Cross-National Rankings of Tree Shape

Ecological Psychology

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 327-341

  Sommer, Robert ^a   Summit, Joshua ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030335697     PISSN: 10407413     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15326969eco0804_2     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Altman, N. (1993). Sacred trees. San Francisco: Sierra Club.
2. Appleton, J. (1990). The symbolism of habitat. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
3. Arnheim, R. (1977). The dynamics of architectural form. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York: Halsted.
5. Bingham, G. P. (1993). Perceiving the size of trees: Form as information about scale. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 19, 1139-1161.
6. Brush, R. O., & Moore, T. A. (1976). Some psychological and social aspects of trees in the city. In F. S. Santamour, H.D. Gerhold, & S. Little, (Eds.), Better trees for metropolitan landscapes (Tech. Rep. No. NE 22, pp. 25-28). Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
7. Brunswik, E. (1952). Perception and the representitive design of experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8. Coss, R. G., & Moore, M. (1995). Preschool children recognize the utility of differently shaped trees: A cross-cultural evaluation of aesthetics and risk perception. In M. Francis, P. Lindsey, & J. S. Rice (Eds.), The healing dimensions of people-plant relations: Proceedings of a research symposium (pp. 407-423). Davis, CA: UCD Center for Design Research.
9. Craik, K. H., & Feimer, N. H. (1987). Environmental assessment. In D. Stokols, & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 891-918). New York: Wiley.
10. Daniels, S. (1988). The political iconography of woodland in later Georgian landscape. In D. Cosgrove & S. Daniels (Eds.), The iconography of landscape (pp. 43-80). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11. Davies, D. (1988). The evocative symbolism of trees. In D. Cosgrove & S. Daniels (Eds.), The iconography of landscape. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12. Dwyer, J. F., McPherson, E. G., Schroeder, H. W., & Rowntree, R. A. (1992). Assessing the benefits and the costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 18, 227-234.
13. Dwyer, J. F., & Schroeder, H. W. (1994). The human dimensions of urban forestry. Journal of Forestry, 92, 12-16.
14. Fechner, G. T. (1876) Vorschile der aestheik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel.
15. Fuller, P. (1988). The geography of Mother Nature. In D. Cosgrove & S. Daniels (Eds.), The iconography of landscape (pp. 11-31). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16. Gibson, J. J. (1982). Autobiography. In E Reed & R. Jones (Eds.), Reasons for realism (pp. 7-22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
17. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (Original work published 1979)
18. Gifford, R. (1987). Environmental psychology. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
19. Gorden, I. G. (1989). Theories of visual perception. Chichester, England: Wiley.
20. Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 138-172). Washington, DC: Island.
21. Heisler, C. (1986). Energy savings with trees. Journal of Arboriculture, 12, 113-124.
22. Herzog, T. R. (1987). A cognitive analysis of preference for natural landscapes. Landscape, 6, 140-152.
23. International Society of Arboriculture (1991). A national research agenda for urban forestry in the 1990s. Urbana, IL: Author.
24. Kalmbach, K. L., & Kielbaso, J. J. (1979). Resident attitudes toward selected characteristics of street tree plantings. Journal of Arboriculture, 5, 124-129.
25. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Legg, M. H., & Hicks, R. R. (1976). Public decision making in selecting trees for human settlements. In J. S. Andresen (Ed.), Trees and forests for human settlements (pp. 275-285). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto; Center for Urban Forestry Studies.
27. Lyons, E (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior, 15, 487-511.
28. Nasar, J. L. (1983). Adult viewers' preferences in residential scenes. Environment and Behavior, 15, 589-614.
29. Nasar, J. L., & Upton, K. (in press). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior.
30. New Jersey Federation of Shade Tree Commissions. (1974). Trees for New Jersey streets. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Cook College.
31. Orians, G. H. (1986). An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In E. C. Penning-Rowsell & D. Lowenthal (Eds.), Landscape meanings and values (pp. 3-25). London: Allen & Unwin.
32. Penning-Rowsell, E., Gullett, G. H., Searle, G.H., & Witham, S. A. (1977). Public evaluation of landscape quality (Planning Research Group Report No. 13). Enfield, England: Middlesex Polytechnic.
33. Schroeder, H. W., &. Cannon, W. N. (1983). The aesthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. Journal of Arboriculture, 9, 237-243.
34. Schroeder, H. W., & Ruffulo, S. R. (1996). Householder evaluation of street trees in a Chicago suburb. Journal of Arboriculture, 22, 35-43.
35. Schroeder, H. W. (1990). The felt sense of natural environments. In Proceedings of EDRA 21 (pp. 192-195). Oklahoma City: Environmental Design Research Association.
36. Sommer, R., Guenther, H., & Barker, P. A. (1990). Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape Journal, 9, 79-85.
37. Sommer, R., Guenther, H., Barker, P. A., & Swenson, J. P. (1993). Comparision of four methods of street tree assessment. Journal of Arboriculture, 19, 27-34.
38. Sommer, R., Learey, F., Summit, J., & Tirrell, M. (1994). The social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting: Comparison with developer-planted trees. Journal of Arboriculture, 20, 323-328.
39. Sommer, R., & Summit, J. (1995). An exploratory study of preferred tree form. Environment and Behavior, 27, 540-557.
40. Sommer, R., & Summit, J. (1996a) An evaluation of tree descriptions in a popular garden guide. Journal of Arboriculture, 22, 109-113.
41. Sommer, R., & Summit, J. (1996b). Semantic correlates of tree form preference. Manuscript in preparation.
42. Sommer, R., Summit, J., Learey, F., & Tirrell, M. (1995). Social and educational benefits of a community shade tree program: A replication. Journal of Arboriculture, 21, 260.
43. Sonnenfeld, J. (1966). Variable values in space and landscape. Journal of Social Issues, 22, 71-82.
44. Strumpse, E (1996). Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 17-31.
45. Summit, J. (1994). Aesthetics and tree form: A study of human preference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis.
46. Summit, J., & Sommer, R. (in press). Urban tree planting programs: A model for encouraging environmentally protective behavior. Urban Atmosphere.
47. Tart, C. T. (1990). Multiple personality, altered states, and virtual reality. Dissociation, 3, 222-233.
48. Tuan, Y. F. (1979). Landscapes of fear. New York: Pantheon.
49. Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73-137). Washington, DC: Island.
50. Woodcock, D. M. (1982). A functionalist approach to environmental preference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
51. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 1-29.