Advertisement

Environmental Perception and Cognition in Rural Contexts

  • Nickolaus R. Feimer

Abstract

The emergence of environmental psychology over the last fifteen years has revitalized an interest in the analysis of the larger ecological context in connection with human behavior. In that time many avenues have been explored, but none has been more fervently pursued than that of environmental perception and cognition. The popularity, and perhaps centrality, of this substantive domain is easily explained. As Ittelson (1973b) has observed, the study of perceptual-cognitive processes has been considered central to an understanding of behavior since psychology’s inception, for it is through those processes that we come to know and comprehend our surroundings. Furthermore, it is upon that comprehension that behavioral adaptation is predicated. Inasmuch as a rural psychology is concerned with a comprehensive understanding of behavior in a specific environmental context, an examination of the manner in which individuals respond to it via their cognitive-perceptual capacities is of clear interest.

Keywords

Natural Hazard Spatial Cognition Scenic Beauty Landscape Preference Path Pattern 
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. Acredolo, L. P. Frames of reference used by children for orientation in unfamiliar spaces. In G. T. Moore & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental knowing: Theories, research, and methods. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 197Google Scholar
  2. Acredolo, L. P., Pick, H. L., & Olsen, M. Environmental differentiation and familiarity as determinants of children’s memory for spatial location. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 495–501.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, G., Siegel, A., & Rosinski, R. The role of perceptual context in structuring spatial knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1978, 4, 617–630.Google Scholar
  4. Appleyard, D. A. Styles and methods of structuring city. Environment and Behavior, 1970, 2, 100–116.Google Scholar
  5. Appleyard, D. A. Planning a pluralistic city. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Arthur, L. M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: Some empirical tests. Forest Science, 1977, 23, 151–160.Google Scholar
  7. Arthur, L. M., Daniel, T. C, & Boster, R. S. Scenic assessment: An overview. Landscape Planning, 1977, 4, 109–129.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, E. J., & Patton, D. J. Attitudes toward hurricane hazard on the Gulf Coast. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  9. Baumann, D. D., & Sims, J. H. Human response to the hurricane. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  10. Berlyne, D. E. The new experimental aesthetics. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. New York: Wiley, 1974.Google Scholar
  11. Bernaldez, F. G., & Parra, F. Dimensions of landscape preferences from pair-wise comparisons. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of The Visual Resource. Berkeley, Calif.: USDA Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-35, 1979, 256–262.Google Scholar
  12. Briggs, D. J., & France, J. Landscape evaluation: A comparative study. Journal of Environmental Management, 1980, 10, 263–275.Google Scholar
  13. Brush, R. O. Perceived quality of scenic and recreational environments: Some methodological issues. In K. H. Craik & E. H. Zube (Eds.), Perceiving environmental quality: Research and applications. New York: Plenum Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. Brush, R. O. The attractiveness of Woodlands: Perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts. Forest Science, 1979, 25, 495–506.Google Scholar
  15. Brush, R. O., & Palmer, J. F. Measuring the impact of urbanization on scenic quality: Land use change in the northeast. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of The Visual Resource. Berkeley, Calif.: USDA Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-35, 1979, 358–364.Google Scholar
  16. Brush, R. O., & Shafer, E. L., Jr. Application of a landscape-preference model to land management. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, & J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1975.Google Scholar
  17. Buhyoff, G. J., & Leuschner, W. A. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. Forest Science, 1978, 24, 424–432.Google Scholar
  18. Buhyoff, G. J., & Riesenman, M. F. Manipulation of dimensionality in landscape preference judgments: A quantitative validation. Leisure Sciences, 1979, 2, 221–238.Google Scholar
  19. Buhyoff, G. J., & Wellman, J. D. Seasonality bias in landscape preference research. Leisure Sciences, 1979, 2, 181–190.Google Scholar
  20. Buhyoff, G. J., & Wellman, J. D. The specification of a non-linear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions. Journal of Leisure Research, 1980, 12, 257–272.Google Scholar
