Mystery and preference in within-forest settings

Environment and Behavior

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 779-796

  Herzog, Thomas R ^a   Bryce, Anna G ^a  

^a GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Danger; Mystery; Preference; Visual access

Indexed keywords

FACTOR ANALYSIS; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR;

EID: 35548946647     PISSN: 00139165     EISSN: 1552390X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013916506298796     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Balling, J.D., & Falk, J.H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5-28.
2. Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Colville, WA: Optimal Books.
3. Gimblett, H.R., Itami, R.M., & Fitzgibbons, J.E. (1985). Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal, 4(2), 87-95.
4. Hammitt, W.E. (1980). Designing mystery into landscape-trail experiences. Journal of Interpretation, 5(1), 16-19.
5. Heft, H., & Nasar, J.L. (2000). Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment and Behavior, 32, 301-322.
6. Hershberger, R.G., & Cass, R.C. (1973). The adequacy of various media as representations of the designed environment. Man-Environment Systems, 3, 371-372.
7. Herzog, T.R., Herbert, E.J., Kaplan, R., & Crooks, C.L. (2000). Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environment and Behavior, 32, 323-346.
8. Herzog, T.R., & Kirk, K.M. (2005). Pathway curvature and border visibility as predictors of preference and danger in forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 37, 620-639.
9. Herzog, T.R., & Kropscott, L.S. (2004). Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior, 36, 659-677.
10. Herzog, T.R., & Kutzli, G.E. (2002). Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 34, 858-874.
11. Herzog, T.R., & Leverich, O.L. (2003). Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior, 35, 459-477.
12. Herzog, T.R., & Miller, E.J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 429-449.
13. Hull, R.B. Iv,, & Stewart, W.P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 101-114.
14. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R.L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
16. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.
17. Kuo, F.E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W.C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 28-59.
18. Nasar, J.L., & Jones, K.M. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior, 29, 291-323.
19. Ruddell, E.J., Gramann, J.H., Rudis, V.A., & Westphal, J.M. (1989). The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behavior, 21, 393-412.
20. Scott, M.J., & Canter, D.V. (1997). Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 263-281.
21. Stamps, A.E., III. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility, and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1-16.
22. Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G., & Evans, G.W. (1983). A lifespan developmental study of landscape assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 115-128.
23. Zube, E.H., Simcox, D.E., & C.S. (1987). Perceptual landscape simulations: History and prospect. Landscape Journal, 6(1), 62-80.