Assessing visual quality parameters in urban streetscape

Urbanism along transit corridors • M. Goel, A. Hajela, S. Khan

ASSESSING VISUAL QUALITY PARAMETERS IN URBAN

STREETSCAPE ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS

Manika GOEL
Research Scholar, Amity School of Architecture and Planning, Amity
University, Noida, India, e-mail: [email protected]

Amit HAJELA
Professor and Director, Amity School of Architecture and Planning, Amity
University, Noida, India, e-mail: [email protected]

Safiulllah KHAN
Professor and Head, Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Integral
University, Lucknow, India, e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. With the world’s rapid urban development, it has been observed
that space for sociability has decreased. To overcome the impact of the
same, streets should develop as an urban space along transit corridors.
These spaces encourage meaning and identity creation by offering visual
quality to everyone. This paper focuses on assessing parameters through
which an urban streetscape along transit corridor can be analyzed to
enhance visual quality. The authors suggest nine essential parameters
based on literature review and expert interviews.

Key words: visual quality, human perception, spatial perception, greenery,

transit corridor

1. Introduction an urban space which creates experiences

Urban spaces offer opportunities for for people. Roads are generally
human activities, to experience nature considered as a two–dimensional surface,
and promote walkability which reduces mainly focused on vehicles to move
stress and health problems. These people and goods from one place to
expected responses are witnessed in another. Whereas streets are
spaces with visual quality which create multidimensional spaces, where variety
an urban image while developing a of uses and activities happen while
perception and association with that facilitating movement and access.
space (Ma et al., 2021). According to
Santosa in 2018, human preferences are Spatial arrangement and visual
influenced by city values which are appearance of street elements like
dependent on how the city spaces are building and landscape features, form a
developed and maintained. Hence, streets “streetscape”. It includes sidewalks,
with high visual quality create a positive vehicle lanes, streetlights, street furniture,
emotion for the city (Santosa et al., 2018). and other elements through which people
identify a place and remember it. It is
In 2022, Global Designing Cities Initiative even considered as an outdoor room
(GDCI) has defined the word “streets” as whose bottom plane is the ground,

147
 • Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 15 • Nr. 2 • 2024

buildings are the side planes, and tree promote economic development of the
canopy along the street edges acting as city by building a mixed use space. To
the top plane. Thus, the unification of maintain the experience as well as
natural and built fabric of the street welcome visitors, it is important to have
creates a visual experience which defines visual quality in such corridors
the quality of the street. (Stojanovski, 2019; Adeel et al., 2021). It
has been suggested by the researchers
“Street visual quality” is related to that visual aspect of transit corridors
physical activity and movement influences human behavior, but this
especially when it has pedestrian relationship has not been given its due
circulation. A positive correlation has importance (Adeel et al., 2021). To
been noticed between activity (both social understand the relationship between
and commercial) and the presence of them, it is essential to understand the
comfort, sense of place and greenery in parameters which influence and
the pedestrian space of the street. Jane constitute this relationship. To improve
Jacobs in 1961 elaborates that visual the focus on this research gap, the author
quality of a street was related to its aims to address it by assessing the
elements which provide the opportunity parameters related to visual quality in
of socializing. Kevin Lynch in 1984 urban streetscapes along the transit
describes it in terms of richness of corridors.
activities. Allen Jacobs and Appleyard in
1987 discuss how visual diversity on a Visual quality aspects related to
street with pedestrian movement and streetscape have both spatial factors (like
social activities, forms meaning and building form, pedestrian space, street
identity of the space. Researchers have greenery, etc.) and human perception
elaborated the visual quality of streets in factors (like imageability, permeability,
terms of the physical characteristics of the sense of place, etc.). Designing any urban
transit corridors through greenery, space needs to establish a relationship
permeability, imageability, building between people and the space. Hence, it
form, greenery, physical activity, sense of is important to list down the significant
place, and many other aspects. parameters for assessing visual quality of
a streetscape to help analyze the same
It is estimated that 70% of the world across all scenarios and geographies.
population will reside in cities by 2050 This paper aims to identify the visual
(Lu et al., 2018). Mounting cost pressures quality parameters for an urban
have resulted in a reduction of greenery streetscape along transit corridor with the
ratio in cities, especially with the following objectives:
increasing construction of transit
corridors. According to North America’s 1.1. To conduct a comprehensive analysis
National Association of City of literature related to visual quality,
Transportation, “transit corridors” are streetscapes, and transit corridors.
those streets which run parallel to the 1.2. To identify essential parameters
commercial corridors where focus is through a synthesis of expert interviews
given to pedestrian activity and transit. and an extensive literature review.
The transit modes can be either bus 1.3. To validate the feasibility of assessing
rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit visual parameters in the urban
(LRT) or streetcar. These corridors streetscape of a transit corridor.

148
 Assessing visual quality parameters in urban streetscape
Urbanism along transit corridors • M. Goel, A. Hajela, S. Khan

2. Methodology Streets (Jacobs, 1993), Life Between

The paper is based on two steps, first Building: Using Public Space (Gehl,
gathering parameters through urban 1989), Death and Life of Great American
theorists’ books and literature review via Cities (Jacobs, 1982), Livable Streets
research papers and theses. Second was (Appleyard, 1981), The Concise
gathering parameters through expert Townscape (Cullen, 1961), and The Image
interviews based on the Delphi method. of the City (Lynch, 1960) were also
referred to for this paper. These theorists
Online search engines like Web of elaborate on the desired qualities of
Science, Science Direct, and Google streetscape and visual dimension which
Scholar were used to review the research facilitate in developing a better space for
papers. The keywords used to seek the people.
research papers relevant to this paper
were “streetscape”, “visual quality”, An unstructured interview technique
“transit corridor”, “sense of place”, and named the Delphi method was selected
“greenery”. Approximately, 450 research for this study as it offers experts
papers were studied for literature review. flexibility and comfort while reducing the
The literature review as well as expert chances for researcher’s bias. The Delphi
interviews both gave a list of a thousand Method is a technique to take valuable
words each. These 2 lists had keywords, inputs from experts in the form of
adjectives, prepositions, verbs, and rankings, ratings, or open questions
nouns. Both lists were created with the (Beiderbeck et al., 2021). The intention of
help of “NVIVO 11” software. Both the interview was to understand the
thousand-word lists were narrowed experts’ perception related to streetscape
down to around a hundred and fifty and its elements which enhance visual
keywords each (146 and 152 respectively) quality. Based on their opinion, the list of
manually by the author using Microsoft nine parameters was created. Interviews
Excel. Words like numbers (100, 2022, with fifteen experts were conducted,
500) and those with no relation to recorded, and converted to transcripts
architecture or urban design were through online tools like “Podscastle”,
removed (like act, add, allow, another, “Veed” and “Happy Scribe”. These
care, done, mentioned, priority, transcripts were then imported into the
understand and many more). Then each NVIVO 11 software was used to
hundred- and fifty-word list was qualitative data analysis and to calculate
arranged under nine parameters as the word count and weighted percentage
elaborated in section 3. These parameters (Phillips et al., 2023; Daniel et al., 2021).
were shortlisted based on their intent and All further steps were taken as per the
definition as elaborated in literature obtained word count and weighted
review and expert interviews. The percentage.
parameters in these two lists were
common to each other. These parameters NVIVO 11 software generates the word
were categorized into two categories, count and its frequency list by analyzing
spatial perception and human perception. the most frequently used word in a
particular demographic. While running
Urban Design books like Public Places- the word frequency query in the software
Urban Spaces (Carmona et al., 2010), The it gives an option to select and shortlist
Boulevard Book (Jacobs et al., 2001), Great words as per the words length as well as

149
 • Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 15 • Nr. 2 • 2024

number of words to be displayed in were refined to form the next iteration of

result. It also offers grouping options like the parameters which again went
exact match and stem together. The through the above-mentioned process in
limitation of the software is its inability to the second round. Outputs from the
identify keywords and analyze them. It second round were used to formulate
provides an analysis of all words the final consensus of the parameters
including less significant ones like related to visual quality of a streetscape.
conjunctions or prepositions. The paper discusses the final parameters
obtained from the third iteration. These
The author while running the analysis in identified nine parameters are further
NVIVO 11 used a filter that the minimum categorized under two categories
letter count limit in a word should as 3 elaborated in 3.2 section. The multiple
and above to remove conjunctions or rounds helped cross-pollination of ideas
prepositions. The purpose of word limit between experts and reduced the
of 3 was to ensure keywords like air, eat personal bias effect of the interviewees
or bus do not get eliminated in the and the author.
filtration process. The initial result was a
list of thousand plus words (1045 and Shortlisting and grouping are an essential
1096 respectively) each with their method to identify parameters and
weighted percentages. These lists were convert qualitative data to quantitative.
sorted by weighted percentage in a However, there are limitations as well. It
descending order. However, the words is a time intensive method as shortlisting
after the 1000 mark had a weighted was executed manually. Along with that,
percentage equal to or approximately the 45 interviews (3 rounds each for
zero. Along with that, words were fifteen experts) were extremely difficult
stemmed together, i.e., words with to complete due to scheduling issues
similar meanings were grouped together. along with the time they took.
For example, words like aesthetic,
aesthetical, aesthetically, aesthetics were 3. Results and discussion
grouped together as aesthetic. This section is divided into 5 parts. The
first part is based on the varied
Three rounds of interviews were perceptions of urban theorists and
performed with fifteen experts including highlights keywords which are essential
urban designers, urban planners, to visual quality of the urban streetscape.
landscape architects, architects and The second part elaborated on the use of
planners from the industry, academia the Delphi method and emphasizes
and government organizations like identifying necessary keywords apart
Lucknow Development Authority (LDA), from the common keywords listed down
Lucknow Nagar Nigam, and Lucknow in the literature review. The third part
Metro Authority to validate the discusses in detail how the common
parameters. keywords mentioned by theorists,
researchers and experts were assembled
Starting with the parameters extracted into nine parameters. The fourth part
from literature review, unstructured discusses the two categories under which
interviews with the experts were held in the nine parameters were grouped. The
the first round to get their opinion on last part discusses the outcome of the
the extracted parameters. These inputs above elaborated steps.

150
 Assessing visual quality parameters in urban streetscape
Urbanism along transit corridors • M. Goel, A. Hajela, S. Khan

3.1.1. Literature review Appleyard in 1981 mentions street visual

Lynch in 1960 elaborated that every quality depends on street greenery,
individual has his/her own perception safety, sidewalks, vehicle lane, and
about the city and its space, and each building form. As per him, comfort and
perception is important. These human interaction enhances a street’s
perceptions evolve around five elements visual and aesthetic qualities. This
which make a city. These elements are argument was supported with the help of
“nodes, paths, edges, landmarks, and a survey, that with the increase in traffic
district”. He defines that a city’s visual volume, the threshold of spaces for
quality develops through these elements. physical activity diminished. Also, he
Understanding of human perception was describes that various stakeholders are
established by surveying individuals on involved in transforming a space into a
landmarks and locations. This process place, and then later to a neighborhood or
also included asking them to draw a city. As everyone plays a role in defining
sketch of a place (mental maps). Along a space, that’s why different stakeholders
with that, they were also asked to list were surveyed. They were asked to
down all the places they could recall in a develop image maps (like mental maps
short span of time. Through these mental suggested by Lynch in 1960) about their
maps, desirable parameters were notion of a space on a tracing paper laid
identified for any urban space. They are over building footprint section
“identity”, which is recognition of urban (Appleyard, 1981).
elements (streetscape elements), and
“meaning” which is practical and Jacob in 1982 discusses that visual
emotional perception i.e., how people use impression of streets is through
the space for physical activity and what functional order with intense and diverse
they remember about the space in the activities forming an enclosure and
form of memory (Lynch, 1960). entity. According to her, trees should be
provided along the sidewalks for visual
Cullen in 1961 describes visual quality as emphasis as they provide a sense of
a concept of “serial vision”, which is security. Safety, interaction, imageability,
elaborated as experiencing a space while walkability, scale, and frontage are
moving with pauses. He defines pauses essential parameters which enhance
as static possession, which is people streetscape and economic development
interacting in groups, window shopping (Jacobs, 1982).
and local vendors selling. He also
discusses the visual quality of a As per Gehl in 1989, visual expression of
streetscape in terms of sense of place and cities is based on safety and social
content. He elaborates on the sense of activities. The parameters which
place as how people perceive or record influence the visual expression are
the place or remember the place through permeability and legibility of a space for
some activities. He describes content as event and function. Along with that, the
quality of the space, which is achieved by space should offer a sense of place and
defining the space well, segregating space safety to enhance visual quality. Space
for activities, and incorporating buildings offers meaningful opportunity when
as well as landscape, forming a people are at ease and able to experience
relationship with the vicinity (Cullen, or socially interact. This is possible when
1961). the physical structure supports social

151
 • Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 15 • Nr. 2 • 2024

quality and is broken down in a and walkability. He concluded by

hierarchical manner of public, semi- emphasizing buildings along the streets
private and private domain. This is how with interactive spaces having streets
an individual processes the visual elements and soft landscape together
impression of a space (Gehl, 1989). enhance or reinforce visual interest. The
key attributes which support the
Jacob in 1993 considered that streets are enhancement and reinforcement of
the most basic element which facilitates streetscape visual quality were comfort,
social interaction. It also allows for imageability, access, usage, activity,
commercial encounters and exchange. He sociability, and safety (Carmona et al.,
focuses on their visual aspects by making 2010).
them a meaningful space for humans
through building forms and activities. He Multiple theorists and researchers have
defines the visual quality of a streetscape postulated that the visual quality of a
using parameters like scale, enclosure, streetscape was significantly dependent
physical activity, sidewalks, and trees. He on following parameters – comfort,
highlights that a tree alone was able to vehicle lane, building form, greenery
attract people to walk on the sidewalks in system, imageability, sense of place,
any season. He also describes three pedestrian path, physical activity, and
essential attributes for each street. First, a permeability. These parameters were
pedestrian realm which includes a well- commonly used as illustrated by their
defined space for people to walk around. occurrence counts in Table 1. Reasons on
Second was physical comfort in terms of why these parameters were arrived upon
walkability and last was a defined space will be discussed in detail in section 3.3.
in terms of sense of place (Jacobs, 1993).
3.1.2. Expert interviews (Delphi method)
Jacob in 2001 brought attention to The author reached out to Indian experts,
boulevards with poorly designed all of whom are academicians, urban
pedestrian movement and a deliberate planners, landscape architects, architects,
emphasis on vehicular traffic. He and professional urban designers and
suggested that there should be tree lines planners in renowned private firms,
and dedicated lanes for different Lucknow Development Authority (LDA),
movements. The essential parameters Lucknow Nagar Nigam, and Lucknow
which enhance the visual quality were Metro Authority. Each expert has
livability, safety, and open spaces for any experience of more than two decades in
streetscape (Jacobs et al., 2001). their respective fields. The Delphi
method helped identify the nine
Carmona in 2010 considered the visual parameters, physical activity, comfort,
quality of an urban space, a mixture of transit corridor, building form, greenery
perception and cognition. It depends on system, imageability, sense of place,
how people perceive, interpret, and use pedestrian lane, and permeability. These
it. He defined visual quality of a parameters were repetitively used, have
streetscape through imageability, occurred most frequently and have the
legibility, building form and its highest weighted percentage in the
characteristics, comfort, human-scale, interviews. These nine parameters were
safety, human perception, naturalness, categorized into two categories, as
open spaces, sense of place, enclosure, discussed in the next section.

152
 Assessing visual quality parameters in urban streetscape
Urbanism along transit corridors • M. Goel, A. Hajela, S. Khan

Table 1. List of parameters identified from various urban theorist books (Source: Author).
S.No. Book Words stated in book Author Suggested parameters Count
1 Nodes Physical Activity 12
2 Paths Pedestrian Path 7
3 Edges Pedestrian Path 7
The Image of
4 Landmarks Imageability 7
the City
5 District Building Form 10
(Lynch, 1960)
6 Legibility Imageability 7
7 Trees Greenery System 10
8 Meaning Imageability 7
9 The Concise Serial vision Sense of Place 7
10 Townscape Activity Physical Activity 12
11 (Cullen, 1961) Landscape Greenery System 10
12 Streets Greenery Greenery System 10
13 Physical Activity Physical Activity 12
14 Safety Comfort 12
Livable Streets
15 Sidewalks Pedestrian Path 7
(Appleyard,
16 Light Rail Transit Vehicle lane 2
1981)
17 Building form Building Form 10
18 Comfort Comfort 12
19 Human Interaction Physical Activity 12
20 Activity Physical Activity 12
21 Trees Greenery System 10
22 Death and Life Sidewalks Pedestrian Path 7
23 of Great Sense of security Comfort 12
24 American Walkability Comfort 12
25 Cities (Jacobs, Scale Building Form 10
26 1982) Interaction Physical Activity 12
27 Imageability Imageability 7
28 Safety Comfort 12
29 Safety Comfort 12
30 Life Between Bus Vehicle lane 2
31 Building: Social activities Physical Activity 12
32 Using Public Accessibility Permeability 5
33 Space (Gehl, Legibility Imageability 7
34 1989) Sense of place Sense of Place 7
35 Interaction Physical Activity 12
36 Interaction Physical Activity 12
37 Building forms Building Form 10
38 Scale Building Form 10
39 Walkability Comfort 12
40 Comfort Comfort 12
41 Great Streets Sense of Place Sense of Place 7
42 (Jacobs, 1993) Meeting Physical Activity 12
43 Enclosure Building Form 10
44 Plantation Greenery System 10
45 Physical Activity Physical Activity 12
46 Sidewalks Pedestrian Path 7
47 Trees Greenery System 10
48 The Boulevard Livability Accessibility 5
49 Book (Jacobs et Trees Greenery System 10
50 al., 2001) Safety Comfort 12
51 Open spaces Greenery System 10

153
 • Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 15 • Nr. 2 • 2024

S.No. Book Words stated in book Author Suggested parameters Count

52 Access Permeability 5
53 Sidewalks Pedestrian Path 7
54 Perception Sense of Place 7
55 Naturalness Greenery System 10
56 Open spaces Greenery System 10
57 Pedestrian Pedestrian Path 7
58 Sense of place Sense of Place 7
59 Legibility Imageability 7
60 Access Permeability 5
61 Building Facade Building Form 10
Public Places
62 Enclosure Building Form 10
Urban Spaces
63 Robust Permeability 5
(Carmona et
64 al., 2010), Walkability Comfort 12
65 Activity Physical Activity 12
66 Imageability Imageability 7
67 Built form and its characteristics Building Form 10
68 Comfort Comfort 12
69 Safety Comfort 12
70 Sociability Sense of Place 7
71 Scale Building Form 10
72 Human perception Sense of Place 7
(pedestrian path and physical activity)
3.2. Categorization and vehicular lane.
Words extracted from NVIVO 11, and
Microsoft Excel were grouped into the Table 2. Parameters assembled under two
categories (Source: Author).
above elaborated nine parameters
S.No. Parameter Category
according to their definitions and
1 Street greenery
explanation as per various theorists,
2 Pedestrian path
researchers, and experts. The nine Spatial
3 Physical activity
parameters were then grouped into two Perception
4 Building form
categories as per domain coverage 5 Vehicle lane
(Illustrated in Table 2). The First category 6 Comfort
is “spatial perception” which consists of 7 Imageability Human
four parameters, street greenery, building 8 Permeability Perception
form, vehicle lane and pedestrian space. 9 Sense of place
The second category is “Human
3.2.1.1. Street Greenery
Perception”, elaborated through comfort,
imageability, permeability and sense of The parameter street greenery includes
place. two sub parameters vegetation and
greenery systems. “Greenery system” is a
3.2.1. Spatial Perception system which includes trees against wall
Perception of any space is dependent on and modular greenery in the form of
physical and tactile qualities which form living wall, green wall, green façade and
a sense and picture of a place influencing many more (Al-Kayiem et al., 2020; Goel
its visual quality. Hence, spatial et al., 2022). Whenever greenery systems
perception includes all physical aspects of have been discussed in reference
a streetscape which are street greenery, literature, it is in the above forms only.
building form, pedestrian spaces Therefore, all greenery forms will be

154
 Assessing visual quality parameters in urban streetscape
Urbanism along transit corridors • M. Goel, A. Hajela, S. Khan

discussed under the category “street Table 3. Similar words for street greenery as per
greenery”. “Vegetation” refers to the the literature review (Source: Author).
Weighted
plant community that has developed S. No. Word Count
Percentage
naturally, without any human 1.1 Vegetation 81547 2.10
intervention. This includes keywords like 1.1.1 Greenery 40819 1.22
greenery, plantation, park, landscape, 1.1.2 Plantation 9975 0.21
open spaces, vegetation, species and 1.1.3 Park 8759 0.19
shrub from the literature review and 1.1.4 Landscape 6974 0.15
1.1.5 Open spaces 4530 0.10
expert interview round (Box and
1.1.6 Vegetation 4471 0.10
Fujiwara, 2013).
1.1.7 Species 4714 0.10
1.1.8 Shrub 1305 0.03
As per the literature review, words with Greenery
1.2 36537 0.79
similar meaning as “vegetation” and system
“greenery system”, have been listed in 1.2.1 Green wall 4966 0.11
Table 3. Similarly, words extracted from 1.2.2 Living wall 2605 0.06
expert interviews have been listed in 1.2.3 Green facade 2329 0.05
1.2.4 Trees 6304 0.13
Table 4. Words mentioned in Table 3 and
Greenery
4 respectively are all related to greenery, 1.2.5 16201 0.35
system
and its types in different forms. Vertical
1.2.6 4132 0.09
greenery
3.2.1.2. Pedestrian Space Total
Pedestrian space parameter includes two (1.1 Street greenery 118084 2.89
+1.2)
sub parameters pedestrian path and
physical activity. Table 4. Similar words for street greenery as per
expert interviews (Source: Author).
The pedestrian path focuses on street Weighted
S. No. Word Count
elements and open spaces. These spaces Percentage
include sidewalks and street furniture 1.1 Vegetation 254 2.7
1.1.1 Greenery 140 1.49
like benches, light, signages, facilities, etc.
1.1.2 Plantation 11 0.12
In short, all the elements available within 1.1.3 Park 12 0.12
the right of way. 1.1.4 Landscape 47 0.50
1.1.5 Open spaces 8 0.09
The parameter “physical activity” 1.1.6 Vegetation 19 0.20
includes social and commercial activities 1.1.7 Species 10 0.11
such as socializing, interacting, playing, 1.1.8 Shrub 7 0.07
shopping, sitting, selling, and eating Greenery
1.2 186 1.98
system
(Koohsari et al., 2015). “Interaction” is
1.2.1 Green wall 40 0.43
communication between individuals or a 1.2.2 Living wall 10 0.11
group of individuals in an urban space. It 1.2.3 Green facade 5 0.05
focuses on how the design of an urban 1.2.4 Trees 38 0.40
space in the built environment influences 1.2.5 Greenery system 90 0.96
people and their activities (Ghahtarani et 1.2.6 Vertical greenery 3 0.03
al., 2020). Hence it is tagged under Total
(1.1 Street greenery 347 3.69
“physical activity”. +1.2)

155
 • Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 15 • Nr. 2 • 2024

As per the literature review, words with Table 7. Similar words for physical activity as per
similar meaning as “pedestrian path” and the literature review (Source: Author).
S. No. Word Count Weighted
“physical activity”, have been listed in Percentage
Table 5 and 6 respectively. Similarly, 4.1 Social 29527 0.63
words extracted from expert interviews 4.1.1 Socializing 12157 0.26
have been listed in Table 7 and 8 4.1.2 Activities 8478 0.18
respectively. 4.1.3 Interaction 3744 0.08
4.1.4 Playing 3230 0.07
Table 5. Similar words for pedestrian path as per 4.1.5 Shopping 1610 0.03
the literature review (Source: Author). 4.1.6 Sitting 308 0.01
S. Word Count Weighted 4.2 Commerce 3370 0.08
No. Percentage 4.2.1 Market 2313 0.05
3.1 Facilities 10209 0.22 4.2.2 Vendors 409 0.01
3.2 Pedestrian 7082 0.15 4.2.3 Selling 318 0.01
3.3 Sidewalks 7007 0.15 4.2.4 Kiosks 330 0.01
3.4 Cycle 5832 0.12 Total Physical
3.5 Open Spaces 4530 0.10 4.1+ activities 32897 0.71
3.6 Signage 858 0.02 4.2
3.7 Furniture 565 0.01
3.8 Light 3254 0.07 Table 8. Similar words for physical activity as per
Total Pedestrian path 39337 0.84 expert interviews (Source: Author).
S. No. Word Count Weighted
Table 6. Similar words for pedestrian path as per Percentage
expert interviews (Source: Author). 4.1 Social 132 1.4
S. Word Count Weighted 4.1.1 Socializing 23 0.25
No. Percentage 4.1.2 Activities 24 0.25
3.1 Facilities 18 0.19 4.1.3 Interaction 27 0.29
3.2 Pedestrian 29 0.31 4.1.4 Playing 20 0.21
3.3 Sidewalks 13 0.14 4.1.5 Shopping 25 0.26
3.4 Cycle 15 0.16 4.1.6 Sitting 13 0.14
3.5 Open Spaces 8 0.09 4.2 Commerce 53 0.55
3.6 Signage 7 0.07 4.2.1 Market 7 0.07
3.7 Furniture 19 0.20 4.2.2 Vendors 36 0.38
3.8 Light 16 0.17 4.2.3 Selling 5 0.05
Total Pedestrian 125 1.33 4.2.4 Kiosks 5 0.05
path Total Physical
4.1+ activities 185 1.95
4.2
3.2.1.3. Building form
Building form refers to how a building
“District” is recognized by a place
responds to the street and open space in
having its own character through its
its vicinity. It also refers to building
physical characteristics of the building
height, type, function, and appearance.
form like texture, color, frontage,
While analyzing any built form, they are
building use and many others (Lynch,
studied as per the building layers which
1960). “Frontage” is defined as front or
include building typology, building use,
facade of any building and as such is
building height, and building facade. The
represented under “building form”
scale of a building also plays a vital role
(Sung, 2016; Balasubramanian et al.,
in understanding its relationship to its
2022).
contextual surroundings (Boeing, 2018).

156
 Assessing visual quality parameters in urban streetscape
Urbanism along transit corridors • M. Goel, A. Hajela, S. Khan

“Edge” refers to the interface between the Table 10. Words mentioned in Table 9
elements which impact the overall and 10 are related to buildings, and their
character, functionality, and visual different forms and urban layers.
quality of a space. In case of streetscape,
the transition zone is between a street and Table 10. Similar words for building form as per
the adjacent building or sidewalks, is expert interviews (Source: Author).
S.No. Word Count Weighted
considered the edge (Simpson et al., Percentage
2019). 1 Building Use 84 0.89
2 Building
15 0.16
“Enclosure” in the urban context means form
when a public space is surrounded by 3 Scale 2 0.02
vertical elements such as buildings and 4 Building
17 0.18
Function
walls. As it is dependent on buildings,
5 Building
that’s why it has been considered under 6 0.06
Facade
the building form category (Yin, 2016; 6 Building
5 0.05
Ewing and Handy, 2009). Height
7 Edge 8 0.09
“Scale” of a space is defined as the size, 8 Building
17 0.18
Typology
height, depth, width, and setback in
9 Enclosure 1 0.01
comparison to the surrounding building Total Building 155 1.64
forms and streets. Hence, it is categorized Form
under the category “building form”
(Ewing and Handy, 2009). 3.2.1.4. Vehicle Lane
Urbanization and globalization have led
Table 9. Similar words for building form as per
the literature review (Source: Author).
to mixed used development along transit-
S.No. Word Count Weighted oriented development (TOD) corridor.
Percentage The increase in number of cars and other
1 Building Use 21085 0.45 vehicles has exacerbated traffic pressure
2 Building 9417 0.20 on existing mobility systems, which in
form turn has reduced the streetscape green
3 Scale 4024 0.09
cover. To alleviate these issues, flyovers
4 Building 3899 0.08
Function and other transit systems like metro, bus,
5 Building 2488 0.05 etc. are being constructed on the vehicle
Facade lanes which impact the sense of enclosure
6 Building 1764 0.04 and belonginess for pedestrians.
Height
7 Edge 1496 0.03
As per the literature review, the words
8 Building 623 0.01
Typology with similar meaning related to “vehicle
9 Enclosure 432 0.01 lane” have been listed in Table 11.
Total Building 45228 0.96 Similarly, words extracted through expert
Form interviews have been listed down in
Table 12.
As per the literature review, the words
with similar meaning related to “building 3.2.2. Human Perception
form” have been listed in Table 9. “Human perception” recognizes and
Similarly, words extracted through expert analyzes responses to objects in space,
interviews have been listed down in based on human memory. It is a visual

157
 • Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 15 • Nr. 2 • 2024

survey based on the form, appearances “Walkability” is a concept which

and composition of the objects forming a measures whether an area promotes
personal connection with the objects (Jia walking or not. It is about designing a
et al., 2022). Hence the parameters based space which maximizes the movement on
on human perceptions are listed down in foot rather than vehicle movement.
this category which are comfort, People walk around only if they feel
imageability, permeability and sense of comfortable and safe exploring an
place. interesting area (Ewing and Handy,
2009).
Table 11. Similar words for vehicle lane as per the
literature review (Source: Author). “Safety” is not just a personal experience
S.No. Word Count Weighted
Percentage
but also a architectural, social,
1 Road 10644 0.23 environmental, and infrastructural
2 Vehicle 6875 0.15 quality. In the architectural context,
3 Bus 6881 0.14 safety is experienced through the concept
4 Metros 5483 0.12 of “eyes on the street”. People feel secure
5 Car 3610 0.07 when there is movement and activities
6 Flyover visible around, forming a sense of social
1383 0.03
Under Space
Total Vehicle lane 34876 0.74
cohesion (Jacobs, 1982). In the social
context, the activeness and liveliness of a
Table 12. Similar words for vehicle lane as per space brings out human interaction in the
expert interviews (Source: Author). form of both formal and informal
S.No. Word Count Weighted activities. In the environmental context,
Percentage greenery creates a comfortable
1 Road 1 0.01
atmosphere for people to experience. In
2 Vehicle 33 0.34
the infrastructural context, walkability to
3 Bus 7 0.07
4 Metros 9 0.10 one’s destination provides a feeling of
5 Car 8 0.09 safety. These above contexts together
6 Flyover create a safe and secure place and
34 0.36
Under Space develops easement and comfortable
Total Vehicle lane 92 0.97 environment (Rastyapina, 2006).

3.2.2.1. Comfort As per the literature review, the words

“Comfort” is an experience of easement, with similar meaning related to
relaxation and freedom from distress and “comfort” have been listed in Table 13.
exposure to unpleasant atmosphere Similarly, words extracted through expert
caused by wind, heat, rain, traffic, and interviews have been listed down in
pollution, both noise and environmental. Table 14.
This feeling enhances walking, cycling,
sitting, playing, standing, talking, 3.2.2.2. Imageability
reading, or relaxing in any space by an “Imageability” refers to identity,
individual or a group and transforms a meaning, legibility, visual, landmark, and
space into an active place. It also enforces aesthetics. “Identity and meaning”
a sense of safety among individuals. signifies how people remember and feel
Comfort is dependent on “safety” and about a place (Dai et al., 2021; Ewing and
“walkability” in any space (Shao, 2023; Handy, 2009). “Legibility” in urban
Ewing and Handy, 2009). design means the tendency of a place to

158
 Assessing visual quality parameters in urban streetscape
Urbanism along transit corridors • M. Goel, A. Hajela, S. Khan

be memorable and recognizable through “imageability” have been listed in Table

its unique combination of elements. This 15. Similarly, words extracted through
helps in enhancing the street image expert interviews have been listed down
(Lynch, 1960; Taylor, 2009; Koseoglu, in Table 16.
2011).
Table 15. Similar words for imageability as per
Table 13. Similar words for comfort as per the the literature review (Source: Author).
literature review (Source: Author). S.No. Word Count Weighted
S.No. Word Count Weighted Percentage
Percentage 1 Visual 10746 0.22
1 Safety 9084 0.19 2 Identity 4964 0.1
2 Walkability 6531 0.14 3 Imageability 3464 0.07
3 Comfort 1975 0.04 4 Aesthetic 2881 0.06
Total Comfort 17590 0.37 5 Legibility 296 0.01
6 Landmark 261 0.01
Table 14. Similar words for comfort as per expert Total Imageability 22612 0.47
interviews (Source: Author).
S.No. Word Count Weighted Table 16. Similar words for imageability as per
Percentage expert interviews (Source: Author).
1 Safety 13 0.13 S.No. Word Count Weighted
2 Walkability 48 0.51 Percentage
3 Comfort 29 0.31 1 Visual 85 0.91
Total Comfort 90 0.95 2 Identity 2 0.02
3 Imageability 6 0.06
4 Aesthetic 17 0.18
“Visual” is a crucial element in forming
5 Legibility 5 0.05
an imageability of a space. With the help
6 Landmark 2 0.02
of visual characteristics, a place is made Total Imageability 117 1.24
memorable and recognizable.
“Landmarks” is one of the ways to 3.2.2.3. Permeability
achieve the same. They help the “Permeability” is the quality of being able
individual to orient and create a mental to cut through vehicular and pedestrian
map of a place. They can be any movement, visually or physically
architectural feature, natural elements, or (Carmona et al., 2010).
iconic structure. This helps create a
strong visual image of the place (Lynch, “Livability” is measured in terms of ease
1960; Ewing and Handy, 2009). of access to amenities like food, water,
transport, education, open green space,
“Aesthetic” is about the visual and many others. To achieve that, there
attractiveness enhancing the overall should be a proper connection and
quality and appeal of a place. The linkage to space (Higgs et al., 2019).
elements which focus on aesthetics of “Linkage” is about connecting different
streetscapes are its elements, buildings, elements on the streets. Through this,
and vegetation which tend to capture important nodes are connected, and
people’s attention and leave a lasting people reach different desired
impression contributing to imageability destinations (Cheng et al., 2013).
(Balasubramanian, 2022). “Nodes” are points that link different
neighborhood places which have diverse
As per the literature review, the words uses such as shopping, community,
with similar meaning related to libraries, residences, and institutions

159
 • Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 15 • Nr. 2 • 2024

(Lynch, 1960; Cheng et al., 2013). Hence, Table 17. Similar words for permeability as per
they are grouped under the parameter the literature review (Source: Author).
S.No. Word Count Weighted
“permeability”. Percentage
1 Accessibility 9954 0.21
“Accessibility” is the about how easy it is 2 Inclusive 2524 0.06
to get to any place without any obstacles. 3 Linkage 1657 0.04
It makes a place for all, removing barriers 4 Entry 998 0.02
and promoting inclusivity. “Inclusive” 5 Permeability 868 0.02
6 Livability 751 0.02
refers to making the place accessible for
7 Nodes 559 0.01
all and not being discriminated against
8 Transparency 475 0.01
based on socio-economic status, gender, 9 Exit 288 0.01
age, sexual identity, religion, or Total Permeability 34876 0.74
nationality. They are allowed to
participate equally in each activity and
Table 18. Similar words for permeability as per
opportunity (Mora et al., 2017; Gaglione et expert interviews (Source: Author).
al., 2022). Hence, they are grouped under S.No. Word Count Weighted
the parameter “permeability”. Percentage
1 Accessibility 32 0.33
“Entry” and “Exit” to the destination 2 Permeability 31 0.32
3 Inclusive 3 0.03
should be permeable so that any
4 Linkage 1 0.01
commuter or visitor can identify the place 5 Entry 7 0.07
from afar. It is dependent on the 6 Livability 3 0.03
pedestrian network’s ability to promote 7 Nodes 11 0.11
walkability while offering transparency 8 Transparency 12 0.12
and robustness (Andrade et al., 2018; 9 Exit 5 0.05
Subramanian and Jana, 2018). Total Permeability 92 0.97
“Transparency” creates a visual
connection between different spaces, 3.2.2.4. Sense of Place
develops a sense of openness and “Sense of place” is the emotional
promotes a desire to keep your “eyes on connection felt by people for a place for
the street”. A transparent visual helps its tangible and intangible qualities. It is
people understand the place, its functions based on individual meaning, perception,
and activities. A place with a clear entry and attachment to a space (Rajala et al.,
and exit, and transparency, promotes 2020).
visual connection and improves
orientation (Ewing and Handy, 2009). “Sociability” is a perception of an
Hence, they are grouped under the individual or a group where they feel
parameter “permeability”. attracted to a space which leads to social
and leisure activities. What one finds
As per the literature review, the words attractive varies significantly (Mehta,
with similar meaning related to 2009; Oppong et al., 2017). “Serial vision”
“permeability” have been listed in Table is how each individual or group
17. Similarly, words extracted through experiences a space differently (Cullen,
expert interviews have been listed down 1961). All these have been tagged under
in Table 18. the parameter “sense of place”.