  21. Buhyoff, G. J., Wellman, J. D., Harvey, H., & Fraser, R. A. Landscape architects’ interpretations of people’s landscape preferences. Journal of Environmental Management, 1978, 6, 255–262.Google Scholar
  22. Buhyoff, G. J., Leuschner, W. A., & Wellman, J. D. Aesthetic impacts of southern pine beetle damage. Journal of Environmental Management, 1979, 8, 261–267.Google Scholar
  23. Buhyoff, G. J., Leuschner, W. A., & Arndt, L. K. The replication of a scenic preference function. Forest Science, 1980, 26, 227–230.Google Scholar
  24. Burton, I. Cultural and personality variables in the perception of natural hazards. In J. F. Wohlwill & D. H. Carson (Eds.), Environment and the Social sciences: Perspectives and applications. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1972.Google Scholar
  25. Burton, I., & Kates, R. W. The floodplain and the seashore. Geographical Review, 1964, 54, 366–385. (a)Google Scholar
  26. Burton, I., & Kates, R. W. The perception of natural hazards in resource management. Natural Resources Journal, 1964, 3, 412–441. (b)Google Scholar
  27. Burton, I., Kates, R. W., & White, G. F. The human ecology of extreme geophysical events. Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of Geography, Working Research Paper No. 1, 1968.Google Scholar
  28. Burton, I., Kates, R. W., & Snead, R. E. The human ecology of coastal flood hazard in megalopolis. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 115, 1969.Google Scholar
  29. Burton, I., Kates, R. W., & White, G. F. The environment as hazard. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  30. Canter, D., & Stringer, P. Environmental interaction. New York: International Universities Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  31. Carls, E. G. The effects of people and man-induced conditions on preferences for outdoor recreation landscapes, journal of Leisure Research, 1974, 6, 113–124.Google Scholar
  32. Craik, K. H. The comprehension of the everyday physical environment. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1968, 34, 29–37.Google Scholar
  33. Craik, K. H. Human responsiveness to landscape: An environmental psychological perspective. In K. Coates & K. Moffett (Eds.), Response to environment. (Student Publication of the School of Design 18). Raleigh: North Carolina University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  34. Craik, K. H. Environmental psychology. In K. H. Craik, B. Kleinmuntz, R. L. Rosnow, R. Rosenthal, J. A. Cheyne, & R. H. Walters, New directions in psychology (Vol. 4). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.Google Scholar
  35. Craik, K. H. The assessment of places. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment (Vol. 2). Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior Books, 1971.Google Scholar
  36. Craik, K. H. Appraising the objectivity of landscape dimensions. In J. V. Krutilla (Ed.), Natural environments: Studies in theoretical and applied analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972. (a)Google Scholar
  37. Craik, K. H. Psychological factors in landscape appraisal. Environment and Behavior, 1972, 4, 255–266. (b)Google Scholar
  38. Craik, K. H. Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 1973, 24, 403–422.Google Scholar
  39. Craik, K. H. Individual variations in landscape description. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, & J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1975.Google Scholar
  40. Craik, K. H., & Feimer, N. R. Setting technical standards for visual assessment procedures. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of The Visual Resource. Berkeley, Calif.: USDA Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-35, 1979, 93–100.Google Scholar
  41. Craik, K. H., & Zube, E. H. (Eds.). Perceiving environmental quality: Research and applications. New York: Plenum Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  42. Crystal, J. H., & Brush, R. O. Measuring scenic quality of the urban fringe. Landscape Research, 1978, 3, 9–11; 14.Google Scholar
  43. Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. Forest Service Research Paper RM-167, Ft. Collins, Colo.: USDA Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1976.Google Scholar
  44. de Jonge, D. Images of urban areas: Their structure and psychological foundations. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1962, 28, 266–276.Google Scholar
  45. Devlin, A. S. The“small town” cognitive map: Adjusting to a new environment. In G. T. Moore & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental knowing: Theories, research, and methods. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1976.Google Scholar
  46. Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. Cognitive maps and spatial behavior: Process and products. In R. M. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Chicago: Aldine, 1973. (a)Google Scholar
  47. Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (Eds.). Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Chicago: Aldine, 1973. (b)Google Scholar
  48. Dupree, H., & Roder, W. Coping with drought in a preindustrial, preliterate farming society. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  49. Echelberger, H. E. The semantic differential in landscape research. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of The Visual Resource. Berkeley, Calif.: USDA Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-35, 1979, 524–531.Google Scholar
  50. Edwards, W. Conservatism in human information processing. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Formal representation of human judgment. New York: Wiley, 1968.Google Scholar
  51. Evans, G. W. Environmental cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 88, 259–287.Google Scholar
  52. Evans, G. W., Marrero, D., & Butler, P. Environmental learning and cognitive mapping. Environment and Behavior, 1981, 13, 83–104.Google Scholar
  53. Falk, W. W., & Pinhey, T. K. Making sense of the concept rural and doing rural sociology: An interpretive perspective. Rural Sociology, 1978, 43, 547–558.Google Scholar
  54. Feimer, N. R. Personality and environmental perception: Alternative predictive systems and implications for evaluative judgments (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1980, 41. (University Microfilms No. 8014673)Google Scholar
  55. Feimer, N. R., Smardon, R. C., & Craik, K. H. Evaluating the effectiveness of observer based visual resource and impact assessment methods. Landscape Research, 1981, 6, 12–16.Google Scholar
  56. Flavell, J. H. The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1963.Google Scholar
  57. Francescato, D., & Mebane, W. How citizens view two great cities: Milan and Rome. In R. M. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Chicago: Aldine, 1973.Google Scholar
  58. Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language. New York: Funk & Wagnails, 1963.Google Scholar
  59. Golant, S., & Burton, I. The meaning of a hazard-application of the semantic differential. Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of Geography, Working Research Paper No. 7, 1969.Google Scholar
  60. Gulick, J. Images of an Arab city. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1963, 29, 179–197.Google Scholar
  61. Hammitt, W. E. Measuring familiarity for natural environments through visual images. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of The Visual Resource. Berkeley, Calif.: USDA Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-35, 1979, 217–226.Google Scholar
  62. Harding, D. M., & Parker, D. J. Flood hazard at Shrewsbury, United Kingdom. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  63. Hart, R. A., & Moore, G. T. The development of spatial cognition: A review. In R. M. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Chicago: Aldine, 1973.Google Scholar
  64. Heathcote, R. L. Drought in South Australia. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  65. Heft, H. The role of environmental features in route learning: Two exploratory studies of way-finding. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 1979, 3, 172–185.Google Scholar
  66. Heijnen, J., & Kates, R. W. Northeast Tanzania: Comparative observations along a moisture gradient. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  67. Heimstra, N. W., & McFarling, L. H. Environmental psychology (2nd ed.). Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1978.Google Scholar
  68. Hewitt, K., & Burton, I. The hazardousness of a place: A regional ecology of damaging events. Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 6, 1971.Google Scholar
  69. Horton, F., & Reynolds, D. Effects of urban spatial structure on individual behavior. Economic Geography, 1971, 47, 36–48.Google Scholar
  70. Islam, M. A. Tropical cyclones: Coastal Bangladesh. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  71. Ittelson, W. H. (Ed.). Environment and cognition. New York: Seminar Press, 1973. (a)Google Scholar
  72. Ittelson, W. H. Environment perception and contemporary perceptual theory. In W. H. Ittelson (Ed.), Environment and cognition. New York: Seminar Press, 1973. (b)Google Scholar
  73. Ittelson, W. H., Proshansky, H. M., Rivlin, L. G., & Winkel, G. H. An introduction to environmental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1974.Google Scholar
  74. Jackson, R. H. Frost hazard to tree crops in the Wasatch Front: Perception and adjustments. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  75. Jackson, R. H., Hudman, L. E., & England, J. L. Assessment of the environmental impact of high voltage power transmission lines. Journal of Environmental Management, 1978, 6, 153–170.Google Scholar
  76. Jones, G., Jones, I., Gray, B. A., Parker, B., Coe, J. C., Burnham, J. B., & Geitner, N. M. A method for the quantification of aesthetic values for environmental decison making. Nuclear Technology, 1975, 25, 682–713.Google Scholar
  77. Kameron, J. Experimental studies of environment perception. In W. H. Ittelson (Ed.), Environment and cognition. New York: Seminar Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  78. Kaplan, R. Predictors of environmental preference: Designers and clients. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental design research. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1973.Google Scholar
  79. Kaplan, R. Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, & J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1975.Google Scholar
  80. Kaplan, R. Way-finding in the natural environment. In G. T. Moore & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental knowing: Theories, research, and methods. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1976.Google Scholar
  81. Kaplan, R. Preference and everyday nature: Method and application. In D. Stokols (Ed.), Perspectives on environment and behavior: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Plenum Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  82. Kaplan, S. Cognitive maps in perception and thought. In R. M. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Chicago: Aldine, 1973.Google Scholar
  83. Kaplan, S. Adaptation, structure, and knowledge. In G. T. Moore & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental knowing: Theories, research, and methods. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1976.Google Scholar
  84. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. Rated preference and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 1972, 12, 354–356.Google Scholar
  85. Kates, R. W. Hazard and choice perception in flood plain management. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 78, 1962.Google Scholar
  86. Kates, R. W. Perceptual regions and regional perception in flood plain management. Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, 1963, 11, 217–228.Google Scholar
  87. Kates, R. W. The perception of storm hazard on the shores of megalopolis. In D. Lowenthal (Ed.), Environmental perception and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 109, 1967.Google Scholar
  88. Kates, R. W. Experiencing the environment as hazard. In S. Wapner, S. B. Cohen, & B. Kaplan (Eds.), Experiencing the environment. New York: Plenum Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  89. Kirkby, A. V. Individual and community response to rainfall variability in Oaxaca, Mexico. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  90. Knopf, R. C. Cognitive map formation as a tool for facilitating information transfer in interpretive programming. Paper presented at The Second Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, San Francisco, November 1979.Google Scholar
  91. Ladd, F. Black youths view their environment: Neighborhood maps. Environment and Behavior, 1970, 2, 74–99.Google Scholar
  92. Langer, J. Theories of development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.Google Scholar
  93. Laurendeau, M., & Pinard, A. The development of the concept of space in the child. New York: International Universities Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  94. Lee, T. R. Psychology and living space. In R. M. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Chicago: Aldine, 1973.Google Scholar
  95. Leff, H. L., Gordon, L. R., & Ferguson, J. G. Cognitive set and environmental awareness. Environment and Behavior, 1974, 6, 395–447.Google Scholar
  96. Leopold, L. B. Quantitative comparison of some aesthetic factors among rivers. Geological Survey Circular 620, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 1969.Google Scholar
  97. Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. Human information processing: An introduction to psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  98. Lynch, K. The image of the city. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  99. Maria, A. Visual perception of landscape: Sex and personality differences. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of The Visual Resource. Berkeley, Calif.: USDA Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-35, 1979, 279–285.Google Scholar
  100. Magana, J. R. An empirical and interdisciplinary test of a theory of urban perception (Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Irvine, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1978, 39, 1460B. (University Microfilms No. 78-15, 840)Google Scholar
  101. Milgram, S., Greenwald, J., Kessler, S., McKenna, W., & Waters, J. A psychological map of New York City. American Scientist, 1972, 60, 194–200.Google Scholar
  102. Milgram, S., & Jodelet, D. Psychological maps of Paris. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology: People and their physical settings (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976.Google Scholar
  103. Miller, D. J., Brinkmann, W. A. R., & Barry, R. G. Windstorms: A case study of wind hazard for Boulder, Colorado. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  104. Moline, N. T. Perception research and local planning: Floods on the Rock River, Illinois. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  105. Moon, K. D. The perception of the hazardousness of a place: A comparative study of five natural hazards in London, Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto, Unpublished master’s research paper, 1971.Google Scholar
  106. Moore, G. T. Theory and research on the development of environmental knowing. In G. T. Moore & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental knowing: Theories, research, and methods. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1976.Google Scholar
  107. Moore, G. T. Knowing about environmental knowing: The current state of theory and research on environmental cognition. Environment and Behavior, 1979, 11, 33–70.Google Scholar
  108. Moore, G. T., & Golledge, R. G. Environmental knowing: Concepts and theories. In G. T. Moore & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental knowing: Theories, research, and methods. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1976. (a)Google Scholar
  109. Moore, G. T., & Golledge, R. G. (Eds.). Environmental knowing: Theories, research, and methods. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinston, & Ross, 1976. (b)Google Scholar
  110. Nassauer, J. Managing for naturalness in wildland agricultural landscapes. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of The Visual Resource. Berkeley, Calif.: USDA Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-35, 1979, 447–453.Google Scholar
  111. Neisser, U. Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.Google Scholar
  112. Neisser, U. Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1976.Google Scholar
  113. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. Human problem solving. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
  114. Norman, D. A. Memory and attention: An introduction to human information processing (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley, 1976.Google Scholar
  115. Norman, D. K. A comparison of children’s spatial reasoning: Rural Appalachia, suburban and urban New England. Child Development, 1980, 51, 288–291.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Orleans, P. Differential cognition of urban residents: Effects of social scale on mapping. In R. M. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Chicago: Aldine, 1973.Google Scholar
  117. Page, H. W. Concepts of length and distance in a study of Zulu youths. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 9–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. The Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. 8). London: Oxford University Press, 1970 (1933).Google Scholar
  119. Patey, R. C, & Evans, R. M. Identification of scenically preferred forest landscapes. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of The Visual Resource. Berkeley, Calif.: USDA Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-35, 1979, 532–538.Google Scholar
  120. Pedersen, D.M. Relationship between environmental familiarity and environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1978, 47, 739–743.Google Scholar
  121. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. The child’s conception of space. New York: Norton, 1967.Google Scholar
  122. Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Szeminska, A. The child’s conception of geometry. New York: Basic Books, 1960.Google Scholar
  123. Pitt, D. G., & Zube, E. H. The Q-Sort method: Use in landscape assessment research and landscape planning. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of The Visual Resource. Berkeley, Calif.: USDA Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-35, 1979, 227–234.Google Scholar
  124. Probst, D. B., & Buhyoff, G. J. Policy capturing and landscape preference quantification: A methodological study. Journal of Environmental Management, 1980, 11, 45–59.Google Scholar
  125. Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H., & Rivlin, L. G. Environment perception and cognition. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology: People and their physical settings (2nd ed.). Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976.Google Scholar
  126. Ramachandran, R., & Thakur, S. C. India and the Ganga flood plains. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  127. Rowntree, R. A. Coastal erosion: The meaning of a natural hazard in the cultural and ecological context. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  128. Saarinen, T. F. Perceptions of the drought hazard on the great plains. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 106, 1966.Google Scholar
  129. Saarinen, T. F. Environmental planning: Perception and behavior. Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin, 1976.Google Scholar
  130. Schomaker, J. H. Measurement of preferences for proposed landscape modifications. Landscape Research, 1978, 3, 5–8.Google Scholar
  131. Schroeder, H. W., & Daniel, T. C. Predicting scenic quality of forest road corridors. Environment and Behavior, 1980, 12, 349–366.Google Scholar
  132. Shafer, E. L., Jr., & Richards, T. A. A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-302, Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, Pa., 1974.Google Scholar
  133. Shafer, E. L., Jr., & Rutherford, W. Selection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands. Journal of Forestry, 1969, 67, 415–419.Google Scholar
  134. Shafer, E. L., Jr., & Tooby, M. Landscape preference: An international replication. Journal of Leisure Research, 1973, 5, 60–65.Google Scholar
  135. Shafer, E. L., Jr., Hamilton, J. F., Jr., & Schmidt, E. A. Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research, 1969, 1, 1–19.Google Scholar
  136. Siegel, A. W., & Schadler, M. Young children’s cognitive maps of their classroom. Child Development, 1977, 48, 388–394.Google Scholar
  137. Siegel, A. W., & White, S. H. The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  138. Siegel, A. W., Kirasic, K. C, & Kail, R. V., Jr. The development of children’s representations of geographic space. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 3). New York: Plenum Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  139. Sims, J. H., & Baumann, D. D. The tornado threat: Coping styles of the north and south. Science, 1972, 176, 1386–1392.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. Sims, J. H., & Saarinen, T. F. Coping with environmental threat: Great Plains farmers and the sudden storm. American Association of Geographers Annals, 1969, 59, 677–686.Google Scholar
  141. Slovic, P., Kunreuther, H., & White, G. F. Decision processes, rationality, and adjustment to natural hazards. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  142. Slovic, P., Fischoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 1977, 28, 1–39.Google Scholar
  143. Stea, D. Program notes on a spatial fugue. In G. T. Moore & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental knowing: Theories, research, and methods. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1976.Google Scholar
  144. Stea, D., & Blaut, J. M. Notes toward a developmental theory of spatial learning. In R. M. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior, Chicago: Aldine, 1973.Google Scholar
  145. Stephenson, W. The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.Google Scholar
  146. Stokols, D. Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 1978, 29, 253–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. Stoltman, J. P. Children’s conception of territory: A study of Piaget’s spatial stages (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 32, 5623A. (University Microfilms No. 72-11, 047)Google Scholar
  148. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 1974, 185, 1124–1131.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. Wapner, S., & Werner, H. Perceptual development. Worcester, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  150. Ward, R. M. Decisions by Florida citrus growers and adjustments to freeze hazards. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  151. Wellman, J. D., & Buhyoff, G. J. Effects of regional familiarity on landscape preferences. Journal of Environmental Management, 1980, 11, 105–110.Google Scholar
  152. Werner, H. The concept of development from a comparative and organismic point of view. In D. B. Harris (Ed.), The concept of development. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  153. White, G. F. Choice of adjustment to floods. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 93, 1964.Google Scholar
  154. White, G. F. (Ed.). Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  155. White, G. F., & Haas, J. E. Assessment of research on natural hazards. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  156. Wohlwill, J. F. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 1968, 4, 307–312.Google Scholar
  157. Wohlwill, J. F. Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  158. Wohlwill, J. F., & Harris, G. Response to congruity or contrast for man-made features in natural-recreation settings. Leisure Sciences, 1980, 3, 349–365.Google Scholar
  159. Zube, E. H. Rating everyday rural landscapes of the northeastern U.S. Landscape Architecture, 1973, 63, 370–375.Google Scholar
  160. Zube, E. H. Cross disciplinary and intermode agreement on the description and evaluation of landscape resources. Environment and Behavior, 1974, 6, 69–89.Google Scholar
  161. Zube, E. H. Perception of landscape and land use. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  162. Zube, E. H. Environmental evaluation: Perception and public policy. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/ Cole, 1980.Google Scholar
  163. Zube, E. H., Brush, R. O., & Fabos, J. G. (Eds.). Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1975.Google Scholar
  164. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., & Anderson, T. W. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the Northeast. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, & J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessjnent: Values, perceptions, and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nickolaus R. Feimer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations