Landscape Preference and Map Readability in Design Evaluation of Topographic Maps with an Orthoimage Background

REFERENCES

• Aoki Y.. (1999). ‘Review article: trends in the study of the psychological evaluation of landscape’, Landscape Research, 24, pp. 85–94.
   Google Scholar
• Appleton J.. (1975). The Experience of Landscape, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Appleton J.. (1980). Landscape in the Arts and the Sciences, University of Hull Press, Hull.
   Google Scholar
• Arriaza M., Cañas-Ortega J. F., Cañas-Madueño J. A. and Ruiz-Avlies P.. (2004). ‘Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, pp. 115–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balling J. D. and Falk J. H.. (1982). ‘Development of visual preference for natural environments,’ Environment and Behavior, 14, pp. 5–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berlyne D. E.. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Bosselmann P.. (1998). Representation of Places: Reality and Realism in City Design, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Brabyn L.. (2009). ‘Classifying landscape character’, Landscape Research, 34, pp. 299–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brassel K.. (1974). ‘A model for automatic hill shading’, The American Cartographer, 1, pp. 15–27.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer C. A. and Buttenfield B. P.. (2010). ‘Mastering map scale: balancing workloads using display and geometry change in multi-scale mapping’, Geoinformatica, 14, pp. 221–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer C. A., Hanchett C. L., Buttenfield B. P. and Usery E. L.. (2010). ‘Performance of Map Symbol and Label Design with Format and Display Resolution Options through Scale for The National Map’, in AutoCarto 2010, Orlando, FL, Nov 14–16.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer C. A., Buttenfield B. P. and Stanislawski L. V.. (2011a). ‘Choosing between Geometry Change and Display Change for Multiscale Mapping: The Role of Elimination in Design’, in International Cartographic Conference 2011, Paris, Jul 3–8.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer C. A., Thatcher J. E. and Butzler S. J.. (2011b). ‘Combining Varied Federal Data Sources for Multiscale Map Labeling of Populated Places and Airports for The National Map of the United States,’ in Workshop of ICA Commission on Generalisation and Multiple Representation, Paris, Jun 30–Jul 1.
   Google Scholar
• Buttenfield B. P., Stanislawski L. V. and Brewer C. A.. (2011). ‘Adapting generalization tools to physiographic diversity for the USGS National Hydrography Dataset’, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 38, pp. 289–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collier P., Forrest D. and Pearson A.. (2003). ‘The representation of topographic information on maps: the depiction of relief’, The Cartographic Journal, 40, pp. 17–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collier P., Pearson A. and Forrest D.. (1998). ‘The representation of topographic information on maps – vegetation and rural land use’, The Cartographic Journal, 35, pp. 191–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day H.. (1967). ‘Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity’, Perception and Psychophysics, 2, pp. 281–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vries S., Lankhorst J. R.-K. and Buijs A. E.. (2007). ‘Mapping the attractiveness of the Dutch countryside: a GIS-based landscape appreciation model’, Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 81, pp. 43–58.
   Google Scholar
• Dearden P.. (1984). ‘Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation’, Landscape Planning, 11, pp. 293–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dearden P.. (1985). ‘Philosophy, theory and method in landscape evaluation’, The Canadian Geographer, 29, pp. 263–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis S. R.. (1990). ‘Pictorial communication: pictures and the synthetic universe’, Leonardo, 23, pp. 81–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falk J. H. and Balling J. D.. (2010). ‘Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference’, Environment and Behavior, 42, pp. 479–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granö J. G.. (1997). ‘Pure geography’ (trans. by Hicks, M.), in Pure Geography, ed. by Granö O. and Paasi A., Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
   Google Scholar
• Hagerhall C. M.. (2001). ‘Consensus in landscape preference judgements’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, pp. 83–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagerhall C. M., Purcell T. and Taylor R.. (2004). ‘Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, pp. 247–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han K.-T.. (2007). ‘Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness’, Environment and Behavior, 39, pp. 529–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegarty M., Smallman H. S., Stull A. T. and Canham M. S.. (2009). ‘Naive cartography: how intuitions about display configuration can hurt performance’, Cartographica, 44, pp. 171–186.