160
 Assessing visual quality parameters in urban streetscape
Urbanism along transit corridors • M. Goel, A. Hajela, S. Khan

“Attachment” is the about the bond a diverse uses (Mehta, 2009; Carmona et al.,
person forms with a place and its 2010; Rajala et al., 2020). “Attraction” is
characteristics. This attachment is based creating a visually appealing environment
on any symbol which creates meaning for to attract people through greenery,
that place (Mehta, 2009; Carmona et al., architecture, and other elements (Mehta,
2010; Oppong et al., 2017). “Symbolism” 2009; Carmona et al., 2010; Rajala et al.,
gives an identity to a place and develops 2020). By considering these aspects, a
meaning for a group of individuals. Any friendly and attractive streetscape can be
architectural feature, public space or created which encourages social
urban intervention can be signified as a interaction, supports activity and enhances
symbol forming the sense of the place for the sense of the place.
an individual (Carmona et al., 2010).
“Meaning” encompasses distinctive As per the literature review, words with
characteristics that reflect and reinforce similar meaning to “sense of place” have
the sense of a place, belonginess and been listed in Table 19. Similarly, words
attachment among residents and visitors extracted through expert interviews have
(Carmona et al., 2010; Rajala et al., 2020). been listed down in Table 20.
“Belonginess” is about creating an
environment with sense of attachment Table 19. Similar words for transit corridor as per
with the place. This allows for the literature review (Source: Author).
S.No. Word Count Weighted
personalization and taking pride in Percentage
taking care of the surroundings. 1 Place 26024 0.55
Developing community space for 2 Perception 7365 0.16
attachment, symbols, meaning and 3 Attachment 4963 0.1
belonginess forms a sense of place 4 Meaning 3659 0.08
(Mehta, 2009; Carmona et al., 2010). 5 Behaviour 3038 0.07
6 Observing 3014 0.06
7 Sense 2252 0.05
“Behaviour” is a user centric approach,
8 Attraction 1909 0.04
focusing on the needs and preferences of 9 Friendly 954 0.02
how people use a space (Mehta, 2009; 10 Symbolism 711 0.02
Carmona et al., 2010). “Observation” is 11 Belongingne
349 0.01
when people discern and analyze how an ss
individual uses, moves and interacts in any Total Sense of
54238 1.16
place
space. Understanding human behaviours
and designing a space accordingly creates a
desirable environment, supports 3.3. Common parameter
interaction, and enhances the sense of place “Open space” denotes a public space
among individuals (Mehta, 2009; Carmona with no built structures such as plazas,
et al., 2010). streets, parks and many others. Parks are
considered as open spaces as well as
A “friendly” environment in a space is green spaces under greenery systems.
essential for encouraging social interaction. Streets have been previously explained as
These spaces encourage a sense of part of transit corridor as well (Carmona
belongingness and connection amongst the et al., 2010; Koohsari et al., 2015; Pattacini,
community. These spaces should be 2021). This suggests that open spaces are
attractive and inviting with the provision common in greenery system and transit
of amenities like greenery, sidewalks and corridor categories.

161
 • Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 15 • Nr. 2 • 2024

Table 20. Similar words for transit corridor as per found to be significant in assessment of
expert interviews (Source: Author). visual quality of urban streetscape along
S.No. Word Count Weighted
Percentage
transit corridors.
1 Place 134 1.43
2 Perception 23 0.24 The above results indicate the keywords
3 Attachment 7 0.07 which were gathered through
4 Meaning 9 0.1 comprehensive literature review related
5 Behaviour 4 0.04 to visual quality, streetscapes, and transit
6 Observing 4 0.04
corridors as clearly explained in section
7 Sense 12 0.13
3.1 to 3.3 from varied sources. These
8 Attraction 4 0.04
9 Friendly 2 0.02 keywords were narrowed down to
10 Symbolism 4 0.04 identify essential parameters through a
11 Belongingness 3 0.03 synthesis of extensive literature review
Total Sense of place 206 2.18 which was discussed repeatedly with
fifteen experts as explained in 3.4.1 and
Though this parameter is listed down 3.4.2. Lastly, parameters for assessing
under two categories as of now, at the visual parameters in the urban
stage of primary data collection, it will be streetscape of a transit corridor were
classified under one category based on validated based on the NVIVO generated
the statistical relation between the weighted percentage.
parameter and the category.
Taking the weighted percentage of the
3.4. Outcome parameters based on all papers, street
3.4.1. Literature review greenery has the highest weighted
Table 21 lists down the weighted percentage and permeability has the
percentage and word count for all terms least. Whereas based on experts’ opinion,
which were clubbed together to form the street greenery has the highest weighted
nine parameters. percentage and vehicle lanes have the
least (refer Table 23).
3.4.2. Expert interview
Table 22 lists down the weighted This signifies that there is a high focus on
percentage and word count for all terms street greenery as a streetscape element.
which were clubbed together to form the However, human perception in the form
nine parameters based on expert of imageability and permeability has not
interviews. been discussed enough. The literature on
the subject focuses on vehicle lanes while
3.4.3. Final parameters leaving out imageability and
Nine parameters namely, street greenery, permeability. However, in experts’
sense of place, comfort, building form, opinion, vehicle lanes are not considered
physical activities, pedestrian path, as important as imageability and
imageability, permeability and vehicle permeability. This conflict between
lane are listed down as per the weighted literature review and experts needs to be
percentage. These parameters have been addressed.

162
 Assessing visual quality parameters in urban streetscape
Urbanism along transit corridors • M. Goel, A. Hajela, S. Khan

Table 21. Total word count and weighted percentage of nine parameters as per literature review (Source:
Author).
Parameter / Sub Parameter
S. No. Count Weighted Percentage
Word
1 Street Greenery 118084 2.89
1.1 Vegetation 81547 2.1
1.1.1 Greenery 40819 1.22
1.1.2 Plantation 9975 0.21
1.1.3 Park 8759 0.19
1.1.4 Landscape 6974 0.15
1.1.5 Open Spaces 4530 0.10
1.1.6 Vegetation 4471 0.10
1.1.7 Species 4714 0.10
1.1.8 Shrub 1305 0.03
1.2 Greenery System 36537 0.79
1.2.1 Green Wall 4966 0.11
1.2.2 Living Wall 2605 0.06
1.2.3 Green Facade 2329 0.05
1.2.4 Trees 6304 0.13
1.2.5 Greenery System 16201 0.35
1.2.6 Vertical Greenery 4132 0.09
2 Pedestrian Path 39337 0.84
2.1 Facilities 10209 0.22
2.2 Pedestrian 7082 0.15
2.3 Sidewalks 7007 0.15
2.4 Cycle 5832 0.12
2.5 Open Spaces 4530 0.10
2.6 Signage 858 0.02
2.7 Furniture 565 0.01
2.8 Light 3254 0.07
3 Physical Activties 32897 0.71
3.1 Social 29527 0.63
3.1.1 Socializing 12157 0.26
3.1.2 Activities 8478 0.18
3.1.3 Interaction 3744 0.08
3.1.4 Playing 3230 0.07
3.1.5 Shopping 1610 0.03
3.1.6 Sitting 308 0.01
3.2 Commerce 3370 0.08
3.2.1 Market 2313 0.05
3.2.2 Vendors 409 0.01
3.2.3 Selling 318 0.01
3.2.4 Kiosks 330 0.01
4 Building Form 45228 0.96
4.1 Building Use 21085 0.45
4.2 Building form 9417 0.20
4.3 Scale 4024 0.09
4.4 Building Function 3899 0.08
4.5 Building Facade 2488 0.05
4.6 Building Height 1764 0.04
4.7 Edge 1496 0.03
4.8 Building Typology 623 0.01
4.9 Enclosure 432 0.01
5 Vehicle Lane 34876 0.74
5.1 Road 10644 0.23

