Culture and changing landscape structure
LandscapeEcologyvol. 10no. 4 pp 229-237(1995)
SPBAcademicPublishingbv, Amsterdam
Joan Iverson Nassauer
Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota, 89 Church St. S.E., Minneapolis,
MN 55455, USA
Keywords: culture, change, perception, theory, landscape ecology
Abstract
Culture changes landscapes and cukure is embodied by landscapes. Both aspects of this dynamic are encompassed
by landscape ecology, but neither has been examined sufficiently to produce cultural theory within
the field. This paper describes four broad cultural principles for landscape ecology, under which more precise
principles might be organized. A central underlying premise is that culture and landscape interact in a feedback
loop in which culture structures landscapes and landscapes inculcate culture. The following broad principles
are proposed:
1. Human landscape perception, cognition, and values directly affect the landscape and are affected by
the landscape.
2. Cultural conventions powerfully influence landscape pattern in both inhabited and apparently natural
landscapes.
3. Cultural concepts of nature are different from scientific concepts of ecologicalfunction.
4. The appearance of landscapes communicates cultural values.
Both the study of landscapes at a human scale and experimentation with possible landscapes, landscape
patterns invented to accommodate ecological function, are recommended as means of achieving more precise
cultural principles.
Introduction
The fundamental premise for examining culture in
landscape ecology is that culture structures landscapes.
A corollary premise is that landscapes inculcate
culture. Culture changes landscapes and culture
is embodied by landscapes. Both aspects of this
dynamic are encompassed by landscape ecology,
but neither has been examined sufficiently to produce
cultural principles.
When landscape ecology began to emerge in
American science, the pervasive effect of human
beings within and upon the landscape was integral
to the field (Risser et al. 1984). This presented a significant
shift from ecological research that focussed
on pristine ecosystems, and it followed from European
landscape ecology, which had established human
effects as definitional (Naveh 1982). A decade
later, American landscape ecology has entered the
cultural realm with its vocabulary and in environmental
policy, but cultural effects on landscapes
have been more assumed than examined. Research
in landscape ecology has not focussed on culture
despite its centrality to the field (Caldwell 1990,
Naveh 1991).
However, landscape ecology as a science has
230
shown an extraordinary tendency to resonate beyond
the bounds of research into policy and popular
culture. Three distinctive characteristics help to
account for its diffusion:
- It includes human behavior within ecological
systems (Risser 1987).
- It includes human inhabited and cultivated
land uses within ecological models (Forman
and Godron 1986).
- It tends to study landscapes at a human scale
(Wiens 1992).
While landscape ecology research frequently has
examined the relationship of landscape structure to
ecological function and considered alternative patterns
of structure, it has not tended to investigate
why one pattern or another would occur (Baker
1989). The focus has been on landscape structure,
not on human behavior. A more functional perspective
quicklydemonstrates that humans not only
construct and manage landscapes, they also look at
them, and they make decisions based upon what
they see (and know, and feel). This dynamic helps
to explain landscape structure as both an effect of
culture and as an artifact that changes culture. For
example, the practice of stream channelization
resulted from a particular cultural view of the function
of streams, but when people experienced
flooding, public perceptions of stream channelization
began to change. Completing the feedback
loop, changed public perceptions and cultural
values may result in changed landscape structure in
watersheds that contribute to flooding.
Random House (1987) defines culture as: "the
sum total of ways of living built up by a group of
human beings and transmitted from one generation
to another". Culture is not determined by climate,
geomorphology, or vegetation (Hartshorne 1959).
Rather a wide range of cultural variations could occur
in any given place. We make landscapes according
to the political system in which we operate, the
economic use we see for land, our aesthetic preferences,
our social conventions - all of these are summarized
here under the label of culture. In a broad
sense, as we plant or subdivide or harvest or build,
we are the instruments of our culture working within
the fundamental ecological framework of the
land.
Culture not only helps to explain landscape structure,
it helps to suggest the enormous array of possible
human actions and constructions in the landscape,
including landscapes that do not exist now
but might be designed to promote ecological function.
These possible variations have received little
attention among landscape ecologists. Instead a
highly simplified concept of natural effects compared
with anthropogenic effects has continued to
dominate research. Landscape ecology must include
a cultural explanation for landscapes that
exist or that might evolve from current trends. It
also should include experiments with landscapes
that could shift trends to accommodate ecological
function. Thesepossible landscapes are designs that
propose how inhabited landscapes should be organized
in response to biophysical function.
