Public response to different planting techniques for annual color and enhancement

GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 17-31 FINAL REPORT
PUBLIC RESPONSE TO DIFFERENT PLANTING TECHNIQUES FOR ANNUAL COLOR AND ENHANCEMENT
OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH
600 WEST PEACHTREE ST NW ATLANTA, GA 30308

1. Report No.: FHWA-GA-21-1731

2. Government Accession No.: 3. Recipient's Catalog No.:

N/A

N/A

4. Title and Subtitle: Public Response to Different Planting Techniques for Annual
Color and Enhancement

5. Report Date: December 2020

7. Author(s): Celine Manoosingh (PI), Ph.D
Francisco Cubas (CoPI), Ph.D
Roger Purcell (CoPI), Ph.D.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address: Georgia Southern University 1332 Southern Dr, Statesboro, GA 30458

6. Performing Organization Code: N/A
8. Performing Organization Report No.: N/A
10. Work Unit No.: N/A
11. Contract or Grant No.: RP 17-31

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address:

13. Type of Report and Period Covered:

Georgia Department of Transportation

Final; August 2018 -December 2020

Office of Performance-based

Management and Research

14. Sponsoring Agency Code:

600 West Peachtree St. NW

N/A

Atlanta, GA 30308

15. Supplementary Notes:

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

16. Abstract: The objective of this study was to measure public perception of the different planting techniques (block and matrix), which are used at visitor information centers (VICs) and other rights of way (ROW) areas. The main factors that affect public perception of planting techniques were identified through an extensive literature review and qualitative survey from four welcome centers in the State of Georgia. The ranking of those indicators, based on public preferences, was discovered through a quantitative survey. The ranking of the factors being obtained from the study were: environmental benefits, sustainability, color and aesthetics, cost, maintenance, and restorative effect. The majority of the respondents expressed that block planting configuration was more aesthetically beautiful. However, when all the factors were considered, the public largely preferred matrix planting, as it tends to be more beneficial to the environment.

17. Keywords: Database, Construction, Lessons Learned Program

18. Distribution Statement: No Restriction

19. Security Classification 20. Security Classification (of this

(of this report):

page):

Unclassified

Unclassified

Form DOT 1700.7 (8-69)

21. No. of Pages: 22. Price:

67

Free

i

GDOT Research Project PUBLIC RESPONSE TO DIFFERENT PLANTING TECHNIQUES FOR ANNUAL
COLOR AND ENHANCEMENT
By Sultana Tania Graduate Student Dr. Celine Manoosingh Assistant Professor Dr. Francisco Cubas Assistant Professor Dr. Roger Purcell Assistant Professor
Georgia Southern University Contract with
Georgia Department of Transportation In cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
December 2020
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who is (are) responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
ii

Executive Summary
The objective of this study was to measure public perception of the different planting techniques (block and matrix), which are used at visitor information centers (VICs) and other rights of way (ROW) areas. The main factors that affect public perception of planting techniques were identified through an extensive literature review and qualitative survey from four welcome centers in the State of Georgia. The ranking of those indicators, based on public preferences, was discovered through a quantitative survey. During the first phase of the quantitative survey, images of block and matrix were used. An iOS-based user-friendly and cost-effective augmented reality (AR) app was developed, and a significant difference was found between data with and without AR. Participants were more interactive and engaged in the survey process, largely due to the addition of the AR visuals questionnaire. The ranking of the factors being obtained from the study were: environmental benefits, sustainability, color and aesthetics, cost, maintenance, and restorative effect. The majority of the respondents expressed that block planting configuration was more aesthetically beautiful. However, when all the factors were considered, the public largely preferred matrix planting, as it tends to be more beneficial to the environment, as it is sustainable, costeffective, and requires less maintenance. Results from this study indicate that environmentally beneficial and sustainable planting is more preferred to the traveling people for ROW planting.
iii

Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................vii INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background..............................................................................................................1 1.2 Georgia Wildflower Program ..................................................................................3 1.3 Georgia Welcome Center ........................................................................................4 1.4 Study Area and Populations.....................................................................................5 1.5 Planting Techniques.................................................................................................6 1.6 Problem Statement...................................................................................................7 1.7 Research Questions...........................................................................................................8 1.8 Research Significance..............................................................................................8 1.9 Methodology............................................................................................................9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................10 2.1 Roadside Wildflower's Benefits............................................................................10 2.2 Sustainable Roadside Vegetation Management and Associated Benefits .............11
iv

2.3 Driver's Benefits....................................................................................................13 2.4 Measuring Public Perception to Roadside Vegetation. .........................................14 2.5 Mixed Method Survey ...........................................................................................15 2.6 Augmented Reality... ............................................................................................17 3 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................19 3.1 Participants and Study Area...................................................................................19 3.2 Phase I: Development of Measurement Indicators ................................................24 3.3 Phase II: Quantitative Data Collection ..................................................................26 3.4 Design of Augmented Reality ...............................................................................27 3.5 Data Collection with Augmented Reality..............................................................33 3.6 Data Analysis.........................................................................................................34 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS................................................................................35 4.1 Results of Qualitative Survey ................................................................................35 4.2 Results of Quantitative Survey Results without AR..............................................37 4.3 Limitation of Data with Images .............................................................................40 4.4 Advantages of AR over Images .............................................................................40 4.5 Results of Data with Augmented Reality ..............................................................40 4.6 Perception Towards Different Planting Techniques..............................................46 5 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................53
6 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................55
iv

List of Figures Figure 1. 1: (a) Shows all welcome centers in the State of Georgia (with blue and white marks) (b) A portion of State of Georgia with the selected welcome centers (marked with red star) ..................................................................................................................................................5 Figure 1. 2: Graphic Representation of Matrix Planting Technique..............................................7 Figure 1. 3: Graphic Representation of Block Planting Technique ...............................................7 Figure 3. 1: Georgia Welcome Center- Savannah .........................................................................20 Figure 3. 2: Georgia Welcome Center- Tallapoosa .......................................................................20 Figure 3. 3: Georgia Welcome Center- Ringgold..........................................................................21 Figure 3. 4: Georgia Welcome Center- Tallapoosa .......................................................................22 Figure 3. 5: Overview of study task and process ...........................................................................23 Figure 3. 6: Inputting iOS Setup in Unity.....................................................................................29 Figure 3. 7: Placement Indicator in the scene for quad 3D model and plane detection...............30 Figure 3. 8: Design of Block planting techniques using plant's 3D templates in Unity...............31 Figure 3. 9: Design of Matrix planting techniques using plant's 3D templates in Unity ..............31 Figure 3. 10: Interaction Setup in Unity 3D ..................................................................................32 Figure 3. 11: Screenshot from iPad Showing Final Output of AR (Matrix Planting) ...................33 Figure 3. 12: Screenshot from iPad Showing Final Output of AR (Block Planting).....................33 Figure 4. 1: Age Distribution of the Participants without AR.......................................................37 Figure 4. 2: Residence profiles of the participants without AR ....................................................37 Figure 4. 3: Frequency of Visit the Participants without AR........................................................38
v

Figure 4. 4: Ranking of different factors influence to one particular planting technique..............39 Figure 4. 5: Preference to one planting techniques (from data without AR).................................39 Figure 4. 6: Age Distribution of the participants (data collected by AR)......................................41 Figure 4. 7: State of Residence of the Participants group (data collected by AR) ........................41 Figure 4. 8: State of Residence of the Participants group (data collected by AR) ........................42 Figure 4. 9: Frequency of Visiting Georgia Welcome Center of the Participants group (data collected by AR) ...........................................................................................................................42 Figure 4. 10: Participants' response to Roadside (ROW) planting. Factor: Environmental Benefits (data collected by AR) ..................................................................................................................43 Figure 4. 11: Participants' response to Roadside (ROW) planting. Factor: Sustainability (data collected by AR) ..........................................................................................................................4444 Figure 4. 12: Participants' response to Roadside (ROW) planting. Factor: Restorative Effect (data collected by AR) ...........................................................................................................................44 Figure 4. 13: Participants' response to Roadside (ROW) planting. Factor: Native or Non-native plants (data collected by AR) .......................................................................................................45 Figure 4. 14: Participants' response to Roadside (ROW) planting. Factor: Maintenance (data collected by AR) ...........................................................................................................................45 Figure 4. 15: Participants' preferences to one type of planting techniques (with AR)....................47 Figure 4. 16: Ranking of different control indicator affecting public perception (with AR).......51
vi

