Prospect and refuge as the predictors of preferences for seating areas

Scientific Research and Essays

Volumn 5, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 1224-1233

  Mumcu, Sema ^a   Düzenli, Tuǧba ^a   Özbilen, Ali ^a  

^a KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Affordances; Landscape preference; Prospect refuge theory; Seating places

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954411201     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19922248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Aoki Y (1999). Review article: Trends in the Study of the Psychological Evaluation of Landscape. Landsc. Res., 24: 85-94.
2. Appleton J (1975). The Experience of Landscape, John Wiley& Sons Inc., Surrey.
3. Appleton J (1988). Prospects and Refuges Revisited. In: Nasar, J.L. (Ed), Environmental Aesthetics; Theory, Research and Applications, Cambridge University Press, pp. 27-44.
4. Bentley I, Ackok A, Murrain P, Mcgly S, Smith G (1985). Responsive environments: A manual for designers, Architectural Press Ltd., London.
5. Blöbaum A, Hunecke M (2005). Perceived danger in urban public space; the impacts of physical features and personal factors. Environ. Behav., 37: 465-486.
6. Dee C (2001). Form and fabric in landscape architecture: A visual introduction, Spon Press, New York.
7. Fischer BS, Nasar JL (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features; prospect, refuge, and escape. Environ. Behav., 24: 35-65.
8. Fischer MA, Shrout PE (2006). Children's liking of landscape paintings as a function of their Perceptions of Prospect, Refuge, and Hazard. Environ. Behav., 38: 373-393.
9. Galindo P, Hidalgo C (2005). Aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning: Environmental categorization processes in the evaluation of urban scenes. Int. J. Psychol., 40 (1): 19-26.
10. Gehl J (1987). Life between buildings: Using public space, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
11. Gibson JJ (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., London.
12. Gör Ş (1996). Spatial Organization, Gör Matbaacilik. (In Turkish)
13. Hagerhall CM (2000). Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: Prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. J. Environ. Psychol. 20: 83-90.
14. Hagerhall CM (2001). Consensus in landscape preference judgments. J. Environ. Psychol., 21: 83-92.
15. Hammitt WE, Ruddell EJ (1987). Prospect refuge theory: A psychological orientation for edge effect in recreation environments. J. Leis. Res., 19: 249-260.
16. Herzog TR (1988). A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Field-and-Forest Environments. In: Nasar, J.L. (Ed), Environmental Aesthetics; Theory, Research and Applications, Cambridge University Press, pp. 343-356.
17. Herzog TR, Miller EJ (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environ. Behav., 30: 429-449
18. Jakle JA (1987). The Visual elements of Landscape, The University of Massachusetts Press.
19. Jorgensen A, Hitchmough J, Calvert T (2002). Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landsc. Urban Plan. 60:135-150.
20. Kaplan S (1987). Aesthetics, Affect and Cognition: Environmental Preferences from an Evolutionary Perspective. Environ. Behav., 19: 3-32.
21. Kaplan S (1988a). Where Cognition and Affect Meet: A Theoretical Analysis of Preference. In: Nasar JL (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics; Theory, Research, and Applications, Cambridge University Pres, pp. 56-63.
22. Kaplan S (1988b). Perception and Landscape: Conceptions and Misconceptions. In: J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics; Theory, Research, and Applications, Cambridge University Pres, pp. 45-55.
23. Luymes D (1992). An Analysis of Human Use Patterns in Urban Parks: A Cognitive Approach, Master Thesis. The University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
24. Luymes DT, Tamminga K (1995). Integrating public safety and use into planning urban greenways. Landsc. Urban Plann., 33: 391-400.
25. Lynch K (1960). The Image of the City, The MIT Pres.
26. Madanipour A (1999). Why are the design and development of public spaces significant for cities? Environ. Plan. B: Plan. Des., 26: 879-891.
27. Nasar JL (1988). Preface. In: Nasar, J.L. (Ed), Environmental Aesthetics; Theory, Research and Applications, Cambridge University Press, pp xxi-xxvii.
28. Nasar JL, Jones KM (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environ. Behav., 29: 291-323.
29. Nasar JL, Julian D, Buchman S, Humphreys D, Mrohaly M (1988). The Emotional Quality of Scenes and Observation Points: a Look at Prospect and Refuge. In: Nasar JL (Ed), Environmental Aesthetics; Theory, Research and Applications, Cambridge University Press, pp. 357-363.
30. Project for Public Spaces (2000). How to Turn a Place around: A handbook for creating successful public places, Project for Public Spaces Inc., New York.
31. Rourke TA (2006). The Application of Affordance Theory to Explain the Landscape Preferences of Travelers. PhD Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, USA.
32. Ruso B, Renniger LA, Atzwanger K (2003). Human Habitat Preferences: A Generative Territory for Evolutionary Aesthetics Research. In: Eckart Voland, Karl Grammer (eds.), Evolutionary Aesthetics, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 279-294.
33. Stamps AE (2005a). Enclosure and safety in urbanscapes. Environ. Behav., 37:102-133.
34. Stamps AE (2005b). Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety, and enclosure. Environ. Behav. 37: 587-619.
35. Talen E, Coffindaffer M (1999). The Utopianism of Children: an Empirical Study of Children's Neighborhood Design Preferences, J. Plan. Educ. Res., 18: 321-331.
36. Ulrich RS (1983). Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In: Irwin Altman, Joachim F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment, Plenum Press, New York, pp 85-125.
37. Whyte WH (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, Project for Public Places, New York.
38. Woodcock DM (1982). A Functionalist Approach To Environmental Preference. PhD thesis. The University Of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
39. Woodcock DM (1984). A functionalist approach to landscape preference. Landsc. Res., 9: 24-27.