163
 • Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 15 • Nr. 2 • 2024

Parameter / Sub Parameter

S. No. Count Weighted Percentage
Word
5.2 Vehicle 6875 0.15
5.3 Bus 6881 0.14
5.4 Metros 5483 0.12
5.5 Car 3610 0.07
5.6 Flyover Under Space 1383 0.03
6 Comfort 17590 0.37
6.1 Safety 9084 0.19
6.2 Walkability 6531 0.14
6.3 Comfort 1975 0.04
7 Imageability 22612 0.47
7.1 Visual 10746 0.22
7.2 Identity 4964 0.1
7.3 Imageability 3464 0.07
7.4 Aesthetic 2881 0.06
7.5 Legibility 296 0.01
7.6 Landmark 261 0.01
8 Permeability 18074 0.40
8.1 Accessibility 9954 0.21
8.2 Inclusive 2524 0.06
8.3 Linkage 1657 0.04
8.4 Entry 998 0.02
8.5 Permeability 868 0.02
8.6 Livability 751 0.02
8.7 Nodes 559 0.01
8.8 Transparency 475 0.01
8.9 Exit 288 0.01
9 Sense of place 54238 1.16
9.1 Place 26024 0.55
9.2 Perception 7365 0.16
9.3 Attachment 4963 0.1
9.4 Meaning 3659 0.08
9.5 Behaviour 3038 0.07
9.6 Observing 3014 0.06
9.7 Sense 2252 0.05
9.8 Attraction 1909 0.04
9.9 Friendly 954 0.02
9.10 Symbolism 711 0.02
9.11 Belongingness 349 0.01

Table 22. Total word count and weighted percentage of nine parameters as per expert interviews (Source:
Author).
Parameter / Sub Parameter
S. No. Count Weighted Percentage
Word
1 Street Greenery 347 3.69
1.1 Vegetation 254 2.7
1.1.1 Greenery 140 1.49
1.1.2 Plantation 11 0.12
1.1.3 Park 12 0.12
1.1.4 Landscape 47 0.50
1.1.5 Open Spaces 8 0.09
1.1.6 Vegetation 19 0.20
1.1.7 Species 10 0.11

164
 Assessing visual quality parameters in urban streetscape
Urbanism along transit corridors • M. Goel, A. Hajela, S. Khan

Parameter / Sub Parameter

S. No. Count Weighted Percentage
Word
1.1.8 Shrub 7 0.07
1.2 Greenery System 186 1.98
1.2.1 Green Wall 40 0.43
1.2.2 Living Wall 10 0.11
1.2.3 Green Facade 5 0.05
1.2.4 Trees 38 0.40
1.2.5 Greenery System 90 0.96
1.2.6 Vertical Greenery 3 0.03
2 Pedestrian Path 125 1.33
2.1 Facilities 18 0.19
2.2 Pedestrian 29 0.31
2.3 Sidewalks 13 0.14
2.4 Cycle 15 0.16
2.5 Open Spaces 8 0.09
2.6 Signage 7 0.07
2.7 Furniture 19 0.20
2.8 Light 16 0.17
3 Phyiscal Activties 185 1.95
3.1 Social 132 1.4
3.1.1 Socializing 23 0.25
3.1.2 Activities 24 0.25
3.1.3 Interaction 27 0.29
3.1.4 Playing 20 0.21
3.1.5 Shopping 25 0.26
3.1.6 Sitting 13 0.14
3.2 Commerce 53 0.55
3.2.1 Market 7 0.07
3.2.2 Vendors 36 0.38
3.2.3 Selling 5 0.05
3.2.4 Kiosks 5 0.05
4 Building Form 155 1.64
4.1 Building Use 84 0.89
4.2 Building form 15 0.16
4.3 Scale 2 0.02
4.4 Building Function 17 0.18
4.5 Building Facade 6 0.06
4.6 Building Height 5 0.05
4.7 Edge 8 0.09
4.8 Building Typology 17 0.18
4.9 Enclosure 1 0.01
5 Vehicle Lane 92 0.97
5.1 Road 1 0.01
5.2 Vehicle 33 0.34
5.3 Bus 7 0.07
5.4 Metros 9 0.10
5.5 Car 8 0.09
5.6 Flyover Under Space 34 0.36
6 Comfort 90 0.95
6.1 Safety 13 0.13
6.2 Walkability 48 0.51
6.3 Comfort 29 0.31
7 Imageability 117 1.24

165
 • Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 15 • Nr. 2 • 2024

Parameter / Sub Parameter

S. No. Count Weighted Percentage
Word
7.1 Visual 85 0.91
7.2 Identity 2 0.02
7.3 Imageability 6 0.06
7.4 Aesthetic 17 0.18
7.5 Legibility 5 0.05
7.6 Landmark 2 0.02
8 Permeability 105 1.07
8.1 Accessibility 32 0.33
8.2 Permeability 31 0.32
8.3 Inclusive 3 0.03
8.4 Linkage 1 0.01
8.5 Entry 7 0.07
8.6 Livability 3 0.03
8.7 Nodes 11 0.11
8.8 Transparency 12 0.12
8.9 Exit 5 0.05
9 Sense of place 206 2.18
9.1 Place 134 1.43
9.2 Perception 23 0.24
9.3 Attachment 7 0.07
9.4 Meaning 9 0.1
9.5 Behaviour 4 0.04
9.6 Observing 4 0.04
9.7 Sense 12 0.13
9.8 Attraction 4 0.04
9.9 Friendly 2 0.02
9.10 Symbolism 4 0.04
9.11 Belongingness 3 0.03

Table 23. Total word count and weighted percentage of nine parameters as per literature review for all
documents and expert interview (Source: Author).
Parameter All papers Expert Interview
S.No. Count Weighted Percentage Count Weighted Percentage
1 Street Greenery 118084 2.89 347 3.69
2 Sense of place 54238 1.16 206 2.18
3 Comfort 35302 0.76 162 1.70
4 Building Form 45228 0.96 155 1.64
5 Physical Activities 32897 0.71 185 1.95
6 Pedestrian Path 39337 0.84 125 1.33
7 Imageability 22612 0.47 117 1.24
8 Permeability 18074 0.40 105 1.07
9 Vehicle Lane 34876 0.74 92 0.97

4. Conclusion approximately four hundred fifty articles

The above result and discussion based on through research paper and theses, nine
literature review and expert interviews urban theory books and fifteen expert
elaborated that there are nine essential interviews. The authors recommend
parameters to analyze any streetscape’s analyzing the urban streetscape of each
visual quality. This paper had the city using the following nine parameters,
limitation of knowledge from street greenery, sense of place, comfort,

