Perceptions of the crowded sky as assessed through response to aerial infrastructure

IF 2.2 Q2 CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY
Christina L. Kolbmann, Carrie Leslie, Chris Anderson, Jeff F. Kelly, Jeremy D. Ross, Lori Jervis, Justin Reedy, E. S. Bridge
{"title":"Perceptions of the crowded sky as assessed through response to aerial infrastructure","authors":"Christina L. Kolbmann, Carrie Leslie, Chris Anderson, Jeff F. Kelly, Jeremy D. Ross, Lori Jervis, Justin Reedy, E. S. Bridge","doi":"10.3389/fbuil.2023.1035592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ever increasing numbers of wind turbines, communication towers, power lines, and aerial vehicles are clear evidence of our growing reliance on infrastructure in the lower aerosphere. As this infrastructure expands, it is important to understand public perceptions of an increasingly crowded sky. To gauge tolerance for aerial crowding, 251 participants from across the US completed a survey where they rated tolerance for a series of aerial infrastructure images (i.e., towers, turbines, and airborne vehicles) in four landscapes with varying degrees of pre-existing ground-level infrastructure that approximated rural, suburban, and urban settings. We predicted lower tolerance for aerial infrastructure 1) in more natural scenes and 2) among rural residents. In general, participants preferred an open aesthetic with relatively little aerial infrastructure across all landscape types. No clear association was found between infrastructure tolerance and natural scenes nor rural residency, with participants slightly less tolerant of infrastructure in the suburban scene. Tolerance scores were generally similar across age, income levels, and political affiliations. Women indicated less crowding tolerance than men, with this effect driven by a disproportionate number of women with zero tolerance for aerial infrastructure. African Americans and Asians had higher tolerance scores than other racial/ethnic groups, but these trends may have been affected by low sample sizes of non-white participants. Our survey revealed fewer differences in crowding tolerance across demographic groups than might be expected given widely reported political and geographic polarization in the U.S. Attitudes toward aerial infrastructure were varied with few associations with demographic parameters suggesting that public opinion has not yet solidified with regard to this issue, making possible opportunities for consensus building with regard to responsible development of aerial infrastructure.","PeriodicalId":37112,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Built Environment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Built Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1035592","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ever increasing numbers of wind turbines, communication towers, power lines, and aerial vehicles are clear evidence of our growing reliance on infrastructure in the lower aerosphere. As this infrastructure expands, it is important to understand public perceptions of an increasingly crowded sky. To gauge tolerance for aerial crowding, 251 participants from across the US completed a survey where they rated tolerance for a series of aerial infrastructure images (i.e., towers, turbines, and airborne vehicles) in four landscapes with varying degrees of pre-existing ground-level infrastructure that approximated rural, suburban, and urban settings. We predicted lower tolerance for aerial infrastructure 1) in more natural scenes and 2) among rural residents. In general, participants preferred an open aesthetic with relatively little aerial infrastructure across all landscape types. No clear association was found between infrastructure tolerance and natural scenes nor rural residency, with participants slightly less tolerant of infrastructure in the suburban scene. Tolerance scores were generally similar across age, income levels, and political affiliations. Women indicated less crowding tolerance than men, with this effect driven by a disproportionate number of women with zero tolerance for aerial infrastructure. African Americans and Asians had higher tolerance scores than other racial/ethnic groups, but these trends may have been affected by low sample sizes of non-white participants. Our survey revealed fewer differences in crowding tolerance across demographic groups than might be expected given widely reported political and geographic polarization in the U.S. Attitudes toward aerial infrastructure were varied with few associations with demographic parameters suggesting that public opinion has not yet solidified with regard to this issue, making possible opportunities for consensus building with regard to responsible development of aerial infrastructure.
通过对空中基础设施的响应评估对拥挤天空的感知
越来越多的风力涡轮机、通信塔、电力线和飞行器清楚地表明,我们越来越依赖低层大气中的基础设施。随着基础设施的扩大,了解公众对日益拥挤的天空的看法是很重要的。为了衡量对空中拥挤的容忍度,来自美国各地的251名参与者完成了一项调查,他们在四种景观中对一系列空中基础设施图像(即塔、涡轮机和机载车辆)的容忍度进行了评级,这些景观具有不同程度的预先存在的地面基础设施,分别接近农村、郊区和城市环境。我们预测,1)在更多的自然景观中,2)在农村居民中,对空中基础设施的容忍度较低。总的来说,参与者更喜欢开放的美学,在所有景观类型中相对较少的空中基础设施。基础设施容忍度与自然景观和农村居住之间没有明显的联系,参与者对郊区基础设施的容忍度略低。容忍度得分在不同年龄、收入水平和政治派别中大致相似。女性对拥挤的容忍度低于男性,造成这种现象的原因是,女性对空中基础设施零容忍度的比例过高。非裔美国人和亚洲人的容忍度得分高于其他种族/族裔群体,但这些趋势可能受到非白人参与者样本规模较小的影响。我们的调查显示,鉴于美国广泛报道的政治和地理两极分化,不同人口群体在拥挤容忍方面的差异比预期的要小,对空中基础设施的态度各不相同,与人口参数的联系很少,这表明公众舆论在这个问题上尚未固化,这就有可能在负责任的空中基础设施发展方面达成共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Built Environment
Frontiers in Built Environment Social Sciences-Urban Studies
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
266
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信