Broad cultural principles for landscape ecology
are offered here as ground for achieving more precise
principles and for designing possible landscapes.
They are developed from a critical review of
literature within landscape ecology and literature
within design and environmental perception that
has not yet been incorporated into landscape ecology.
On one hand they suggest that principles developed
in these disciplines are highly complementary.
On the other they reflect the lack of powerful foundational
theory in each of these areas of inquiry.
Principle 1. Human landscape perception, cognition,
and values affect the landscape and are affected
by the landscape
Perception, cognition, and evaluation are highly
interrelated processes (Kaplan 1987). Both perception,
the immediate apprehension of the environment,
and cognition, the way information is organized,
stored, and recalled, exhibit the effects of culture
(Murphy 1966, Goodenough 1970, Golledge
and Stimson 1987). Values, enduring beliefs about
what is sociallyor personallypreferable, affect both
perception and cognition (Golledge and Stimson
1987). Human preference for landscapes, a measure
of landscape aesthetic quality, clearly draws
upon all of these processes. Kaplan (1987, p. 26)
compares landscape preference with habitat selection
among vertebrates, and concludes that:
"Aesthetic reactions reflect neither a casual
nor a trivial aspect of the human makeup. Aesthetics
is not the reflection of a whim that
people exercise when they are not otherwise occupied.
Rather, such reactions appear to constitute
a guide to human behavior that has farreaching
consequences... Aesthetics could thus
be seen as a set of inclinations, however intuitive
or unconscious, which might influence the
direction people choose not only in the physical
environment but also in other domains."
Several analyses of the preference literature have
defined culture somewhat narrowly, using culture
to refer to learned or historical explanations for
landscape preference as compared with biological
(innate or evolved) explanations (Zube et al. 1982,
Daniels and Vining 1982, Bourassa 1990, 1991).
Others have argued that distinguishing between
these types of explanations may not reflect the processes
at work when people interact with the landscape.
They suggest that these processes are mutual
transactions between people and landscapes in
which innate and learned responses are not readily
distinguishable (Ittelson 1973, Altman and Rogoff
1987, Hartig 1993). Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) have
used an information processing model, in which
biological explanations suggest only one perspective
on the processes. Golledge and Stimson (1987)
have explored a larger behavioral process model,
emphasizing the effect of landscape preference on
human behavior, and the reciprocal way in which
behavior changes the landscape.
Each of these theoretical perspectives addresses a
large body of empirical research that demonstrates
enormous consistency in human preferences for
landscapes. While statistically significant differences
have been observed between the preferences
of people who work in or with the landscape compared
with other people, and between young children
and others, or among people who live in
different places, the most remarkable result of surveys
and experiments has been the consistency of
human preference for natural looking landscapes
231
that include canopy trees or water features, and
that allow views out across the landscape. While
this simple image does not begin to describe the
range of preferred landscapes, it does describe a
frequently replicated empirical result.
Biological theories are helpful in accounting for
this widelyshared landscape preference for savannalike
landscapes. Appleton (1975) stressed the evolutionary
advantages of landscape views that simultaneously
afford prospect (wide, open views from
which approaching predators could be seen) and
refuge (protected settings that prevent the viewer
from being seen or that protect the viewer's back).
He analyzed the enduring cultural value of prospect
and refuge views as portrayed in Western landscape
painting since the 18th century. Bailing and Falk
(1982) inferred an innate preference for landscapes
that exhibit the structual characteristics of the African
savanna from their investigation of preferences
for different global biomes. While young children
in the forested northeastern United States preferred
savanna over forested landscapes, adults preferred
the more familiar forest environment. Bourassa
(1990, 1991) interprets these and numerous other
empirical studies that show high preference for
canopied landscapes with an open floor as evidence
of lawlike biological constraints upon preference
for natural landscapes.
Information-processing theories acknowledge
that a biological or evolutionary explanation provides
insight into preference but do not limit their
inferences to savanna-like settings or natural landscapes.
Information-processing models suggest
that the way human beings have evolved to perceive
landscapes has implications for all of environmental
perception. From this perspective, the savanna
is only one notable type that exhibits characteristics
of landscapes people prefer and seek to make.
J.J. Gibson (1979, p. 140) first proposed the theory
that people seek landscapes that afford them
desirable experiences.
"The perceiving of an affordance is not a
process of perceiving a value-free physical object
to which meaning is somehow added...; it
is a process of perceiving a value-rich ecological
object. Any substance, any surface, any
232
layout has some affordance for benefit or injury
to someone. Physics may be value-free, but
ecology is not".
Gibson defines an affordance as not dependent
upon the perception of an observer; an affordance
exists because of the value or meaning it intrinsically
possesses, its potential. He stresses that the
potential for movement through an environment,
or locomotion, is critical to human exploration of
what an environment affords. Consistent with
Appleton's prospect and refuge theory, Gibson discusses
the human experience of landscape in terms
of habitat, and notes that hiding places are valued
within human habitat.
Locomotion is also essential to Kevin Lynch's
(1960) theory of legibility. Without making reference
to an evolutionary explanation, Lynch simply
observed that people in cities preferred landscapes
that assisted wayfinding. These are landscapes that
have clear landmarks, corridors, and nodes, which
are used to create cognitive maps of the city. Cognitive
maps (Tolman 1948, Downs 1981, Garling et
al. 1984, Golledge and Stimson 1987) are particular
to the individual, but many individuals' cognitive
maps are likely to share certain features of a landscape.
For example, Lynch drew data drawn from
inhabitants of Boston, Newark, and Los Angeles,
and he found that in Boston in the 1960's, the John
Hancock Tower was a landmark common to many
individual cognitive maps. Lynch also observed
that people who are familiar with a landscape develop
cognitive maps that include smaller scale elements
than those in cognitive maps of people who
are new to a landscape.
Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) critically integrated
many of the theories outlined above and developed
the theory of information processing. This theory
contributes to explaining human abilities to cope
with stress in the environment and human landscape
preferences. It summarizes preferred landscapes
as offering exploration: both complex (rich,
intricate) and mysterious (with something yet to be
discovered); and being understandable: both coherent
(orderly) and legible (accessible to finding one's
way).
Transactional theories complement informationprocessing
theories. Both emphasize the way in
which people construct their perceptions of the
landscape in cognitive maps. However, transactional
theories emphasize that people do not stand
apart from the landscape, but rather are participants
in the landscape in a situation of "mutual
influence". Ittelson's (1973) transactional framework
for the study of environmental perception is
summarized in the following list of considerations
excerpted from Sell et al. (1984, p. 71-72):
1. Landscapes surround. They permit movement
and exploration.., and force the observer to
become a participant.
2. Landscapes are multimodal. They provide information
that is received through multiple
senses and that is processed simultaneously.
3. Landscapes provide peripheral...information.
Information is received from behind the participant
as well as from in front, from outside
the focus of attention as well as within.
4. Landscapes provide more information than
can be used...
5. Landscape perception always involves action.
Landscapes...provide opportunities for action,
control and manipulation.
6. Landscapes call forth actions. They provide
symbolic meanings and motivational messages
that can call forth purposeful actions.
7. Landscapes always have ambiance. They are
almost always encountered as part of a social
activity, they have a definite aesthetic quality,
and they have a systemic quality.
These considerations clarify that human beings
act in and on landscapes, as well as landscapes providing
information and experiences to people.
Behavioral theories emphasize the role of people
as actors making landscapes. The behavioral process
described by Golledge and Stimson (1987 p. 13)
focuses on the interface between environmental
structure and human spatial behavior.
"The behavioral interface is the black-box
within which humans form the image of their
world... The key psychological variables intervening
between environment and human behavior
within (the behavioral interface) are a
mixture of cognitive and affective attitudes,
emotions or affective responses, perception
and cognition, and learning (which are)
linked."
Importantly, the behavioral interface functions not
only as a filter between the environment and behavior,
it also precipitates change - when people
change the environment and when people's minds
are changed by their experiences of the environment.
Golledge and Stimson describe experience of
the environment as derived from:
1. Inherent sensitivity to some stimuli in the en-
vironment.
2. Learning and experience of the environment.
3. Secondary information, not necessarily direct
experience.
Taken together these theories are most helpful in
the degree to which they concur that human landscape
perception, cognition, and values are closely
related processes, all of which act in human aesthetic
experience. The theories all help to explain human
preference for savanna-like landscapes, and
several of the theories suggest explanations for
preference for other landscape types as well. Both
transactional and behavioral models also point to
the degree to which human behavior and landscape
change is functionally linked to preference.
These theories also shed new light on the biophysical
typology of landscape ecology. First they
suggest why the typology of patch, corridor, and
matrix has such immediate appeal to human beings.
This typology not only describes landscape at a
scale experienced by humans, it describes landscape
at the grain of human experience, as elements that
correspond to elements identified in several leading
perceptual theories. For example, the elements of a
landscape that would have afforded an early human
being survival or prospect and refuge, or legibility,
or coherence, or complexity also could be
validly described in terms of a patch-corridormatrix
structure. The same typology of landscape
that is relevant for scientific analysis is relevant for
human aesthetic analysis.
233
Principle 2. Cultural conventions powerfully influence
landscape pattern in both inhabited and apparently
natural landscapes
"'People in any country see their
terrain through preferred and accustomed
spectacles, and tend to
make it over as they see it. ""
Lowenthaland Prince, 1965,p. 186
Cultural conventions and customs directly affect
what people notice, find interesting, and prefer
about the landscape. Conventionsand customs also
direct human action to make landscapes, particularly
vernacular landscapes, which are "identified
with local custom, pragmatic adaptation to circumstances,
and unpredictable mobility" (Jackson
1984, p. xii). Vernacular landscapes are made by
land developers, homeowners, farmers, foresters,
and others who make landscapes with standard
practices in mind rather than with design intentions
that are particular to a place.
Because they embody unexamined conventions
and customs, landscapes are resistant cultural artifacts.
Typically, people believe that a yard, a
park, a field, a forest, or a city shouM look a certain
way without questioning the necessity of that appearance
(Rapoport 1982, Nassauer 1988a, 1995).
If personal preferences for an unconventional landscape
structure exist, they tend to be subsumed by
the power of convention. People make landscapes
according to what they believe their neighbors will
think or cautious assessments of market expectations.
Innovation in the design or management of
the landscape occurs within the realm of conven-
tion.
Conventions about landscape resist change in
part because culture imbues landscape appearance
with easily read connotations about the person who
cares for the land (Nassauer, 1988b, 1993, 1995).
The landscape of any American's home is immediately
interpreted for what it says about the householder.
Talking about Minnesota farms and suburban
homes, research participants have described
the owners as good or bad neighbors, hard workers
or lazy, good or poor stewards, based entirely upon
the appearance of the landscapes they care for
234
(Nassauer 1988b, 1993). Changing the way people
design and manage landscapes will require change
in the way people read social characteristics into
landscapes.
The resistance of convention does not prevent
cultural values from changing. For example, the
popular value of wilderness changed in the United
States in the 19th century largelybecause of the portrayal
of wilderness in literature and art, the emergence
of tourism, and the political advocacy that
followed (Nash 1967). Consequently, landscapes
began to be preserved as state and national parks.
Principle 3. Cultural concepts of nature are different
from scientific concept of ecological function
While people who value nature tend to assume that
natural landscapes embody ecological quality, cultural
concepts of nature and scientific concepts of
ecological function have no necessary relationship
(Nassauer 1992). What looks like beautiful nature
may be a polluted former landfill, and what looks
like a neglected abandoned lot may be a rich ecosystem.
Nature as Western culture interprets it is as
much a convention (Crandell 1993) as is the tidy,
mown lawn. While the recent rejuvenation of a
popular ecological consciousness has begun to
challenge the rectitude of the conventional mown
lawn (Bormann et al. 1993, Stein 1993), preconceptions
of what healthy ecosystems look like may be
more resistant to change because cultural perceptions
of naturalness are so deeply identified with
cultural perceptions of ecological health.
However, the distinction between ecological
function and cultural perceptions of nature is unmistakable.
For example, while Minnesota suburban
residents value songbirds in the suburban environment,
they are unlikely to value the woody
habitat the birds require (Martin 1993). A woody
understory may have a useful habitat function but
it may not look like the cultural ideal of picturesque
nature. Similarly, indigenous oak woodland ecosystems,
which tend to match the picturesque cultural
image of naturalness, are likely to be maintained
with relative integrity by their Minnesota
property owners. However, indigenous prairie
ecosystems, which do not match that image, are
likely to be planted with coniferous trees by their
Minnesota property owners, who think they are
improving the natural landscape by planting trees
(Buss 1994). A controversial example of a picturesque
cultural concept of nature applied in national
policy is the USDA Forest Service Visual
Management (VMS). The VMS guided the clearcutring
of forest lands to meet visitor expectations for
a natural appearing forest by specifying that clearcutting
should occur where it would not been seen
from major roads travelled by tourists (USDA
Forest Service 1974, McGuire 1979). Observers who
were interested in the ecological health of forest
lands saw this policy as organized deceit (Wood
1988, Nassauer 1992).
The cultural perception of nature is not wrong, it
simply is. Rather what is mistaken and insidious in
its effect is the confusion of cultural perception
with ecological function. This mistake tends to lull
people into a complacency about ecological quality
where landscapes look natural, and to provoke people
into objecting to ecological landscape protection
or innovation where the resulting landscapes
do not look natural. To improve the ecological
function of landscapes, landscape ecologists need
to know that the cultural perception of nature is independent
from ecological function, and that landscape
appearance communicates in a cultural language
of form.
Principle 4. The appearance of landscapes communicates
cultural values
Culture filters landscape perception. In the 19th
century the portrayal of landscape in literature and
art created new cultural filters. The landscape can
portray itself and cause people to see it in a different
way. Landscapes are concrete, public statements
of cultural values (Rapoport 1982; Nassauer
1992). They are "enormous communication device(s)"
(Lynch 1971).
If an overarching goal of landscape ecology is to
improve ecological function by changing the structure
of landscapes, landscape ecologists need to
know how values and conventions change. Values
embodied by landscapes are frequently contradictory.
In the United States today, ecological quality
is valued, but so are wealth (Bourassa 1992), neatness
(Nassauer 1988), and safety (Schroeder and
Anderson 1984, Nasar 1993), for example. While
law, politics, new customs and even fads are pervasive
evidence of the cultural value of ecological
quality, this value constantlymust contend with the
social value of wealth, when it resists restrictions
upon the use of land, air, or water: neatness, which
tends to create homogeneous landscape structure
and simple ecosystems: and safety, which has led to
the removal of vegetation that might hide attackers.
These contradictions underscore the need to establish
new conventions by creating new forms of inhabited
landscapes that portray ecological function
at the same time that that portray multiple cultural
values.
Culture can change when people begin to recognize
different landscape patterns as material evidence
of long held values. For example, farmers in
the East and Midwest have valued progressive
farming since the 19th century, but in 1910 a farm
that included varied enterprises of fruit, livestock,
and grain crops would have looked progressive. In
1960 a farm that specialized in a single enterprise at
a larger scale would have looked progressive. Two
decades later a farmer would have been likely to be
perceived as progressive if he skillfullyused residue
management (Nassauer and Westmacott 1987). The
value of progressive farming remained unchanged,
but the landscape structure that displayed the value
changed with new knowlegde and innovation. This
raises the question of how to create new landscape
forms that accomodate ecological function in a way
that is consistent with public values and cultural
expectations.
Study landscapes at a human scale
When the German geographer Carl Troll first
coined the phrase, landscape ecology, in response
to the patterns apparent in aerial photographs, he
was observing patterns created by human settlement
(Schreiber 1989). Landscape structure that is
perceivable to humans as analysts, particularly at
235
the scale of standard maps and remote sensing data,
is frequently the subject of landscape ecology research.
While this scale of analysismay create a bias
toward a human scale (Wiens and Milne 1989,
Wiens 1992), it also presents ecological function at
a scale that is apparent to human beings in everyday
experience.
The same types of data bases that are used for
biophysical analysis and modelling were used for
some of the earliest empirical landscape perception
research (Zube, Pitt, and Anderson 1974), and the
typologies (e.g., woodland, cultivated field, pasture)
used in biophysical research are very similar to
typologies that predict human preference for landscape
views. Within the scale and typology of landscape
ecology, the shapes and forms of ecological
cognition intersect the cultural perception nature.
The woodland patch that delights the eye could be
delineated in the same way to represent a woodland
patch that provides habitat.
Human scale analysis of landscape structure
places ecological function within the framework of
human experience. It makes ecological function
understandable to people. Where the research objective
is to understand the behavior and habitat
needs of other species, Wiens' criticism of a human
scale landscape typology is well-founded. Where
the objective is to understand ecological function at
the scale at which landscape is constructed and
managed, human-scale analysis is extremelyuseful.
