review papers from Zube et al. (1982) about landscape perception research, as well
as the work from Lothian (1999) about landscape quality assessment, give a good overview, and provide structure for the
existent literature in the eld of landscape aesthetics. In this context the review work of Tveit et al. (2006) provides a comprehensive theory-based framework for analyzing the visual character of landscapes. However, the identied visual concepts
cannot directly be transferred to road projects, but must be adapted to the specics of roads which in their nature are both:
landscapes, landscape elements, and constructions, with quite technical elements.

2. Aim and scope of this review

Despite the importance of roads for our everyday life, they face frequent criticism regarding their design. The discussion
about road design and the approaches to judge and enhance the aesthetical qualities of road projects should be improved.
Although the eld of aesthetics includes the entire range of sensory experiences, this paper will concentrate on visual
aspects. One reason for this is that the analyzed road literature uses the term aesthetical almost exclusively for visual aspects, possibly because vision is the principal sense used while driving (Appleyard et al., 1966, p. 4).
This review is therefore aimed at identifying visual characteristics of roads which inuence human aesthetical response
and which can be used in a theoretical framework for assessing their visual quality. This study will contribute to a more consistent terminology for road design. The visual characteristics will be compiled through a review of the current state of the
art via the road design literature. To ensure that the aesthetic demands of the public are taken into account, this review shall
investigate the theoretical assumptions and empirical data on which the characteristics are based, and whether they correspond to ndings in the eld of preference research related to roads and landscapes. To delimit the scope, this study focus on
everyday roads which are here dened as both streets and roads which include car trafc, which are areas people move
along during their daily lives and which are not necessarily designated as a scenic routes (Jones and Daugstad, 1997) are
under protection (cf. SVV, 2002b) or designed as architectural art, e.g. the National Tourist Routes in Norway (SVV,
2010b).

3. Method
3.1. Reviewed literature
To obtain an overview of existing, actual visual design principles in the road design praxis in Norway, different kinds of
publications dealing with the physical design of roads have been reviewed (see Table 1).

60

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

Table 1
Reviewed literature representing the road design praxis.
Publications from the Norwegian Public Roads Administration
34 handbooks
9 design guidelines for single road projects (projects after the year 2000)
Vegen og vi (intern journal) volumes from 01/2000 to 02/2012
Beautiful Road Award jurys statements
Other publications (e.g. Noise barriers or National conservation plan for roads, bridges and road related cultural monuments)
Norwegian/Scandinavian journals (Publisher) volumes from 01/2000 to 02/2012
Vre Veger (Teknisk Ukeblad Media AS)
Plan Tidskrift for samfunnsplanlegging, bolig og byplan og regional utvikling (Universitetsforlaget)
Nordic Road & Transport Research (VTI Information)
Peer-reviewed:
Arkitektur N byggekunst, landskap, interior (since 2007) & Byggekunst (20002006) (Norske arkitekters landsforbund)
Other publications
Educational books within road planning
Publications from road authorities of foreign countries (mainly Denmark & Sweden)

The main source for the analysis was a selection of 34 handbooks published by the Norwegian Public Roads Administration related to the design of roads, streets and their elements (handbooks such as those about eld surveys, trafc rules, and
statistics were not taken into consideration). Of these handbooks one third are norms or binding guidelines, while the rest
are categorized as non-committal recommendations. In the course of the review it became obvious that a Norwegian handbook/guideline exclusively dealing with road aesthetics does not exist, but that most of the reviewed road planning and design literature includes a more or less extensive section about aesthetical issues.
In addition to the handbooks, journals and design guidelines for single road projects published after the year 2000 have
been analyzed, so as to identify the current state of the art in road aesthetics, with a focus on visual aspects. Further useful
sources were Masters and Ph.D. theses (especially Amundsen, 1995; Drottenborg, 1999), the intern journal of Norwegian
Public Roads Administration as well as Norwegian journals in the eld of transportation, landscape architecture and planning. International papers, as well as publications from the road authorities of foreign countries, mainly Denmark and Sweden, have also been reviewed (e.g. Egebjerg, 2002; Vgverket, 2001, 2004a).
To investigate the underlying theoretical and empirical backing of the existing visual design principles, scientic papers
and publications published since the 1960s were also taken into account, because it was in this time that professional attention started to be focused on the visual character of roads (Forsyth et al., 2007, p. 54). Here the search in different databases,
e.g. TRID (Transportation Research International Documentation) and Swetswise, concentrated on perception and preference
studies which include roads/streets. In total 42 studies (mainly published in English) in the wider eld of road design and
aesthetics, which included an empirical study, could be identied. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA, often
in relation to the National Scenic Byways Program, administered by the Federal Highway Administration.
3.2. Analysis of the terminology regarding visual qualities of roads
The publications compiled in the literature review were systematically screened by the researchers to identify terms, proposed measures and other aesthetical statements stated to account for the visual quality of roads. These statements were
very differently formulated and extracted from different contexts, due to the differing nature of the publications. Therefore,
the assessment was not limited to keywords but included all characteristics and adjectives which could be associated with
road aesthetics, such as beautiful, aesthetic or visual qualities, pleasant, good driving experience, negative impression, or annoying.
Once the terminology, proposed measures and aesthetical statements had been collected, they were sorted thematically,
grouping synonyms and terms used interchangeably in the literature. Secondly, the terminology was systematized in two
different levels of abstraction were used (Fig. 1): visual design principles for concrete measures and visual characteristics
for more generally formulated visual features of a road (e.g. coherence) which have been found in previous studies to inuence the aesthetical perception of landscapes, both in a favorable or unfavorable way. This systematic approach was based on
existing conceptual frameworks within landscape aesthetics, e.g. Tveit et al. (2006) and Ode et al. (2008).
To contribute as much as possible to a consistent use of terms, the choice of key terms for visual characteristics (e.g.
coherence, imageability) is oriented both to transportation design research (especially Clemente et al., 2005; Forsyth
et al., 2007; Tornberg, 2008; Vgverket, 2004b) and the eld of landscape character assessment (e.g. Tveit et al., 2006).
4. Results and discussion
4.1. A theoretical framework for enhancing and assessing the visual quality of roads
This study sets out to develop an approach for assessing and enhancing the visual quality of roads, which includes both
the aesthetical ideals of the profession as well aslay peoples perceptions and appreciation of roads. In the following we will
describe the theoretical framework, which is also an attempt to systematize the terminology of road aesthetics.

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

61

Fig. 1. Visual characteristics and visual design principles in road design.

In addition to the visual characteristics and design principles the review identied three different perspectives that need
to be considered when designing a visually attractive road. In the following these are called the dimensions of road design.
These dimensions can also be seen as three different perspectives from which the visual quality of road projects can be assessed (the order in Fig. 1 does not reect priorities).
These perspectives are (1) the road seen as an independent construction, (2) the road seen in relation to its surroundings
and a (3) perspective, which takes a travelers movement along the road into account (the order in Fig. 1 does not reect
priorities).
Fig. 1 gives an overview of the dimensions of design, their attributed visual characteristics and the visual design principles
derived from the review.

