Residential lawn alternatives: A study of their distribution, form and structure

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 42, Issue 2-4, 1998, Pages 135-145

  Henderson, Scott P B ^a   Perkins, Nathan H ^a   Nelischer, Maurice ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

Author keywords

Lawn alternatives; Visual preferences

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032495228     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00084-X     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ashihara, Y., 1983. The Aesthetic Townscape. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
2. Balling J.D., Falk J.H. Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environ. and Behav. 14:1982;5-28.
3. Cullen, G., 1971. The Concise Townscape. Butterworth, London.
4. Girling, C.L., Helphand, K.I., 1994. Yard, Street, Park - The Design of Suburban Open Space. Wiley, New York, NY.
5. Herzog T.R. A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments: mountains, canyons and deserts. Landscape J. 6(2):1987;140-152.
6. Hough, M., 1984. City Form and Natural Process. Routledge, London.
7. Jackson, K.T., 1985. Crabgrass Frontier - The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford University Press, New York.
8. Jellicoe, G., Jellicoe, S., Goode, P., Lancaster, M. (Eds.), 1991. The Oxford Companion to Gardens. Oxford University Press, New York.
9. Kaplan R. The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning. 12:1985;161-176.
10. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York.
11. Knox, P., 1987. Urban Social Geography - An Introduction. Wiley, New York, NY.
12. Lamb R.J., Purcell A.T. Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landscape Urban Planning. 19:1990;333-352.
13. Nassauer J.I. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape J. 14:1995;161-170.
14. Nassauer, J.I., 1993. Ecological function and the perception of suburban residential landscapes. Gobster, P.H. (Ed.), Managing Urban and High-Use Recreational Settings. USDA For. Ser. North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN 55-60.
15. Nassauer J.I. The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. HortScience. 23:1988;973-977.
16. Purchase, M., 1997. Factors that influence the adoption of lawn alternative residential landscapes. Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of Guelph.
17. Schauman S. Scenic value of countryside landscapes to local residents: a Whatcom County, Washington case study. Landscape J. 7:1988;40-46.
18. Smardon D. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation. Landscape Urban Planning. 15:1988;85-106.
19. Smith, M.R., 1991. The Front Garden - New Approaches to Landscape Design. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
20. Tuan, Yi-Fu, 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
21. Ulrich R. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape Urban Planning. 13:1986;29-44.
22. Winter, E., 1971. Urban Areas. Bellhaven House, Scarborough, ON.
23. Wohlwill J., Harris G. Response to congruity or contrast for man-made features in natural recreation settings. Leisure Sci. 3:1980;349-365.
24. Wolforth, J., Leigh, R., 1971. Urban Prospects. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, ON.
25. Zube E.H. Themes in landscape assessment theory. Landscape J. 3(2):1984;104-110.
26. Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G., Anderson, T.W., 1974. Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the southern Connecticut River Valley. Institute for Man and Environment. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.