List of Tables Table 1. 1: Name and location of welcome centers...... ..............................................................6 Table 4. 1: Results of ANOVA Analysis .......................................................................47 Table 4. 2: Relationship: Planting Techniques and Residence............................................48 Table 4. 3: Relationship Between choice of Planting Techniques and Gender.........................49 Table 4. 4: Relationship Between choice of Planting Techniques and Age..............................49 Table 4. 5: Ranking of Different Control Indicators Affecting Public Perception.....................50 Table 4. 6: Weighted Decision Matrix for Block and Matrix Planting..................................52
vii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Roads play an important role in the socio-economic development of any country by providing significant ways of communication among the different cities (Harper, 2001). The 20th century triumph of the automobile makes for easy movement over long distances and provides comfort, which was previously not afforded (Webber, 1992). With the increasing use of roads for transportation in modern life, roadside vegetation has become one of the major elements of the roadside environment that people experience daily. Efficient roadside vegetation management strategies are eagerly desired since roads have assumed their place as the dominant feature on the modern landscape. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers began to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the wildflower movement in North America. Nationally, sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies encouraged an integrated design approach that addressed the reduction of expenses, minimization of maintenance, and incorporation of regionally appropriate vegetation and utilization of context-sensitive solutions (Lucey & Barton, 2010). Sustainable roadside vegetation contributes to better water quality, conductivity (Forman et al., 2003b) and saves costs while also benefiting the socio-economic health of the state (Barton et al., 2005). Currently, sustainable roadside vegetation management calls for an extensive and integrated approach balancing beautification, costs, functionality, and environmental benefits. Many studies explained the advantages and disadvantages of using vegetation and flora in Right of Way (ROW) areas. Many state Department of Transportations (DOTs) (Minnesota, Indiana, California, Florida, etc.) in the United States of America (USA) have done extensive research about the benefits of sustainable roadside vegetation management.
1

One Minnesota based study explored the wildflower route, which is now considered a model for the management of rights of way prairie across the state. The new management program helped to increase populations of rare plants and developed high species diversity. They also discussed the practical, economical, ecological, and aesthetic benefits of wildflower routers with Minnesota's native prairie plant communities (Jacobson et al., 1990). Indiana Department of Transportation investigated the usage of wildflowers on Indiana highways. It explained the difference in the performance between garden wildflowers and prairie plants. The study also provided a management system to explain the cost and establishment that could be used to design the rights of ways, using wildflowers in other states of the USA (Dana et al., 1996). O'Dell et al. (2007) discussed the benefits of native roadside perennial grasses in Sacramento Valley, California, in terms of low maintenance, drought-tolerance, and stable cover and persistence. Roadside vegetation has great economic value too. Florida's State Highway ROW ecosystem's value was estimated at nearly a half-billion dollars (Harrison, 2014). The value would be doubled with sustainable vegetation management practices and even nearly tripled with wildflower areas through remnant native plant communities and wildflower plantings. The detailed findings of these are discussed more elaborately in the literature review section (Chapter 2).
Besides environmental benefits, roadside vegetation provides numerous psychological benefits to drivers. Environmental psychologists found that properly and maintained roadside scenes reduce travel-related stress and may improve the driver's attention (Mok, 2006). Roadside vegetation also has restorative effects These researches explained the benefits and advantages of the roadside vegetation, but there was no discussion about the factors directly impacting public perception of roadside vegetation.
2

Guyton et al. (2014) quantitatively evaluated the effects of mowing activities on plant changes, deer presence, and public perception of less manicured ROW in Mississippi. The study showed that people were supportive of wildflowers in ROW areas. The participants of the study also mentioned that it is nice to have less manicured plants if they are more cost-efficient, safe for roads, and cause less litter on the road. Images were used in the questionnaire survey to learn public perception (Guyton et al., 2014). Even though there is a good amount of information about the factors impacting public perception, no data or analysis is provided to quantify and rank those factors. In addition, these studies have used images and videos of roadside planting to learn public perception. In this research, cutting edge augmented reality (AR) was used to get a public perception about different planting techniques.
Additional studies also provided the theoretical foundation and quantitative justification for factors impacting perception, preference, and behavior. However, those frameworks were not for public perception in planting techniques and sustainable vegetation management. Gobster and Richard (1989) developed a model with physical, artistic, and psychological dimensions to predict aesthetic preference among different landscape types using color photographs of selected scenes taken in the summer. Macdonald et al. (2008) developed quantifiable performance measures to quantify the impact of the design features of transportation corridors on user behavior, environmental quality, economic vitality, and public health.
Due to the lack of adequate research, it is uncertain to know what factors are more important to people about roadside planting. This study filled the gap in these previous researches and overcame the limitation regarding public perception and roadside planting.
1.2 Georgia Wildflower Program Georgia initiated the wildflower program in the right of ways (ROW) facilitated by
3

GDOT in 1974, with the intention was to plant and preserve wildflowers growing along the roads. The program is widely supported in terms of its aesthetic enhancement, low maintenance cost, and environmental and ecological benefits. However, it is still uncertain whether flower pots are appealing to the public. For instance, when flowers complete their blooming cycle, plots containing these crops may look weedy and not well maintained, eliciting a negative public perception. Although the public perception is an essential factor when using vegetation as a sustainable approach to manage right of way (ROW) areas, in some cases, it is ignored.
1.3 Georgia Welcome Center Welcome centers are an essential part of the USA's promotional tourism and recreation facility (Perdue, 1995). Travelers stop at the welcome centers for various reasons. The main reasons are to use restroom facilities, obtain state maps or brochures, to walk their pet, or to buy refreshments and picnic (Gitelson and Perdue 1987). Welcome/visitor centers generally have support facilities (e.g., parking lots, attractive grounds, outdoor seating, walkways, and vistas) and other conveniences for the traveling public (e.g., toilets, water, maps, literature, telephones, and vending machines) programs (USBR, 2007). Many studies have found that information obtained from welcome centers help tourists to spend more time effectively in the state (Fesenmaier and Vogt, 1993). Several studies have examined the effects of welcome centers on visitor's behavior, the necessity, and the importance of the centers. Still, no study revealed the public perception of the vegetation around the welcome centers. In Georgia, visitor centers have more than 13 million guests each year. This population significantly represents the motorist traveling through Georgia. In this study, public perception towards different plantings was determined by collecting data from Georgia's welcome centers.
4

1.4 Study Area and Populations The population for this study was the public, including residents and travelers driving through the State of Georgia. A study conducted on visitors of welcome centers showed that users of welcome centers are largely different from highway travelers. People who visit welcome centers tend to travel in larger groups or on a pleasure tour and have a higher income than non-users. To get the representative data of the Georgia travelers, data were collected from the borders of Georgia and from inside the region. There are a total of eleven welcome centers in Georgia shown in Figure 1.1 with blue and white markings. Among them, four were selected for representative data collection. Figure 1.1 (b) shows a portion of Georgia with the selected visitor center (marked with red stars).

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. 1: (a) Shows all visitor centers in the State of Georgia (with blue and white marks) (b) A portion of State of Georgia with the selected welcome centers (marked with red star).

5

Name and location of the selected welcome centers are given below:

Table 1. 1: Name and location of the selected welcome centers

No

Name of the Centers

Border

Address

1 Georgia Visitor Information CenterPort Wentworth (Savannah)
2 Georgia Visitor Information CenterAugusta
3 Georgia Visitor Information CenterRinggold

GA SC GA SC GA TN

I-95, Port Wentworth, GA 31407 I-20 West, GA-SC Line, Augusta, GA 30917. I-75, Southern Dr, Ringgold, GA 30736

4 Georgia Visitor Information CenterTallapoosa

GA AL

I-20 East, GA-AL Line, Tallapoosa, GA 30176.

