Two computer-generated tree icons plus one icon copied from a nursery catalog were designed with five variations each in canopy size, trunk height, and trunk width. Seven classes of students selected the most attractive tree forms. Respondents showed a preference for larger canopies and for smaller and thinner trunks. Preferred canopy size was positively related to trunk thickness and less to trunk height. The results support the predictions of habitat theory regarding preferred tree shape and show the feasibility of using psychophysical methods to explore these issues.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Appleton, J. (1990). The symbolism of habitat. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
2.
Amheim, R. (1977). The dynamics of architectural form. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3.
Brunswik, E. (1952). Perception and the representative design of experiments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
4.
Brush, R. O. , & Moore, T. A. (1976). Some psychological and social aspects of trees in the city. In F. S. Santamour, et al. (Eds.), Better trees for metropolitan landscapes. Technical Report NE. 22, Forest Service, USDA, 25-28.
5.
Craik, K. , & Feimer, N. (1987). Environmental assessment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 891-918). New York: Wiley.
6.
Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der aesthetik [Introduction to aesthetics]. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel.
7.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
8.
Gold, S. (1977). Social and economic benefits of trees in cities. Journal of Forestry, 75, 84-85.
9.
Gordon, I. G. (1989). Theories of visual perception. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
10.
Heerwagen, J. H. , & Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 138-172). Washington, DC: Island Press.
11.
Kaplan, R. , & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Kreitler, H. , & Kreitler, S. (1972). Psychology of the arts. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
13.
Legg, M. H. , & Hicks, R. R. (1976). Public decision making in selecting trees for human settlements. In J. W. Andresen (Ed.), Trees and forests for human settlements (pp. 275-285). Toronto Center for Urban Forestry Studies, University of Toronto, Canada.
14.
Orians, G. H. (1986). An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In E. C. Penning-Rowsell & D. Lowenthal (Eds.), Landscape meanings and values. London: Allen and Unwin.
15.
Orians, G. H. , & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved response to landscapes. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind. New YorkOxford University Press.
16.
Orland, B. (1988). Video-imaging: A powerful tool for visualization and analysis. Landscape Architecture, 78, 78-88.
17.
Orland, B. , LaFontaine, J., & Daniel, T. C. (1990). Visualizing alternative futures for forested landscapes. In G. H. Buhyoff (Ed.), Resource Technology 90-Second International Symposium on Advanced Technology in Natural Resource Management. Washington, DC: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.
18.
Orland, B. , Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1992). The effect of street trees on perceived value of residential properties. Environment and Behavior, 24, 289-325.
19.
Schmidt, J. F. , and Son Co. (1992). 1992-3 Nursery Catalog. Boring, OR: J. F. Schmidt and Son Co.
20.
Schroeder, H. W. (1984). Environmental perception rating scales: A case for simple methods of analysis. Environment and Behavior, 16, 573-598.
21.
Schroeder, H. W. , & Cannon, W. N. (1983). The aesthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. Journal of Arboriculture, 9, 237-243.
22.
Schroeder, H. W. , & Green, T. L. (1985). Public preferences for tree density in municipal parks. Journal of Arboriculture, 11, 272-277.
23.
Sommer, R. , Guenther, H., & Barker, P. A. (1990). Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape Journal, 9, 79-85.
24.
Sommer, R. , Guenther, H., Barker, P. A., & Swenson, J. (1993). Comparison of four methods of street tree assessment. Journal of Arboriculture, 19, 27-34.
25.
Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29-44.
