Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays

Environment and Behavior

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 301-322

  Heft, Harry ^a   Nasar, Jack L ^b  

^a DENISON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Dept of City and Regional Planning ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; PERCEPTION; SPATIAL COGNITION;

EID: 0034123230     PISSN: 00139165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013916500323001     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Appleyard, D., & Craik, K. H. (1974). The Berkeley Environmental Simulation Project: Its use in environmental impact assessment. In T. G. Dickert & K. R. Downey (Eds.), Environmental impact assessment: Guidelines and commentary (pp. 121-125). Berkeley, CA: University of California Extension.
2. Appleyard, D., Lynch, K., & Myer, J. R. (1964). The view from the road. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Benedikt, M. L. (1979). To take hold of space: Isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B, 6, 47-65.
4. Benedikt, M. L., & Burnham, C. A. (1985). Perceiving architectural space: From optic arrays to isovists. In W. H. Warren & R. E. Shaw (Eds.), Persistence and change (pp. 103-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Berlyne, D.E. (1972). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
6. Bosselmann, P. (1993). Dynamic simulation of urban environments. In R. W. Marans & D. Stokols (Eds.), Environmental simulation: Research and policy issues (pp. 279-302). New York: Plenum.
7. Bosselmann, P., & Craik, K. H. (1987). Perceptual simulations of environments. In R. Bechtel, R. Marans, & W. Michelson (Eds.), Methods in environmental and behavioral research (pp. 162-190). New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold.
8. Cullen, G. (1961). The concise townscape. New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold.
9. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
10. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
11. Heft, H. (1981). An examination of constructivist and Gibsonian approaches to environmental psychology. Population and Environment, 4, 227-245.
12. Heft, H. (1983). Way-finding as the perception of information over time. Population and Environment 6, 133-150
13. Heft, H. (1988). The development of Gibson's ecological approach to perception: A review essay. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8, 325-334.
14. Heft, H. (1996). The ecological approach to navigation: A Gibsonian perspective. In J. Portugali (Ed.), The construction of cognitive maps (pp. 105-132). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15. Heft, H. (1997). The relevance of Gibson's ecological approach for environment-behavior studies. In G. T. Moore & R. W. Marans (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 4, pp. 71-108). New York: Plenum.
16. Herzog, T. R., & Miller, E. J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 429-449.
17. Herzog, T. R., & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery, and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20, 320-334.
18. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge: MIT Press.
20. Nasar, J. L. (1987). Effects of signscape complexity and coherence on the perceived visual quality of retail scenes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53, 499-509.
21. Nasar, J. L. (1988a). Dimensions of perception and preference in housing environments. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 275-290). New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Nasar, J. L. (Ed.). (1988b). Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26, 377-401.
24. Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior, 29, 291-323.
25. Peron, E., Purcell, A. T., Staats, H. J., Falchero, S., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Models of preference for outdoor scenes: Some empirical evidence. Environment and Behavior, 30, 282-305.
26. Stamps, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments. A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 907-913.
27. Thiel, P. (1970). Notes on the description, scaling, notation, and scoring of some perceptual and cognitive attributes of the physical environment. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Man in his physical setting (pp. 593-619). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
28. Thiel, P. (1997). People, paths and purposes. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
29. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment. Human behavior and environment (Vol. 6, pp. 85-126). New York: Plenum.
30. Wohlwill, J. F. (1975). Behavioral response and adaptation to environmental stimulation. In D. A. Damon (Ed.), Physiological anthropology (pp. 295-334). New York: Oxford University Press.
31. Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human Behavior and the environment: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 37-86). New York: Plenum.
32. Wohlwill, J. F., & Harris, G. (1980). Responses to congruity or contrast for man-made features in natural-recreation settings. Leisure Science, 3, 349-365.