62

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

Altogether 12 visual characteristics were identied, which are expected to inuence the visual perception of roads.
Although the visual characteristics are divided into three different dimensions of design, some could have been classied
into more than one of the three dimensions (e.g. coherence or variety). They have, however, been categorized based on
the focus identied which corresponds to the design principles e.g. focusing on the built form of the road or the movement
along the road.
The 29 visual design principles have been placed in a hierarchical overview according to the visual design characteristics
for which they seem to be of importance, but they often contribute to more than just one visual characteristic. Good road
alignment practice is, for example, important for coherence, integration, aesthetics of ow and for legibility of the road.
Because the publications of road authorities rarely relate their design suggestions and aesthetical statements to empirical
research or any underlying theories, the reviewed perception and preference studies, as well as theories from the wider eld
of landscape aesthetics, have been used to underline where possible the importance of the visual characteristics from a
theoretical or empirical point of view. Below follows a description and discussion of the visual characteristics and their
theoretical and empirical backing.
4.1.1. Visual characteristics of a road seen as an independent structure
The rst design dimension (see Fig. 1) includes six visual characteristics which inuence the aesthetical perception of a
road and its roadsides, seen as a construction or a piece of architectural work itself: coherence, imageability, simplicity, visibility, maintenance and naturalness.
4.1.1.1. Coherence. A coherent, harmonious or uniform design of roads is often mentioned as an objective in the handbooks
and aesthetic guidelines (e.g. Amundsen and Solli, 2000, p. 43; SVV, 1993a, p. 10, 2005b, 2006, p. 27). While here the term
coherence is used as a characteristic of the design of the road itself, discussion regarding the coherence of the road in relation to its surroundings can be found under Integration in Section 4.1.2.
Coherence can be used synonymously with the terms harmony or unity, which are understood as the degree to which
the visual resources of the landscape join together to form a coherent, harmonious visual pattern (Federal Highway Administration, 1979, p. 58). In this context this terms includes notions of the overall, coherent and uniform design of road construction, in other words the internal harmony of a road (Sandegrd and Lannr, 1997). Tveit et al. (2006) claim that
another dimension of coherence is the comprehension of unity where the whole is more signicant than the parts. This
can be correlated with Gestalt psychology, which assumes that objects individuals perceive in the environment behave
as a whole (Drottenborg, 1999).
In the discipline of landscape architecture it is an accepted belief, that good landscape experience is achieved by a balance between coherence, diversity and imageability. Coherence alone is too monotonous, too much diversity produces chaos
and when character takes over, it is importunate (vstedal, 1997, p. 8 [own translation]). Forsyth et al. (2007, p. 15) stated
that Transportation environments that have a high level of consistency, as well as those with much variety and complexity,
can provide a positive sense of place. Generally, standardization results in a sense of unity, which furthers a project aesthetic objective of developing a consistent corridor theme (Abraham and Showers, 2007).
Studies about perceived coherence regarding roads cannot yet be identied. Nevertheless ve visual design principles
were found, which promote coherence and harmony in a road construction. One of them is the use of good proportions,
which was also conrmed in two empirical studies of bridge design: the study of Petzold and Carlson (1996) shows that
for the public scale and proportion [. . .], both of the individual bridge components in relation to each other and of the bridge
structure in relation to its surroundings are of high signicance for the aesthetic attractiveness. Similarly, Kulasuriya et al.
(2002) revealed, in a study about the basic aesthetic concepts and proportioning systems used in the design of bridges, that
laymen have a general preference for squares and the golden ratio, which bring a sense of harmony to design.
4.1.1.2. Imageability. Imageability can be used as synonym for terms such as identity, sense of place and character as
well as distinctness or uniqueness (Chon and Shafer, 2009). Tveit et al. (2006) dene imageability as the concept of
making the landscape create a strong visual image in the observer, and making landscapes distinguishable and memorable.
Referring to Clemente et al. (2005, p. 6) a place has high imageability when specic physical elements and their arrangement capture attention, evoke feelings, and create a lasting impression.
To design roads, their sections or single road elements, in a manner that give them their own identity is regarded as
enhancing their visual quality and may additionally add to their coherence. At the level of design principle it is often recommended that inspiration be taken from the surrounding landscape when developing an identity for a road. As well as using
local materials, for example, or the facilitation of distinctive and memorable views (Chon and Shafer, 2009), the use of different kinds of road art is regarded to be an appropriate way to create and promote the character and identity of a roadway.
Referring to Stenslie (2002, p. 97) road art can include sequential art, light and color projections (also animated), boards,
signs, 3D objects, sculptures, land art, botanical and sound art, or electronic media and internet art. The designation of a road
as part of a thematic or scenic route (e.g. The Industrial Heritage Trail in Germany (Regionalverband Ruhr, 2013)) can provide
inspiration for the design of the road and its elements, and could further a distinct character.
Empirical studies explicitly used to investigate visual preferences for roads with imageability or identity could not be
found for this review. Just the study of Gartner and Erkkila (2004) conrmed that roads have distinctive character and that
their individual attributes can be discerned and evaluated by users. Furthermore the study of Chon and Shafer (2009)

