Cultural and Developmental Comparisons of Landscape Perceptions and Preferences

The authors compared several Australian subgroups and American college students on their preferences for Australian natural landscapes. Preference correlations across groups were generally high, with the correlations for Australian adults somewhat lower. Factor analysis yielded six perceptual categories: Vegetation, Open Smooth, Open Coarse, Rivers, Agrarian, and Structures. Both the Australian and American samples liked Rivers best and the Open categories least. Only the Australians included willow trees in the Agrarian category. The Australians liked the settings overall better than the Americans. Among the Australians, primary students liked the settings most, secondary students least; aboriginal college students liked the settings better than other college groups, but they disliked the Structures category; and DENR (Department of Environmental and Natural Resources) staff members liked the settings better than other Australian adults but, unlike other adults, did not like willows better than nonwillow settings. Cultural and evolutionary reasons for the complex pattern of results were explored.

[1]  R. Kaplan Predictors of environmental preference: Designers and "Clients" , 1973 .

[2]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  A cognitive analysis of preference for field‐and‐forest environments , 1984 .

[3]  17. Statistics for the Social Sciences , 1996 .

[4]  Wolfgang F. E. Preiser,et al.  Environmental Design Research , 2018 .

[5]  Clyde Young Kramer,et al.  Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications , 1956 .

[6]  Louis Guttman,et al.  The Guttman-Lingoes nonmetric program series , 1973 .

[7]  Domenic V. Cicchetti,et al.  Extension of multiple-range tests to interaction tables in the analysis of variance: A rapid approximate solution. , 1972 .

[8]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings , 1987 .

[9]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes , 1985 .

[10]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature , 1989 .

[11]  J. Falk,et al.  Development of Visual Preference for Natural Environments , 1982 .

[12]  Julius Gy. Fabos,et al.  Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources , 1975 .

[13]  D. Geoffrey Hayward,et al.  Children's Play and Urban Playground Environments: A Comparison of Traditional, Contemporary, and Adventure Playground Types. , 1974 .

[14]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference , 1975 .

[15]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective , 1989 .

[16]  Thomas R. Herzog,et al.  A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Natural Environments: Mountains, Canyons, and Deserts , 1987, Landscape Journal.

[17]  W. Hays Statistics for the social sciences , 1973 .

[18]  J. D. Wellman,et al.  Landscape architects' interpretations of people's landscape preferences. , 1978 .