Experiment with possible landscapes designed to
enhance ecological function
Possible landscapes are landscapes designed in the
context of cultural expectations and ecological
knowledge. Innovative designs for possible landscapes
lay out a vision that is beyond the realm of
models that rely on existing patterns. Measuring the
ecological function of only existing landscapes or
landscapes that are products of acultural models
limits the normative power of biophysical knowledge,
fails to address the values conflicts between
ecological values and other cultural values, and
omits the constructive vision of innovation. Ecological
knowledge is used to determine how land
236
should be managed. If landscape ecology does not
propose normative models for managing landscapes,
it leaves the translation of scientific concepts
to the idiosyncrasies of political circumstance.
If normative landscape models are proposed without
being grounded in the full range of cultural
values, they will be overwhelmed by the momentum
of custom. Working with possible landscapes would
allow all the disciplines that contribute to landscape
ecology to collaborate in determining the role of
human behavior in ecological systems.
Science, culture, and design
Research that includes the relationship between
biophysical and cultural phenomena remains more
of an aspiration than an accomplishment of landscape
ecology (Naveh 1991, Farina 1993). While
scholars, scientists, and designers, and particularly
resource managers and planners in the field, have
felt the necessity of binding social and cultural insights
to ecological knowledge, action has been
impeded by disparate disciplinary cultures. Different
disciplinary conventions for research create obstacles
to sharing knowledge. Cultural knowledge,
scientific knowledge and design innovation are all
needed to accomplish cultural principles for landscape
ecology. If the disciplines that contribute to
landscape ecology can breach the obstacles of research
conventions, they can approach a level of
mutual accountability in landscape ecology. A biophysical
critique of existing and possible landscapes
and of cultural expectations for landscape is needed.
Cultural criticism and design experiments with
biophysical research assumptions about landscape
structure would accelerate development of landscape
ecology theory.
Conclusion
Among landscape ecologists a consensus is growing
about the need to develop cultural principles for
landscape ecology. The intrinsic reciprocal relationship
between culture and landscape structure
has been described here, and four general principles
have been introduced. The enormous opportunity
to experiment with possible landscapes has been
emphasized, and the usefulness of studying landscapes
at a human scale has been described. Building
more specific cultural principles in landscape
ecology requires thoughtful development of methods
that reside in the traditions of no single discipline
but grow from the purpose of the work.
References
Appleton, J. 1975. The experience of landscape. John Wiley and
Sons. New York.
Baker, W.L. 1989. A review of models of landscape change.
Landscape EcoL 2: 111-133.
Bailing, J.D. and Falk, J.H. 1982. Development of visual
preferences for natural environments. Environment and Behavior.
14: 5-28.
Bormann, F.H., Balmori, D. and Geballe, G.T. 1993. Redesigning
the American lawn. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Bourassa, S.C. 1991. The Aesthetics of Landscape. BeUhaven
Press. London.
Bourassa, S.C. 1992. Public welfare and the economics of landscape
aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 22:31-40.
Buss, S. 1994. Private landowner's valuesfor rare species and
natural communities. Unpublished thesis. University of Min-
nesota.
Caldwell, L.K. 1990. Landscape, law and public policy: Conditions
for an ecological perspective. Landscape EeoL 5: 3-8.
Caravello, G.U. and Giaconim, F. 1993. Landscape ecology
aspects in a territory centuriated in Roman times. Landscape
and Urban Planning 24: 77-85.
Crandell, G. 1993. Naturepictorialized. Johns Hopkins University
Press. Baltimore.
Farina, A. 1993. From global to regional landscape ecology
Landscape EcoL 8: 153-154.
Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecol. John
Wiley New York.
Garling, T. et al., 1984. Cognitive mapping of large-scale environments.
Environment and Behavior. 16: 3-34.
Gibson, J.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to VisualPerception.
Houghton-Mifflin Company, Boston.
Golledge, R.G. and Stimson, R.J. 1987. Analytical Behavioural
Geography. Croom Helm, Ltd. Beckenham, Kent.
Goodenough, W.H. 1970. Description and comparison in cultural
anthropology. Aldine Press, Chicago.
Hartshorne, R. 1959. Perspective on the nature of geography.
Association of American Geographers.
Ittelson, W.H. 1973. Environment and Cognition. Seminar
Press, New York.
Jackson, J.B. 1984. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape.
Yale University Press. New Haven. 165 pp.
Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. 1982. Cognition and environment:
Functioning in an Uncertain World. Praeger Publishers, New
York.
Kaplan, S. 1987. Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition. Environmental
Preference from an Evolutionary Perspective. Environment
and Behavior. 19: 3-32.
Lowenthal, D. and Prince, H.C. 1965. English landscape tastes.
The Geographical Review. 55: 186-222.
Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city. MIT Press. Cambridge.
Lynch, K. 1971. Site Planning. Second ed. MIT Press, Cam-
bridge.
Martin, R.D. 1993. Suburban residents'perception of wildlife
habitatpatches and corridors in their neighborhoods. Unpublished
masters thesis. University of Minnesota.
McGuire, I. 1979. Managing the forest landscape for pubic expectations.
In: Our national landscape: A conference on applied
techniques for analysis and management of the visual
resource, pp. 16-18. USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report PSW-35. Berkeley.
Nasar, J.L. 1993. Proximate physical cues to fear of crime.
Landscape and Urban Planning 26: 161-178.
Nash, R. 1967. Wilderness and the American mind. Yale University
Press. New Haven.
Nassauer, J.I. and Westmacott, R. 1987. Progressiveness
Among farmers as a factor in heterogeneity of farmed landscapes.
In Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. M.G.
Turner, ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Nassauer, J.I. 1988a. The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as
a form of care. HortSci. 23: 6.
Nassauer, J.I. 1988b. Landscape care: perceptions of local people
in landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape
and Land Use Planning. 8. Amer. Soc. of Landscape
Architects, Washington DC.
Nassauer, J.I. 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as a
matter of policy. Landscape EcoL 6: 239-250.
Nassauer, J.I. 1993. Ecological function and the perception of
suburban residential landscapes. In Gobster, P.H., ed.,
Managing Urban and High Use Recreation Settings. General
Technical Report, USDA Forest Service North Central Forest
Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN.
Nassauer, J.I. 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape
Journal In press.
Naveh, Z. 1982. Landscape ecology as an emerging branch of
human ecosystem science. In: Advances in Ecological Research.
12. Academic Press, London. pp. 189-237.
Naveh, Z. 1991. Some remarks on recent developments in land-
237
scape ecology as a transdisciplinary ecological and geographical
science. Landscape Ecol. 5: 65-74.
Random House. 1987. The Random House dictionary of the
English language. Second Ed. Unabridged.
Rapoport, A. 1982. The Meaning of the Built Environment.
SAGE Publications. Beverly Hills, CA.
Risser, P.G., Karr, J.R. and Forman R.T.T. 1984. Landscape
ecology: directions and approaches. Illinois Natural History
Survey, Publication No. 2.
Risser, P.G. 1987. Landscape ecology: state of the art. In Landscape
heterogeneity and disturbance. M.G. Turner, ed.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Schreiber, K. 1989. The history of landscape ecology in Europe.
In Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective. Zonnenveld,
I.S. and Forman, R.T.T., eds. Springer-Verlag, New
York.
Schroeder, H.W. and Anderson, L.M. 1984. Perception of personal
safety in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure
Research. 16: 178-194.
Segall, M.H., Campbell, D.T. and Herskovitz, M.J. 1966. The
influence of culture on perception. Bobbs-Merrill Company,
Indianapolis.
Sell, J.L., et al., 1984. Toward a theoretical framework for landscape
perception. In Environmental perception and Behavior:
An Inventory and Prospect. Saarinen, T.F., et al., eds.
University of Chicago, Department of Geography Research
Paper #209. pp. 61-84.
Stein, Sara. 1993. Noah's garden. Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston. 294 pp.
Tolman, E.C. 1948. Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological
Review. 55: 189-208.
USDA Forest Service. 1974. The visual management system.
Handbook 462. USGPO, Washington.
Wiens, J.A. and Milne, B.T. 1989. Scaling of landscapes in
landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle's perspective.
Landscape Ecol. 2: 87-96.
Wiens, J.A. 1992. What is landscape ecology, really? Landscape
Ecology 3: 149-150.
Wood, D. 1988. Unnatural illusions: some words about visual
resource management. Landscape Journal 7:2: 192-205.
Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G. and Anderson, T.W. 1979. Perception
and measurement of scenic resources of the Southern Connecticut
River Valley. Institute for Man and the Environment,
Amherst.