AckingC. A., and SortieG. J.1973: How do we verbalise what we see?Landscape Architecture64, 470–75.
2.
AppletonJ.1975: Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers66, 120–23.
3.
Avon County Council1978: Avon County Council structure plan (draft): Countryside Studies 2, situation report.Bristol: Avon County Council.
4.
Berkshire County Council, Hampshire County Council, and Surrey County Council1976: The Blackwater Valley landscape project.Reading: Berkshire County Council.
5.
BernaldezF. G., and ParraF.1980: Dimensions of landscape preferences from pair-wise comparisons. In EisnerG. H., and SmardonR. C., editors, Our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource, Berkeley, California: US Forest Service Report PSW-35.
6.
BlacksellM., and GilgA. W.1975: Landscape evaluation in practice – the case of south-east Devon.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers66, 135–40.
7.
BrancherD. M.1969: Critique of K. D. Fines: landscape evaluation.Regional Studies3, 91–92.
8.
BuhyoffG. J., WellmanJ. D., HarveyH., and FraserR. A.1978: Landscape architects’ interpretations of peoples’ landscape preferences.Journal of Environmental Management6, 255–62.
9.
CalvinJ. S., DearingerJ. A., and CurtinM. E.1972: An attempt at assessing preferences for natural landscape.Environment and Behaviour4, 447–69.
10.
ClampP.1975: A study in the evaluation of landscape and the impact of roads.Landscape Research1(11), 6–7.
11.
ClampP.1976: Evaluating English landscapes – some recent developments.Environment and Planning A8, 79–92.
12.
ClarkS. B. K.1968: Landscape survey and analysis on a national basis.Planning Outlook4, 15–29.
13.
CoomberN. H., and BiswasA. K.1973: Evaluation of environmental intangibles.Bronxville, New York: Genera Press.
14.
CoughlinR. E., and GoldsteinK. A.1970: The extent of agreement among observers on environmental attractiveness.Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute Discussion Paper 37.
Coventry–Solihull–Warwickshire Sub-regional Planning Study Group1971: A strategy for the sub-region, Supplementary Report no. 5 (Countryside).
17.
CraikK. H.1972: Psychological factors in landscape appraisal.Environment and Behaviour4, 255–66.
18.
CroftsR. S., and CookeR. U.1974: Landscape evaluation: a comparison of techniques.University College London, Department of Geography Occasional Paper no. 25.
19.
DeardenP.1977: Landscape aesthetics: an annotated bibliography. Exchange 1220. Monticello, Illinois: Council of Planning Librarians.
20.
DunnM. C.1974: Landscape evaluation techniques: an appraisal and review of the literature.University of Birmingham, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Working Paper no. 4.
21.
DunnM. C.1976: Landscape with photographs: testing the preference approach to landscape evaluation.Journal of Environmental Management4, 15–26.
22.
Durham County Council1976: Report of survey 1976, county structure plan.Durham: Durham County Council.
23.
Editorial1968: Planning Outlook4, 89–92.
24.
FairbrotherN.1972: New lives new landscapes.Harmondsworth: Penguin.
25.
FinesK. D.1968: Landscape evaluation: a research project in east Sussex.Regional Studies2, 41–55.
26.
GentilliJ.1969: Evaluation and valorisation of Australian landscapes.Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia4, 101–14.
27.
GilgA. W.1975: The objectivity of Linton type methods of assessing scenery as a natural resource.Regional Studies9, 181–89.
28.
GilgA. W.1976: Assessing scenery as a natural resource: causes of variation in Linton's method.Scottish Geographical Magazine92, 41–49.
29.
Gloucestershire County Council1967: Landscape report.Gloucester: Gloucestershire County Council Planning Department.
30.
Hampshire County Council1968: East Hampshire AONB: a study in countryside conservation.Winchester: Hampshire County Council Planning Department.
31.
HartW. J., and GrahamE. E.1967: How to rate and rank landscape.Landscape Architecture57, 120–22.
32.
HebblethwaiteR. L.1970: Landscape qualitative assessment and zones of visual influence with quantitative assessment.Proceedings of the Landscape Research Group conference on national countryside classification structure.London: Landscape Research Group.
33.
Hertfordshire County Council1970: Hertfordshire countryside plan.Hertford: Hertfordshire County Council Planning Department.
34.
Hertfordshire County Planning Department1979: Hertfordshire landscape development plan: consultation report.Hertford: Hertfordshire County Planning Department.
35.
HigginsJ. A. C.1967: Landscape evaluation techniques. In Proceedings of the Landscape Research Group conference on methods of landscape analysis, London: Landscape Research Group, 24–30.
36.
JacobsP.1975: The landscape image: current approaches to the visual analysis of the landscape.Town Planning Review46, 127–50.
37.
KaplanR.1976: Preference and everyday nature: method and application. In StokolsD., editor, Psychological perspectives on environment and behaviour: conceptual and empirical trends, New York: Plenum.
38.
KaplanR.1977: Patterns of environmental preference.Environment and Behaviour9, 195–216.
39.
Land Use Consultants1971: A planning classification of Scottish resources.Battleby, Perth, Scotland: Countryside Commission for Scotland.
40.
LaurieI. C.1970: Untitled contribution to the Proceedings of the Landscape Research Group conference on national countryside classification structure.London: Landscape Research Group.
41.
LazarsfeldP. F.1958: Evidence and inference in social research.Daedalus87, 99–130.
LintonD. L.1968: The assessment of scenery as a natural resource.Scottish Geographical Magazine84, 219–38.
