Evaluation of Methodologies for Visual Impact Assessments (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

144 References for Literature Review Adam, K., W. Nohl, and W. Valentin. 1986. Bewertungsgrundlagen für Kompensationsmaßnahmen bei Eingriffen in die Landschaft. Düs- seldorf: Minister für Umwelt, Raumordnung und Landwirtschaft des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. 399 S. Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, and M. Silverstein. 1977. A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press. Appleyard, D., and M. Lintell. 1971. Environmental quality of city streets: The residents’ viewpoint. Highway Research Record (356):69–84. Arbogast, B. 2005. Bibliography of selected references in visual resource management. Reston, VA: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Arthur, L. M., T. C. Daniel, and R. S. Boster. 1977. Scenic assessment: An overview. Landscape Planning 4:109–129. Bagley, M. D., C. A. Kroll, K. Clark, and M. J. Redding. 1973. Aesthetics in environmental planning, EPA-600/5-73-009. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington Environmental Research Center. Barro, S. C., and A. D. Bright. 1998. Public views on ecological restora- tion: A snapshot from the Chicago area. Restoration and Manage- ment Notes 16 (1):59–65. Bobrowski, M. 1995. Scenic landscape protection under the police power. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 22:697–724. Burke, H. D., et al. 1968. A method for classifying scenery from a road- way. Park Practice Guidelines (March 1968). Burley, J. B., et al. 2009. Citation analysis of transportation research literature: A multi-dimensional map of the roadside universe. Landscape Research 34:481–495. Carlarne, C. 2006. Putting the “and” back in the culture-nature debate: Integrated cultural and natural heritage protection. UCLA J. Envtl. L. and Pol’y 25:153. Cats-Baril, W. L., and L. Gibson. 1986. Evaluating aesthetics: The major issues and a bibliography. Landscape Jrnl. 5 (2):93–102. Chivers, J., S. Allan, and M. Hunt. 1992. Quantification of intangibles: a review of intangible factors for the Transit New Zealand project evaluation manual. Transit New Zealand Research Report No. 12. Wellington: Transit New Zealand. Clay, G. R., and R. K. Smidt. 2004. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning 66 (4):239–255. Clemens, J., S. Swaffield, and J. Wilson. 2010. Landscape and Associated Environmental Values in the Roadside Corridor: A Selected Litera- ture Review. Unpublished paper as part of New Zealand Transport Authority research program. Countryside Commission. 1991. Environmental Assessment: The Treat- ment of Landscape and Countryside Recreation Issues. CCP 326. Council of Europe. 2000. The European landscape convention— Firenze, 20X. 2000 (ETS No. 176) Official text in English. Stras- bourg: Council of Europe. Daniel, T. C. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54 (1–4):267–281. Daniel, T. C., and J. Vining. 1983. Methodological issues in the assess- ment of landscape quality. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill, eds., Behavior and the natural landscape. New York: Plenum Press. Dee, N., J. Barker, N. Drobny, K. Duke, I. Whitman, and D. Fahringer. 1972. Environmental evaluation system for water resources plan- ning [Final report to the USDI Bureau of Recreation]. Columbus, OH: Battelle-Columbus Laboratories. Eftec. 2007. Valuing transport’s impact on the natural landscape— Phase 1—Draft progress report. Department for Transport. R105/ PPRO 4/3/11. Eftec. 2009. Valuing transport’s impact on the natural landscape—Phase 2—Final report. Department for Transport. R105/PPRO 4/3/11. Elsner, G. H., and E. L. Amidon. 1971. “VIEWIT”: Computing visible areas from proposed recreation developments. Research Note PSW-248. Berkeley, CA: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Elsner, G. H., and R. C. Smardon. 1979. Proceedings of our national landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and man- agement of the visual resource, April 23–25, 1979, Incline Village, Nevada. General Technical Report PSW-35. Berkeley, CA: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ewing, R., M. R. King, S. Raudenbush, and O. J. Clemente. 2005. Turning highways into Main Streets: Two innovations in plan- ning methodology. Journal of the American Planning Association 71:269–282. Feimer, N. R., and K. H. Craik. 1979. Appraising the validity of landscape assessment procedures. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Feimer, N. R., K. H. Craik, R. C. Smardon, and S. R. J. Sheppard. 1979. Appraising the Reliability of Visual Impact Assessment Methods. In G. H. Elsner and R. C. Smardon, eds., Proceedings of our national landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and man- agement of the visual resource. April 23–25, 1979, Incline Village, References

145 NV. Berkeley, CA: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fisher, P. F. 1991. First experiments in viewshed uncertainty: The accuracy of the viewshed area. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 57:1321–1327. ———. 1992. First experiments in viewshed uncertainty: Simulating the fuzzy viewshed. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sens- ing 58:345–352. ———. 1993. Algorithm and implementation uncertainty in viewshed analysis. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 7:331–374. Franz, G., and J. M. Wiener. 2005. Exploring isovist-based correlates of spatial behavior and experience. In Proceedings of the 5th Interna- tional Space Syntax Symposium, Volume II: Space Syntax. García-Moruno, L., M. J. Montero-Parejo, J. Hernández-Blanco, and S. López-Casares. 2010. Analysis of lines and forms in buildings to rural landscape integration. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 8 (3):833–847. García, L., J. Hernández, and F. Ayuga. 2003. Analysis of the exterior colour of agroindustrial buildings: A computer aided approach to landscape integration. Journal of Environmental Management 69 (1):93–104. ———. 2006. Analysis of the materials and exterior texture of agro- industrial buildings: A photo-analytical approach to landscape integration. Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2):110–124. Gartner, W. C., and D. L. Erkkila. 2004. Attributes and amenities of highway systems important to tourists. Transportation Research Record 1890: 97–104. Gobster, P. H., and L. M. Westphal. 2004. The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2–3):147–165. Gobster, P., J. Nassauer, T. Daniel, and G. Fry. 2007. The shared land- scape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology:959–972. Gobster, P. H., and R. E. Chenoweth. 1989. The dimensions of aesthetic preference: a quantitative analysis. Journal of environmental man- agement 29:47–72. Goodell, N. 2008. Making the intangibles tangible: The need to use contingent valuation methodology in environmental impact state- ments (comment). Tul. Envtl. L.J. 22:441. Handley, R. B. 1973. An environmental quality rating system. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Northeast Region Staff. Hanyu, K. 2000. Visu- al properties and affective appraisals in residential areas in daylight. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20 (3):273–284. Hehl-Lange, S. 2011. German experience of landscape and visual impact assessment. Briefing paper for this study. Hehl-Lange, S., and E. Lange. 1993. 2D, 3D, 4D. Anthos 2: 12–16. Henderson, S. P. B., N. H. Perkins, and M. Nelischer. 1998. Residential lawn alternatives: A study of their distribution, form, and structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 42:135–145. Highways Agency. 1993. Design manual for roads and bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 5: Landscape effects. Highways Agency. 2010. Design manual for roads and bridges, Volume 11, Section 3: Landscape and Visual Effects. Revised Version— Consultation Draft. Hornbeck, P. L., et al. 1970. Visual values for highways: Development of relative visual values of esthetic merit for highway planning and design, Volume 1: A resume of the technical report of the same name. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Graduate School of Design, Landscape Architecture Research Office. Hull, R. B., D. P. Robertson, and A. Kendra. 2001. Public understandings of nature: A case study of local knowledge about “natural” forest conditions. Society and Natural Resources 14:325–340. Iles, L., and C. Swanwick (for Landscape Research Group). 1988. A review of recent practice and research in landscape assessment. CCD 25. Cheltenham, UK: Countryside Commission. Ittelson, W. H. 1973. Environment perception and contemporary per- ceptual theory. Environment and cognition: 1–19. Iverson, W. D. 1985. And that’s about the size of it: Visual magnitude as a measurement of the physical landscape. Landscape Journal 4 (1):14–22. Jackson, C. L. 1972. Scenic resources: A study of preferences. Profes- sional paper, Department of Recreation Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Jensen, L. 2007. A historiography of landscape character assessment. PhD Thesis. School of Geography, University of Nottingham. Jessel, B., P. Fischer-Hüftle, D. Jenny, and A. Zschalich. 2003. Erarbei- tung von Ausgleichs- und Ersatzmaßnahmen für Beeintraechti- gungen des Landschaftsbildes, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Reihe Angewandte Landschaftsoekologie Nr. 53, Landwirtschaftsverlag Münster-Hiltrup, 294 pp. Jessel, B. 2006: Elements, characteristics and character–Information functions of landscapes in terms of indicators. Ecological Indicators 6: 153–167. Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and T. Brown. 1989. Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior 21 (5):509–530. Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R. L. Ryan. 1998. With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan. 1982. Cognition and environment: Function- ing in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger. Kent, M. 1986. Visibility analysis of mining and waste tipping sites—A review. Landscape and Urban Planning 13:101–110. Kent, R. L., and C. L. Elliot. 1995. Scenic routes linking and protect- ing natural and cultural landscape features: A greenway skeleton. Landscape and Urban Planning 33:341–356. Kiemstedt, H., M. Moennecke and S. Ott. 1996. Methodik der Eingriffs regelung Teil III. Laenderarbeitsgemeinschaft Naturschutz, Hannover. Kopka, S., and M. Ross. 1984. A study of the reliability of the bureau of land management visual resource assessment scheme. Landscape Planning 11 (2):161–166. Küpfer, C. 2008. The eco-account: a reasonable and functional means to compensate ecological impacts in Germany. http://www.stadt landfluss.org/fileadmin/user_upload/text_files/the_eco_account. pdf (accessed 12.10.10). Lamberti, R., F. Russo, and G. Dell’Acqua. 2010. Visual impact assess- ment for infrastructure design. In Large structures and infrastruc- tures for environmentally constrained and urbanised areas: 34th IABSE symposium. Venice, Italy: International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. Land Use Consultants. 1992. A guide to good practice in preparing envi- ronmental statements for planning projects. Department of the Envi- ronment and Scottish Office Environment Department. Langer, H., A. Hoppenstedt, and B. Stocks. 1990. Forschungsbericht Land- schaftsbild—Ermittlung der Empfindlichkeit, Eingriffsbewertung sowie Simulation möglicher zukünftiger Zustände. Schriftenreihe Forschung Straßenbau 610. Leopold, L. B., F. E. Clark, B. B. Hanshaw, and J. E. Balsley. 1971. A pro- cedure for evaluating environmental impact. Circular 645. Washing- ton, DC: USDI, Geological Survey.

146 nzta.govt.nz/resources/guidelines-highway-landscaping/highway- landscaping.html. New Zealand Transport Agency. 2006b. Guidelines for highway land- scaping. Appendix 1. Wellington: New Zealand Transport Agency. http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/guidelines-highway-land scaping/docs/highway-landscaping-appendix-1.pdf. Ode, Å., M. Tveit, and G. Fry. 2008. Capturing landscape visual charac- ter using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research 33:89–117. Palmer, J. F. 1981. Approaches for assessing visual quality and visual impacts. In K. Finsterbusch and C. P. Wolf, eds., Methodology of social impact assessment. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson & Ross. ———. 1983. Visual quality and visual impact assessment. In K. Fin- sterbusch, L. Llewllyn and C. P. Wolf, eds., Social impact assessment methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. ———. 2000. Reliability of rating visible landscape qualities. Landscape Journal 19 (1–2):166–178. ———. 2004. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (2–3):201–218. Palmer, J. F., and J. P. Felleman. 1991. The importance of topographic error in visibility modeling and its representation for decision making. In L. Brink, ed., Selected works: Council of educators in landscape architecture 90 conference. Landscape Architecture Foundation. Palmer, J. F., and R. E. Hoffman. 2001. Rating reliability and representa- tion validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 54 (1–4):149–161. Palmer, J. F., and J. Roos-Klein Lankhorst. 1998. Evaluating visible spa- tial diversity in the landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1–3):65–78. Peterson, G. L., and E. S. Neumann. 