Further studies of preferred tree shapes

Environment and Behavior

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 550-576

  Summit, Joshua ^a   Sommer, Robert ^b  

^a Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; LANDSCAPE; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; TREE;

ACACIA;

EID: 0032876641     PISSN: 00139165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/00139169921972236     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Altman, N. (1993). Sacred trees. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
2. Anderson, L. M., & Cordell, H. K. (1985). Residential property values improved by landscaping with trees. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 9, 162-166.
3. Appleton, J. (1990). The symbolism of habitat. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
4. Arnheim, R. (1977). The dynamics of architectural form. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5. Balling, J., & Falk, J. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment & Behavior, 14, 5-28.
6. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York: Halsted.
7. Brunswik, E. (1952). Perception and the representative design of experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8. Coss, R. G., & Moore, M. (1994). 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: Center for Design Research.
9. Davies, D. (1988). The evo cative symbolism of trees. In D. Cosgrove & S. Daniels (Eds.), The iconography of landscape (pp. 34-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Elias, T. (1980). The complete trees of North America. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
11. Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorsuche der Aesthetik [Introduction to aesthetics]. Leipzig, Germany: Breitkopf & Hartel.
12. Fisher, R. A., & Yates, F. (1974). Statistical tests for biological, agricultural, and medical research (6th ed.). London: Longman.
13. Fuller, P. (1988). The geography of Mother Nature. In D. Cosgrove & S. Daniels (Eds.), The iconography of landscape (pp. 11-31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
15. Gifford, R. (1987). Environmental psychology. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
16. Gordon, I. G. (1989). Theories of visual perception. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
17. 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.
18. Herzog, T. R. (1987). A cognitive analysis of preference for natural landscapes. Landscape, 6, 140-152.
19. Holliday, I., & Hill, R. (1969). A field guide to Australian trees. Sydney: Rigby.
20. Kaplan, R. (1985). The analysis of perception via preference. Landscape Planning, 12, 161-116.
21. Kaplan, S. (1992). Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 581-598). New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island.
24. Lee, H. N. (1938). Perception and aesthetic value. New York: Prentice Hall.
25. 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: University of Toronto, Center for Urban Forestry Studies.
26. Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment & Behavior, 15, 487-511.
27. Mitchell, A. (1974). A field guide to the trees of Britain and Northern Europe. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
28. Nasar, J. L. (1983). Adult viewers' preferences in residential scenes. Environment & Behavior, 15, 589-614.
29. 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.
30. Osgood, C. E., May, W. H., & Miron, M. S. (1975). Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
31. Palmer, E. (1977). A field guide to the trees of Southern Africa. London: Collins.
32. Payne, B. R., & Strom, S. (1975). The contribution of trees to the appraised value of unimproved residential lots. Valuation, 22, 36-45.
33. Penning-Rowsell, E., Gullett, G. H., Searle, G. H., & Witham, S. A. (1977). Public evaluation of landscape quality (Planning Research Group Rep. No. 13). Enfield, UK: Middlesex Polytechnic.
34. Plato, (1975). Philebus (J.C.B. Gosling, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
35. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor Books.
36. Schroeder, H. W. (1990). The felt sense of natural environments. Proceedings of EDRA 21. Oklahoma City, OK: Environmental Design Research Association.
37. Schroeder, H. W., & Cannon, W. N. (1983). The aesthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. Journal of Arboriculture, 9, 237-243.
38. Sheets, V. L., & Manzer, C. D. (1991). Affect, cognition, and urban vegetation. Environment & Behavior, 23, 285-304.
39. Solso, R. L. (1994). Cognition and the visual arts. Cambridge: MIT Press.
40. Sommer, R. (1997). Further cross-national studies of tree form preference. Ecological Psychology, 9, 153-160.
41. Sommer, R., Cecchettini, C. L., & Guenther, H. (1992). Agreement among arborists, gardeners, and landscape architects in rating street trees. Journal of Arboriculture, 10, 252-256.
42. Sommer, R., Guenther, H., & Barker, P. A. (1990). Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape Journal, 9, 79-85.
43. Sommer, R., & Summit, J. (1995). An exploratory study of preferred tree form. Environment & Behavior, 27, 540-557.
44. Sommer, R., & Summit, J. (1996). An evaluation of tree descriptions in a popular garden guide. Journal of Arboriculture, 22, 109-113.
45. Sommer, R., Summit, J., & Clements, A. (1993). Slide ratings of street tree attributes. Landscape Journal, 12, 17-22.
46. Strumpse, E. (1996). Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 17-31.
47. Summit, J. (1994). Aesthetics and tree form. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of California, Davis.
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. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.