Examining the Visual Effects of Plant Foliation and Vegetative Winter Dormancy on Preference and Mystery

REFERENCES

1. 1. Appleton Jay

   . 1975. The Experience of Landscape. London: Wiley.
2. 1. Benedikt Michael L

   . 1979. To take hold of space: Isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 6: 47–65.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
3. 1. Benson Robert E.,
   2. Ullrich James R.

   1981. Visual impacts of forest management activities: Findings on public preferences. Forestry, Paper 30. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper INT-262.Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
4. 1. Beute Femke,
   2. de Kort Yvonne A. W.

   2013. Let the sun shine: Measuring explicit and implicit preference for environments differing in naturalness, weather type, and brightness. Journal of Environmental Psychology 36: 162–178.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
5. 1. Brown Thomas C.,
   2. Daniel Terry C

   . 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and application to Ponderosa Pine. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. U.S. Forest Research Paper RM-256. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
6. 1. Buhyoff Gregory J.,
   2. Douglas Wellman J.,
   3. Harvey H.,
   4. Fraser R. A.

   1978. Landscape architects’ interpretations of people’s landscape preferences. Journal of Environmental Management 6(3): 255–262.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
7. 1. Daniel Terry C.,
   2. Boster Ron S.

   1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. U. S. Forest Research Paper RM-167. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
8. 1. Daniel Terry C.,
   2. Vining Joanne

   1983. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In Behavior and the Natural Environment, ed. Altman Irwin, Wohlwill Joachim F., 29–83. New York: Plenum.
9. 1. Gimblett H. Randy,
   2. Itami Robert M.,
   3. Fitzgibbon John E.

   1985. Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal 4(2): 87–95.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
10. 1. Grissom Robert J.

    1994. Probability of the superior outcome of one treatment over another. Journal of Applied Psychology 79(2): 314–316.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
11. 1. Hagerhall Caroline M.

    2000. Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: Prospect-refuge, mystery, age, and management. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20(1): 83–90.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
12. 1. Hall Frederick C

    . 2001. Ground-based photographic monitoring. Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-503. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
13. 1. Herzog Thomas R.,
    2. Barnes Gregory J.

    1999. Tranquility and preference revisited. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19(2): 171–181.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
14. 1. Herzog Thomas R.,
    2. Bosley Patrick J.

    1992. Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12(2): 115–127.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
15. 1. Herzog Thomas R.,
    2. Bryce Anna G.

    2007. Mystery and preference in within-forest settings. Environment and Behavior 39(6): 779–796.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
16. 1. Herzog Thomas R.,
    2. Kaplan Stephen,
    3. Kaplan Rachel

    . 1982. The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment 5(1): 43–59.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
17. 1. Herzog Thomas R.,
    2. Kropscott Laura S.

    2004. Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior 36(5): 659–677.

    OpenUrlAbstract
18. 1. Herzog Thomas R.,
    2. Kutzli,
    3. Glenn E

    . 2002. Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior 34(6): 819–835.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
19. 1. Herzog Thomas R.,
    2. Miller Edward J.

    1998. The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior 30(4): 429–449.

    OpenUrlAbstract
20. 1. Kaplan Rachel,
    2. Kaplan Stephen

    1989. The Experience of Nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. 1. Kaplan Rachel,
    2. Kaplan Stephen,
    3. Ryan Robert L

    . 1998. With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
22. 1. Kaplan Stephen.

    1972. The challenge of environmental psychology: A proposal for a new functionalism. American Psychologist 27(2): 140–143.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 1. Kaplan Stephen

    . 1975. An Informal Model for the Prediction of Preference. In Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources. ed. Zube Ervin H., Brush Robert O., Fabos Julius Gy., 92–101. Stroudsberg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.
24. 1. Kuper Rob.

    2013. Here and gone: The visual effects of seasonal changes in plant and vegetative characteristics on landscape preference criteria. Landscape Journal 32(1): 65–78.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
25. 1. Lynch James A.,
    2. Gimblett Randy H.

    1992. Perceptual values in the cultural landscape: A computer model for assessing and mapping perceived mystery in rural environments. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 16(5): 453–471.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
26. 1. Palmer James F

    . 1990. Aesthetics of the northeastern forest: The influence of season and time since harvest. In Proceedings of the 1990 Northeastern Recreation Researchers Symposium, ed. More Thomas, Donnelly Maureen P., Graefe David A., Vaske Jerry J., General Technical Report NE-145, 185–190. Radnor, PA, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.
27. 1. Palmer James F.,
    2. Sena Kristen D

    . 1993. Seasonal scenic value and forest structure in northeastern hardwood stands. In Proceedings of the 1992 Northeastern Recreation Researchers Symposium, ed. Vander Stoep Gail A., General Technical Report, NE-176, 115–121. Radnor, PA, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.
28. 1. Sonnenfeld Joseph.

    1969. Equivalence and distortion of the perceptual environment. Environment and Behavior 1(1): 83–99.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
29. 1. Stamps Arthur E. III.

    2004. Mystery, complexity, legibility, and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(1): 1–16.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
30. 1. Stamps Arthur E. III.

    2005. Isovists, enclosure, and permeability theory. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32(5): 735–762.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
31. 1. Stamps Arthur E. III.

    2007. Mystery of environmental mystery: Effects of light, occlusion and depth of view. Environment and Behavior 39(2): 165–197.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
32. 1. Thayer Robert L.,
    2. Atwood Brian G.

    1978. Plants, complexity, and pleasure in urban and suburban environments. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior 3(2): 67–76.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
33. 1. Turner Alasdair,
    2. Doxa Maria,
    3. O’Sullivan David,
    4. Penn Alan

    2001. From isovists to visibility graphs: A methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 28:103–121.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
34. 1. Ulrich Roger S.

    1977. Visual landscape preference: A model and application. Man-Environment Systems 7(5): 279–293.

    OpenUrl
35. 1. Ulrich Roger S.

    1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Research 4(1): 17–23.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
36. 1. Ulrich Roger S.

    1981. Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior 13(5): 523–556.

    OpenUrlAbstract
37. 1. Ulrich Roger S.

    1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224 (4647): 420.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
38. 1. Ulrich Roger S.,
    2. Addoms David L.

    1981. Psychological and recreational benefits of a residential park. Journal of Leisure Research 13(1): 43–65.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
39. 1. Van der Jagt Alexander P.N.,
    2. Craig Tony,
    3. Anable Jillian,
    4. Brewer Mark J.,
    5. Pearson David G.

    2014. Unearthing the picturesque: The validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 124(1): 1–13.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
40. 1. Vining Joanne,
    2. Ebreo Angela

    . 1991. Are you thinking what I think you are? A study of actual and estimated goal priorities and decision preferences of resource managers, environmentalists, and the public. Society and Natural Resources 4(2): 177–196.

    OpenUrlCrossRef