1969. Modeling and predicting human response to the visual recreation environment. Journal of Leisure Research 1 (3):219–237. Priestley, T. 1983. The field of visual analysis and resource manage- ment: A bibliographic analysis and perspective. Landscape Journal 2 (1):52–59. Rapoport, A. 1985. Thinking about home environments: A conceptual framework. In I. Altman and C. M. Werner, eds., Home environ- ments. New York: Plenum Press. Research Box, R. Minter, and Land Use Consultants. 2009. Capturing the “cultural services” and “experiential qualities” of landscape. Draft Final Report. Natural England. Cheltenham. Research Planning and Design Associates. 1972. North Atlantic regional water resources study, Appendix N: Visual and cultural environ- ment. North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Coordinating Committee. Roads and Traffic Authority, New South Wales. 2009. Guidelines for Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment. Environmen- tal Impact Assessment. Guidance Note EIA-N04. Robinson, D. G., I. C. Laurie, J. F. Wager, and A. L. Traill. 1976. Land- scape evaluation. Report to the Countryside Commission. Univer- sity of Manchester. Ryan, R. L. 1997. Attachment to urban natural areas: Effects of envi- ronmental experience. PhD dissertation, Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. Sander, H. A., and S. M. Manson. 2007. Heights and locations of artifi- cial structures in viewshed calculation: How close is close enough? Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (4):257–270. Leopold, L. B. 1969. Quantitative comparison of some aesthetic factors among rivers. Circular 620. Washington, DC: USDI, Geological Survey. Leslie, M., T. McDowell, and J. Singley. 1981. Analysis of selected ele- ments of the environmental quality evaluation procedures of the U.S. Water Resources Council. McLean, Virginia: The MITRE Corporation. Litton Jr., B. R., R. J. Tetlow, J. Sorenson, and R. A. Beatty. 1971. An aesthetic overview of the role of water in the landscape [Prepared for the National Water Commission]. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Litton Jr., R. Burton. 1973. Landscape control points: a procedure for predicting and monitoring visual impacts. Res. Paper PSW-RP-91. Berkeley, CA: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 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 (4):177–198. Lynch, Kevin. 1960. Image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mackum, P. 2005. Population change in metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas: 1990–2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Main Roads Western Australia. 2003. Visual impact assessment: Envi- ronmental standard brief. Document No. 6707/020. Matsuoka, R. H., and R. Kaplan. 2008. People needs in the urban land- scape: Analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (1):7–19. McHarg, I. L. 1969. Design with nature. Garden City, NY: Natural His- tory Press, Doubleday and Company. Meredith, D. D., and B. B. Ewing. 1969. Systems approach to the evalu- ation of benefits from improved Great Lakes water quality. In Conference proceedings. International Association of Great Lakes Research. Miller, A. H., and B. V. Nieman. 1972. An interstate corridor selection process—The application of computer technology to highway location dynamics, Phase I. Environmental Awareness Center and Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Wisconsin. Miller, P. A. 1984. A comparative study of the BLM scenic quality rating procedure and landscape preference dimensions. Landscape Jour- nal 3 (2):123–135. Nackaerts, K., G. Govers, and J. Van Orshoven. 1999. Accuracy assess- ment of probabilistic visibilities. International Journal of Geograph- ical Information Science 13 (7):709–721. Nassauer, J. I. 1988. Landscape care: Perceptions of local people in land- scape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape and Land Use Planning, 8. Washington, DC: American Society of Landscape Architects. ———. 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10 (4):229–237. Nassauer, J. I., E. Dayrell, and Z. Wang. 2006. Aesthetic initiative mea- surement system II for the Minnesota Department of Transporta- tion. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. Nassauer, J. I. 1988. The aesthetics of horticulture: Neatness as a form of care. HortSci 23 (6):973–977. New Zealand Transport Agency. 2005. Environmental policy manual. SP/M/023. Wellington: New Zealand Transport Agency. http:// www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/environmental-policy-manual/ index.html. New Zealand Transport Agency. 2006a. Guidelines for highway land- scaping. Wellington: New Zealand Transport Agency. http://www.

147 Sansoni, C. 1996. Visual analysis: a new probabilistic technique to deter- mine landscape visibility. Computer-Aided Design 28 (4):289–299. Seale, K. 2000. Effect of the wild and scenic rivers act on proposed bridge construction: Sierra Club North Star Chapter v. Pena. The Note. Wis. Envtl. L.J. 7:225. Selman, P., and C. Swanwick. 2010. On the meaning of natural beauty in landscape legislation. Landscape Research. 35(1): 3–26. Shafer Jr., E. L., and J. Mietz. 1970. It seems possible to quantify scenic beauty in photographs. Research Report NE-162. Upper Darby, PA: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Shaffer, G. S., and L. M. Anderson. 1983. Perceptions of the security and attractiveness of urban parking lots. Journal of Environmental Psy- chology 5:311–323. Shang, H., and I. D. Bishop. 2000. Visual thresholds for detection, rec- ognition and visual impact in landscape settings. Journal of Envi- ronmental Psychology 20 (2):125–140. Sheppard, S. R. J. 2001. Beyond visual resource management: Emerg- ing theories of an ecological aesthetic and visible stewardship. In S. R. J. Sheppard and H. W. Harshaw, eds., Forests and landscapes: Linking ecology, sustainability, and aesthetics. Sheppard, S. R. J. 1989. Visual simulation: A user’s guide for architects, engineers, and planners. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Smardon, R. C., J. F. Palmer, A. Knopf, K. Grinde, J. E. Henderson, and L. D. Peyman-Dove. 1988. Visual resources assessment procedure for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Instruction Report EL-88-1. Vicks- burg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Smardon, R. C., and J. Karp. 1993. The legal landscape: Guidelines for regulating environmental and aesthetic quality. New York: Van Nos- trand Reinhold. Smardon, R. C., and R. Burton Litton. 1981. Development of visual activity classification and advanced testing on visual impact assess- ment manual procedures. Syracuse, NY: SUNY College of Environ- mental Science and Forestry. Stamps III, A. E. 1997. A paradigm for distinguishing significant from nonsignificant visual impacts: Theory, implementation, case histo- ries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 17:249–293. Stamps, A. E. 1993. Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management 38 (2):115–132. Stamps III, A. E. 2004. Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (1):1–16. Stamps III, A. E. 2005. Isovists, enclosure, and permeability theory. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32 (5):735–762. Steinitz Rogers Associates Inc. 1972. Visual quality. In Interstate High- way 84 in Rhode Island Draft Environmental Impact Statement. State of Rhode Island, Department of Transportation. Swanwick, C. 2009. Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 265:562–575. Swanwick, C. 2009. Landscape as an integrating framework for upland management. In: A. Bonn, T. Allott, K. Hubacek, and J. Stewart, Eds., Drivers of environmental change in uplands. Routledge, Abing- don, pp. 339–357. Swanwick, C., 2004. The assessment of countryside and landscape char- acter in England: An overview. In K. Bishop and A. Phillips, Eds., Countryside planning—New approaches to management and conser- vation. London: Earthscan, pp. 109–124. Swanwick, C. 2003. Landscape sensitivity and capacity. Topic Paper 6. Countryside Agency, Cheltenham and Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby. http://www.landscapecharacter.org.uk/ca/LCA_Topic_ Paper_6.pdf. Swanwick, C., 2002. Recent practice and the evolution of landscape char- acter assessment. Topic Paper 1. Battleby: Countryside Agency, Cheltenham and Scottish Natural Heritage. http://www.land- scapecharacter.org.uk/ca/LCA_Topic_Paper_1.pdf. Swanwick, C., L. Bingham, and A. Parfitt. 2003. Landscape character assessment—How stakeholders can help. Topic Paper 3. Battleby: Countryside Agency, Cheltenham and Scottish Natural Heritage. http://www.landscapecharacter.org.uk/ca/LCA_Topic_Paper_1. pdf. Swanwick, C., N. Hanley, and M. Termansen. 2007. Scoping study on agricultural landscape valuation. Final report to Defra. https:// statistics.defr1.gov.uk/esg/reports/agrlandval/default.asp. Swanwick, C., P. Selman, and M. Knight. 2006. A Statement on Natural Beauty. Unpublished report to The Countryside Council for Wales. Swanwick, C. and Land Use Consultants. 2002. Landscape character assessment for England and Scotland. Battleby: Countryside Agency, Cheltenham and Scottish Natural Heritage. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL). 2005. Landscape aesthetics: A practical guide. Tabb, W. M. 1997. Role of controversy in NEPA: Reconciling public VETO with public participation in environmental decisionmak- ing. The symposium: Environmental federalism: Implications of the implementation of the clean air act, the safe drinking water act, and the brownfields redevelopment initiative. Wm. and Mary. Envtl. L. and Pol’y Rev. 21:175. The Landscape Institute, and Institute of Environmental Assessment. 1995. Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment. First edition. London: E & FN Spon. The Landscape Institute, and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. 2002. Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment. Second edition. London: Spon Press. Transit New Zealand. 1993. Transit New Zealand and the environment. Wellington: Transit New Zealand. Transit New Zealand. 1998. National state highway strategy. Wellington: Transit New Zealand. Trocme, M. 2010. Landscape impact assessment of road infrastructure in Switzerland. In L. Puigbert, (Ed.) for Catalonian Landscape Observatory. Ordenació i gestió del paisatge a Europa. Tveit, M., A. Ode, and G. Fry. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research. pp. 229–255. U.S. Department of Transportation. 1981. Visual impact assessment for highway projects. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environmental Policy. ———. 1988. Visual impact assessment for highway projects. Washing- ton, DC: U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environmental Policy. Original edition, 1981. U.S. Forest Service. 1973. National forest landscape management. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. ———. 1974. National forest landscape management: The visual man- agement system. Vol. 2, Ch. 1, Agriculture Handbook 462. Washing- ton, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. ———. 1995. Landscape aesthetics: A handbook for scenery management. Rev. ed., Agriculture Handbook 701. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture. USDI. 1984. Visual Resource Management. BLM Manual H-8400. Washington, DC: Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior. ———. 1986a. Visual resource inventory. BLM Manual H-8410-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior.

148 ———. 1986b. Visual Resource Contrast Rating. BLM Manual H-8431-1. Washington, DC: USDI, Bureau of Land Management. van Bilsen, A., and E. Stolk. 2008. Solving error problems in visibility analysis for urban environments by shifting from a discrete to a continuous approach. In 2008 international conference on compu- tational sciences and its applications. Wilson, J., and S. Swaffield. 2010. Environmental values of the state high- way corridor: A West Coast case study survey of stakeholders. Land Environment and People Research Report No. 16. Winkel, G. H., R. Malek, and P. Thiel. 1970. Community response to the design features of roads: A technique for measurement. Highway Research Record (305):133–145. Wirz, S. and H. Platte 1996: Der Landschaftspflegerische Begleitplan zu Planfestellungsverfahren. In: K. Buchwald, and W. Engelhardt (Hersg.) Umweltschutz—Grundlagen und Praxis. Economica Verlag, Bonn. S. 213–230. Wood, G. 2000. Is what you see what you get?: Post-development audit- ing of methods used for predicting the zone of visual influence in EIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20 (5):537–556. Zube, E. H. 1973. Scenery as a natural resource: Implications of pub- lic policy and problems of definition, description, and evaluation. Landscape Architecture 63 (January):126–132. Zube, E. H., J. L. Sell, and J. G. Taylor. 1982. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning 9 (1):1–33. References for Case Studies Colorado Colorado Department of Transportation, 2010. I-70 Mountain corri- dor programmatic environmental impact statement visual resources technical report. Colorado Department of Transportation, 2011. Visual resources tech- nical report. http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/i-70moun- taincorridor/final-peis/final-peis-documents/technical-reports/ Vol5_I-70_Mntn_Corridor_Final_PEIS_VisualResources_ TR.pdf/view (accessed July 16, 2012). Colorado Department of Transportation, 2010. Draft PEIS visual resources section, pp. 3.11-1–3.11-8. http://www.coloradodot.info/ projects/i-70mountaincorridor/2010-revised-draft-peis/Revised_ Draft%20_PEIS.pdf/view (accessed July 16, 2012). Colorado Department of Transportation, 2010. Final PEIS visual resources section, pp. 3.11-1–3.11-10. http://www.coloradodot.info/ projects/i-70mountaincorridor/final-peis/final-peis-documents/ MainText_combined_withTabs.pdf (accessed July 16, 2012). Colorado Department of Transportation, 2010. Final PEIS CSS appen- dix. http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/i-70mountaincorridor/ final-peis/final-peis-documents/20_App_A_CSS_Rev50.pdf/view (accessed July 16, 2012). Minnesota Minnesota Department of Transportation, circa 1989. Draft visual impact assessment special study. Technical Services Division, Environmental Services Section, in cooperation with District 7, Mankato. Minnesota Department of Transportation, circa 1989. Draft environ- mental impact statement. Minnesota Department of Transportation, August 25, 2010. Highway project development manual, scoping, subject guidance, visual quality. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 2002. The agency of natural resources sce- nic resource evaluation process. Montpelier, VT: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. Agency of Natural Resources. 2007. Criterion 8: Aesthetics, scenic and natural beauty. In: District commission training manual. http:// www.nrb.state.vt.us/lup/publications/manual/8aestheticsfinal.pdf (accessed August 22, 2012). Corlett, C. 1998. Vermont Act 250 Handbook. 3d Ed. Newfane, VT: Putney Press. The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2005. Scoping memorandum Circ-Williston environmental impact statement. http://www.circeis.org/documents/ study_documents/050525_Scoping_Memorandum/Scoping%20 Memo/050601_WO2_ScopingMemoFinal.pdf (accessed April 5, 2012). U.S. Department of Transportation. 1981. Visual impact assessment for highway projects. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administra- tion, Office of Environmental Policy. Vermont Agency of Transportation. 2006. Public design workshops held in February 2006. http://www.circeis.org/02-2006_Public_ Meeting.html (accessed April 5, 2012). Vermont Agency of Transportation and Federal Highway Adminis- tration. 2010. Appendix N: Visual resources technical report. Circ- Williston Transportation Project FEIS (FHWA-VT-EIS-07-02-F). http://www.circeis.org/HTML-appendices/appendixn.html (accessed April 5, 2012). Washington State Washington State Department of Transportation, September 2010. Visual discipline report, US 2, West of Leavenworth, slope stabili- zation project. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2011. Chapter 459 WSDOT Environmental procedures manual— Visual impacts. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/ fulltext/M31-11/459.pdf#page=(page45-11). Washington State Department of Transportation, 2011. Chapter 456, WSDOT Environmental procedures manual—Historic, cultural, and archaeological resources. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/ manuals/fulltext/M31-11/456.pdf. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2012. Roadside Classification Plan, 2012. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/ Manuals/M25-31.htm. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2012. Visual disci- pline report examples, 2012. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/ Roadside/Visual.htm. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2012. Draft envi- ronmental impact statement for SR 525—Mukilteo multimodal terminal. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5B6748B1- B215-4CF8-A41F-38C2C07D4877/81386/FinalMukilteoDEIS_ Chpt4_1of3.pdf. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2010. Visual impacts discipline reports checklist, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/ 4F50855B-A15F-497B-BAC6-EF10AB5A11B0/0/DIscRpt_Visual. pdf. Federal Highway Administration. Visual impact assessment for highway projects, 1981/1988. FHWA Publication No. FHWA-HI-88-054.

149 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/Roadside/fhwavia. pdf. Washington State Department of Transportation. 2012 Compliance. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Compliance/. Scotland Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment. 1995. Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment. 1st Ed. Lon- don: E. and F. N. Spon. Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. 2002. Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assess- ment. 2nd Ed. London: Spon Press. Highways Agency. 1993. Design manual for roads and bridges. Volume 11. Section 3. Part 5: Landscape effects. Highways Agency. 2010. Interim advice note 135/10: Landscape and visual effects assessment. http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/ians/ pdfs/ian135.pdf. Jacobs Arup. 2009. Forth Replacement Crossing: Environmental statement—Chapter 12: Landscape and Chapter 13: Visual, plus Chapters 1–4 describing the scheme and Chapter 21: Cumula- tive Effects. http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/strategy-and- research/publications-and-consultations/j11223-00. Scottish Executive. 2002. DMRB. Vol. 11, Landscape & Visual Assess- ment, Section 3, Part 5, Supplementary Guidance. Scottish Execu- tive Development Department.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation