Perceptions of On-Premise Commercial Sign Regulation Codes for Beauty, Interest, and Order by Designers and Non-Designers

Main Article Content

Maleah Rakestraw
Pat Crawford
Eunsil Lee


Regulation has long since guided urban growth, and it is essential for municipalities to construct regulation that is conducive to creating visually stimulating public spaces. Minimal scientific research has been conducted on the impacts of commercial signage and the varying arrangements created by different sign regulations in regard to perception (Jourdan, Hurd, & Hawkins, 2013; Portella, 2014). With the rise of public involvement in planning (Lane, 2005; Sanoff, 2000), it is essential that designers and non-designers coordinate to develop sign controls that contribute to urban growth. This research studies the differences and similarities in perceptions of planning and design professionals and non-designers to aid in the development of future, more positively perceived, signage regulation. By using visual models presented in the form of a survey, findings show both similarities and differences between these groups in their assessment of signscapes regarding communication, perceptions of characteristics like beauty, interest, and order, an overall preference toward highly structured codes, and a difference in harshness of evaluation. 

Article Details



Alford, H. C. (2011). Impact of Signage on Economic Development and the Need for Commonsense Zoning Laws and Regulations (SFI Research Report). Washington DC: The Signage Foundation, Inc.

American Society of Landscape Architects. (2016). About the American society of landscape architects.

Bai, Y., Finger, K., & Yue, L. (2010). Analyzing motorists’ responses to temporary signage in highway work zones. Safety Science, 48(2), 215-221. DOI:

Berger, C. (2014). Signs and the downtown experience (SFI Research Report). Washington DC: The Signage Foundation, Inc.

Burisch, M. (1979). Expert and lay opinion in the evaluation of housing. In: J. G. Simon (Ed.) Conflicting Experiences of Space: 25-34.

City Data. (2012). East Lansing, Michigan [Data File].

City of Lansing, Lansing Planning Office. (2012). Design Lansing Comprehensive Plan.

Coeterier, J. F. (2002). Lay people’s evaluation of historic sites. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(2), 111-123. DOI:

Cohen, D. T., Harchard G. W., & Wilson, S. G. (2015, March). Population trends in incorporated places: 2000 to 2013.

Crawford, P., Lee, E. & Beatty, M. (2015). Aesthetic perception of urban streetscapes and the impact of form-based codes and traditional zoning codes on commercial signage. Current Urban Studies, 3, 199-215. DOI:

Creighton, J. L. (2005). The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

East Lansing. (2014). Code of ordinances—part II chapter 32 signs. East Lansing, MI: Planning Department.

Ewing, R. H. & Clemente, O. (2013). Measuring Urban Design: Metrics for Livable Places. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Form-Based Codes Institute Staff. (2013, November 22). History.

Garvey, P., Crawford, B. (2015). On-premise Sign Research Review (SFI Research Report). Washington DC: The Signage Foundation, Inc.

Gjerde, M. (2011). Visual evaluation of urban streetscapes: How do public preferences reconcile with those held by experts? Urban Design International, 16(3), 153-161. DOI:

Jourdan, D., Hurd, K., Hawkins, H. G., & Winson-Geideman, K. (2013, Spring). Evidence-based sign regulation: Regulating signage on the basis of empirical wisdom. The Urban Lawyer, 45(2), 327.

Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1989). The visual environment: Public participation in design and planning. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 59–86. DOI:

Kieffer, S. (2001). Glossary of Signage Terms (SFI Research Report). Washington DC: The Signage Foundation, Inc.

Kinoshita, Y. & Orlando, C. C. (2013). Art of signage: The regulation of outdoor murals and the first amendment. Cardozo Law Review, 35(1), 867-896.

Lane, M. B. (2005). Public participation in planning: An intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283-299. DOI:

Lansing. (2014). Code of ordinances, part 14—building and housing code title 4—miscellaneous building regulations chapter 1442—signs. Lansing, MI: Planning Department.

Lee, E. (2014, November). Quantitative Method. Lansing: Michigan State University.

Liebermann, G. W. (2002). Modernization of zoning: A means to reform. The Appraisal Journal, 7(2), 224-229.

Meikle, J. L. (2013). Signs, streets, and storefronts: A history of architecture and graphics along America’s commercial corridors. Technology and Culture, 54(3), 672-674.


Nasar, J. L. & Hong, X. (1999). Visual preference in urban signscapes. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 671-691. DOI:

Parolek, D., Parolek, K., & Crawford, P. (2008). Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc. DOI:

Partin, S. (2011). SketchUp Validity Modeling: A Comparison Between Photographs and 3D Models (Master’s Thesis). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Access No. 915789183).

Pendlebury, J. & Townshend, T. (1999). The conservation of historic areas and public participation. Journal of Architectural Conservation, 5(2), 72-87. DOI:

Portella, A. (2014). Visual Pollution: Advertising, Signage and Environmental Quality. Burlington: Ahsgate Publishing Limited.

Pugalis, L. (2009). The culture and economics of urban public space design: Public and professional perceptions. Urban Design International, 14(4), 215-230. DOI:

Rexhausen, J., Hildebrandt, G. & Auffrey, C. (2012). The Economic Value of On-premise Signage (SFI Research Report). Washington DC: The Signage Foundation, Inc.

Sanoff, H. (2000). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. New York: Wiley.

Stotmeister, E. (2013, October). Economic Value of On-premise Signage (EVOS): A Story of Research 1997 – 2012 (SFI Research Report). Washington DC: The Signage Foundation, Inc.

Strauss, E. J., Jourdan, D., & Weinstein, A. (2014). Basic Sign Law for Planning Students (SFI Research Report). Washington DC: The Signage Foundation, Inc.

Taylor, C. R. (2006). How excessive restrictions on signage backfire. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(2), 56-57.

Taylor, C. R. (2011). Value Provided by On-Premise Signs: Measuring the Economic Value to the Business Enterprise (SFI Research Report). Washington DC: The Signage Foundation, Inc.

Taylor, C. R., Sarkees, M. E., & Bang, H. (2012). Understanding the value of on-premise signs as marketing devices for legal and public policy purposes. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(2), 185-194. DOI:

United States Department of Agriculture. (2015). Shifting Geography of Population Change. Washington DC: Economic Research Service.

Vandebona, U. & Yossayaffra. (1999). Analysis of signage requirements for pedestrian movements. Road & Transport Research, 8(4),55.

Werner, R. E. & Kaminoff, R. D. (1983). Improving environmental information: Effects of signs on perceived crowding and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 15(1), 3-20. DOI:

Witter, S. & Crawford, P. (2013). Creating a World Class Community. East Lansing, MI: School of Planning, Design & Construction, Michigan State University.

Yung, H. K. & Chan, H. W. (2013). Evaluation for the conservation of historic buildings: Differences between the laymen, professionals and policy makers. Facilities, 31(11/12), 542-564. DOI: