Environmental perception researchers frequently use rating scales to measure perceptions of environments. Using data from diverse environmental rating tasks, this study compares the scale values and the intergroup reliability obtained by several different scaling methods. The particular method used to combine ratings influenced neither the scale values nor the reliability of the scale-a simple mean rating produced results almost identical to more complicated scaling methods. We also found that for a wide range of subjective rating tasks, acceptable intergroup reliability can be achieved with small groups. These results may help researchers design more cost effective studies of environmental perception.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ANDERSON, L. M. (1981) "Land use designations affect perceptions of scenic beauty in forest landscapes."Forest Science27 (2): 392-400.
2.
ANDERSON, L. M. and H. W. SCHROEDER (forthcoming) "Application of wildland scenic assessment methods to the urban landscape."Landscape Planning.
3.
ANDERSON, L. M. , D. J. LEVI, T. C. DANIEL, and J. H. DIETERICH (1982) "The esthetic effects of prescribed burning: a case study." USDA Forest Service Research Note RM-413, Rocky Mt. Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO
4.
ANDERSON, L. M. , B. E. MULLIGAN, L. S. GOODMAN, and H. Z. REGEN (forthcoming) "Effects of sounds on preferences for outdoor settings."Environment and Behavior.
5.
ARTHUR, L. M. (1977) "Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical tests."Forest Science23 (2): 151-160.
6.
BOCK , R. DARRELL, and LYLE V. JONES (1968) The Measurement and Prediction of Judqment and Choice. San Francisco: Holden-Day.
7.
BRUSH, R. O. (1976) "Perceived quality of scenic and recreational environments: some methodological issues," pp. 47-58 in K. H. Craik and E. H. Zube (eds.) Perceiving Environmental Quality: Research and applications. New York: Plenum.
8.
BRUSH, R. O. (1979) "The attractiveness of woodlands: perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts."Forest Science25 (3): 495-506.
9.
BRUSH, R.O. (1981) "Landform and scenic preference: a research note."Landscape Planning8: 301-306.
10.
BUHYOFF, G. J. , J. D. WELLMAN, and T. C. DANIEL (1982) "Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas."Forest Science28 (4): 827-838.
11.
BUHYOFF, G. J. , L. K. ARNDT, and D. B. PROBST (1981) "Interval scaling of landscape preference by direct and indirect measurement methods."Landscape Planning8: 257-267.
12.
BUHYOFF, G. J. , W. A. LEUSCHNER, and L. K. ARNDT (1980) "Replication of a scenic preference function."Forest Science26 (2): 227-230.
13.
CRAIK, K. H. (1972) "Appraising the objectivity of landscape dimensions," pp. 292-346J. V. Krutilla, (ed.) Natural Environments: Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
14.
DANFORD, S. , and E. P. WILLEMS (1975) "Subjective responses to architectural displays: a question of validity."Environment & Behavior7 (4): 486-516.
15.
DANIEL, T. C. , L. M. ANDERSON, H. W. SCHROEDER, and L. W. WHEELER IlIl (1977) "Mapping the scenic beauty of forest landscapes."Leisure Sciences1 (1): 35-52.
16.
DANIEL, T.C. , and R. S. BOSTER (1976) "Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method." Research Paper RM-167. USDA Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
17.
FEIMER, N. R. , R. C. SMARDON, and K. H. CRAIK (1981) "Evaluating the effectiveness of observer-based visual resource and impact assessment methods."Landscape Research6:12-16.
18.
GHISELLI, E. E. (1964) Theory of Psychological Measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
GREEN, D. M. , and J. A. SWETTS (1966) Signal Detection Theory and Psy chophysics. New York: John Wiley.
20.
GUILFORD, J. P. (1954) Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
21.
HULL, R. B. IV and G. J. BUHYOFF (1983) "Distance and scenic beauty: a nonmonotonic relationship."Environment & Behavior15 (1): 77-91.
22.
KAPLAN, S. , R. KAPLAN, and J. S. WENDT (1972) "Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material."Perception & Psychophysics12 (4): 354-358.
23.
NUNNALLY, J. C. (1967) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24.
SCHOMAKER, J. H. (1978) "Measurements of preferences for proposed landscape modifications."Landscape Research3 (3): 5-9.
25.
SCHROEDER, H. W. (1983) "Variations in the perception of urban forest recreation sites."Leisure Sciences5 (3): 221-230.
26.
SCHROEDER, H. W. and L. M. Anderson (forthcoming) "Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites."J. of Leisure Research.
27.
SCHROEDER, H. W. , and T. C. Brown (1983) "Alternative functional forms for an inventory-based landscape perception model."J. of Leisure Research15 (2): 156-163.
28.
SCHROEDER, H. W. and W. N. CANNON, Jr. (forthcoming) "The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns."J. of Arboriculture.
29.
SCHROEDER, H. W. and T. C. DANIEL (1981) "Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes."Forest Science27: 71-80.
30.
SCHROEDER, H. W. (1980) "Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corridors."Environment & Behavior12: 349-366.
31.
SHAFER, E. L. , S. F. HAMILTON, and E. A. SCHMIDT (1969) "Natural Landscape preferences: a predictive model."J. of Leisure Research1 (1): 1-19.
32.
SHAFER, E. L., Jr. , and M. TOOBY (1973) "Landscape preference: an international replication."J. of Leisure Research5: 60-65.
33.
STEVENS, S. S. (1951). Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics, in S. S. Stevens (ed.) Handbook of Experimental Psychology. New York: Wiley.
34.
THURSTONE, L. L. (1948) "Psychophysical methods." pp. 124-157 in T. G. Andrews (ed) Methods of Psychology. New York: John Wiley.
35.
TORGERSON, W. S. (1958) Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York: John Wiley.
36.
VINING, J. , T. C. DANIEL, and H. W. SCHROEDER (forthcoming) "Predicting scenic values in forested residential landscapes."J. of Leisure Research.
37.
WARD, L. M. and J. A. RUSSELL (1981) "The psychological representation of molar physical environments."J. of Experimental Psychology110 (2): 121-152.
38.
WOHLWILL, J. G. , and G. HARRIS (1980) "Response to congruity or contrast for man-made features in nawural-recreation settings."Leisure Sciences3 (4): 349-365.
39.
ZUBE, E. H. (1974) "Cross-disciplinary and intermode agreement on the description and evaluation of landscape resources."Environment & Behavior6 (1): 69-89.
40.
ZUBE, E.H.-D. G. PITT , and T. W. ANDERSON (1974) "Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the Southern Connecticut river valley."Institute for Man and His Environment (Pub R-74-1) Amherst, MA.