44.
LittonR. B., and TwissR. H.1966–67: The forest landscape: some elements of visual analysis. In Proceedings Society of American Foresters, Washington DC: Society of American Foresters, 212–14.
45.
LowenthalD.1962: Not every prospect pleases: what is our criterion for scenic beauty?Landscape12, 19–23.
46.
LowenthalD.1978: Finding valued landscapes.University of Toronto, Canada, Environmental Perception Working Paper 4.
47.
LowenthalD., and RielM.1972: The nature of perceived and imagined environments.Environment and Behaviour4, 189–207.
48.
MedhurstF.1968: A method of regional landscape analysis.Planning Outlook4, 61–69.
49.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government1970: Development plans: a manual on form and content.London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
50.
NeedhamB.1974: An experiment with landscape evaluation techniques.Oxford: Department of Town Planning, Oxford Polytechnic.
51.
NewbyP. T.1978: Towards an understanding of landscape quality.British Journal of Aesthetics18, 345–55.
52.
PalmerC. J., RobinsonM. E., and ThomasR. W.1977: The countryside image: an investigation of structure and meaning.Environment and Planning A9, 739–49.
53.
Penning-RowsellE. C.1973: Alternative approaches to landscape appraisal and evaluation.Middlesex Polytechnic Planning Research Group Report no. 11 (and supplement, 1975).
54.
Penning-RowsellE. C.1974: Landscape evaluation for development plans.Journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute60, 930–34.
55.
Penning-RowsellE. C.1975: Constraints on the application of landscape evaluation.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers66, 149–55.
56.
Penning-RowsellE. C.1980: The social value of English landscapes. In EisnerG. H., and SmardonR. C., editors, Our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource, Berkeley, California: US Forest Service Report PSW-35.
57.
Penning-RowsellE. C.1981: Assessing the validity of landscape evaluations.Landscape Research6(1), in press.
58.
Penning-RowsellE. C., and HardyD. I.1973: Landscape evaluation and planning policy: a comparative survey in the Wye Valley AONB.Regional Studies7, 153–60.
59.
Penning-RowsellE. C., and SearleG. H.1977: The ‘Manchester’ landscape evaluation method: a critical appraisal.Landscape Research2(3), 6–11.
60.
Penning-RowsellE. C., GullettG. H., SearleG. H., and WithamS. A.1977: Public evaluation of landscape quality.Middlesex Polytechnic Planning Research Group Report no. 13.
61.
PetersonG. L.1974: Evaluating the quality of the wilderness environment.Environment and Behaviour6, 169–93.
62.
PowellM.1981: Landscape evaluation and the quest for objectivity.Landscape Research6(1), in press.
63.
PriceC.1976: Subjectivity and objectivity in landscape evaluation.Environment and Planning A8, 829–38.
64.
RobinsonD. G., LaurieI. C., WagerJ. F., and TraillA. L. editors. 1976: Landscape evaluation.Manchester: University of Manchester.
65.
SargentF. O.1966: A scenery classification system.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation21, 26–7.
66.
ShaferE. L., and MeitzJ.1970: It seems possible to quantify scenic beauty in photographs. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper NE-162, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture.
67.
ShaferE. L., HamiltonJ. F., and SchmidtE. A.1969: Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model.Journal of Leisure Research1, 1–9.
68.
ShoardM.1978: The lure of the moors. Paper presented to the annual conference of the Institute of British Geographers, Hull.
69.
SkinnerD. N.1968: Landscape survey with special reference to recreation and tourism in Scotland.Planning Outlook4, 37–43.
70.
SteinitzC.1970: Landscape resource analysis: the state of the art.Landscape Architecture60, 101–105.
71.
TandyC. R. V.1967: The isovist method of landscape survey.Proceedings of the Landscape Research Group conference on methods of landscape analysis, London: Landscape Research Group, 9–10.
72.
TandyC. R. V.1971: Landscape evaluation technique.Croydon, England: Land Use Consultants.
73.
TandyC. R. V.1977: Landscape evaluation: University of Manchester 1976.Landscape Planning.
74.
TraillA. L.1974: Statistical appraisal of existing techniques.University of Manchester Landscape Evaluation Research Project Occasional Paper 39.
75.
TurnerT. H. D.1977: Landscape evaluation.Town and Country Planning45, 282–93.
76.
WeddleA. E.1975: Landscape evaluation.Sheffield: University of Sheffield, Department of Landscape Architecture Departmental Paper L43.
77.
WeinsteinN. D.1976: The statistical prediction of environmental preferences: problems of validity and application.Environment and Behaviour8, 611–26.
78.
WestmacottR., and WorthingtonT.1974; New agricultural landscapes.Cheltenham, Gloucestershire: Countryside Commission.
79.
WrightG. McK.1973: Landscape quality: a method of appraisal.Royal Australian Planning Institute Journal11, 122–30.
80.
ZubeE. H.1970: Evaluating the visual and cultural landscape.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation25, 137–41.
81.
ZubeE. H.1973: Rating everyday rural landscapes of the northeastern United States.Landscape Architecture63, 370–75.
82.
ZubeE. H.1974: Cross-disciplinary and intermode agreement on the description and evaluation of landscape resources.Environment and Behaviour6, 69–89.
83.
ZubeE. H., BrushR. O., and FabosJ. G.1975: Landscape assessment: value perceptions and resources.Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
84.
ZubeE. H., PittD. G., and AndersonT. W.1975: Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. In Zube, E. H., Brush, R. O. and Fabos, J. G., 1975.