References
- Attneave F. 1957. Physical determinants of the judged complexity of shapes. J Exp Psychol. 53:221–227. doi: 10.1037/h0043921
- Bar M, Neta M. 2006. Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychol Sci. 17:645–648. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01759.x
- Bar M, Neta M. 2007. Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia. 45:2191–2200. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.03.008
- B.C. Ministry of Forests. 1996. Clearcutting and visual quality: a public perception study [internet]. Victoria, BC: B.C. Ministry of Forests. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/frr/Frr270_1.pdf.
- B.C. Ministry of Forests. 1997. Visual impacts of partial cutting: summary report: a techinical analysis and public perception study. Victoria, BC: B.C. Ministry of Forests.
- Bell S. 2001. Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landsc Urban Plan. 54:201–211. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00136-0
- Berlyne DE. 1958. The influence of complexity and novelty in visual figures on orienting responses. J Exp Psychol. 55:289–296. doi: 10.1037/h0043555
- Berlyne DE. 1963. Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Can J Psychol. 17:274–290. doi: 10.1037/h0092883
- Bliss JC. 2000. Public perceptions of clearcutting. J For. 98:4–9.
- Chamberlain BC, Meitner MJ. 2012. Quantifying the effects of harvest block design on aesthetic preferences. Can J For Res. 42:2106–2117. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-2012-0210
- Day H. 1967. Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity. Percept Psychophys. 2:281–286. doi: 10.3758/BF03211042
- Dramstad WE, Fry G, Fjellstad WJ, Skar B, Helliksen W, Sollund MLB, Tveit MS, Geelmuyden AK, Framstad E. 2001. Integrating landscape-based values—Norwegian monitoring of agricultural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan [Internet]. 57:257–268. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204601002080%5Cnhttp://ac.els-cdn.com/S0169204601002080/1-s2.0-S0169204601002080-main.pdf?_tid=4be470ea-bdf3-11e4-ac2d-00000aab0f02&acdnat=1424981517_065b7ef5c2887f2cd5a3d27eacd79f7c. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00208-0
- Eisenman R. 1967. Complexity-simplicity: I. preference for symmetry and rejection of complexity. Psychon Sci. 8:169–170. doi: 10.3758/BF03331603
- Eisenman R, Gellens HK. 1968. Preferences for complexity-simplicity and symmetry-asymmetry. Percept Mot Skills. 26:888–890. doi: 10.2466/pms.1968.26.3.888
- Eisenman R, Rappaport J. 1967. Complexity preference and semantic differential ratings of complexity-simplicity and symmetry-asymmetry. Psychon Sci. 7:147–148. doi: 10.3758/BF03328508
- Gobster PH. 1999. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landsc J. 18:54–64. doi: 10.3368/lj.18.1.54
- Kaplan R, Kaplan S. 1989. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Karjalainen E, Komulainen M. 1999. The visual effect of felling on small- and medium-scale landscapes in north-eastern Finland. J Environ Manage. 55:167–181. doi: 10.1006/jema.1998.0238
- Larson CL, Aronoff J, Sarinopoulos IC, Zhu DC. 2009. Recognizing threat: a simple geometric shape activates neural circuitry for threat detection. J Cogn Neurosci. 21:1523–1535. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21111
- Larson CL, Aronoff J, Stearns JJ. 2007. The shape of threat: simple geometric forms evoke rapid and sustained capture of attention. Emotion. 7:526–534. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.526
- Liu J. 2013. Shape perception, harvest design and forest aesthetics. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.
- Lothian A. 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landsc Urban Plan. 44:177–198. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5
- Martindale C, Moore K, Borkum J. 1990. Aesthetic preference: anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. Am J Psychol. 103:53–80. doi: 10.2307/1423259
- McGarigal K, Cushman S, Neel M, Ene E. 2002. FRAGSTATS v3: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps.
- McGarigal K, Marks BJ. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen. tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
- Ode A, Fry G, Tveit MS, Messager P, Miller D. 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J Environ Manage. 90:375–383. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
- Ode Å, Hagerhall CM, Sang N. 2010. Analysing visual landscape complexity: theory and application. Landsc Res. 35:111–131. doi: 10.1080/01426390903414935
- Palmer JF, Shannon S, Harrilchak MA, Kokx T, Gobster P. 1995. Esthetics of clearcutting - alternatives in the white mountain national forest. J For. 93:37–42.
- Paquet J, Belanger L. 1997. Public acceptability thresholds of clearcutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes. For Sci. 43:46–55.
- Picard P, Sheppard SRJ. 2001. Partial cutting in the frontcountry: a win-win solution for short-term timber availability and aesthetics ? BC J Ecosyst Manag. 1:1–18.
- Purcell AT, Lamb RJ. 1998. Preference and naturalness: an ecological approach. Landsc Urban Plan. 42:57–66. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00073-5
- Ribe RG. 2002. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management?: the influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environ Behav. 34:757–780. doi: 10.1177/001391602237245
- Ribe RG. 2005. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views. Landsc Urban Plan. 73:277–293. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.07.003
- Sang N, Miller D, Ode Å. 2008. Landscape metrics and visual topology in the analysis of landscape preference. Environ Plan B Plan Des. 35:504–520. doi: 10.1068/b33049
- Sheppard SRJ. 2004. Visual analysis of forest landscapes. In: Encyclopedia of forest sciences. Oxford, UK: Academic Press/Elsevier; p. 440–450.
- Silvera DH, Josephs R, Giesler RB. 2002. Bigger is better: the influence of physical size on aesthetic preference judgments. J Behav Decis Mak. 15:189–202. doi: 10.1002/bdm.410
- Silvia PJ, Barona CM. 2009. Do people prefer curved objects? angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empir Stud Arts. 27:25–42. doi: 10.2190/EM.27.1.b
- Tveit M, Ode Å, Fry G. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc Res. 31:229–255. doi: 10.1080/01426390600783269
- Ulrich RS. 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landsc Res. 4:17–23. doi: 10.1080/01426397908705892
- Walker G. 1995. Renewable energy and the public. Land Use Policy. 12:49–59. doi: 10.1016/0264-8377(95)90074-C
- Wenderoth P. 1994. The salience of vertical symmetry. Perception. 23:221–236. doi: 10.1068/p230221
- Westerman SJ, Gardner PH, Sutherland EJ, White T, Jordan K, Wells S. 2012. Product design: preference for rounded versus angular design elements. Psychol Market. 29:595–605. doi: 10.1002/mar.20546
- Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG. 1982. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landsc Plan. 9:1–33. doi: 10.1016/0304-3924(82)90009-0