Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Placemaking Evaluation× | Visual Preference Survey× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Urban Studies | Urban Studies |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 2000 | 1994 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Project for Public Spaces (drawing on William H. Whyte and Jan Gehl) | Anton C. Nelessen |
| Tyyppi≠ | Structured before/after evaluation of public-space quality and use | Survey eliciting community design preferences by rating images |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Carmona, M. (2019). Principles for public space design, planning to do better. URBAN DESIGN International, 24, 47–59. DOI ↗ | Nelessen, A. C. (1994). Visions for a New American Dream: Process, Principles, and an Ordinance to Plan and Design Small Communities. American Planning Association. ISBN: 9780918286888 |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | Place Diagram Evaluation, Power of 10 Assessment, Public-Space Quality Audit, Before-and-After Placemaking Study | VPS, Visual Preference Analysis, Image Preference Survey, Nelessen Visual Preference Survey |
| Liittyvät | 4 | 4 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Placemaking evaluation is the structured assessment of whether a public-space intervention — a redesigned plaza, a reclaimed street, a new pocket park — actually makes the place more sociable, comfortable, and well used. Drawing on the observational tradition of William H. Whyte and Jan Gehl and codified by the Project for Public Spaces, it combines qualitative place-quality judgements with countable measures of activity, often comparing the same site before and after the change. The result is evidence that a place works for people rather than a designer's assertion that it should. | A visual preference survey (VPS) elicits a community's design preferences by asking residents to rate a curated set of photographs — of streets, buildings, public spaces, and landscapes — on a simple numeric scale. Developed and popularized by planner Anton Nelessen, it turns the often vague question of what a community wants its environment to look like into comparable scores, revealing which images people reward, which they reject, and where they agree or disagree. The averaged ratings give planners a defensible visual brief grounded in resident preference rather than professional taste. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|