Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 247-255

  Hagerhall, Caroline M ^a,b   Purcell, Terry ^a   Taylor, Richard ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Fractal dimension; Landscape perception; Naturalness; Preference

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442527836     PISSN: 02724944     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Aks, D. J., & Sprott, J. C. (1996). Quantifying aesthetic preference for chaotic patterns. Journal of the Empirical Studies of the Arts, 4, 1-16.
2. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. London: Wiley.
3. Avnir, D., Biham, O., Lidar, D. A., & Malcai, O. (1998). Is the geometry of nature fractal? Science, 279, 39.
4. Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5-328.
5. Barnsley, M. (1993). Fractals everywhere. London: Academic Press.
6. Barnsley, M. F., Devaney, R. L., Mandelbrot, B. B., Peitgen, H. O., Saupe, D., & Voss, R. F. (1988). The science of fractal images. New York: Springer.
7. Barrow, J. D. (2003). Art and science - les liaisons dangereuses. In J. Casti, & A. Karlqvist (Eds.), Art and complexity (pp. 1-20). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
8. Bell, S. (1999). Landscape: Pattern, perception and process. New York: Routledge.
9. Briggs, P. (1992). Fractals: The patterns of chaos. London: Thames and Hudson.
10. Field, D. J., & Brady, N. (1997). Visual sensitivity, blur and the sources of variability in the amplitude spectra of natural scenes. Vision Research, 37(23), 3367-3383.
11. Geake, J., & Landini, G. (1997). Individual differences in the perception of fractal curves. Fractals, 5, 129-143.
12. Gilden, D. L., Schmuckler, M. A., & Clayton, K. (1993). The perception of natural contour. Psychological Review, 100, 460-478.
13. Gouyet, J. F. (1996). Physics and fractal structures. New York: Springer.
14. Hagerhall, C. M. (2000). Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: Prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 83-90 (doi:10.1006/jevp.1999.0150).
15. Hagerhall, C. M. (2001). Consensus in landscape preference judgements. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 83-92 (doi:10.1006/jevp.2000.0186).
16. Heath, T., Smith, S. G., & Lim, B. (2000). Tall buildings and the urban skyline. The effect of visual complexity on preferences. Environment and Behavior, 32(4), 541-556.
17. Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5(3), 225-241.
18. Herzog, T. R. (1987). A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments: Mountains, canyons, and deserts. Landscape Journal, 6(2), 140-152.
19. Jang, J., & Rajala, S. A. (1990). Segmentation Based Image Coding using Fractals and the Human Visual System. ICASSP-90 (IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing), vol 4, pp. 1957-1960, Alberquerque, NM, USA, April 1990.
20. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3-32.
22. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.
23. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12(4), 354-356.
24. Keller, J. M., Chen, S., & Crownover, R. M. (1989). Texture Description and Segmentation through fractal geometry. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 45, 150-166.
25. Keller, J. M., Crownover, R. M., & Chen, R. Y. (1987). Characteristics of natural scenes related to the fractal dimension. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 9(5), 621-627.
26. Knill, D. C., Field, D., & Kersten, D. (1990). Human discrimination of fractal images. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 77, 1113-1123.
27. Mandelbrot, B. B. (1983). The fractal geometry of nature. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
28. Mikhail, E. M., Bethel, J. S., & McGlone, J. C. (2001). Introduction to modern photogrammetry. New York: Wiley.
29. Morse, D. R., Lawton, J. H., Dodson, M. M., & Williamson, M. H. (1985). Fractal dimension of vegetation and the distribution of arthropod body length. Nature, 314, 731-733.
30. 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.
31. Orians, G. H, & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 555-579). New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Pentland, A. (1984). Fractal-based description of natural scenes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 6, 661-674.
33. Peron, E., Purcell, A. T., Staats, H. J., Falchero, S., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Models of preference for outdoor scenes: Some experimental evidence. Environment and Behavior, 30(3), 261-281.
34. Pickover, C. (1995). Keys to infinity. New York: Wiley.
35. Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1984). Landscape perception: An examination and empirical investigation of two central issues in the area. Journal of Environmental Management, 19, 31-63.
36. Purcell, A. T., Lamb, R. J., Mainardi Peron, E., & Falchero, S. (1994). Preference or preference for landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 195-205.
37. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1992). Eye movements and scene perception. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 342-376.
38. Richards, R. (2001). A new aesthetic for environmental awareness: Chaos theory, the beauty of nature, and our broader humanistic view. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(2), 59-95.
39. Rogowitz, B. E., & Voss, R. F. (1990). Shape perception and low dimension fractal boundary contours. In: B. E. Rogowitz, & J. Allenbach (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference on human vision: Methods, models and applications, SPIE/SPSE symposium on electron imaging, Vol. 1249, Santa Clara (pp. 387-394).
40. Spehar, B., Clifford, C. W. G., Newell, B. R., & Taylor, R. P. (2003). Universal aesthetic of fractals. Computers and Graphics, 27, 813-820.
41. Stamps, A. E. (2002). Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 163-184.
42. Taylor, R. (2001). Architects reaches for the clouds. How fractals may figure in our appreciation of a proposed new building. Nature, 410, 18.
43. Taylor, R. P., Newell, B., Spehar, B., & Clifford, C. W. G. (2001). Fractals: A resonance between art and nature? Symmetry: Art and Science, 1, 194-18197.
44. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment, Vol. 6: Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85-125). New York: Plenum Press.
45. 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 Press/Shearwater Books.
46. Wise, J. A., & Leigh Hazzard, T. (2000). Bionomic design. Architech, January (p. 24).
47. Zeki, S. (1999). Inner vision: An exploration of art and the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.