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

63

about aesthetic responses to urban greenway trail environments showed that distinctiveness within the scene was one of
the most inuential dimensions in predicting likeability of a greenway. Characteristics of distinctive scenes may include for
example major architectural skylines or water features.
4.1.1.3. Simplicity. Following the minimalist ideal of less is more and in line with the Nordic architectural tradition which
has cultivated the simple (Ellefsen, 2010, p. 22) it is repeatedly mentioned in the reviewed publications that simplicity and
clarity in design as well as a reduction in road furniture (e.g. trafc signs) lead to good design and to attractive road environments (Elvebakk, 2010, p. 40; SVV, 1979, p. 41, 2002a, p. 20).
But when applying this visual characteristic, it must also be taken into consideration, that the publics perception of
appropriate aesthetics may not always be in agreement with a minimalist approach and that customers may desire structures with a distinct sense of identity that may include ornamentation or predened structure (Abraham and Showers,
2007). To which degree simplicity is favorable for the perceived attractiveness of roads has not been addressed in empirical
studies. Only the study of Groothuis et al. (2007) showed that as little furniture as possible (in this case: billboards along a
road) is most appreciated by citizens.
4.1.1.4. Visibility. The visual characteristic visibility (visual scale, openness) deals with the experience of landscape rooms
or perceptual units (Tveit et al., 2006). Safety issues and the concept of human scale are often discussed in this context, in
research on transportation environments. Human scale refers to the size, texture and articulation of physical elements that
match the size and proportions of humans (Clemente et al., 2005, p. 18). Indications of a human scale are, for example, a
room-like feeling through small buildings, narrow streets and restricted sight lines or human scale details, such as street
furniture or plants (Clemente et al., 2005, p. 19; Forsyth et al., 2007, p. 250). That well dened trafc environments are
perceived as beautiful by car-drivers was also shown in an interview survey conducted by Drottenborg (1999, p. 66). However, the appropriate visual scale is different for different road users because of the differing perceptions while moving at
different speeds.
In the reviewed publications the use of sheer constructions and open or light design in road projects was recommended,
as, for example, the use of transparent noise screens, and the avoidance of tunnel effects (e.g. Lkken, 2002, p. 6; Shannon
and Smets, 2010, p. 106; Statens Vegvesen Buskerud, 2002, p. 43; Wold, 2007). This also accounts for the preference of people for open views and overviews, which can be explained by the prospect and refuge theory of Appleton (1975). Forsyth
et al. (2007, p. 253) stress the importance of lighting, visibility and the avoidance of tunnels and narrow paths for personal
safety and therewith for successful public spaces, which are more likely to be used. This is supported by the study of Drottenborg (1999), which showed that drivers appreciate bright colors and a special lightness which contributes to the brightness of the experienced colors (ibid., p. 66). Although no empirical study deals directly with a sheer and open design of road
elements, studies targeted at the view from the road (e.g. Antonson et al., 2009; Clay and Smidt, 2004; DellAcqua and Russo,
2010; Gunderman, 1981; Jones et al., 1976; Tveit et al., 2006), showed that vividness and openness are important indicators
for the attractiveness of views which suggests the importance of this visual characteristic in the context of road aesthetics.
4.1.1.5. High quality and maintenance. High quality materials as well as good workmanship are regarded as necessary for the
good maintenance of road environments (SVV, 1994, p. 90, 2010a, p. 18, 2011, p. 425), which in turn plays an important role
in road perception and attractiveness. Drottenborg (1999) showed that dirty transportation environments are experienced
as ugly (ibid., p. 55) and this is conrmed by a study from the Swedish road authority which showed that care and maintenance of a road, road furniture and vegetation is one of ve factors contributing to the higher perceived design quality of
roads (Vgverket, 2004b, p. 17). Studies from the USA also showed that maintenance and tidiness inuence the scenic value
of a road (Hallo and Manning, 2009; Kent and Elliot, 1995; Barton (2005) in Lucey and Barton (2011) and Nassauer and
Larson (2004)).
In the wider eld of landscape, quality assessment studies have shown increased preferences for perceived stewardship
(synonymous with a sense of order and care, upkeep maintenance) (Tveit et al., 2006). Nevertheless, it is also recognized that
too much and too little maintenance are both valued negatively (Coeterier, 1996), because too much maintenance is articial, sterile, everything is programmed, there are no degrees of freedom in ones behavior, one cannot do anything. Too little
maintenance looks shabby; one does not want to do anything.
4.1.1.6. Naturalness. In the road design literature it is often recommended that too technical a design be avoided (e.g. guardrails, snow screens) and that use is made of elements with a more natural appearance such as greened earth walls (e.g. SVV,
1993b, p. 89, 2003a, p. 39). Plantings, and the greening and re-vegetation of roadside areas have also been intensively
discussed in the planning literature (e.g. Forschungsgesellschaft fr Straen und Verkehrswesen, 1999; SVV, 1996, 2011).
That naturalness is positively correlated with landscape preferences, and that people often appreciate nature more than
man-made landscape elements, has been shown by several studies (Hgerhll et al., 2004; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989), and
also in connection with road design (e.g. Antonson et al., 2009; Burley, 1996; Steinitz, 1990).
In the study from Drottenborg (1999, p. 53) it was found that large areas of concrete and asphalt are perceived as ugly
by drivers and likewise showed Garr et al. (2009) that more natural road surfaces (gravel roads) are preferred in comparison to paved roads. A study from Hodgson and Thayer (1980) revealed that exactly the same photographs of landscapes
were judged better by the participants, if they were labeled with a natural notion (e.g. stream bank) than if they were labeled

64

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

with words indicating human inuence (e.g. road cut). As well as perceived beauty another advantage of nature-dominated
roadside environments is their positive inuence on a drivers recovery from stress, which has been tested in an empirical
study by Parsons et al. (1998).
Many of the empirical studies identied deal with vegetation along roads and show the importance of vegetation for the
attractiveness of road environments (e.g. Drottenborg, 1999, p. 66). Trees (large) especially were found to have a high positive inuence on user preferences (McAndrews et al., 2006; Todorova et al., 2004; Wolf, 2006) and an ecological management of embankments with a lower frequency of mowing and proximity with natural settings was also appreciated by
car drivers (Froment and Domon, 2006). However, road designers must be aware that degrees of naturalness can also get
too high. So is, for example, a high degree of naturalness, as found in virgin forests, not always perceived as positive
[. . .]. These ndings indicate that the relationship between naturalness and preference is not necessarily linear (Tveit
et al., 2006).
4.1.2. Visual characteristics of roads in relation to their surroundings
This second dimension focuses on the relationship between roads and their surroundings and includes the perception of
the road from the surrounding landscape. Basically, two different strategies can be distinguished: either, the road is adapted
to the surrounding landscape or it is deliberately constructed as a contrast.
4.1.2.1. Integration. Historically, the construction of roads and their elements were tied to the region in which they were built
(see e.g. Abraham and Showers, 2007), not least due to limited technical and transportation possibilities and the smaller
dimension of road projects. But with the increased availability of advanced technical means and machines as well as safety
standards and the increasing dimensions of roads, their adaption to their surroundings became more complicated. The ideal
of the adaptation of a road to the landscape has been developed since the end of the 19th century with the American Parkways (Amundsen, 1995, pp. 34) and the German Autobahnen (19401970) (ibid., 3-93-11).
The integration of a road with the surrounding landscape contributes to the objective of the European Landscape Convention to maintain local and regional characteristics, and is also the most common visual characteristic mentioned in the reviewed publications. Some typical formulations in road literature were: the road shall be adapted to the landscape (SVV,
1979, p. 8), the road design shall take the character of the place into consideration (SVV, 1999, p. 8), the design should aim
at a visual interaction between the road and its surrounding landscape/urban environment (SVV, 2003b, p. 19) or welldesigned streets and roads [. . .] t nicely into their surroundings (Passonneau, 1996).
It can be seen in studies that a good integration of man-made elements (such as roads) is appreciated by people, where
less disturbance in a landscape has been found to increase perceived visual quality (Arriaza et al., 2004). The importance for
design quality of the successful integration of a road into the landscape was also conrmed by a study of the Swedish Road
Authority, where road users as well as road designers judged adaptation to surroundings as the most important criterion for
design quality (Vgverket, 2004c, p. 13). A study from Nassauer and Larson (2004), of residents and tourists, revealed four
key design-related reasons for perceived attractiveness of highway landscapes and the most important was good t of the
highway location and design with its landscape context.
Visual design principles aiming at a better integration of the roadway to the surroundings are numerous. Most of them
deal with the mitigation of impacts on the surrounding landscape and how to adapt single road elements.
A study by Sullivan and Lovell (2006) revealed that vegetation can not only help to integrate a road better into a landscape, but also that the attractiveness of road environments for road users can be enhanced by planting trees (e.g. between
commercial strips and a roadway). But it is not only greening which is an important issue in the Norwegian road design
praxis and literature regarding road integration and adaption. The use of local materials and road alignment, which takes
local topography and vegetation into account, as well as the layout of cuttings, slopes and embankments (in Fig. 1 included
in the visual design principle Design/form of roadside areas) has also been an important theme in Norwegian road design
since the 1920s (Amundsen, 1995, pp. 3-343-35) and still continues to be so (Larsen, 2010).
4.1.2.2. Contrast. In the 1960s the ideal emerged in Norway that a road if not adapted to its surroundings should add
something positive to a landscape, or that it should be designed as a positive contrast (Amundsen, 1995, pp. 311). In other
words a road or a single road element should create a new identity for an area or change its character. According to
Amundsen (2004, p. 48) a road can for example match the landscape forms in a sculptural, bold and elegant manner so
that contrast is achieved by the form surface and texture and color of roadside contrasting the landscape. Nevertheless,
in the contemporary design literature this visual characteristic is not recommended for whole road sections, but rather
for single road elements. These elements can be seen in especially spectacular engineer constructions such as bridges
(Forschungsgesellschaft fr Straen und Verkehrswesen, 1999, p. 12) or other features such as road art. A recent example
are the rest areas constructed within the National Tourist Routes project (cf. Haukeland, 2006).
None of the analyzed empirical studies deal with the road as a contrast to its surroundings. Thus empirical backing for the
inuence of this visual characteristic on the perceived beauty of roads could not be identied.
4.1.3. Visual characteristics of roads related to travelers movement along the road
The four visual characteristics in this dimension of road design are connected to the movement of users along the road,
and their perception of the road and its surroundings.