   Google Scholar
• Herzog T. R., Herbert E. J., Kaplan R. and Crooks C. L.. (2000). ‘Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences’, Environment and Behavior, 32, pp. 323–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobbs F.. (1995). ‘The rendering of relief images from digital contour data’, The Cartographic Journal, 32, pp. 111–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imhof E.. (2007). Cartographic Relief Presentation (trans. by Steward, H. J.), ESRI Press, RedlandsCA.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan R. and Herbert E. J.. (1987). ‘Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, pp. 281–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan R. and Kaplan S.. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective, Cambridge University Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan S.. (1987). ‘Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective’, Environment and Behavior, 19, pp. 3–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan S., Kaplan R. and Wendt J. S.. (1972). ‘Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material’, Perception and Psychophysics, 12, pp. 354–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennelly P. J.. (2009). ‘Hill-shading Techniques to Enhance Terrain Maps’, in International Cartographic Conference 2009, Santiago, Chile, Nov 15–21.
   Google Scholar
• Kennelly P. J. and Stewart A. J.. (2006). ‘A uniform sky illumination model to enhance shading of terrain and urban areas’, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 33, pp. 21–36.
   Google Scholar
• Kent A. J.. (2005). ‘Aesthetics: a lost cause in cartographic theory?’, The Cartographic Journal, 42, pp. 182–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonowicz A. M., Jenny B. and Hurni L.. (2010). ‘Automated reduction of visual complexity in small-scale relief shading’, Cartographica, 45, pp. 64–74.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons E.. (1983). ‘Demographic correlates of landscape preference’, Environment and Behavior, 15, pp. 487–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacEachren A. M.. (1995). How Maps Work: Representation, Visualization, and Design. Guilford Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• McKendry J. F.. (2000). ‘The influence of map design on resource management decision making’, Cartographica, 37, pp. 13–25.
   Google Scholar
• Moore L. R., Cooley M. J., Davis L. R. and Lestinsky H.. (2009). US Topo Product Standard, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Palka E. J.. (1995). ‘Coming to grips with the concept of landscape’, Landscape Journal, 14, pp. 63–73.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson T.. (2002). ‘Getting Real: Reflecting on the New Look of National Park Service Maps’, in International Cartographic Association Mountain Cartography Workshop, Mt Hood, OR, May 15–19. http://www.shadedrelief.com/realism/.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson A. H., Morrison J. J., Muehrcke P. C., Kimerling A. J. and Guptill S. C.. (1995). Elements of Cartography, 6th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson A. H., Sale R. D., Morrison J. L. and Muehrcke P. C.. (1984). Elements of Cartography, 5th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Sevenant M. and Antrop M.. (2010). ‘The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference’, Land Use Policy, 27, pp. 827–842.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smallman H. S., Cook M. B., Manes D. I. and Cowen M. B.. (2007). ‘Naive Realism in Terrain Appreciation’, in 51st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Baltimore, MD, Oct 1–5. pp. 1317–1321.
   Google Scholar
• Smallman H. S. and St John M.. (2005). ‘Naive realism: misplaced faith in realistic displays’, Ergonomics in Design, 13, pp. 6–13.
   Google Scholar
• Sugarbaker L., Coray K. E. and Poore B.. (2009). The National Map Customer Requirements: Findings from Interviews and Surveys, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan W. C. III. (1994). ‘Perceptions of the rural–urban fringe: citizen preferences for natural and developed settings’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 29, pp. 85–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanislawski L. V.. (2009). ‘Feature pruning by upstream drainage area to support automated generalization of the United States National Hydrography Dataset’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 33, pp. 325–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich R. S.. (1977). ‘Visual landscape preference: A model and application’, Man–Environment Systems, 7, pp. 279–293.
   Google Scholar
• USGS. (2009). Digital Map – Beta; 7·5-minute Quadrangle Maps in GeoPDF, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Wohlwill J. F.. (1968). ‘Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity’, Perception and Psychophysics, 4, pp. 307–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood C. H.. (1994). ‘Effects of brightness difference on specific map-analysis tasks: an empirical analysis’, Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 21, pp. 15–30.
   Google Scholar
• Yu K.. (1995). ‘Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, pp. 107–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanola S., Fabrikant S. I. and Çöltekin A.. (2009). ‘The effect of realism on the confidence in spatial data quality in stereoscopic 3D displays’, in International Cartographic Conference 2009, Santiago, Nov 15–21.
   Google Scholar