1.5 Planting techniques For planting techniques, matrix and block planting techniques were used as they are the most popular planting techniques in the USA. Matrix planting is a naturalistic garden that consists of a large number of small over plants. Large natural drifts filled with complementary textured layers of ornamental grasses establish the matrix, while herbaceous perennials provide structure, together forming grand sweeps of plantings with strong visual impact. It mostly has blue fescue, blue grama, and sedge as a structure and some other colorful wildflowers in between to enhance the visual beauty of the planting technique (Figure 1.2). Block planting is a mono-layer within each block, and the larger the block, the more wildflower it contains. Block planting has a colorful and embellished layer of wildflowers such as black-eyed Susan, purple cornflower, iris, daylily, phlox, salvia, and a coreopsis layer in the central and a final layer with sedge grass on the outer circle (Figure 1.3). Block planting looks more attractive and produces a dramatic display during winter (Cameron and Hitchmough, 2016). Both of these techniques use the same kind of flowers, although the orientation of the flowers is different. Matrix has a lot of

6

environmental benefits such as attracting beneficial insects, supporting natural pest and weed control, improving soil fertility, encouraging biodiversity, and retaining moisture, which conserves water.
Figure 1. 2: Graphic representation of matrix planting technique
Figure 1. 3: Graphic representation of block planting technique 1.6 Problem Statement
Every year, the Department of Transportation of each state dedicates a significant amount of expenditure for improving and maintaining roadside vegetation. It is not clear whether
7

people are satisfied with how this expenditure is utilized. This research provided data regarding public perception through mixed qualitative and quantitative methods to suggest which planting technique results in the highest satisfaction among the traveling public in Georgia. For this study, an augmented reality app is developed, which shows different planting techniques. This app will help GDOT to get a better visual representation of those planting in different scales or spaces.
1.7 Research Questions
To examine public perception of different planting techniques, the research team posed the following questions: 1. What are the indicators impacting public perception regarding different planting techniques (block and matrix) to people traveling to Georgia? 2. How do public responses change with different control indicators for different planting techniques? 3. What is the public perception about sustainability roadside planting? 4. Does the use of augmented reality affect survey engagement?
1.8 Research Significance The findings of this study have significant practical and theoretical contributions to the roadside landscape. This study identified some factors that influence people's perception of different planting techniques, including block and matrix. This study had acknowledged the public opinion of roadside planting based on environmental benefits, maintenance, sustainability, restorative effects. This research also ranks these two planting techniques based on people's responses with different control indicators. Besides, augmented reality was used
8

to determine public preference for planting techniques. The same AR model can be used in other related studies related to landscape design to determine public perception or preferences.
1.9 Methodology The solutions to the research questions were studied through the following methodologies,
i. Literature review ii. Qualitative and quantitative Surveys iii. The use of augmented reality as a visual supplement
9

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW The population of cities is steadily on the rise, mainly due to the development of transportation systems. Urban growth leads to the construction of new roads and motorway expansions. Roads and highways occupy a great deal of land, altering the surrounding landscape immensely. In the United States, over 8 million acres of land are devoted to roadways, and an additional 12 million are dedicated to acquiring their rights-of-way. The U.S. Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are recognized as the stewards in charge of public land and property. Roads have a significant impact on urban and suburban areas. They also affect the landscape, ecology, environment, aesthetics, and scenic beauty of the altered areas (Alberti, 2008).
2.1 Roadside Wildflower's Benefits Many studies have explored the environmental benefits of native and non-native roadside vegetation. The Minnesota Department of Transportation and Natural Resources conducted one study on prairie plants. Prairie plants have practical, economical, ecological, and aesthetic benefits. Prairie grasses and wildflowers have a longer root system than turfgrass. They are more effective in preventing soil erosion. This native plant helped to maintain high species diversity and several rare plants flourish after maintaining prairie plants in the right of way. The study proposed a highway management program, which was a model for the management of the rights of prairies throughout Minnesota. Their management program helped to reduce the use of herbicides and to mow for weed control. People appreciated the six wildflowers routes and the local communities became a part of the promotion of these routes (Jacobson et al., 1990).
Another study based in Indiana explained the questions concerning the usage of
10

wildflowers on several Indiana highway right- of - ways. This Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) funded project investigated the cost of establishment and management of wildflowers varied with different types and management. In their study, they found that wildflowers were more cost-effective with respect to grass monoculture vegetation strategy. Garden wildflowers cost less to establish, but their life cycle cost was higher. On the other hand, prairie wildflower plants were cost-effective when long term management costs were considered into the analysis. They also compared the quality of the seed of native prairie and garden wildflower species.
Another study based in California discussed the benefits of native roadside perennial grasses in the Sacramento Valley, California. It was claimed in their study that the restoration of native grassland along roadsides could offer a relatively low-maintenance, drought-tolerant, and stable perennial vegetative cover with reduced weed growth, as opposed to the highmaintenance invasive annual cover. They surveyed established native grass planting in Yolo County. The survey revealed that if the native planting could be protected from disturbance, they could persist with minimal maintenance for more than a decade. (O'Dell et al., 2007).
2.2 Sustainable Roadside Vegetation Management and Associated Benefits A sustainable roadside is one that is designed, constructed, and maintained with an emphasis on long-term appropriateness and maintaining a low lifecycle cost. "A roadside that fulfills design intent and roadside functions over the long term, and protects the environments wherever possible, within the present and future available funding, personnel, equipment, and methodologies" (Robertson and Smith, n.d.). To achieve sustainable roadsides, roadside partners must strive to utilize, protect, and support the physical and ecological resources necessary for a fully functioning roadside. In-state and federal policy establish goals to ensure
11

that roadsides are managed for sustainability. Sustainable roadsides contribute to the benefits for present and future generations that include cost savings, better water quality, and hydraulic conductivity, increased bio-diversity, and improved socio-economic health of the state (Lucey & Barton, 2010). Sustainable roadside vegetation has immense economic benefits. Florida's State Highway ROW ecosystem was estimated to be valued at nearly a half-billion dollars, which would be doubled with sustainable vegetation management practices and even nearly tripled with Wildflower Areas through remnant native plant communities and wildflower plantings. Aesthetics were valued at over $2.2 million, significantly impacting Florida's economy through travel business and increased employment (Harrison, 2014). The Delaware Department of Transportation's (DelDOT) study showed that by expanding their strategy, including the release of turf from routine mowing, DelDOT decreased their mowing expenditure by increasing the visual beauty of areas. Erosion and sediment flow were also reduced by following sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies (Forman et al., 2003a). Vegetation acts as a barrier and provides phytoremediation of organic pollutants and increases the amount of organic carbon in the soil, which, in turn, stimulates beneficial microbial activity (Schnoor et al., 1995). In 2008, the National Research Council of the United States identified urban stormwater as a leading source of water quality problems in the US (EPA, 2010). When rainwater and snowmelt cannot percolate into the earth, it runs off onto roads and it absorbs petroleum and other harmful toxins before making their way into the water supply. Native grasses have been shown to capture precipitation better than mown turf, and their deep roots provide deeper channels to help runoff infiltrate more efficiently into the soil (Harper, 1999). By increasing infiltration and decreasing surface runoff, fewer toxins are deposited into local water supplies. Roadsides are very important for the conservation of biodiversity. Animals are
12

generally attracted to transportation corridors for habitat, natural movement, and food availability. By efficiently utilizing land already precluded from development, DOTs could significantly help to restore ecological balance and build a better ecosystem (Hopwood, 2008). Several studies investigated the use of roadside vegetation in reducing air pollution around roads and highways. Richard, in his study, described the characteristics of roadside vegetation that can improve local air quality. His design conditions included height, thickness, coverage, porosity/density, species considerations, etc. Besides, he mentioned some characteristics that should be avoided to protect the air. He also suggested that his design considerations could be used to mitigate impacts from air pollution occurring from ground-level emission (EPA, 2017).
2.3 Driver's Benefits Roadside vegetation has significant environmental and psychological benefits to drivers. Many studies have shown that natural landscapes can effectively lower crash rates and cause less frustration and stress to the driver. Parkway design and right of way vegetation have a restorative effect and can help the frustration of the drivers. Parsons et al., (1998) examined the contribution of greenery to stress relief. A total of 160 college-age participants watched one of four videotaped simulated drives. Those who experienced artifact-dominated ride faced elevated blood pressure and electrodermal activity (Parsons et al., 1998). On the other hand, those who viewed a nature-dominated trip showed quick recovery from stress and higher immunization. Cackowsk conducted a similar kind of experiment with 106 participants, where participants watched a video of a varied amount of vegetation and man-made material. Results from the research suggested that exposure to more plants can facilitate recovery from anger and frustration (Cackowsk et al., 2003). Fitzgerald et al. (2014) explored the relationship between the size of the clear zone and
13

the presence of roadside vegetation on vehicle speed and lateral position. Roadside planting is also an essential part of residents of urban areas. Trees and other vegetation can mitigate adverse environmental conditions in road corridors, which is particularly important in vulnerable neighborhoods that are deficient in green spaces. Enhancing the facility value of streetscapes might also positively affect public health by encouraging physical activity (Piercy et al., 2015). The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has long recognized that the proper landscape and aesthetic development of urban streets provide a charming touch of natural beauty in a man-made environment. These improvements are often the means of improving the economic values of the areas adjacent to the streets and creating a sense of community identity. Environmental psychologists developed theories that attempted to explain the relationship between people's interest and attention to their environment. The aesthetically pleasant environment gives people the chance to improve the quality of human life. One study on parkways suggested that carefully landscaped roadside edges provide the driver a more pleasant experience than the interstate highways. It also contributes to higher degrees of attentiveness. In another study, Mok showed the effect of landscape development impact on roadside safety. Mok and his team selected 61 road sections in Texas, which were designed as urban arterial or state highway. They compared crash data in those road sections before and after landscape improvement. It was found that the crash rate decreased by a significant amount to those places where landscape improvements were executed (Mok et al., 2006).
2.4 Measuring Public Perception to Roadside Vegetation The current literature review suggested that public perception is a significant factor when using vegetation as a sustainable approach to manage right of way areas. Lucey and Barton (2010) composed a comprehensive review of the evolution of roadside landscape and vegetation
14

management, the benefits of sustainable vegetation management strategies, and the importance of public awareness and perception in Delaware. A study in northern England suggested that the majority (83%) of the respondents described the scenic quality of roadside vegetation as a vital feature of the roadside environment representing consciousness among the public about the landscape aspects of the roadside environment. For the integration of beautification into the management programs, it is important to know the opinion and preferences of the road user as they are the actual target of the all roadside beautification plan (Akbar, et al. 2003). This study showed public perception towards native and non-native planting in the UK. Considering climate change, they identified four key factors driving the acceptance and rejection of nonnative planting. They were aesthetics, locational context, historical factors, and perceptions of invasiveness (Hoyle et al., 2017). Guyton et al. (2014) quantitatively evaluated the effects of mowing activities on plant changes, deer presence, and public perception of less manicured ROW in Mississippi (Guyton et al., 2014). Even though there was a right amount of information about the factors impacting public knowledge, no data or analysis was provided to quantify and rank those factors. In this research, the ranking of factors influencing public opinion regarding roadside vegetation is provided.
2.5 Mixed Method Survey In this study, a mixed-method survey was used to determine public perception about ROW planting. A questionnaire was used for both qualitative and quantitative surveys. Surveys are widely used to learn about the perceptions and preferences of the sample of populations. It has been used for ages in censuses. The definition of a survey is given as: "The survey is a systematic method for gathering information from (a sample of) entities for the purpose of constructing quantitative descriptors of the attributes of the larger population
15

of which the entities are members" (Babbie, 1989). A questionnaire survey has the benefits of collecting information from a group of
representative people within a short period. It gives data in such a way that it can be quantified and analyzed and give the researchers a chance to assess different issue by collecting view of people with the different social, economic and geographical background (Lewis, 1994). Akbar et. al., (2003) used a questionnaire survey to know the road user's view about the scenic beauty of roadside vegetation. In their study, cartographic representation, simulated assessments, and questionnaire surveys were used to know public opinion. For cartographic representation, landscape features were recorded. In simulated assessment, participants assessed the photographs, videos, and slides of a landscape and expressed their thoughts. 183 questionnaires were filled out where most of the answers were designed on a Likert-scale (Akbar, et. al, 2003). Guyton and team conducted a survey on people of Mississippi to determine public perception about wildflower on ROW, what people's response about less manicured plants, relationship between cost and reduced mowing regimen. Most questions included a Likert-scale design and images of roadside vegetation with native wildflowers, native grass, non-native plants etc. were shown to respondents to get their response about wildflowers. Their results suggested that people preferred roadside wildflowers, but they did not like litter due to vegetation (Guyton et al., 2014). In this study, quantitative survey questions were prepared with images of different planting techniques.
The mixed-method survey was used in this study. Caracelli (1993) explained the definition of mixed method as below:
"A mixed-method study is one that plans fully juxtaposes or combines methods of different types (qualitative and quantitative) to provide a more elaborated understanding of the
16

phenomenon of interest (including its context) and, as well, to gain greater confidence in the conclusions generated by the evaluation study."
2.6 Augmented Reality Augmented Reality (AR) is "a variation of Virtual Reality which allows the user to see the real world with virtual objects superimposed upon or composited with the real world. Therefore, AR supplements reality" (Azuma, 1997). AR is a system with these three following characteristics:
1. Combines real and virtual elements 2. Interactive real-time 3. Registered in 3-D AR increases the user's perception and develops interaction with the real world. By bringing practical information to the user's immediate surroundings, AR simplifies the user's life. AR technology augments the sense of reality by overlaying simulated objects and cues upon the real world in real-time (Carmigniani et al., 2011). Information provided by virtual objects helps users to accomplish real-time everyday jobs. Azuma (1997), in his renowned paper, "A Survey of Augmented Reality," mentioned six potential applications of AR: medical, maintenance and repair, annotation, robot path planning, entertainment, and military (Azuma, 1997). Nowadays, the use of AR is not bound to only these sectors. There are many potential ways to use AR in innovative ways; the most common ground for using AR research are: advertising and commercial, entertainment and education, medical, and mobile application for iPhones (Carmigniani et al., 2011). Augmented reality has been used for urban planning design too. Allen et al. (2011) considered smart-phone based AR for helping public participation in Urban Planning. In this study, they developed a user-friendly smart-phone prototype system
17

with a suitable interface that had shown 3D virtual representations of the proposed design on top of the existing architecture. They demonstrated a new application of AR, where people can participate and express their opinion about the proposed plan. Their research also suggested that younger generations are more familiar with mobile technology than older people. Besides, younger people are more willing to participate in these types of events (Allen et al., 2011).
18

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This study aimed to measure public perception of optimal design approaches that are aesthetically acceptable, cost-efficient, and environmentally responsible, such as block and matrix planting techniques. The study used a mixed-method approach. It included both qualitative and quantitative surveys in a single research project. The mixed-method signifies a methodological approach that combines qualitative and quantitative research approaches, which allows researchers to explore complex phenomena in detail. In this study, qualitative data were collected through one to one interviews and focus group discussions of visitors of designated visitor information centers to identify the indicators that influence public perception of vegetation. Then, quantitative data were gathered from using images and Augmented Reality. 3.1 Participants and Study Area The population for this study was travelers driving through the State of Georgia. A representative sample was identified from rest areas and visitor information centers (VICs). There is a total of 11 Georgia welcome and visitor centers; 4 of them were selected as these are the busiest welcome centers in Georgia. Descriptions of those four welcome centers are given below:
Georgia Visitor Information Center-Port Wentworth (Savannah) It is the busiest welcome center in the State of Georgia. It is located on the I95 interstate
highway as you enter Georgia from South Carolina. It gets around 2000/3000 visitors each day due to its proximity to the historic city of Savannah, Florida, and South Carolina.
19