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

65

4.1.3.1. Variety. Variety is here used synonymously with complexity and is dened as the diversity and richness of landscape elements and features, their interspersion as well as the grain size of the landscape and it has been identied as
a key concept of visual quality (Tveit et al., 2006). This is also true for road construction (Vgverket, 2004b, p. 18). Referring
to Clemente et al. (2005, p. 28) the complexity of a place depends on the variety of the physical environment, specically
the numbers and kinds of buildings, architectural diversity and ornamentation, landscape elements, street furniture, signage,
and human activity.
As discussed under the visual characteristic coherence, a good landscape experience is achieved by a balance between
coherence, variety and imageability. The right balance between coherence and variety has in particular been considered as a
characteristic of beauty, for a long time, especially in the work of Plato and the British aestheticians of the 18th century,
such as Hutcheson and Hogarth (Lothian, 1999). But at the end of the 18th century it was concluded that it was altogether
impossible to nd properties which were common and peculiar to beauty, so that the unity in variety formula also lacked
content.
Nevertheless, a variety of designs and views from the road are believed to enhance the attractiveness of roads according
to the road planning literature (cf. Vgverket, 2004b, p. 18). An empirical study from Akbar et al. (2003) showed that most of
the respondents prefer a variety of vegetation types along roads rather than one type of plantation. Variety is also considered to be important for road users (drivers in particular) on their journeys to avoid monotony and thereby to reduce fatigue. For this a sufcient number of stimulating and interesting sites when driving over a period of time is necessary
(Amundsen, 2004, p. 51). Such stimuli could be both, points (e.g. bridges, rest areas) or sequences as well as positive or negative. Opinions about the necessary density and frequency of stimuli vary between an attraction approximately every 3 min
(Statens Vegvesen Region st, 2009, p. 8) and every mile, or after approximately every 8 min driving (Winsnes and Sjvik,
2002, p. 97). The target of eight minutes was chosen by Winsnes and Sjvik (2002, pp. 9798) because it is the usual duration
of our attention span, which is the time we manage to focus on a task until we lose our concentration. However, neither of
these two publications considered the differences between stimuli for different roads users (car drivers, cyclists or pedestrians) or the differences between different ages groups (e.g. younger peoples need for a higher frequency of stimuli (SVV,
2005b, p. 15) into account.
Several design principles aim to enhance variety along a road from the use of temporary variation (e.g. vegetation in the
course of the year), to the installation of road art (e.g. effect lightning) to the facilitation of sufciently long and varied views.

4.1.3.2. Aesthetics of ow. Varming (1970, p. 7) suggests that time and movement should be taken into consideration in the
road planning process as a fourth dimension. This is important for the aesthetics of ow, which varies for different pacing,
such as walking, cycling or driving. When planning for good visual quality for pedestrians, the design of transportation environments must be seen in relation to the concept of human scale. This requires that the design of streets and roads should
correspond to the speed at which humans walk (Clemente et al., 2005, p. 18). As well as the human scale, the automobile
scale is also important for road design. Appleyard et al. (1966, p. 4) suggest that the sensation of driving a car [is] primarily
one of motion and space. That the driver and passengers should have a good visual experience while moving along a road has
a long tradition in road planning praxis, since at least the invention of the American Parkways (Amundsen, 1995, pp. 34).
Even if a recent publication about road design complains that the perception of the landscape from moving vehicles is a
complex subject, which is often not treated with the seriousness it requires (Junta da Andalucia, 2009, p. 47) and that the
experience of a road journey is limited to a series of place names on signposts (ibid., p. 43), the creation of cinematic effects
and the objective to present the surrounding landscape in a beautiful almost lm-like way (Egebjerg, 2002, p. 108) are actual issues in road design literature (e.g. Cronholm, 2009, p. 11; Shannon and Smets, 2010, p. 171). In the reviewed publications the aesthetics of ow are often described as or used synonymously with travel experience, rhythm and balance and
experience of different sequences and are not only targeted at enhancing road design but also at maintaining the continuity of the travel experience, and so to countering fatigue (e.g. SVV, 2010a, p. 18).
Important aspects of the aesthetics of ow are the speed of travel and the effect of movement on human perception of
roads. Girot (2010b, p. 36) states that the speed of human visual perception is estimated at around 25 frames per second.
The actual distance travelled by a car at 90 km an hour is about 1 m per frame. In other words, the persons [. . .] process
roughly 25 m of travelled distance in a second. Additionally a drivers perceptual stance goes through abrupt shifts from
windshield to side view mirror windshield again, rearview mirror [. . .]. Unlike the steady view out a train or plane window
automotive perception emerges from a kinesthetic movement of the head and upper body as a driver responds to changing
views (Schwarzer, 2004, p. 74). Other factors are that with higher speed distant views become more important than near
ones (Crowe, 1960, p. 35) and that sequences of roads must be interruptible, because people will not watch the road drama from beginning to end (Appleyard et al., 1966, p. 5).
The existing visual design principles, as connected to the aesthetics of ow, are numerous and they are mainly based on
literature of the 1960s and 1970s, when the interest in seeing roads as a journey rst arose (Amundsen, 1995, pp. 335).
Crowe claimed in her book The Landscape of Roads (1960), that the design principles of the English Landscape Garden tradition, should be applied to road design as well: Those effects which the eye has always enjoyed: the passing from light to
shade, the contrast of closed and open views, the framed view, the focal point, the rhythmic line of swept contours [...] (ibid.,
p. 34) The importance of rhythm for aesthetics and the attractiveness of roads has also been discussed by Varming (1970, pp.
5869) and He and Pan (1996).

66

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

The aesthetics of ow also include mystery and surprise and these two characteristics are also regarded as having a
favorable inuence on road attractiveness. This was shown, for example, in the study of Nasar and Cubukcu (2011), in which
students rated curved streets higher in mystery and attractiveness than straight ones, and street-pairs with no difference in
design between them as having low surprise levels, while two roads with a bigger difference in their appearance had a higher
surprise level and a higher attractiveness.
4.1.3.3. Legibility. Legibility is the degree to which a road is understandable for the road user and where its appearance
clearly indicates how to behave on a road section (Lindenmann, 2007; Schutt et al., 2001, p. 32; Service dtudes sur les transports, les routes et leurs amnagements, 2006). Legibility is also the central issue in the discussion around self-explaining
roads (e.g. Charlton et al., 2010).
In the publications reviewed legibility is rstly connected to an improvement of road safety and only secondly with
attractiveness (SVV, 2005a, p. 5, 2008a, p. 12, 2008b, p. 77). The importance of legibility for road design has been shown
in a study from the Swedish road authority, where both road users and experts judged the need to see and understand
the roads continuation as important for the design quality of roads (Vgverket, 2004b, p. 21). A study from de Waard
et al. (2004) also showed that information on the road surface (delineation) was necessary for the respondent group to drive
constantly and comfortably.
A range of design principles contribute to the legibility of roads, such as clear road alignment and simplicity in design.
Additionally, visual guidance can be enhanced through signs, road lightning, tree rows along the road and the like.
4.1.3.4. Orientation. Orientation in space means not only that road users are able to locate themselves in an area but also that
they can clearly observe the progress of their journey and that they get an understanding of the landscape they pass
(Amundsen, 1995, pp. 321; Cronholm, 2009:11; SVV, 2010a, p. 18).
The importance of facilitating orientation in space is often mentioned in the reviewed literature, especially in recommendations for the design of tunnels (Amundsen and Solli, 2000, p. 16) and road sections with extensive use of noise screens
(SVV, 2008c, p. 29). That orientation is not only a practical but also in part an aesthetic activity has been shown by Appleyard et al. (1966, p. 16) and the Swedish road authority (Vgverket, 2004b, pp. 1718). Furthermore a study from Gandy and
Meitner (2007) which tested the effects of an entertainment-oriented advanced traveler information system giving real
time information about the landscape being traversed, demonstrate that information about a landscape passing signicantly elevates subjects ratings of scenic beauty and driving experience.
Many of the visual design principles are targeted at enhancing orientation (see Fig. 1) and range from facilitating views
from the road (e.g. transparent noise screens), the creation of sequences which are designed in coherence with the surrounding landscape, and the use of road art, to the illumination of landmarks in the darkness (e.g. bridges, churches).
4.2. Strengths and limitations of the framework
The European Landscape Convention clearly states that peoples landscape perception should be central to landscape
planning and management. One strength of the framework presented here for assessing the visual quality of roads is that
it integrates the landscape perception of the public related to roads. The Convention is also explicit regarding the importance
of everyday landscapes, and the need for landscape planning and management to adequately address such landscapes. As
roads are such a dominant part of many of our everyday landscapes, and increasingly so, there is a need for new and transparent planning tools complying with the requirements stated by the convention. The framework presented here gives an
overview of visual characteristics and design principles in road design and the empirical ndings supporting them. Summarizing the content of the 42 reviewed empirical studies dealing with road design (see Table 2), almost one third deal with the
view from the road, followed by studies concerning the overall design or visual quality of the whole road and of individual
design elements (e.g. bridges). Other studies investigated either the inuence of the road design and view from the road on
driving behavior (e.g. speed) or on stress recovery. The remaining studies addressed the perceived level of the service provided by roads (e.g. progression or trafc density) and other issues related to road design. The results show that the empirical
basis for many of the design principles currently used is rather weak in terms of peoples perception of them. Only some of
the studies could be used to underpin the importance of the identied design principles, so that their perception by road
users remains unclear.
Regarding the methods and media employed when studying road perception and preferences, most of the reviewed studies worked with a rating of roads through, for example, a Likert scale (e.g. from preferredless preferred). Fewer used ranking
methods or tested driving behavior in driving simulators. Most of the studies were conducted with photographs, but videos
and virtually generated road environments have also been commonly used (see Fig. 2). This shows the great variation in how
road perception has been approached.
Residents and road users were the two most common respondent groups participating in the studies, followed by students and experts in the eld of road planning or engineering. However, only the study of Vgverket (2004b) was aimed
at identifying differences or similarities in the aesthetic perception of roads between laypeople and professionals. The results
showed that both groups judged the total road design similarly but that their evaluation criteria were weighted differently.
For example the maintenance of roads was found to be more important for laypeople than for the professionals, who in turn
judged the view from the road to be more important (Vgverket, 2004b, p. 21).

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

67

Table 2
Main topics of the reviewed empirical studies.
Main topic

Reviewed studies

View from the road

Brush et al. (2000)

Clay and Daniel (2000)
Clay and Smidt (2004)
DellAcqua and Russo (2010)
Gandy and Meitner (2007)
Jones and Daugstad (1997)
Kent and Elliot (1995)
Nassauer and Larson (2004)
Shannon and Smets (2010
Steinitz (1990
Sullivan and Lovell (2006
Wolf (2006)

Design of road elements

Akbar et al. (2003) (Vegetation)

Froment and Domon (2006) (Vegetation)
Todorova et al. (2004) (Vegetation)
Daniel et al. (2006) (Trafc calming measures)
Dutt et al. (1997) (Trafc signs)
Groothuis et al. (2007 (Billboards)
Kulasuriya et al. (2002) (Bridges)
Petzold and Carlson (1996 (Bridges)

Overall design of roads

Gartner and Erkkila (2004)

Nasar and Cubukcu (2011
Schutt et al. (2001
Tornberg (2008
Vgverket (2004a, 2004b)

Aesthetic/Design and driving behavior

Antonson et al. (2009)

Charlton et al. (2010)
de Waard et al. (2004
Drottenborg (1999)
Trnros (2000)
Stamatiadis et al. (2010)
Zakowska et al. (2009)

Stress recovery/Recreation

Gunderman (1981)
Hallo and Manning (2009)
Parsons et al. (1998)

Other

Flannery et al. (2008) (Quality of Service)

Washburn and Kirschner (2006) (Level of Service)
Burley (1996) (Prediction model for visual quality)
Garr et al. (2009) (Roads as access to scenery and their inuence on landscape character)
McAndrews et al. (2006) (Revitalization of an urban material)

Another example of differences in evaluation between these two respondent groups is seen in the Atlantic Road at the
Norwegian West coast. This road section received the publics choice Building of the Century award in 2005. However, it
was not awarded the Beautiful Road Award (members of the jury included landscape architects, architects and engineers)
because of its design of basements and pillars (Busterud, 2005). The professionals explained these differences in judgment:
for the road users the aesthetic qualities of the project can be difcult to separate from the aesthetic quality of the landscape (Schjetne, 2004, p. 60; Schutt et al., 2001, p. 7). If this is correct and if there really are differences in the perception

maps
drawings
virtual road environments
(film/pictures)
videos

1
2
5
7

photographs
no media used

16
11

Fig. 2. Number of reviewed empirical road studies per type of media used in the studies.

68

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

and evaluation of the visual attractiveness of roads by laymen and professionals, is not possible to prove or disprove with the
empirical data currently available.
The theoretical background and justications for aesthetical recommendations are often missing from the reviewed planning literature. In fact, many of the identied visual characteristics are in line with ndings from landscape quality research,
but the degree to which it is possible to transmit them directly to road design, has not yet been assessed.
As well as the decit of the empirical and theoretical backing the question of the actuality of the visual characteristics is,
also interesting. This review shows that many of the existent visual characteristics and ideals in road planning have not
really changed over time, even though the design of cars and their speed, as well as the purpose, duration and frequency
of our journeys have gone through fundamental changes. Amundsen asked in her thesis whether the old ideals with national romantic character are compatible with todays society (Amundsen, 1995, pp. 915). Furthermore it is often stressed
in the reviewed literature, that an attractive road should reect the Zeitgeist, i.e. the architectural and technological ability
of the time in which it was constructed (Egebjerg, 2002, p. 72; Ellefsen, 2010, p. 13; Shannon and Smets, 2010, p. 171). However, the visual qualities here represent the current state of the art in Norwegian planning literature. Due to the more abstract nature of the visual characteristics as well as their strong relationships to theories which explain perception and
preference (see compilation in Tveit et al. (2006)), they can be considered timeless. However, it will be necessary to review
the identied characteristics and design principles regularly and to integrate, when necessary, new developments and ndings in the eld of road aesthetics.
Another advantage of the framework presented is that it can, in principle, be applied to different types of roads (e.g.
motorway, residential roads) and in different locations (e.g. towns, open landscapes). Of course, the visual characteristics
must be adapted to single road projects. So the possibilities to further, for example, naturalness are more limited when
designing a motorway than a one lane road. Since no signicant variations between the Norwegian and foreign road design
praxis could be found, the results might also have a more universal character, at least in an European and North American
context. One reason for the similarities in the road design praxis may be the high international exchange of design ideals,
technical possibilities and the practice in road design within the profession over time (Amundsen, 1995; Mauch and Zeller,
2008). However, to adapt the design to regional and local specics is not least important to preventing an aesthetical impoverishment of our landscapes.

5. Implications for management

The framework presented can be a helpful tool in different phases of a road project: in the design process, the review (e.g.
in the course of an approval), and in the management and maintenance of existent roads.
When designing and maintaining roads, visual quality is one aspect alongside safety and social, technical, and transportation requirements, but it should not be treated less seriously. The framework presented can be seen as a source of
inspiration for planning, designing and maintaining visual attractive roads. One advantage is that the framework also
includes as far as possible the taste of the public, so that it might add to a more user-sensitive design of roads.
However, the visual characteristics presented should not be considered as a recipe for the creation of attractive and
appreciated road environments but rather as the basis for further discussion. This is important because some of the visual
characteristics are contradictory to each other (e.g. variation and simplicity, coherence and variation, imageability and adaption to the landscape) and cannot be randomly combined. An aesthetically good road design is not merely a decision of
either-or but rather one of balancing and combining the visual characteristics and design principles. Additionally, they need
to be adapted to the special and individual circumstances and surroundings of each planning project so that the creative
work of the professional remains of high importance.
The review and approval of road projects lies mainly in the responsibility of public authorities. In their daily work public
authorities should represent public interests and must be able to explain their decisions (e.g. a refusal or changes to road
projects) in a transparent and comprehensible way (Stamps, 2000, p. 23). Here this framework, which includes ndings from
perception research, can be used as a kind of checklist for assessing the visual quality of road projects. This approach also
offers interesting possibilities for other decisions and work on the evaluation of road projects, e.g. within the work of the
Beautiful Roads Awards.

6. Conclusion and need for further research

Good and pleasing design has been and still is of high importance for the road planning profession. This can be seen in
ongoing research and recent publications in this eld especially by the national road authorities. Following the European
Landscape Convention there is a need to develop frameworks and tools for road planning and design integrating the perception of lay people. However, in our rewiew it was not possible to identify a clear, concise denition of beautiful or visually
attractive roads. What could be found was a large variety of visual design principles and characteristics, which are regarded
as contributing to better road design. This terminology has been collected, classied and discussed in this review. On the
whole, the dimensions of design, visual characteristics and visual design principles identied provide one possible approach
to both enhancing road design and assessing the visual qualities of a road project.

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

69

In conclusion and faced with the European Landscape Convention, the signicance of roads for people, and at the same
time the identied decit in empirical backing of visual characteristics, further investigations about the visual attractiveness
of roads should be conducted, from the point of view of both the profession and laymen. The applicability of the visual characteristics and design principles for different types of roads, as well as in different landscape contexts, should also be tested.
Furthermore, it seems to be necessary that future research includes different kinds of aesthetically relevant aspects
(sound, movement, etc.), since these have been only marginally considered in the analyzed literature. For this, modern media
techniques (e.g. lms, GIS, 3D visualization) can be helpful tools (cf. Girot and Wolf, 2010; Hetherington et al., 1993;
Weitkamp, 2010).
These future discussions and research could then contribute to the further development of a comprehensive theoretical
approach in the eld of road aesthetics, which seems to be crucial for aesthetical improvements in the road planning praxis
and so for higher visual quality of our roads.

References
Abraham, R., Showers, J., 2007. Aesthetics, design-build, and workhorse bridges. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 2028, 3441.
Akbar, K.F., Hale, W., Headley, A.D., 2003. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning 63,
139144.
Amundsen, I., 1995. Vegutforming og landskapstilpassing: visuelle forhold i norsk vegbygging fra 1930 til i dag. Doktor ingeniravhandling, NTH
Trondheim, Norway.
Amundsen, I., 2004. The Road Through the Landscape. Topos: Vakre veger. Road Development and Landscape Architecture in Norway. Verlag Georg D.W.
Callwey GmbH & Co. KG, Mnchen, pp. 4355.
Amundsen, F.H., Solli, A.F., 2000. Estetisk utforming av vegtunneler. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Antonson, H., Mardh, S., Wiklund, M., Blomqvist, G., 2009. Effect of surrounding landscape on driving behaviour: a driving simulator study. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 29, 493502.
Appleton, J., 1975. The Experience of Landscape. Wiley, London.
Appleyard, D., Lynch, K., Myer, J.R., 1966. The View From the Road. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J.F., Canas-Madueno, J.A., Ruiz-Aviles, P., 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69,
115125.
Bourassa, S.C., 1990. A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and Behavior 22, 787812.
Brown, G., Gifford, R., 2001. Architects predict lay evaluations of large contemporary buildings: whose conceptual properties? Journal of Environmental
Psychology 21, 9399.
Brush, R., Chenoweth, R.E., Barman, T., 2000. Group differences in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 47,
3945.
Burke, M.P., 2004. Bridge aesthetics. A discipline in need of a more effective language. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 1892, 2935.
Burley, J.B., 1996. Visual and ecological environmental quality model for transportation planning and design. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 1549, 5460.
Busterud, H.E., 2005. Best og nestbest. Vegen og vi, p. 8.
Charlton, S.G., Mackie, H.W., Baas, P.H., Hay, K., Menezes, M., Dixon, C., 2010. Using endemic road features to create self-explaining roads and reduce vehicle
speeds. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42, 19891998.
Chon, J., Shafer, C.S., 2009. Aesthetic responses to urban greenway trail environments. Landscape Research 34, 83104.
Clay, G.R., Daniel, T.C., 2000. Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and
Urban Planning 49, 113.
Clay, G.R., Smidt, R.K., 2004. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning 66,
239255.
Clemente, O., Ewing, R., Handy, S., Brownson, R., 2005. Measuring Urban Design Qualities, An Illustrated Field Manual. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
Princeton.
Council of Europe, 2000. The European Landscape Convention. CETS No. 176. Florence.
Council of Europe, 2010. The European Landscape Convention. Strasbourg <http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/landscape/default_en.asp>
(13.09.2012).
Coeterier, J.F., 1996. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 34, 2744.
Cronholm, E., 2009 Utformning av vgen och dess omgivning: Med fokus p bilfrarens upplevelser. Sjlvstndigt arbete vid LTJ-fakulteten, Fakulteten fr
Landskapsplanering, trdgrds- och jordbruksvetenskap, SLU, Sweden.
Crowe, S., 1960. The Landscape of Roads. Architectural Press, London.
Daniel, J., Chien, S., Liu, R.R., Aboobaker, N., 2006. Visual preference survey of trafc calming measures. In: Proceedings of 85th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, CD-ROM.
de Waard, D., Steyvers, F.J.J.M., Brookhuis, K.A., 2004. How much visual road information is needed to drive safely and comfortably. Safety Science 42, 639
655.
DellAcqua, G., Russo, F., 2010. Descriptors in scenic highway analysis: A test study along Italian road corridors. In: Proceedings of 89th Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board. DVD.
Drottenborg, H., 1999. Aesthetics and safety in trafc environments. Avhandling (tekn. lic.) Institutionen fr teknik och samhlle. Tekniska hgskolan Lund,
Sweden.
Dutt, N., Hummer, J.E., Clark, K.L., 1997. User preference for uorescent strong yellow-green pedestrian crossing signs. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1605, 1721.
Egebjerg, U., 2002. Smukke veje: en hndbog om vejarkitektur. Vejdirektoratet, Kbenhavn.
Ellefsen, K.O., 2010. Infrastruktur p omveg. Detour. In: Berre, N., Lysholm, H., (Eds.), Architecture and Design Along 18 National Tourist Routes in Norway,
forth ed. Statens Vegvesen, pp. 1727.
Elvebakk, B., 2010. Veikanter og pen vei. rbok for Norsk Vegmuseum 2010 ed Norsk Vegmuseum. AIT Otta AS, Fberg, pp. 3742.
Federal Highway Administration, 1979. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Washington, DC.
Flannery, A., Rouphail, N., Reinke, D., 2008. Analysis and modeling of automobile users perceptions of quality of service on urban streets. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2071, 2634.
Forschungsgesellschaft fr Straen und Verkehrswesen, 1999. Empfehlungen fr die Einbindung von Straen in die Landschaft. Kln.
Forsyth, A., Jacobsen, J., Thering, K., 2007. Moving Design: Spaces of Transportation. Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

