Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: Prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 83-90

  Hagerhall, C M ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034147745     PISSN: 02724944     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0150     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aldenderfer M. S., Blashfield R. K. Cluster Analysis. 1984;Sage, Newbury Park.
2. Anderberg M. R. Cluster Analysis for Applications. 1973;Academic Press, London & New York.
3. Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape. 1975;Wiley, London & New York.
4. Appleton J. Prospects and refuges re-visited. Landscape Journal. 3:1984;91-103.
5. Balling J. D., Falk J. H. Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior. 14:1982;5-28.
6. Odlingslandskapet och den kommunala Planeringen. 1996;Boverket, Karlskrona.
7. Bourassa S. C. A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and Behavior. 22:1990;787-812.
8. Clamp P., Powell M. Prospect-refuge theory under test. Landscape Research. 7:1982;7-8.
9. Daniel T. C., Boster R. S. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. 1976;Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins.
10. Emanuelsson U. Översikt över det nordiska kulturlandskapet. Emanuelsson U., Johansson C. E., Biotopvern i Norden: Biotoper i det nordiska kulturlandskapet. 1987;13 Statens Naturvårdsverk, Solna.
11. Stanners D., Bourdeau P., Europe's Environment: The Dobrís 1995;172-189 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
12. Everitt B. S. Cluster Analysis. 1993;Arnold, London.
13. Grahn P. Om parkers betydelse. 1991;Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp.
14. Hammitt W. E., Ruddell E. J. Prospect refuge theory: A psychological orientation for edge effect in recreation environments. Journal of Leisure Research. 19:1987;249-260.
15. Herzog T. R., Kaplan S., Kaplan R. The prediction of preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior. 8:1976;627-645.
16. Herzog T. R., Smith G. A. Danger, mystery and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior. 20:1988;320-344.
17. Kaplan R., Kaplan S., Brown T. J. Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior. 21:1989;509-530.
18. Kaplan S. An informal model for the prediction of preference. Zube E. H., Brush R. O., Fabos J. G., Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources. 1975;92-101 Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Stoudsburg.
19. Kaplan S. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior. 19:1987;3-32.
20. Kaplan S., Kaplan R. Humanscape: Environments for People. 1982a;Ulrichs Books, Ann Arbor.
21. Kaplan S., Kaplan R. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. 1982b;Praeger, New York.
22. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature. 1989;Cambridge University Press, New York.
23. Kellert S. R., Wilson E. O. The Biophilia Hypothesis. 1993;Island Press/Shearwater Books, Washington.
24. Koch N. E., Jensen F. S. Skovenes friluftsfunktion i Danmark. IV del. Befolkningens ønsker till skovenes og det åbne lands udformning. Summary: Forest recreation in Denmark. Part IV: Preferences of the Population. Det Forstlige Forsøgsvœsen i Danmark. 41:1988;243-516.
25. Kong L. L. L., Yuen B., Briffett C., Sodhi N. S. Nature and nurture danger and delight: Urban women's experiences of the natural world. Landscape Research. 22:1997;245-266.
26. Mealey L., Theis P. The relationship between mood and preferences among natural landscapes: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology. 16:1995;247-256.
27. Nassauer J. I. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal. 14:1995;161-170.
28. Orians G. H. Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. Lockard J. S., The Evolution of Human Social Behavior. 1980;49-66 Elsevier, New York.
29. Orians G. H. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. Penning-Rowsell E. C., Lowenthal D., Landscape Meanings and Values. 1986;3-25 Allen & Unwin, London.
30. Orians G. H., Heerwagen J. H. Evolved responses to landscapes. Barkow J. H., Cosmides L., Tooby J., The Adapted Mind. 1992;555-579 Oxford University Press, New York.
31. Värdefulla natur- och kulturmiljöer i jordbrukets miljöstöd. 1995;Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm.
32. Rundqvist B. Sweden. Whitby M., The European Environment and CAP Reform: Policies and Prospects for Conservation. 1996;173-185 CAB International, Wallingford.
33. Sangster M. Planning and designing new woodlands for people. Ferris-Kaan R., The Ecology of Woodland Creation. 1995;17-25 Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.
34. Inventering av ängs- och hagmarker: Handbok. 1987;Statens naturvårdsverk, Solna.
35. Statistica for Windows, 1995, III, Tulsa, StatSoft Inc.
36. Taylor R. B., Shumaker S. A., Gottfredson S. D. Neighborhood-level links between physical features and local sentiments. Deterioration, fear of crime and confidence. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 17:1985;261-275.
37. Ulrich R. S. Visual landscape preference: A model and application. Man-Environment Systems. 7:1977;279-293.
38. Ulrich R. S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Altman I., Wohlwill J. F., Human Behavior and Environment. 6:1983;85-125 Plenum Press, New York.
39. Ulrich R. S. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 13:1986;29-44.
40. van den Berg A. E., Vlek C. A. J., Coeterier J. F. Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: A multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 18:1998;141-157.
41. Woodcock, D. M. 1982, A functionalist approach to environmental preference, The University of Michign.