The authors investigated pathway curvature and pathway border visibility as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings. Participants rated 56 forest settings containing pathways for one of four variables—mystery, visual access, pathway length, and pathway width—or for one of four additional predictors. Pathway curvature was unrelated to preference, danger, or mystery. Border visibility and visual access were positively related to preference, negatively related to danger, and positively related to each other. Preference and danger were negatively related. Danger was more strongly related to the predictors than was preference. Mystery had a modest negative relation with preference and substantial relations with danger (positive) and visual access (negative). Factor analysis of the predictor inter-correlations revealed a visibility construct. Visibility scores were positively related to preference and negatively related to danger. For within-forest settings, danger seems to be more salient than preference, and visibility is a major concern.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5-28.
3.
Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35-65.
4.
Heft, H., & Nasar, J. L. (2000). Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment and Behavior, 32, 301-322.
5.
Hershberger, R. G., & Cass, R. C. (1973). The adequacy of various media as representations of the designed environment. Man-Environment Systems, 3, 371-372.
6.
Herzog, T. R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 237-248.
7.
Herzog, T. R., & Flynn-Smith, J. A. (2001). Preference and perceived danger as a function of the perceived curvature, length, and width of urban alleys. Environment and Behavior, 33, 655-668.
8.
Herzog, T. R., Herbert, E. J., Kaplan, R., & Crooks, C. L. (2000). Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environment and Behavior, 32, 323-346.
9.
Herzog, T. R., & Kropscott, L. S. (2004). Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior, 36, 659-677.
10.
Herzog, T. R., & Kutzli, G. E. (2002). Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 34, 858-874.
11.
Herzog, T. R., & Leverich, O. L. (2003). Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior, 35, 459-477.
12.
Herzog, T. R., & Miller, E. J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 429-449.
13.
Herzog, T. R., & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery, and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20, 320-344.
14.
Hull, R. B., IV, & Stewart, W. P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 101-114.
15.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island.
17.
Kaplan, S. (1979). Concerning the power of content-identifying methodologies. In T. C. Daniel & E. H. Zube (Eds.), Assessing amenity resource values (Tech. Rep. No. RM-68, pp. 4-13). Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
18.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.
19.
Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 28-59.
20.
Loewen, L. J., Steel, G. D., & Suedfeld, P. (1993). Perceived safety from crime in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 323-331.
21.
Nasar, J. L., & Fisher, B. (1993). ‘Hot spots’ of fear and crime: A multi-method investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 187-206.
22.
Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. M. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior, 29, 291-323.
23.
Ruddell, E. J., Gramann, J. H., Rudis, V. A., & Westphal, J. M. (1989). The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behavior, 21, 393-412.
24.
Schroeder, H. W., & Anderson, L. M. (1984). Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 178-194.
25.
Scott, M. J., & Canter, D. V. (1997). Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 263-281.
26.
Shaffer, G. S., & Anderson, L. M. (1983). Perceptions of the security and attractiveness of urban parking lots. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 311-323.
27.
Stamps, A. E., III. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility, and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1-16.
28.
Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., & Evans, G. W. (1983). A lifespan developmental study of landscape assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 115-128.
29.
Zube, E. H., Simcox, D. E., & Law, C. S. (1987). Perceptual landscape simulations: History and prospect. Landscape Journal, 6, 62-80.
