Subjective responses to computer simulations of urban environments

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 319-331

  Rohrmann, B ^a   Bishop, I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036900528     PISSN: 02724944     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0206     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Anderson, L. M., Mulligan, B. E., Goodman, L. S. & Regen, H. Z. (1983). Effects of sounds on preferences for outdoor settings. Environment and Behaviour 15, 539-566.
2. Bateson, J. E. & Hui, M. K. (1992). The ecological validity of photographic slides and videotapes in simulating the service setting. Journal of Consumer Education, 19, 271-281.
3. Bergen, S. D., Ulbricht, C. A., Fridley, J. L. & Ganter, M. A. (1995). The validity of computer-generated graphic images of forest landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 135-146.
4. Bishop, I. D. & Hull, R. (1991). Integrating technologies for visual resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 32, 295-312.
5. Bishop, I. D. & Rohrmann, B. (1995). Visualisation tools: Their role in understanding human resonses to the urban environment. In R. Wyatt, & H. Hossein, (Eds), 4th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning University of Melbourne, pp. 313-322.
6. Bishop, I. D. & Rohrmann, B. (1997). The validity of computer simulations of urban environments for planning and design. In V. Skala, (Ed), 5th International Conference on Computer Graphics and Visualization, Pilsen/Czech Republic.
7. Bishop, I. D. & Rohrmann, B. (in press). Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: A comparison. Environment and Behaviour.
8. Bishop, I. D. & Sirikasem, P. (1996). Visualisation for urban renewal planning and design in Bangkok, Thailand. International Conference on Urban Engineering in Asian Cities in the 21st Century. Bangkok, Asian Institute of Technology, 1, C102-C107.
9. Bishop, I. D., Spring, J. & Potter, R. (1995). Extending the geographic information base into the third dimension for use in the urban environment. Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association. 7, 24-29.
10. Bishop, I. D., Ye, W. S. & Karadiglis, C. (in press). Experimental approaches to perception response in virtual worlds. Landscape and Urban Planning.
11. Clipson, C. (1993). Simulation for planning and design: A review of strategy and technique. In Marans, R. W. & Stokols, D. (Eds), Environmental Simulation Research and Policy Issues New York: Plenum Press pp. 23-60
12. Decker, J. (1994). The validation of computer simulations for design guideline dispute resolution. Environment and Behavior, 26, 421-443.
13. Globus, A. & Aselton, S. (1995). Evaluation of visualization software. Computer Graphics, 14, 41-44.
14. Haase, H. & Dohrmann, C. (1996). Doing it right: Psychological tests to ensure the quality of scientific visualization. In M, G'Obel, J. David, P. Slavik & J.J. van Wijk (Eds), Virtual Environments and Scientific Visualization '96 Springer Verlag, pp. 243-256.
15. House, D., Schmidt, G., Arvin, S. & Kitigawa-DeLeon, M. (1998). Visualizing a real forest. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 18, 12-15.
16. Hull R. T. B. & Stewart, W. P. (1992). Validity of photobased scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 101-114.
17. Lawrence, R. J. (1993). Simulation and citizen participation: Theory, research, and practice. In R. W. Marans & D. Stokols (Eds), Environmental Simulation Research and Policy Issues. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 133-162.
18. Liggett, R. S. & Jepson, W. (1995). Use of real time visual simulation technology for urban planning/design decision making. In 4th International conference on computers in urban planning and urban management. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
19. Marans, R. W. & Stokols, D. (1993). Environmental Simulation: Research and Policy Issues. New York: Plenum Press.
20. Oh, K. (1994). A perceptual evaluation of computer-based landscape simulations. Landscape and Urban Planning 28, 201-216.
21. Orland, B. (1993). Synthetic landscapes: Review of video-imaging applications in environmental perception research, planning, and design. In R. W. Marans, & D. Stokols (Eds), Environmental Simulation Research and Policy Issues New York: Plenum Press. pp. 213-250.
22. Rohrmann, B., Palmer, S. & Bishop, I. D. (2000). Validity of computer-simulated environments. In: G. Moore, J. Hunt, L. Trevillon (Eds), Environment-Behavior Research on the Pacific Rim: Proceedings PaPER'98 Sydney: Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney, pp. 341-352.
23. Russell, J. A. & Lanius, U. F. (1984). Affective appraisal of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 4, 119-135.
24. Sheppard, S. R. J. (1989). Visual simulation: A User's Guide for Architects, Engineers and Planners. New York: Van Norstrad Reinhold.
25. Shuttleworth, S. (1980). The use of photographs as an environmental medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11, 61-70.
26. van Veen, H. A., Distler, H. K., Braun, S. J. & Bulthoff, H. H. (1998). Navigating through a virtual city: Using virtual reality technology to study human action and perception. Future Generation Computer Systems, 14, 231-242.
27. Vining, J. & Orland, B. (1989). The video advantage: A comparison of two environmental representation techniques. Journal of Environmental Management, 29, 275-283.