Urban Visual Air Quality : Modelled and Perceived

  • Paulette Middleton
  • Robin L. Dennis
  • Thomas R. Stewart
Part of the NATO · Challenges of Modern Society book series (NATS, volume 3)


Comparisons of modelled and perceived urban visual air quality are presented for an average visual air quality day in the winter of 1981 for Denver, Colorado. The field study design for capturing human judgments of visual air quality and the three dimensional visual air quality simulation model are outlined. The comparisons illustrate the feasibility as well as the difficulties associated with predicting human judgments of visual air quality with an air quality simulation model.

The research for this project was facilitated by the Center for Research on Judgment and Policy, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. The project was supported in part by BRSG Grant RR07013-14 awarded by the Biomedical Research Support program, Division of Research Resources, NIH.


Distant Target Human Judgment Intermediate Target Representative Design Inversion Height 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bolle, H.J. (1977): Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiation in the Atmosphere, Science Press, xiv.Google Scholar
  2. Brunswik, E. (1952): Conceptual Framework of Psychology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  3. Brunswik, E. (1956): Perception and Representative Design of Expe- riments. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, D.T. and D.W. Fiske (1959): “Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix”. Psychological Bulletin, 56, pp. 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandrasekhar, S. (1960): Radiative Transfer, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Hammond, K.R., T.R. Stewart, B. Brehmer, and D.O. Steinmann (1975). “Social judgment theory”. In Human Judgment and decision pro-cesses M.F. Kaplan and S. Schwartz (Eds.). New York: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Lamb, R.G., W.H. Chen,and J.H. Seinfeld (1975): “Numerico-Empirical Analysis of Atmospheric Diffusion Theories”. J. of the Atmos. Sci., 32, 1794–1807.Google Scholar
  8. Land, E.H., and J.J.-McCann (1971): “Lightness and Retinex Theory”, Optical Society of America, 61, 1–10.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Land, E.H., and J.J.-McCann (1971): “Lightness and Retinex Theory”, Optical Society of America, 61, 1–10.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Reynolds, J.D. Reynolds (1979): Photochemical Modelling of trans-portation Control Strategies - Vol. 1. Model Development, Performance Evaluation and Strategy Assessment. Report EF79–37, Federal Highway Administration, prepared by SAI.Google Scholar
  11. Shin, C.C. and L.J. Shieh (1974): “A Generalized Urban Air Pollution Model and its Application to the Study of SO2 Distributions in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area”. J. Appl. Meteor., 13, 185–204.Google Scholar
  12. Slovic, P. and S. Lichtenstein (1973): “Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment”. In Human Judgment and Social Interaction, L. Rappoport and D. Summers (Eds.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  13. Tennekes, H. (1973): “A model for the Dynamics of the Inversion Above a Convective Boundary Layer.” J. of Atmos. Sci., 30, 558–567.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. van de Hulst, H.C. (1957): Light Scattering by Small Particles, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Waggoner, A.P. and R.E. Weiss (1980) “The Color of Denver Haze”, in 73rd Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Paper 80–58.5Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulette Middleton
    • 1
  • Robin L. Dennis
    • 1
  • Thomas R. Stewart
    • 1
  1. 1.National Center for Atmospheric ResearchBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations