2001
DOI: 10.1177/00139160121972882
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Why do Preferences Differ between Scene Types?

Abstract: Groups of subjects judged one example of two different types of outdoor scene on each of the items of the Perceived Restorative Scale, on two preference scales and a familiarity scale. It was argued that the previously demonstrated large variations in preference between different types of scenes were the result of participants using the restorative value of a scene as an implicit frame of reference for the preference judgment. Preference and the Perceived Restorative Scale score correlated .81, whereas familia… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

29
236
2
15

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 292 publications
(282 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
29
236
2
15
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, the relationship between preference and aspects of well-being is supported by several studies (e.g. Purcell et al 2001;Staats et al 2003;Tenngart Ivarsson and Hagerhall 2008). However, when linking perception of diversity to landscape preference, there is a need to include aspects such as hierarchy, grouping and repetition in order to fully explain the relationship between experienced diversity and landscape preference.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Moreover, the relationship between preference and aspects of well-being is supported by several studies (e.g. Purcell et al 2001;Staats et al 2003;Tenngart Ivarsson and Hagerhall 2008). However, when linking perception of diversity to landscape preference, there is a need to include aspects such as hierarchy, grouping and repetition in order to fully explain the relationship between experienced diversity and landscape preference.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…It allows for a maximum score of 120, where the higher scores indicate a higher perceived level of restorativeness. Cronbach's alpha values for the PRS ranged over many studies from α = .71 to α = .93 (Galindo & Hidalgo, 2005;Korpela & Hartig, 1996;Korpela, Hartig, Kaiser & Fuhrer, 2001;Purcell, Peron & Berto, 2001;Tenngart Ivarsson & Hagerhall, 2008). A review of the scale indicated that two items were not applicable to the South African context and were consequently omitted.…”
Section: Instrumentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Greater coherence is generally thought to be positively related to scenic value (Kaplan andKaplan, 1982 andPalmer, 2004). The fractal dimension should provide an indication of visible landscape complexity, which is thought to contribute to scenic value (Purcell et al, 2001). …”
Section: Tab 3 Weights Of Natural Land Use Classes (A) and Weight Ofmentioning
confidence: 99%