Group differences in the aesthetic evalution of nature development plans: A multilevel approach

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 141-157

  Van Den Berg, Agnes E ^b   Vlek, Charles A J ^b   Coeterier, J Frederick ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040086759     PISSN: 02724944     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1998.0080     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Abello R. P., Bernaldez F. G. Landscape preference and personality. Landscape and Urban Planning. 13:1986;19-28.
2. Bal D., Beije H. M., Hoogeveen Y. R., Jansen S. R. J., van der Reest P. J. Handboek natuurdoeltypen in Nederland. 1996;IKC Natuurbeheer (with English summary), Wageningen.
3. Balling J. D., Falk J. H. Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior. 14:1982;5-28.
4. Bourassa S. C. Toward a theory of landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning. 15:1988;241-252.
5. Bourassa S. C. A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and Behavior. 22:1990;787-812.
6. Bryk A. S., Raudenbush S. W. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis. 1992;Sage Publications, London.
7. Coeterier J. F. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning. 34:1996;27-44.
8. Daniel T. C. Measuring the quality of the natural environment: A psychophysical approach. American psychologist. 45:1990;633-637.
9. Daniel, T. C. Boster, R. C. 1976, Measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method, 167, Fort Collins, Colorado, USDA Forest Service.
10. Dearden P. Landscape evaluation: the case for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Environmental Management. 13:1981;95-105.
11. Dearden P. Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation. Landscape Planning. 11:1984;293-306.
12. Dearden P. Consensus and a theoretical framework for landscape evaluation. Journal of Environmental Management. 34:1987;267-278.
13. DeLucio J. V., Mugica M. Landscape preferences and behaviour of visitors to Spanish national parks. Landscape and Urban Planning. 29:1994;145-160.
14. Fenton D. M. Dimensions of meaning in the perception of natural settings and their relationship to aesthetic response. Australian Journal of psychology. 37:1985;325-339.
15. Gallagher, T. J. 1977, Visual preference for alternative natural landscapes.
16. González-Bernaldez, F. Parra, F. 1979, Dimensions of landscape preferences from pairwise comparisons, Our National Landscape, PSW-35, Berkeley, California, USDA Forest Service.
17. Hartig T. Nature experience in transactional perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning. 25:1993;17-36.
18. Hartig T., Evans G. W. psychological foundations of nature experience. Gärling T., Golledge R. G. Behavior and Environment: psychological and Geographical Approaches. 1993;Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.
19. Hartig T., Mang M., Evans G. W. Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behaviour. 23:1991;3-26.
20. Herzog T. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental psychology. 9:1989;27-43.
21. Hodgson R. W., Thayer R. L. Implied human influence reduces landscape beauty. Landscape Planning. 7:1980;171-179.
22. Hull R. B., Bishop I. D. Scenic impacts of electricity transmission towers: the influence of landscape type and observer distance. Journal of Environmental Management. 27:1988;99-108.
23. Hull R. B., Stewart W. P. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental psychology. 12:1992;101-114.
24. Johnson A. The good, the bad and the ugly: Science, aesthetics and environmental assessment. Biodiversity and Conservation. 4:1995;758-766.
25. Jongman R. H. G. Nature conservation planning in Europe: developing ecological networks. Landscape and Urban Planning. 32:1995;169-183.
26. Kaplan R. The role of nature in the urban context. Altman I., Wohlwill J. F. Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. 1983;127-161 Plenum Press, New York.
27. Kaplan S. Aesthetics, affect and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior. 19:1987;3-32.
28. Kaplan R., Herbert E. J. Cultural and subcultural comparisons in preference for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning. 14:1987;281-293.
29. Kaplan S., Kaplan R. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. 1982;Praeger, New York.
30. Kaplan S., Kaplan R. The Experience of Nature: a psychological Perspective. 1989;Cambridge University Press, New York.
31. Kaplan S., Talbot J. F. psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. Altman I., Wohlwill J. F. Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. 1983;163-203 Plenum Press, New York.
32. Kaplan S., Kaplan R., Wendt J. S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and psychophysics. 12:1972;354-356.
33. Lamb R. J., Purcell A. T. Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landscape and Urban Planning. 19:1990;333-352.
34. Levine D. W. True scores, error, reliability and unit of analysis in environment and behavior research. Environment and Behavior. 26:1994;261-293.
35. Levine D. W. Why choose one level of analysis? And other issues in multilevel research. Environment and Behavior. 28:1996;237-255.
36. Lyons E. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior. 15:1983;487-511.
37. Macia, A. 1979, Visual perception of landscape: sex and personality differences, G. H. ElsnerR. C. Smardon, Our National Landscape, PSW-35, Berkeley, California, USDA Forest Service.
38. Parsons R. Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: conundrum, canärd or curiosity. Landscape and Urban Planning. 32:1995;227-244.
39. Porter, M. V. 1987, The role of spatial quality and familiarity in determining countryside landscape preferences.
40. Ruiz M., Ruiz J. P. Landscape perception and technological change in the central mountains of Spain. Landscape and Urban Planning. 18:1989;1-15.
41. Samuelson W., Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1:1988;7-59.
42. Sell J. L., Zube E. H. Perception of and response to environmental change. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 3:1986;33-54.
43. Sheets V. L., Manzer C. D. Affect, cognition and urban vegetation. Environment and Behavior. 3:1991;285-304.
44. Smardon R. C. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning. 15:1988;85-106.
45. Ulrich S. R. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Research. 4:1979;17-23.
46. Ulrich S. R. Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior. 13:1981;523-556.
47. Ulrich S. R. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Altman I., Wohlwill J. F. Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. 1983;85-125 Plenum Press, New York.
48. Ulrich S. R. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 13:1986;29-44.
49. Ulrich S. R., Simons R. F., Losito B. D., Fiorito E., Miles M. A., Zelson M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental psychology. 11:1991;201-230.
50. Ulrich S. R. Biophilia, biophobia and natural landscapes. Kellert , S. R., Wilson E. O. The Biophilia Hypothesis. 1993;Island Press, Washington, DC.
51. van den Berg, A. E. de Vries, D. H. Vlek, C. A. J. 1998.
52. Wellman J. D., Buyhoff G. J. Effects of regional familiarity on landscape preferences. Journal of Environmental Management. 11:1980;105-110.
53. Willis K. G., Garrod G. D. Assessing the value of future landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 23:1992;17-32.
54. Woodhouse G. A Guide to MLn for New Users. 1995;University of LondonInstitute of Education, London.
55. Zube E. H. Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landscape Ecology. 1:1987;37-45.
56. Zube E. H., Pitt D. G., Anderson T. W. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. Zube E. H., Brush R. O., Fabos J. G. Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources. 1975;Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Stroudsburg.