166
 Assessing visual quality parameters in urban streetscape
Urbanism along transit corridors • M. Goel, A. Hajela, S. Khan

building form, physical activities, Dai L., Zheng C., Dong Z., Yao Y., Wang R.,
pedestrian path, imageability, Zhang X., Ren S., Zhang J., Song X., Guan
Q. (2021), Analyzing the correlation between
permeability and vehicle lane. This will visual space and residents’ psychology in
help create a standard analysis approach Wuhan, China using street-view images and
to compare streetscapes across deep-learning technique, City and
neighborhoods, cities and nations. This Environment Interactions 11(2): 100069.
Daniel B., Frevel N., von der Gracht H. A., Schmidt
will also help urban designers and
S. L., Schweitzer V. M. (2021), Preparing,
planners create frameworks for their conducting, and analyzing Delphi surveys:
city’s streetscape to enhance visual Cross-disciplinary practices, new directions, and
quality along transit corridors. advancements, MethodsX 8: 101401.
Ewing R., Handy S. (2009), Measuring the
unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related
REFERENCES
to walkability, Journal of Urban Design
14(1): 65-84.
Adeel A., Notteboom B., Yasar A., Scheerlinck K., Gaglione F., Gargiulo C., Zucaro F., Cottrill C.
Stevens J. (2021), Sustainable streetscape and (2022), Urban accessibility in a 15-minute
built environment designs around brt city: a measure in the city of Naples, Italy,
stations: A stated choice experiment using 3d Transportation Research Procedia 60(1):
visualizations, Sustainability 13(12): 6594. 378-385.
Al-Kayiem H. H., Koh K., Riyadi T. W. B., Effendy Gehl J. (1989), Life between buildings: Using public
M. (2020), A comparative review on greenery space, Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.
ecosystems and their impacts on sustainability
Ghahtarani A., Sheikhmohammady M., Rostami
of building environment, Sustainability M. (2020), The impact of social capital and
12(20): 8529. social interaction on customers’ purchase
Andrade P. A. D., Pont M. B., Amorim L. (2018), intention, considering knowledge sharing in
Development of a measure of permeability social commerce context, Journal of
between private and public space, Urban Innovation and Knowledge 5(3): 191-199.
Science 2(3): 87. Goel M., Jha B., Khan S. (2022), Living walls
Appleyard D. (1981), Livable streets, University of enhancing the urban realm: A review,
California Press, Berkeley, California, Environmental Science and Pollution
USA. Research 29(26): 38715-38734.
Atilola M. I., Ismail A., Achu K., Bujang A. A. (2019), Higgs C., Badland H., Simons K., Knibbs L. D.,
An evaluation of factors causing variance in
Giles-Corti B. (2019), The urban liveability
property assessment, Journal of the Malaysian index: developing a policy-relevant urban
Institute of Planners 17(1): 82-93. liveability composite measure and evaluating
Boeing G. (2018), Measuring the complexity of urban associations with transport mode choice,
form and design, Urban Design International Journal of Health
International 23(4):281-292. Geographics 18(14): 1-25.
Balasubramanian S., Irulappan C., Kitchley L. J. Jacobs A. B. (1993), Great streets, MIT Press,
(2022), Aesthetics of urban commercial streets Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
from the perspective of cognitive memory and Jacobs A. B., Macdonald E., Rofee Y. (2001), The
user behavior in urban environments, Frontiers boulevard book: History, evolution, design of
of Architectural Research 11(5): 949-962. multiway boulevards, MIT Press,
Box E. O., Fujiwara K. (2013), Vegetation types and Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
their broad-scale distribution, John Wiley Jacobs J. (1982), The death and life of great American
and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. cities, Vintage press, California, USA.
Carmona M., Tiesdell S., Heath T., Oc T. (2010), Jia J., Zhang X., Huang C., Luan H. (2022),
Public places - Urban spaces: The dimensions Multiscale analysis of human social sensing
of urban design, Routledge, England, UK. of urban appearance and its effects on house
Cheng J., Bertolini L., Clercq F. L., Kapoen L. price appreciation in Wuhan, China,
(2013), Understanding urban networks: Sustainable Cities and Society 81(6):
Comparing a node, a density and an 103844.
accessibility based view, Cities 31(2): 165-176. Koohasri M. J., Mavoa S., Villanuea K., Sugiyama
Cullen G. (1961), The concise townscape, T., Badland H., Kacynski A.T., Owen N.,
Architectural Press, New York, USA. Giles-Corti B. (2015), Public open space,

167
 • Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 15 • Nr. 2 • 2024

physical activity, urban design and public Rajala K., Sorice M. G., Thomas V. A. (2020), The
health: Concepts, methods and research meaning(s) of place: Identifying the structure
agenda, Health and Place 33(3):75-82. of sense of place across a social–ecological
Koseoglu E., Onder D. E. (2011), Subjective and landscape, People and Nature 2(3): 718-733.
objective dimensions of spatial legibility, Rastyapina O. A., Korosteleva N.V. (2016), Urban
Procedia - Social and Behavioral safety development methods, Procedia
Sciences 30(21): 1191-1195. Engineering 150(17): 2042-2048.
Lu K., Han B., Zhou X. (2018), Smart urban transit Santosa H., Ernawati J., Wulandari L. D. (2018),
systems: from integrated framework to Visual quality evaluation of urban commercial
interdisciplinary perspective, Urban Rail streetscape for the development of landscape
Transit 4(2):49-67. visual planning system in provincial street
Lynch K. (1960), The image of the city, MIT Press, corridors in Malang, Indonesia, IOP
Cambridge Massachusetts, USA. Conference Series: Earth and
Ma B., Hauer R. J., Xu C., Li W. (2021), Visualizing Environmental Science, Medan, ID 126:
evaluation model of human perceptions and 012202.
characteristic indicators of landscape visual Shao Y., Yin Y., Xue Z., Ma D. (2023), Assessing
quality in urban green spaces by using and comparing the visual comfort of streets
nomograms, Urban Forestry and Urban across four Chinese megacities using ai-based
Greening 65(3): 127314. image analysis and the perceptive evaluation
Mehta V. (2009), Look closely and you will see, listen method, Land 12(4): 834.
carefully and you will hear: Urban design and Simpson J., Thwaites K., Freeth M., (2019),
social interaction on streets, Journal of Understanding visual engagement with urban
Urban Design 14(1): 29-64. street edges along non-pedestrianised and
Mora H., Gilart-Iglesias V., Hoyo R. P., Andujar- pedestrianised streets using mobile eye-
Montoya M. D. (2017), A comprehensive tracking, Sustainability 11(15): 4251.
system for monitoring urban accessibility in Stojanovski T. (2019), Urban design and public
smart cities, Sensors 17(8): 1834. transportation – public spaces, visual
Oppong R. A., Marful A. B., Asare E. S. (2017), proximity and transit-oriented development
Improving urban visibility through fractal (TOD), Journal of Urban Design 25(1):
analysis of street edges: The case of John 134-154.
Evans Atta Mills High Street in Accra, Subramanian D., Jana A. (2018), Assessing urban
Ghana, Frontiers of Architectural Research recreational open spaces for the elderly: A case
6(2): 248-260. of three Indian cities, Urban Forestry and
Pattacini L. (2021), Defining public open spaces: An Urban Greening 35(7): 115-128.
investigation framework to inform planning Sung D. (2016), A new look at building facades as
and design decision-making processes, infrastructure, Engineering 2(1): 63-68.
Landscape Research 46(5): 653-672. Taylor N. (2009), Legibility and aesthetics in urban
Phillips A., da Schio N., Canters F., Khan A. Z. design, Journal of Urban Design 14(2): 189-
(2023), A living street and not just green: 202.
Exploring public preferences and concerns Yin L., Wang Z. (2016), Measuring visual enclosure
regarding nature-based solution for street walkability: Using machine learning
implementation in urban streetscapes, Urban algorithms and google street view imagery,
Forestry and Urban Greening 86: 128034. Applied Geography 76(6): 147-153.

Received: 6 August 2023 • Revised: 26 October 2023 • Accepted: 21 January 2024

Article distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

No Derivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

168