This article is a review of studies on how strongly responses from static media (such as color slides) and dynamic media (such as virtual reality models) compared to onsite evaluations or to each other. Eighty-four empirical findings were found. 6,323 participants and 967 environments were included in the review. The overall correlation of subjective responses obtained either onsite or by viewing static color simulations was r = .86. The overall correlation of subjective responses obtained either onsite or by viewing dynamic simulations was r = .83. The overall correlation of subjective responses obtained either from static or dynamic media was r= .82. It is suggested that both types of simulation generate statistically equivalent results and so a choice of simulation media should be based on efficacy rather than concerns about validity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association. (2009) Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
BaconF. (1605) Advancement of learning. (1952 ed.) New York: Collier.
3.
BishopI. D.RohrmannB. (2003) Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: A comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 261–277.
4.
BrushR. O. (1979) The attractiveness of woodlands: Perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts. Forest Science, 25, 495–506.
5.
Campbell Collaboration. (2009) The Campbell Collaboration library of systematic reviews. Oslo, Norway: Author.
6.
Cochrane Collaboration. (2005) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. Retrieved August 21, 2006, from http://www.cochrane.org.
7.
CohenJ. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
DanielT. C.BosterR. S. (1976) Measuring landscape aesthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service.
9.
DearingerJ. A. (1979) Measuring preferences for natural landscapes. Journal of the Urban Planning and Development Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 105, 63–80.
10.
DunnM. C. (1976) Landscape with photographs: Testing the preference approach to landscape evaluation. Journal of Environmental Management, 4, 15–26.
11.
GibsonJ. J. (1979/1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
GimblettH. R. (1990) Environmental cognition: The prediction of preference in rural Indiana. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7, 222–324.
13.
HayashibeK. (2002) Apparent distance in actual, three-dimensional video-recorded, and virtual reality. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 573–582.
HeftH.NasarJ. L. (2000) Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment & Behavior, 32, 301–322.
16.
HenryD. (1992) Spatial perception in virtual environments: Evaluating an architectural application. Unpublished master's thesis, Univer. of Washington, Seattle.
17.
HowardR. B.MlynarskiF. G.SauerG. C. (1972) A comparative analysis of affective responses to real and represented environments. In MitchellW. (Ed.), Environmental design: Research and practice. Los Angeles: Univer. of California Press. Pp. 6-6-1–6-6-8.
18.
HuangS-C. L. (2009) The validity of visual surrogates for representing waterscapes. Landscape Research, 34, 323–335.
19.
HullR. B.StewartW. P. (1992) Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 101–114.
20.
KaneP. S. (1981) Assessing landscape attractiveness: A comparative test of two new methods. Applied Geography, 1, 77–96.
21.
KellomäkiS.SavolainenR. (1984) The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landscape Planning, 11, 97–107.
22.
LesselsS.RuddleR. L. (2005) Movement around real and virtual environments. Presence, 14, 580–596.
23.
MeitnerM. J. (2004) Scenic beauty of river views in Grand Canyon: Relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 3–13.
MorrisS. B.DeShonR. P. (2002) Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105–125.
26.
MullinsM. (2006) Interpretation of simulations in interactive VR environments: Depth perception in cave and panorama. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 23, 328–340.
27.
PalmerJ. F.HoffmanR. E. (2001) Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 149–161.
28.
PeruchP.VercherJ.GauthierG. M. (1995) Acquisition of spatial knowledge through visual exploration of simulated environments. Ecological Psychology, 7, 1–20.
29.
RosenthalR.RubinD. B. (1986) Meta-analytic procedures for combining studies with multiple effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 400–406.
30.
San Francisco Planning Department. (2003) Residential design guidelines. Retrieved July 16, 2010.
31.
San Francisco Planning Department. (2010) Discretionary review reform. Retrieved July 16, 2010.
32.
SeatonR. W.CollinsJ. B. (1972) Validity and reliability of ratings of simulated buildings. In MitchellW. S. (Ed.), Environmental design: Research and practice. Los Angeles: University of California Press. P. 6-10-7.
33.
ShaferE. L.RichardsT. A. (1974) A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. Research Paper NE-302, United States Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.
34.
ShelbyB.HarrisR. (1985) Comparing methods for determining visitor evaluations of ecological impacts: Site visits, photographs, and written descriptions. Journal of Leisure Research, 17, 57–67.
35.
ShuttleworthS. (1984) Consensus and the perception of landscape quality. Landscape Research, 9, 74.
36.
Slangen-de KortY. A.IjsselsteijnW. A.KooijmanJ.SchuurmansY. (2001) Virtual environments as research tools for environmental psychology: A study of the comparability of real and virtual environments. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http://www.astro.temple.edu/∼lombard/P2001/Slangen-de_Kort.pdf.
37.
StampsA. E. (1990) Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 907–913.
38.
StampsA. E. (2000) Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
39.
StampsA. E. (2007) Evaluating spaciousness in static and dynamic media. Design Studies, 28, 535–557.
40.
StampsA. E. (2009) On shape and spaciousness. Environment & Behavior, 41, 526–548.
41.
StampsA. E. (2010) A walk down the block: A comparison of static and dynamic simulations. Unpublished manuscript.
42.
StrubeM. J. (1985) Combining and comparing significance levels from nonindependent hypothesis tests. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 334–341.
43.
ThompsonW. B.WillemsenP.GoochA. A.Creem-RegehrS. H.LoomisJ. M.BeallA. C. (2004) Does the quality of the computer graphics matter when judging distances in visually immersive environments?Presence, 13, 560–571.
44.
WitmerB. G.KlineP. B. (1998) Judging perceived and traversed distance in virtual environments. Presence, 7, 144–167.
45.
ZachariasJ. (2006) Exploratory spatial behavior in real and virtual environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 1–13.
46.
ZubeE. H.PittD. G.AndersonT. V. (1974) Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the Southern Connecticut river valley. Amhurst, MA: Institute for Man and His Environment, Univer. of Massachusetts.
