El dret de desistiment

In general, the research team found the majority of responses to be consistent with the objectively measured attributes; however, variation existed in how respondents evaluated

characteristics across the neighborhood concepts. The following subsections report the findings from our analysis for each subcategory of neighborhood characteristics (housing, accessibility, and transportation).

3.1.4.1 Housing Characteristics

Three housing characteristics were compared across neighborhood concepts: private yard space, variety of dwelling types, and size of residential living space. In the most urban neighborhood concepts, AB and C, our analysis found little objective difference in yard size. In agreement, 61% of the validation survey respondents indicated “no difference”.

However, this concept comparison of yard size produced far less respondent agreement than the other pairings. Overall, the majority of respondents (>80%) were able to detect differences in the size of private yards for the other image set comparisons, where average yard size increased as the neighborhood concept moved up the spectrum from AB to F.

We also asked participants to compare the variety in types of dwellings between concepts (e.g. single-family detached structures, apartment buildings). Objectively, neighborhoods in the middle of the spectrum (D and E) tended to have the greatest variety in dwelling types, providing a mix of single family and multifamily residential buildings. Based on the presented image sets, participants responded that neighborhood concepts C and E had the greatest level of variety in types of dwellings (72%, when comparing C to D and 79%, when comparing D to E). There was less agreement when comparing the AB and C neighborhoods, where 41% of respondents saw no difference in housing mix, 25%

viewed AB as having a greater mix, and 34% choosing C. In terms of living space, which is implied by the urban density shown in the images since we do not directly show this characteristic, respondents generally agreed that more suburban neighborhoods tended to have larger residential living spaces. There was less agreement among respondents who compared concept AB to C, with 54% stating no difference and 39% choosing C. There was similar response variation in the more suburban comparison of concept E to F.

3.1.4.2 Accessibility Characteristics

Validation survey respondents were asked to evaluate the ability for the neighborhood visualizations to convey four accessibility characteristics: proximity to local shopping and/or retail; access to parks and/or recreational facilities; access to regional shopping centers and/or big box stores; and population density. Respondent evaluations varied, with greater agreement on population density and proximity to local shopping across all paired comparisons. In general, survey participants were able to distinguish that denser neighborhood concepts had "closer proximity to local shopping and/or retail

establishments"; although, participants were unable to discern differences in local accessibility to shops and retail when comparing AB to C (36%) and D to E (44%). As mentioned, most validation survey participants were able to identify the difference between population densities (>69%); especially, as the neighborhoods transitioned between the inner and outer suburban concepts (D and E).

When evaluating levels of access to “regional shopping centers and/or big box stores”, many respondents did not see a difference between concept AB and C (57%) or E and D (52%). More survey respondents perceived D to have better access to regional shopping centers than concept C (64%), as well as E relative to concept F (61%). These findings indicated that survey respondents generally tended to only observe three levels of access to regional shopping centers: AB and C (very urban); D and E (urban and inner

suburban); and F (outer suburban). With respect to “access to parks and/or outdoor recreational facilities” in an image set, respondents were not able to see differences between concepts. This result may be an artifact of the subjective definition of “parks”

and “outdoor recreational facilities” meaning different things to different people.

3.1.4.3 Transportation Characteristics

Lastly, validation survey respondents were asked to evaluate six transportation-related characteristics: a greater variety of transportation options; better accommodations for car ownership; greater ease for finding parking spaces; better public transportation service;

better walking environments; and better streets to ride a bicycle for transportation. In examining respondent evaluations for “the variety of transportation options”

characteristic, we found that participants observed the image set for concept C as offering more variety in travel options than AB (43%), although many did not see any difference at all (44%). For all other tested neighborhood comparisons, participants felt that the more urban concept exhibited a greater variety in transportation options (>50%).

Neighborhood comparisons were also conducted to investigate the ability of respondents to identify differences in the car-specific characteristics visualized in each concept’s image set; specifically, “accommodations for car ownership” and “ease for finding parking spaces.” Overall, survey participants did not see a strong difference between concepts E and F in their depiction of the two automobile-supportive characteristics;

however, a more clear distinction was found in the other comparisons. In general, the more urban concept in each comparison was viewed as having worse accommodations for car ownership and greater difficulty in finding parking.

When we inquired about comparing neighborhoods with respect to non-motorized

options, the respondents were less clear whether differences exist. Respondents identified C as having "better public transportation service" compared with AB (43%), if they saw any difference at all (39%). This finding may be related to the subterranean transit systems more frequently found in the most urban neighborhood concepts. The research team found subways to be more difficult to represent in a static image collected from a roadway perspective. Participants were able to see higher levels of public transportation service in the more urban neighborhood for all other concept comparisons (>61%). In our objective evaluation of the concepts, we anticipated respondents to evaluate more urban concepts as having more walkable environments; however, once again, participants did not see a significant difference between the AB and C concepts. Outside of the AB versus C comparison, if respondents noted a visual difference in the walkability of the paired concepts, then the more urban neighborhood was perceived to have the greater level of walkability. Results were also largely inconclusive when survey respondents were asked to select the neighborhood concept with “better streets to ride a bicycle for

transportation.” Image sets displaying the more suburban concept were generally viewed as having the better streets for biking, with the exception of the E versus F comparison.