70

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

Froment, J., Domon, G., 2006. Viewer appreciation of highway landscapes: the contribution of ecologically managed embankments in Quebec, Canada.
Landscape and Urban Planning 78, 1432.
Gandy, R., Meitner, M.J., 2007. The effects of an advanced traveler information system on scenic beauty ratings and the enjoyment of a recreational drive.
Landscape and Urban Planning 82, 8593.
Garr, S., Meeus, S., Gulinck, H., 2009. The dual role of roads in the visual landscape: a case-study in the area around Mechelen (Belgium). Landscape and
Urban Planning 92, 125135.
Gartner, W.C., Erkkila, D.L., 2004. Attributes and amenities of highway systems important to tourists. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 1890, 97104.
Girot, C., 2010a. Die Rnder der Wahrnehmung. In: Wolf, C., gta, S., Verlag, Zrich, (Eds.), Blicklandschaften Landschaft in Bewegung/Landscape Video
Landscape in Movement Girot, pp. 1231.
Girot, C., 2010b. Road patterns. Landscape peripheral (En route). Scape Magazine Landscape Architecture and Urbanism 5, 3438.
Girot, C., Wolf, S., 2010. Blicklandschaften Landschaft in Bewegung/Landscape Video Landscape in Movement. gta Verlag, Zrich.
Groothuis, P.A., Groothuis, J.D., Whitehead, J.C., 2007. The willingness to pay to remove billboards and improve scenic amenities. Journal of Environmental
Management 85, 10941100.
Gunderman, E., 1981. Die Auswirkungen des Forststraenbaus im Hochgebirge auf die Walderholung und das Landschaftsbild. Forstwissenschaftliches
Centralblatt 100, 6575.
Hgerhll, C.M., Purcell, T., Taylor, R., 2004. Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 2004, 247255.
Hallo, J.C., Manning, R.E., 2009. Transportation and recreation: a case study of visitors driving for pleasure at Acadia National Park. Journal of Transport
Geography 17, 491499.
Haukeland, A., 2006. Ordne og presisere. Byggekunst 88, 68.
He, P., Pan, X., 1996. Application of aesthetic principles to road planting in China. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 1549, 99102.
Hetherington, J., Daniel, T.C., Brown, T.C., 1993. Is motion more important than it sounds the medium of presentation in environment perception research.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 13, 283291.
Hodgson, R.W., Thayer Jr., R.L., 1980. Implied human inuence reduces landscape beauty. Landscape Planning 7, 171179.
Jackson, J.B., 1994. A Sense of Place, A Sense of Time. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Jones, M., Daugstad, K., 1997. Usages of the Cultural Landscape concept in Norwegian and Nordic landscape administration. Landscape Research 22, 267
281.
Jones, G.R., Ady, J., Gray, B.A., 1976. Scenic and recreational highway study for the state of Washington. Landscape Planning 3, 151302.
Junta da Andalucia, 2009. Roads in the landscape: criteria for their planning, layout and project design. Consejera de Obras Pblicas y Transportes, Sevilla.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kent, R.L., Elliot, C.L., 1995. Scenic routes linking and protecting natural and cultural landscape features a greenway skeleton. Landscape and Urban
Planning 33, 341355.
Kulasuriya, C., Dias, W., Hettiarachchi, M., 2002. The aesthetics of porportion in structural form. Structural Engineer 80, 2227.
Larsen, J.K., 2010. Vegskjringens sublimitet. rbok for Norsk Vegmuseum 2010. Norsk Vegmuseum, Fberg, pp. 2536.
Lindenmann, H.P., 2007. The design of roads and of the road environment in small rural communities. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2025, 5362.
Lkken, L., 2002. Rapport fra studietur med fokus p arkitektur, landskapsarkitektur og design i vegplanlegging. Statens Vegvesen, Rogaland.
Lset, I., 2009. Vakre veger et arbeid og en pris: om Vakre vegers pris og Statens vegvesens arbeid med estetikk i vegprosjekter, Master Thesis. UMB s,
Norway.
Lothian, A., 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and
Urban Planning 44, 177198.
Lucey, A., Barton, S., 2011. Public perception and sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies. In: Proceedings of 90th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, CD-ROM.
Mauch, C., Zeller, T., 2008. The World Beyond the Windshield. Roads and Landscapes in the United States and Europe. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, p.
283.
McAndrews, C., Flrez, J., Deakin, E., 2006. Views of the street. Using community surveys and focus groups to inform context-sensitive design.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1981, 9299.
Merriman, P., 2004. Driving places: Marc Aug. Non-places, and the geographies of Englands M1 motorway. Theory Culture and Society 21, 145166.
Nasar, J.L., 1988. Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Nasar, J.L., 1999. Design by Competition: Making Design Competition Work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Nasar, J., Cubukcu, E., 2011. Evaluative appraisals of environmental mystery and surprise. Environment and Behavior 43, 387414.
Nassauer, J.I., Larson, D., 2004. Aesthetic initiative measurement system: a means to achieve context-sensitive design. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1890, 8896.
NRK, 2010. Spekter: Det stygge Norge <http://www.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/618488/> (24.03.2010).
Ode, ., Tveit, M.S., Fry, G., 2008. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research
33, 89117.
vstedal, E., 1997. Veileder for estetisk utforming. Oslofjordforbinnelsen, Statens Vegvesen, Stre.
Parsons, R., Tassinary, L.G., Ulrich, R.S., Hebl, M.R., Grossman-Alexander, M., 1998. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and
immunization. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, 113140.
Passonneau, J., 1996. Aesthtetics and other community values in the design of roads. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 1549, 6974.
Petzold, E.H., Carlson, B.E., 1996. Objectivity and the aesthetic design process. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
1549, 4853.
Regionalverband Ruhr, 2013. Route Industriekultur <http://www.route-industriekultur.de/> (25.06.2013).
Rogge, E., Nevens, F., Gulinck, H., 2007. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 82, 159174.
Sandegrd, D., Lannr, G., 1997. Estetisk vgutformning kontroll av vgens inre harmoni. In: Trakdage 1997 (Ed.), Trakforskningsgruppen Aalborg
Universitet, Aalborg.
Schjetne, S., 2004. Norways most beautiful roads. In: Topos European Landscape Magazine (Ed.), Vakre veger. Road development and landscape architecture
in Norway. Verlag Georg D.W. Callwey GmbH &Co. KG, Mnchen, pp. 5663.
Schutt, J.R., Phillips, K.L., Landphair, H.C., 2001. Guidelines for Aesthetic Design in Highway Corridors: Tools and Treatments for Texas Highways. College
Station Texas.
Schwarzer, M., 2004. Zoomscape. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
Service dtudes sur les transports les routes et leurs amnagements, 2006. Paysage et lisibilit de la route. Bagneux Cedex.
Shannon, K., Smets, M., 2010. The Landscape of Contemporary Infrastructure. NAi Publishers, Rotterdam.
Stamatiadis, N., Bailey, K., Grossardt, T., Ripy, J., 2010. Evaluation of highway design parameters on inuencing operator speeds through casewise visual
evaluation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2195, 143149.
Stamps, A.E., 2000. Psychology and the Aesthetics of the Built Environment. Kluwer Academic, Boston.

C. Blumentrath, M.S. Tveit / Transportation Research Part A 59 (2014) 5871

71

Statens Vegvesen Buskerud, 2002. Oslofjordforbindelsen. Byggekunst 84, 4245.

Statens Vegvesen Region st, 2009. E6 Gardermoen Biri. Formingsveileder, Oslo.
Steinitz, C., 1990. Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity The Loop Road in Acadia-National-Park, USA.
Landscape and Urban Planning 19, 213250.
Stenslie, S., 2002. Kunstvegen E6. Statens vegvesen stfold, E6 prosjektet, Moss.
Sullivan, W.C., Lovell, S.T., 2006. Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning 77, 152
166.
Statens Vegvesen, 1979. Hndbok 010: Vegen i landskapet. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 1993a. Hndbok 1005: Gangvegbruer. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 1993b. Hndbok 167: Snvern. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 1994. Hndbok 169: Vegetasjon ved trakkrer. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 1996. Hndbok 1001: Konstruksjoner i fylling: Plasstpte kulverter. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 1999. Hndbok 004: Ferjeleier-1 Ferjeleiers landomrder. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 2002a. Hndbok 1003: Elementbruer. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 2002b. Vegvalg. Nasjonal verneplan. Veger-Bruer-Vegrelaterte kulturminner. Thorsrud a.s, Lillehammer og Gjvik Trykkeri a.s, Gjvik.
Statens Vegvesen, 2003a. Hndbok 231: Rekkverk. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 2003b. Hndbok 240: Bomstasjoner. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 2005a. Formingsveileder for E6 Trondheim Stjrdal. Parsell Trondheim fjelltunnel og dagsone st, Trondheim.
Statens Vegvesen, 2005b. Trakantens opplevelse: teori og metode. Hamar, p. 73.
Statens Vegvesen, 2006. Hndbok 072: Fartsdempende tiltak. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 2008a. Hndbok 263: Geometrisk utforming av veg- og gatekryss. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 2008b. Hndbok 265: Linjefringsteori. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 2008c. Styskjermer: idekatalog. Eksempler fra Oslo og Akershus, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 2010a. Hndbok 021: Vegtunneler. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 2010b. National Tourist Routes. Oslo <http://www.turistveg.no/modules/module_123/proxy.asp?D=2&C=64&I=430&M=1163>
(02.12.10).
Statens Vegvesen, 2011. Hndbok 018: Vegbygging. Vegdirektoratet, Oslo.
Statens Vegvesen, 2012. Lager Statens Vegvesen arkitektur? Oslo.
Tessin, W., 2008. sthetik des Angenehmen. Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., Aikoh, T., 2004. Landscape and Urban Planning 69, 403416.
Tornberg, E., 2008. Gestaltningsprogram i stadsutvecklingsprojekt. Licentiatavhandling Skolan for Arkitektur and Samhllsbyggnad, KTH, Sweden.
Trnros, J., 2000. Effects of tunnel wall pattern on simulated driving behaviour. Nordic Road Transport Research 2000, 30.
Tveit, M., Ode, A., Fry, G., 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 31, 229255.
Vgverket, 2001. God vgarkitektur. Vgverket, Borlnge.
Vgverket, 2004a. Ml och mtt fr gestaltningskvaliteter i vgmiljn Frstudie. Vgverket, Borlnge.
Vgverket, 2004b. Ml och mtt fr gestaltningskvaliteter i vgmiljn. Frdjupad frstudie, Vgverket, Borlnge.
Vgverket, 2004c. Vgars Vrde. Vgverket, Borlnge.
Varming, M., 1970. Motorveje i landskabet. Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut, Kbenhavn.
Vouligny, ., Domon, G., Ruiz, J., 2009. An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an expert and by its residents: landscape values in areas of intensive
agricultural use. Land Use Policy 26, 890900.
Washburn, S.S., Kirschner, D.S., 2006. Rural freeway level of service based on traveler perception. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 1988, 3137.
Weitkamp, G., 2010. Capturing the View. A GIS based procedure to assess perceived landscape openness. In: de, C.T. (Ed.), Ph.D. thesis. Wit Graduate School
for Production Ecology and Resource Conservation, Wageningen University, Netherlands.
Winsnes, S., Sjvik, A.G., 2002. Visuell veileder for 4-felts E6 gjennom stfold: utforming av veg og sidearealer. Statens Vegvesen stfold, Fredrikstad.
Wold, K., 2007. Brukjempe i festdrakt. Vegen og vi. 2007, 1213.
Wolf, K.L., 2006. Assessing public response to freeway roadsides. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1984, 102
111.
Zakowska, L., Benedetto, A., Calvi, A., DAmico, F. 2009. The effect of curve characteristics on driving behavior: a driving simulator study. In: Proceedings of
88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. DVD.
Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Planning 9, 133.