Figure 3. 1: Georgia Welcome Center- Savannah Georgia Visitor Information Center- Tallapoosa
This Georgia Welcome Center is located on the I20 interstate highway at Tallapoosa (Figure 3.2). It is also close to the State of Alabama. For its proximity to the capital of Georgia State, it gets a lot of visitors. This center welcomes 1000-1200 visitors per day.
Figure 3. 2: Georgia Welcome Center- Tallapoosa
20

Georgia Visitor Information Center- Ringgold This Georgia Welcome Center is located on the I75 interstate highway at mile marker
352. This center welcomes 1000-1200 visitors per day. This welcome center is near the border of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and 126 miles from the capital of Georgia State, Atlanta.
Figure 3. 3: Georgia Welcome Center- Ringgold Georgia Visitor Information Center- Augusta
This Georgia Welcome Center is located on the I20 interstate highway at the GA/SC line. This center welcomes 600-700 visitors per day. Most of the visitors use this center for going through Georgia towards Atlanta.
21

Figure 3. 4: Georgia Welcome Center- Tallapoosa A random sample of welcome center stoppers was gathered on-site and asked whether they were willing to take a survey. Responses from commercial vehicle drivers were also collected.
The methodology part has been divided into three phases: Phase I: Development of Measurement Indicators Phase II: Quantitative Data Collection Phase III: Data Analysis and Conclusions
22

Figure 3.5: Shows a full research task and procedure for this study that includes three phases
Figure 3.5: Overview of study task and process 23

3.2 Phase I: Development of Measurement Indicators Literature Review
The initial step of this study was an extensive literature review. This process was continued throughout the project period. Research related to sustainable roadside vegetation, its benefits and public perception of roadside vegetation were studied. Emphasis was given to those studies which used qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method surveys in their research. The benefits of using plants on ROW areas were identified by analyzing many DOTs based research, Transportation Research Board (TRB) resources, and proceedings articles. The findings of this literature review are described in Chapter 2: Literature Review and are integrated appropriately into the remaining section.
Through the literature review, some initial indicators that affect public perception of different planting techniques were identified. The literature review suggested that aesthetic beauty such as color, pattern, and a combination of plants are important factors when planting. Sustainable roadside vegetation has numerous environmental benefits such as increased biodiversity, better water quality, improved air quality, and it can create soil stability, natural cooling, prevent air pollution, etc. Moreover, planting has a restorative effect on drivers and passengers. People also consider the cost of each planting technique. With the increase in the cost, people's response changes. Also, maintenance and mowing of plants is an important factor that affects public perception about planting. Moreover, recent studies have suggested that sustainability and green technology are important factors for people. Some indicators were identified from the literature review, and these are the following:
i. Aesthetic beauty: color, pattern, combination ii. Environmental benefits
24

iii. Sustainability iv. Maintenance, mowing v. Establishment and maintenance cost vi. Restorative effect Collection and Analysis of Qualitative Data
After narrowing down a list of indicators from the literature review, qualitative survey questions were designed. Survey questions were designed to solicit data on the developed research questions. The first research question of this study is to identify the indicators impacting public perception of planting techniques. Open-ended and Semi-structured survey questions were designed using the indicators obtained from the literature review. The main goal was to get information about people's attitudes and perceptions towards planting techniques and roadside vegetation. The project team visited all four-welcome centers during the holidays in December. The visitors who were in groups or individuals were approached whether they were interested in talking about roadside planting techniques. The participants were encouraged to talk spontaneously about planting techniques used in different visitor centers or any other amusement park or ROW areas.
The project team surveyed 50-70 travelers in each of the four study sites. The interview method was mainly a focus group interview, which consisted of 4 or 5 people. For individual interviews, in-depth conversations were conducted among participants. Survey data were collected during a highly trafficked holiday time-frame (12/20/18- 1/4/19). Discussions with participants were recorded manually on paper.
25

3.3 Phase II: Quantitative Data Collection Quantitative data collection was the central part of this research. For the quantitative study, the same study areas and the population were used. A survey questionnaire was designed considering the research objectives. Questionnaires were divided into two parts: demographic and broad question. The questionnaire had a total of 16 questions. Among them, five were demographic, and eleven were within a broad category. For demographic questions, researchers asked the participant's gender, age, and state of residence. In addition, the research team collected data about the frequency of visits to the welcome centers and the duration of their stay. No question containing identifiable characteristics were asked in the survey questions. For broad questions, most of the questions were designed using a 5-point Likert-scale. A Likert scale is a psychometric scale commonly involved in research that employs surveys. Respondents can specify their level of agreement or disagreement on a symmetric agree-disagree range for a series of statements. Most indicators identified by the qualitative study were also the same for these two-planting techniques. Participants were asked how important the factors were to them. Five questions were designed utilizing 5-point Likert-scale about those indicators. Respondents were told to rank the factors in order. For initial data collection, we collected survey data without Augmented Reality (AR). Images of two planting techniques were used along with the questionnaire. Review of Questionnaire At first, the questionnaire was piloted in May 2019. Surveys were administered at the welcome center situated at Port Wentworth. The study site was chosen because of its high visitor number and proximity to t h e Georgia Southern University. The questionnaire was tested so that it could be clear and understandable to people. A few changes in language and order were
26

made so that it could be easy to understand for participants. Data Collection without Augmented Reality
During summer 2019 (01 June 31 August), data were collected from three visitor centers (Savannah, Augusta, Tallapoosa). A total of 857 people were surveyed during the summer. Among them, 227 were from Savannah, 152 from Augusta, and 478 from Tallapoosa. During that time, the AR app was not developed by the research team, and it was in the developing stage. As the summer is a peak time for high travel, data were collected during that time.
3.4 Design of Augmented Reality The research team developed an augmented reality app designed for two planting techniques for the iOS mobile platform. Images are 2D, and the position of the camera influences the quality of the picture. AR combines the digital and real-world into one visual experience, which has advantages over traditional representative tools (2D drawing, images, and videos). Therefore, two planting techniques were designed in AR, where the plants can be observed from every angle. Further, users/participants can change the plane where they want to see the plants. Procedures for developing the AR app are mentioned below: There are some renowned tools in the current industry for AR app developers to use on mobile devices. Android has its own AR tool named ARCore. iOS also has its specific AR tool called ARKit. Native app development for iOS or Android is a possible solution for developing AR apps on mobile platforms. Some 3D game engines are also trendy for AR app development. Two of them are: 1. Unreal Engine The main target device for our project was the iPad. The surveys were conducted on the
27

iPad and AR apps were installed on the iPad. Unity was chosen as our development platform because it not only supports iOS app development but also supports Android app development. Additionally, integration with multiple platforms using Unity is more comfortable than other options on the market. The limitation of the Unity is that the devices must have support for ARCore (for Android) or ARKit (for iOS). Methodology:
The following processes were taken for developing user-friendly augmented reality on the iPad. Unity 2018.3.5 was installed for the development of the app. XCode was built for iOS devices. A Unity project was created, and the project was fixed for settings building in iOS devices (Figure 3.6). Some packages, settings, and permissions were required for supporting AR. The packages were:
AR Foundation ARCore XR Plugin ARKit XR Plugin Another plugin named Lean Touch was used for handling touch inputs.
28

Figure 3. 6: Inputting iOS Setup in Unity Scene Setup:
First, the project team placed 3 objects in the scene, which controls the basic AR camera functionalities. They are AR Session, AR Session Origin, and AR Camera, which handles the camera functionality, plane detection, and AR input. Placement Indicator was placed in the scene which contained a quad 3D model for the users to understand the place where objects will be placed (Figure 3.7).
29

Figure 3.7: Placement Indicator in the scene for quad 3D model and plane detection Two templates were created, which represented the matrix and block planting techniques. 3D plant models were obtained from different online sources such as TurboSquid, FREE 3D, etc. After getting those 3D plant templates, the team modeled two planting techniques following formations shown in Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9. Shadows and sunlight were maintained so that it gave a real- time visual presentation.
30

Figure 3.8: Design of Block planting techniques using plant's 3D templates in Unity
Figure 3.9: Design of Matrix planting techniques using the plant's 3D templates in Unity In the above objects, the Lean Pinch Scale was attached to the script, which helped to scale the objects at runtime. Then, the project team created a game object named Interaction. A
31

C# script was written for giving the functionalities of Interaction. The main purpose was to take the user input and place the 3D objects at runtime in the correct position and proper rotation. The ARKit SDK of iOS provides detection of the plane's position and rotation. After getting the position and rotation of the plane, the indicator object was placed in that location.
Figure 3. 10: Interaction setup in Unity 3D UI Controller was created to handle the functionalities of the three buttons: Matrix, Block, and Place. The final display of the AR app is shown in Figure 3.11 & Figure 3.12. The figures show two options: Matrix and Block (Green Square Block) and Place (Yellow Circular) button.
32

Figure 3.11: Screenshot from iPad showing output of AR (Matrix Planting)
Figure 3. 12: Screenshot from iPad showing final output of AR (Block Planting) 3.5 Data Collection with Augmented Reality
After developing the AR, data were collected again from three welcome centers. Three welcome centers were surveyed each weekend from September 25th to October 20th. Before conducting the survey, the project team asked for permission from the welcome center authorities.
33

The surveys were conducted during the peak time of these centers around 9.00 AM to 5.00 PM. During each visit, a table was set up on one corner of the visitor center. The visitors were approached and asked whether they were willing to take a survey. All participants were offered a small token from Georgia Southern University's Civil Engineering & Construction Management Department.
3.6 Data Analysis Numerous data analysis methods were performed for this study. Demographic information (gender, age, residence, duration of stay) of the participants from the visitor centers were analyzed. Pearson correlation was determined using R programming, whether the parameters had any correlation with each other or not. In the survey, participants were asked to rank different factors based on the importance of various factors. To understand the relationship between different parameters, one-way ANOVA was conducted. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a statistical model. ANOVA indicates which variable is more significant than the others to determine the dependent variables. R and python programming software were used for data analysis. In this study, a weighted decision matrix (WDM) was utilized for recommending the better planting technique for roadside planting. WDM is a simple tool that can be very useful in making complex decisions because it is very efficient when many alternatives and criteria of varying importance are being considered.
34

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS This study consists of a mixed-method survey where both qualitative and quantitative surveys were conducted. For the quantitative survey, two surveys were demonstrated: one without AR and another with AR. Results from both the qualitative and quantitative surveys (both with AR and one without AR) are presented in this Chapter. This Chapter is divided into three parts: 1. Results of Qualitative Survey 2. Results of Quantitative Survey Results without AR 3. Results of Quantitative Survey Results with AR
4.1 Results of Qualitative Survey The main objective of this study was to measure public perception of different planting techniques (block and matrix) that are used at VICs and other ROW areas. A qualitative survey was conducted to answer the first research question. Welcome centers at state borders were selected, as the study area, because travelers use these centers frequently for information and refreshments. Georgia Welcome Centers in Savannah, Augusta, Ringgold, and Tallapoosa, were selected as study areas. Savannah is the most popular of all visitor centers in the State of Georgia. Augusta is a medium-range visitor center, however, it has a great number of visitors because of its proximity to Atlanta. Both Ringgold and Tallapoosa have a high frequency of visitors as they are close to Atlanta. During the qualitative study, respondents were given open-ended questions to provide the most important factors to them about planting techniques in ROW. Focus group discussions
35

were also conducted to learn about people's preferences. Most respondents expressed that when they observed one particular planting technique, they mostly noticed the color, pattern, and combination of the planting. People also consider sustainable vegetation as an important part of roadside vegetation. One participant expressed, "if the planting techniques design is sustainable, they will be beneficial to the environment and cost-effective, roadside plants should not need more maintenance". People liked both planting techniques. To most of the participants, both planting techniques looked similar, as both of them contained similar plants. Participants interested in gardening noticed significant differences between them. After screening the data of around 125 people who were interviewed, several indicators that affect public perception about planting techniques were recognized. They are:
i. Aesthetics (color, pattern/design, combination of plants) ii. Restorative effect (level of comfort, rejuvenating) iii. Environmental benefits (air purification, saving water, preventing pollution) iv. Invasiveness (fast) growing, hard to control, native and non-native vegetation v. Sustainability (little maintenance required) vi. Establishment and maintenance cost These factors matched with our literature review findings.
36

4.2 Results of Quantitative Survey Results without AR Participants Demographic Characteristics:
A total of 857 people participated in a quantitative survey during the summer of 2019 without augmented reality. Among them, 426 were male and 431 were female. The average age of the participants was 51.1 years (Figure 4.1). The distribution of the graph was uniform. 45% of the respondents were younger than 45 years old and 55% of the population was older than 45 years old.

Percentage Participants

Age Distribution of the Participants

20%

16% 15%

15%

14%

14%

12%

11%

14%

10%

5%

2%

0% 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85 or older

Age Group

Figure 4. 1: Age distribution of the participants without AR

Figure 4. 2: Residence profiles of the participants without AR 37

70 % of the survey participants were from South Carolina, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama. 15.8% of the participants were from the State of Georgia (Figure 4.2).

Percentage Participants

Frequency of Visit of the Participants

25%

22%

21%

19%

20%

20%

18%

15%

10%

5%

0% Weekly

Monthly

Twice a year

Yearly

Frequency of Visit

First time Visit

Figure 4. 3: Frequency of visit of the participants without AR
In addition, participants visited Georgia welcome centers in all different frequencies (Figure 4.3).

Measuring Public Perception to Planting Techniques: The respondents were asked to rank different factors, which could affect their
perception about one particular planting technique. The responses are shown in Figure 4.4. There was a total of seven factors: color and aesthetics, environmental benefits, restorative effect, cost, sustainability, and maintenance. No pattern was found from the responses of participants.

38

Ranking of Impact Factors of Planting Choice
Figure 4. 4: Ranking of different factors based on planting choice Figure 4.4 shows public preferences to one particular planting. A close percentage was found between these two plantings: 51% of total 858 participants chose block planting and 49% of them preferred matrix over block.
Preference of Planting Technique
Figure 4. 5: Preference to one planting technique (from data without AR) 39

ANOVA and correlation analysis were used for data analysis. No direct correlation among factors was found from the quantitative data collected without AR. Moreover, no relationship was identified between demographic characteristics (age, gender, residence) and planting choice. Cutting edge AR was used to get a better understanding of public perception about the planting techniques.
4.3 Limitation of Data with Images During the first phase of data collection, images of two planting techniques were used to learn about public preferences. No significant difference was found from the first phase data.
4.4 Advantages of AR over Images AR increases the user's perception and encourages interaction with the real world. It enhances the sense of reality by overlapping computer-generated objects and cues upon the physical world in real time. For the second phase of data collection, an iOS-based user-friendly AR app was developed. The AR app showed 3D representation of two plantings. Participants could easily toggle between the plantings and select their preferred one. Participants were more engaged with the questionnaire while AR was used.
4.5 Results of Data with Augmented Reality Participants Demographic Characteristics
A total of 207 survey data were collected from three visitor centers (Savannah, Augusta, Ringgold) using AR. Among them, 80 were received from Ringgold, 103 from Savannah, and 24 from Augusta. The participants' profiles consisted of 87 males and 119 females. The average age of the participants was 55.43 years (Figure 4.6).
40

Percentage of Participants

Age Distribution of Participants
Age group
41

Figure 4. 6: Age Distribution of the participants (Data Collected by AR)
State of Residency of Participant Group
Figure 4. 7: State of Residency of participant group (data collected by AR) From Figure 4.7, it was observed that participants were traveling from many states. The highest number of participants were from Florida (34%), Tennessee (25%), and Georgia (22%).
Time Spent Visiting Welcome Centers
Figure 4.8: Time spent by the participants in Welcome Centers (data collected by AR) 42

Frequency of Visiting Welcome Centers
Figure 4. 9: Frequency of visiting Georgia Welcome Center of the participants (data collected by AR)
Figure 4.8 shows that higher percentages of people usually spent around 10 or 20 minutes during their visit. Figure 4.9 presents the frequency of visiting Georgia welcome centers. Around 28% of the respondents were new visitors. The majority of the sample either visited these welcome centers yearly (40%) or twice a year (26%). Very few participants (6%) visited these welcome centers monthly or weekly. Measuring Public Perception of planting techniques for Data with AR:
From the qualitative survey, it was identified that environmental benefits, color and aesthetics, sustainability, cost, and maintenance were significant factors that affect public perception. Participants were asked to express their opinion about these identified factors. Participants' responses are presented in Figure 4.10 to Figure 4.14.
43

Participants Response to ROW Planting Factor: Environmental Benefits
Figure 4. 10: Participants' response to Roadside (ROW) planting. Factor: Environmental Benefits (data collected by AR)
44

Participants Response to ROW Planting Factor: Sustainability
Figure 4. 11: Participants' response to Roadside (ROW) planting. Factor: Sustainability (data collected by AR)
Participants Response to ROW Planting Factor: Restorative Effect
Figure 4. 12: Participants' response to Roadside (ROW) planting. Factor: Restorative Effect (data collected by AR) 45

Participants Response to ROW Planting Factor: Plant Nativity
Figure 4. 13: Participants' response to Roadside (ROW) planting. Factor: Native or Nonnative plants (data collected by AR)
Participants Response to ROW Planting Factor: Maintenance
Figure 4. 14: Participants' response to Roadside (ROW) planting. Factor: Maintenance (data collected by AR) 46

The respondents (92% of 207) overwhelmingly agreed to the statement that roadside planting has environmental benefits (Figure 4.10). In addition, the majority of the participants favored sustainable vegetation along the road (Figure 4.11). Figure 4.12 represents how the public responded with to the statement "Roadside planting has a restorative effect on you". Most (63% of 207) of the population strongly agreed with the statement.
Another important finding of this study was that 87% of the sample population greatly preferred native plants over non-native for roadside planting (Figure 4.13). It can be asserted that they chose native plants over non-native plants because native plants have more environmental benefits and require less maintenance. Maintenance of roadside planting is also an important factor for people. 78% of the respondents expressed that maintenance is very important for planting. Additionally, 22% of the population recommended it as moderately important (Figure 4.14).
4.6 Perception Towards Different Planting Techniques Among 207 respondents, 58% preferred block planting over matrix planting. 38% of the respondents preferred matrix planting than block planting (Figure 4.15). They made the decision based on color and aesthetics.
47

Participants Response to ROW Planting Factor: Planting Technique

Figure 4. 15: Participants' preferences to one type of planting technique (with AR)

ANOVA model and t-test were run in R programming to identify the relationship between

planting technique choice and demographic characteristics. The results from Table 4.1 show

that residence (p = .00183< 0.05) and gender (p = .0184) were significant factors for choosing

planting technique.

Table 4. 1: Results of ANOVA Analysis

Df

Sum_Sq. Mean_Sq. F value Pr(>F)

Gender

1

1.677

1.677

5.6502

0.018392 *

Age

1

0.001

0.00076 0.0025

0.95979

Residence

1

2.962

2.96197 9.9791

.001828*

Frequency

1`

0.321

0.32084 1.0809

0.29974

Time

1

0.336

0.3355

1.1305

0.288934

Residual

201

59.66

0.29682

48

Although the total sample chose block planting, the residence from State of Florida (58%), North Carolina (75%), and South Carolina (80%) showed a strong preference for matrix planting while the residence from Georgia and Tennessee preferred block planting (Table 4.2). The finding suggested that the coastal region's people prefer matrix over the block.

Table 4. 2: Relationship: Planting techniques and residence

State of Residence Georgia Florida Tennessee South Carolina North Carolina Others Alabama

Planting Choice Matrix Block Matrix Block Matrix Block Matrix Block Matrix Block Matrix Block Matrix Block

No of Responses 17 29 39 28 18 32 4 1 6 2 6 15 0 2

The results from Table 4.3 show that the choice of planting techniques varied based on gender. Among male respondents, no variation was noticed in the results. The female respondents showed a strong preference for block planting.

49

Table 4. 3: Relationship between choice of planting techniques and gender

Gender Male Female

Planting Choice
Matrix Block Matrix Block

No of Response 44
41
41 71

% among Gender 48%
48%
31% 64%

The majority (82% of 207) of the respondents preferred environmental benefits more than color and aesthetics. In addition, 61% of the participants selected sustainability over color and aesthetic beauty (Table 4.4).

Table 4. 4: Relationship between choice of planting techniques

Planting Technique

Rank 1

No of Response

Matrix Block

Color & Aesthetics

11

Environmental Benefits

56

Sustainability

15

Maintenance

4

Color & Aesthetics

20

Environmental Benefits

62

Cost

6

Sustainability

23

Maintenance

1

50

Table 4. 5: Ranking of different control indicators affecting public perception Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6

Color and Aesthetics 16%

10%

46%

17%

4%

10%

Environmental

59%

30%

11%

3%

4%

17%

Benefits

Restorative Effect

0%

17%

9%

20%

12%

36%

Cost

3%

14%

23%

32%

16%

7%

Sustainability

18%

20%

5%

13%

22%

21%

Maintenance

3%

9%

5%

15%

42%

9%

Respondents were asked to rank different factors for choosing one particular planting technique. Most respondents (59%) chose environmental benefits as their top priority. Sustainability of planting was ranked second with 38 responses (18% of 207). People chose color and aesthetics as third priority. The cost was also an essential factor for people. Maintenance was typically ranked as 5th priority by the population sample (Table 4.6).

51

Percentage Participants

Ranking of Impacting FactorAffect Preference of Planting Technique

70%

60%

Color and Aesthetics

50%

Environmental Benefits

40%
Restorative Effect
30%

20%

Cost

10%

Sustainability

0%

Maintenance

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6

Figure 4. 16: Ranking of different control indicators affecting public perception (with AR)
From the results (Table 4.8 and Figure 4.16), it could be concluded that the final ranking is the following:
1. Environmental benefits 2. Sustainability 3. Color and aesthetics 4. Cost 5. Maintenance 6. Restorative effect

Weighted Decision Matrix was designed considering the ranking of factors. Because environmental benefit was the first priority to the public, it was given the highest weight: six. Number six priority, restorative effect was assumed weight one. As matrix planting has better

52

environmental benefits and sustainability, it scored one in these criteria. Further, the block was perceived as more aesthetically beautiful and had more restorative effect on people. In color and aesthetics, and restorative effect criteria, block scored one. The matrix planting was considered less expensive than block. Moreover, matrix planting requires less maintenance. In the cost and maintenance criteria, the matrix planting technique was recorded as "one" (Table 4.9).

Table 4.6: Weighted decision matrix for block and matrix planting

Criteria
Environmental Benefits Sustainability Color and Aesthetics Cost Maintenance Restorative Effects Sum

Weighting
6 5 4 3 2 1

Block

Score Total

0

0

0

0

1

4

0

0

0

0

1

1

5

Matrix

Score Total

1

6

1

5

0

0

1

3

1

2

0

0

16

The total score of each criterion was determined by multiplying weight score with an individual score. The overall score of matrix planting was sixteen, whereas the block planting scored only five. This WDM matrix made it clear that matrix planting was more acceptable to traveling people.

53

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS This study was conducted to measure public perception on optimal planting techniques (such as: block and matrix) that are aesthetically beautiful, cost-effective, and environmentally beneficial. The following conclusion was drawn from the study about public perception. The main indicators that affect people's preference for one planting technique from another were identified through literature review and qualitative survey. The identified indicators were color and aesthetics, environmental benefits, cost, sustainability, maintenance, and restorative effect. There was a significant difference between the data collected using photographs and the augmented reality app. People showed interest and enthusiasm during the surveys when AR was used in this study. The respondents strongly agreed that roadside vegetation has environmental benefits. The majority of the respondents expressed that sustainable planting is a very important element of roadside vegetation. The participants, in general, preferred native plants over non-native as they require less maintenance. Additionally, well-maintained plants were well received by the people. 58% of the sample preferred block planting over matrix planting based on color and aesthetics. Among all of the main factors, environmental benefits were ranked first. The ranking of the factors was as follows: 1. Environmental benefits 2. Sustainability 3. Color and aesthetics 4. Cost 5. Maintenance 6. Restorative effect. Sustainable roadside planting was well received by the public. Respondents preferred sustainable roadside vegetation more than aesthetically beautiful plants. Matrix planting was rated more acceptable to the public as it has more environmental
54

benefits and sustainability than the matrix considering the overall criteria. 55

REFERENCES
Akbar, K. F., William H.G, and. Headley A.D., 2003 "Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England." Landscape and Urban Planning 63, no. 3 139- 144.
Alberti, M., 2008 "Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems." New York: Springer.
Allen, M., Holger R., and Abbott M., 2011 "Smart-phone augmented reality for public participation in urban planning." In Proceedings of the 23rd Australian computer-human interaction conference, pp. 11-20. ACM, 2011.
Azuma, R., 1997. "A survey of augmented reality." Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 6, no. 4 (1997): 355-385.
Babbie, Earl. "The Practice of Social Research" Fifth Edition. (1989).
Barton, S., Rick D., and Schwetz G., 2005 "Enhancing Delaware highways: Roadside vegetation concept and planning manual.", Delaware Department of Transportation
Cackowski, J., and Nasar J.L., 2003. "The restorative effects of roadside vegetation: Implications for automobile driver anger and frustration." Environment and Behavior 35, no. 6 (2003): 736-751.
Cameron RWF, Hitchmough J., 2016. "Environmental horticulture: science and management of green landscapes." Boston: CAB International.
Caracelli, V. and Greene, J., 1993. "Data Analysis Strategies for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 15. 195-207. 10.3102/01623737015002195.
Carmigniani, J., Borko F., Anisetti M., Ceravolo P., Damiani E., and Ivkovic M.. "Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications." Multimedia tools and applications 51, no. 1 (2011): 341-377.
Dana, M N., Ricky, D, and Boszor M. "Wildflowers for Indiana highways." (1996).
Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Roadside Use of Native Plants., 1999 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Last updated 13 January 2010. Date retrieved: 11 May 2020. http://www.epa.gov/nps/facts/point1.htm Morrison, Darrel. 1999.
Fesenmaier, D. R., & Vogt, C. A., 1993. "Evaluating the Economic Impact of Travel Information Provided at Indiana Welcome Centers". Journal of Travel
56

Research, 31(3), 3339. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759303100306
Fitzpatrick, Cole D., Curt P. Harrington, Michael A. Knodler Jr, and Matthew RE Romoser. "The influence of clear zone size and roadside vegetation on driver behavior." Journal of safety research 49 (2014): 97-e1.
Forman, R.T., Sperling, Bissonette, Clevenger, Cutshall, Dale, Fahrig, France,Goldman, Heanue, Jones, Swanson, Turrentine, & Winter. (2003a). Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Gitelson, R., and Perdue R. 1987 "Evaluating the role of state welcome centers in disseminating travel related information in North Carolina." Journal of Travel Research 25, no. 4 (1987): 15-19.
Gobster, Paul H., and Richard E. C., 1989. "The dimensions of aesthetic preference: a quantitative analysis." Journal of Environmental Management 29, no.1 (1989): 47-72.
Guyton, J W., Jeanne C. J, and Edward D. E., 2014 "Alternative Mowing Regimes' Influence on Native Plants and Deer. Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), Jackson, MS, 2014.
Harper-Lore, B. L., 1999 "Roadside Use of Native Plants." Washington, DC: USDOT, Federal Highway Administration Pub. FHWAEP99014, 1999.
Harper, D., 2001. "Horse boating" (Web). The Horse Boating Society. Retrieved on April 9, 2014.
Harrison, G. L. 2014. "Economic impact of ecosystem services provided by ecologically sustainable roadside right of way vegetation management practices". No. BDK75-977-FDOT contract
Hopwood, Jennifer L. 2008 "The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation." Biological Conservation 141, no. 10 (2008): 2632-2640.
Hoyle, H., Hitchmough, J., & Jorgensen, A., 2017. "Attractive, climate-adapted and sustainable? Public perception of non-native planting" Retrieved December 15, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316345191_Attractive_climateadapted_and_sustainable_Public_perception_of_nonnative_planting_in_the_designed_urban_landscape
Jacobson, R. L., Albrecht, N. J., & Bolin, K. E. "Wildflower Routes: Benefits of Management Program for Minnesota Right-of-Way Prairies." Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Twelfth North American Prairie Conference, Cedar Falls, Iowa, 1990.
Lewis, A., Oppenheim, A. (1994). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, London, Pinter." Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 4,
57

no. 5 (1994): 371-372.
Lucey, A., and Barton S.. "Public perception and sustainable roadside vegetation management strategies." Newark, Delaware, University of Delaware University Transportation Center (2010): 1-15.
MacDonald, E., Sanders R., Supawanich P. "The Effects of Transportation Corridors' Roadside Design Features on User Behavior and Safety, and Their Contributions to Health, Environmental Quality, and Community Economic Vitality: a Literature Review." (2008).
Mok, J., H C., L, and Naderi R. "Landscape improvement impacts on roadside safety in Texas." Landscape and Urban Planning 78, no. 3 (2006): 263-274.
O'Dell, R, Young S., and Claassen V.. "Native roadside perennial grasses persist a decade after planting in the Sacramento Valley." California Agriculture 61, no. 2 (2007): 79-84.
Parsons, R, Louis G., Tassinary, R. S. Ulrich, Michelle R. H, and GrossmanAlexander, M. 1998. "The view from the road: Implications for stress recovery and immunization." Journal of environmental psychology 18, no. 2 (1998): 113-140.
Perdue, R. "Traveler preferences for information center attributes and services." Journal of Travel Research 33, no. 4 (1995): 2-7.
Piercy, K. L., Dorn, J. M., Fulton, J. E., Janz, K. F., Lee, S. M., McKinnon, R. A., LavizzoMourey, R. (2015). Opportunities for Public Health to Increase Physical Activity Among Youths. American Journal of Public Health, 105(3), 421426. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.302325
Robertson, I., Smith, L. (n.d.). Sustainable Roadside Design and Management for Urban Freeways in Western Washington. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/trac/bulkdisk/pdf/_baks/774.1.pdf.0001.6276.bak
Schnoor,J.L., Licht, L.A., McCutcheon, S.C., Wolfe, N.L., and Carreira, L.H. (1995) "Phytoremediation of Organic and Nutrient Contaminants." Environmental Science & Technology 29(7) 318A-323A.
US EPA., 2017. "Exploring the Link Between Green Infrastructure and Air Quality" | US EPA. Retrieved December 15, 2020, from US EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/greeninfrastructure/exploring-link-between-green-infrastructure-and-air-quality
USBR., 2007. Visitor Center Policy, Directive and Standard, and Guidelines. 2007. United States Department of the Interior (USBR). Retrieved from https://www.usbr.gov/recreation/publications/VstrCntr_Pol-DS-Guide_complete_(09-0707).pdf
58

Webber, M. M. 1992. "The joys of Automobilty: Car and the City the Automobile, The Built Environment and Daily Urban Life" (1992): 274-284.
59