Advertisement

Preference and Everyday Nature: Method and Application

  • Rachel Kaplan

Abstract

In the posters, nature is grand: dramatic waterfalls, craggy mountains, magnificent canyons, lush foliage. Poster places are likely to be remote, spectacular, and extensive. It is reassuring to know that such places exist. Wilderness, in the mind at least, is a Good Place.

Keywords

Preference Rating Ground Moraine Great Lake RegIOnal Route Segment Landscape Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burke, H. D., Lewis, G. H., and Orr, H. R. A method for classifying scenes from a roadway. Park Practice Guideline, 1968 (March), 125–141.Google Scholar
  2. Cerny, J. W. Scenic analysis and assessment. CRC (Chemical Rubber Company) Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, 1974, 4 (2), 221–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Craik, K. H. Psychological factors in landscape appraisal. Environment and Behavior, 1972, 4, 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 281–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. Highway Planning Studies (vol. 4: General findings and applications ). Minneapolis, 1972.Google Scholar
  6. Fabos, J. G. An analysis of environmental quality ranking systems. In Recreation Symposium Proceedings. Upper Darby, Pa.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service. 1971. Pp. 40–55.Google Scholar
  7. Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook Number 462. National Forest Landscape Management (vol. 2, chap. 1: The visual management system). 1974.Google Scholar
  8. Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S., and Kaplan, R. The prediction of preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior,in press.Google Scholar
  9. Kaplan, R. The dimensions of the visual environment: Methodological considerations. In W. J. Mitchell (Ed.), Environmental design: Research and practice. Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association Conference 3, 1972.Google Scholar
  10. Kaplan, R. Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment and Behavior, 1973, 5, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaplan, R. A strategy for dimensional analyses. In D. H. Carson (Ed.), Man–environment interactions: Evaluations and applications (part 9). Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association Conference 5, 1974. Pp. 66–68.Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan, R. Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, and J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. 1975. Pp. 118–129.Google Scholar
  13. Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. Alternative strategies in the study of roadside preference. Unpublished paper, 1973.Google Scholar
  14. Kaplan, S. An informal model for the prediction of preference. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, and J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. 1975. Pp. 92–101.Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, C. A. People—plant interaction: A man—environment relationship. Paper presented at Environmental Design Research Association Conference 5, Milwaukee, Wis., 1974.Google Scholar
  16. Polakowski, K. J. Upper Great Lakes Regional Recreation Planning Study, Part 5: Scenic Highway System. Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission. 1974.Google Scholar
  17. Zube, E. H. Scenery as a natural resource. Landscape Architecture, 1973, 63, 127–132.a)Google Scholar
  18. Zube, E. H. Rating everyday rural landscapes of the Northeastern U.S. Landscape Architecture,1973, 63,371–375. (b)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel Kaplan
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations