1

pi pi ,

pipi . 1 pi 2

1 M.Sc.- / . - - 63100 - :. 2371021411- fax: 237121419 - email: iakwvospap@gmail.com

2 . - - pi - & - 38221 - . 2421074712- fax: 2421074712 -email: pstefano1@gmail.com

pi pi pi, pi pi pi pi pi. pi pi . pi pi pi , pi pi pi, pi pi pi pi pi . pi pi pi. pi pi , pi . H , , pi , pi pi pi pi, pi pi pi . : pi, , , , .

1. pi pi pi pi pi pi pi , pi pi pi pi (Lucas, 1991, Naveh, 1995, Porteus, 1996). pi pi pi pi pi, pipi pi pi pi . , pi, pi pi pi (Garrod & Willis, 1999). pi pi pipi pi pi, pi , , pipi pi pi pi, pi pi pi (Rolston, 1995, Panagopoulos, 2009, Brook, 2013). , pi pi, pi pi pi pi , pi pi pi, , , pi. pi, pi pi pi pi pi , pi pi pi, pi pi pi (, 1996). pi pi pi pi (Van der Heide & Heijman, 2013), pi. , pi pi pi pi pi, pi pi, pi pi , pi pi pi, pi pi.. , , pi pi pi pi . pi , pi pi pi pi pi pi pi , pi, pi. pi pi pi , pi pi pi pi . pi pi pi (Daniel & Vining, 1983, Bell et al., 1990, Pitt & Zube, 1991):

) pi : pi pi pi pi pi pi pi. , pi pi , , , , , , , pi .pi. pi pi pi pi pi pi, , pi, , .pi. (Litton, 1979, Simonds, 1983, & pi, 1992, Sheppard, 2004).

) pi :

2

pi (Lien & Buhyoff, 1986, , 1989) , pipi pi, pi (pi.. , , pi .pi.) pi pipi pi (pi.. pipi, pi .pi.) ( , pi, .pi.).

) ( ) : (Appleton, 1975, Ulrich, 1977, Orians, 1980, Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) pi , pi pi, pi pi pi. pi pi , pi pi pi pi pi, pi, , pi , pi. pi, pi pi pi pi. , pi pi pi pi pipi pi pi, pi . pi pi, pi pi Stephen Kaplan Rachel Kaplan (1987, 1989, 1998). , pi pi pi pi , pi , . pi pi, pi pi pi pi pi pi pi pi . pi pi, , pi pi, pi pi. , pi pi pi pi pi pi pi pi, pi pi pi pi , . , pi pi pi pi: , , , , pi , pi pi , pipi , pi pi pi .

1. pipi pi pi pi pi. (: Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989, p. 53). Table 1. Matrix of the main four domains of environmental preference (Source: Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989, p. 53).

pi pipi pi

& pipi

pi &

2 pipi & pi pi 3 & pi

pi pipi pipi pi, pi pi pi. , , pi pi . pi pi pi , pi, pi , pi, pipi pi pi pi pipi pipi, , pipi pi pi pi pi. pi pi, pi: , ( ) pi. : : pi pi pi pi , , . pi , pi pi. pi: pi pi pi pi pi. pi . pi pi, pipi pi . : pi pi pi , . pi pi pi pi pi , pipi.

3

: pi pi pi pi pi . pi pi pi pi pi pipi pi pi pi. pi pi pipi pi pi pi, pi . pi , pi pi, pi pi, . pi pi pi. pipi pi . pi , pi pi , pi . pi pi pi pi , pi, pi, pi . pi pi pipi pi pi , pi pipi pi .

2. pi pi pi pi pi ..., : pi pi pipi pi pi pi pi, pi pi. pi pi pi, pi pi pi. pi pi pi pi pi. pi . pi pi , , , pi pi (Zube et al., 1983, Hampel et al., 1997, Scott & Canter, 1997, Purcell & Lamb, 1998). , 11 16 pi pi pi , pi pi pi (Boxner & Wiseman, 1997). pipi , (Sebba, 1991, Cohen & HormWingerd, 1993), pi pi , pi pi pipi. pi pi 71 (38 33 ) (64 : pi 90%, pipi 7 : pi 10%) pi . pi pi pi , pi (, 1=35 , 16 19 ) pi pi ( , 2=36 , 22 14 ). pi pi pi pi pi , , . 31 pi pi (slides). pipi pi pi pi , , , pi pi pi pi pi (Zube, et al., 1987), pi pi pipi (Scott and Canter, 1997). pi pipi pi pi pi, pipi . , pi pi pi pi pi pi (Judith, 1997). , , , pipi pi pi pi pi pi (pi, 1991). pi, pi , pi pi, pi pi pi pi, pi pipi pi , pi pipi pi pi . pi pi pi pi pi pipi pi pi pi pi pi pi (Oppenheim, 1996). pi pi pipi pi , pi pi (Purcell & Lamb, 1998). pi

4

pi pi pi pi pi (Stamps, 2004). pi pi pi pi . pi pi , pi pi pi pi (Rudell et al., 1989, Scott & Canter, 1997). pi . pi pi pi. pi pi pi pi pi, pi pi (pi.. pi pi pi) pi 2, pi, pi pi pi pipi , pipi =0.05. pi pipi SPSS 18.0.

3. pi pi , pi pi pi pi pi pi. pi pi pipi pi pi pi pi , pi . pi pi pi, pi pi pi. :

pi 1. pi 2. pi 3. pi 4.

pi 5. pi 6. pi 7.

1. pipi pi. Figure 1. Indicative depicted landscape scenes evaluated in the present study.

pipi pi pi. pi pi (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989, Knopf, 1991). pi, pi pi pi, pi pi pi. pi, pi pi. pi pi , pi pi pi . pi . pi , pi pi . pi pi

5

(pi.. pi 1, 2 3), pi. pi , pi (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) pi (Lynch & Gimblett, 1992). , , pi pi pi pi pi (pi.. pi 2 3). pipi, pi pi pi pi , pi . pi pi pi pi pi pi pipi pi pi , pi. pi pi pi (pi.. pi 3). pi pi pi , pi pi pi pi (pi.. pi 5). pi pi pi. pi pi , pi pi . pi, pi pi pi pi. pi pi, pi pi pi . pi pi pipi pi. pi pi pi pi, pi pi (pi.. pi 5), pi pi pi . , , pi, pi pi , , pi pi, pi (Kaplan et al., 1998). pi pipi pi pipi pi pi , pi pi, pi pi pi pi , pipi pi pi pi pi pi , pi pi pi. pi pi. pi pi pi, pi , , pi (pi.. pi 7), pi pi (Ribe, 1989, Ruddell et al., 1989, Herzog & Kropscott, 2004). pi pi pi pi pi pi pi, pi pi (pi.. pi 4 6). , (pi.. ) , , pi pi . pi pi pi pi pi . , pi pi pi pipi pi , pi pi. pi pi pi pi, pi pi , pi pi pi pi. pi, pi :

pi , pi pi pipi pi pi pi pi pi pi , , pi .pi. ( .., 1996). ... . ... pi pi, , pi pipi. pipi pi pi pi pi, pi.

pi 70 80 pi pi, pi pi pi pi pi, , pi (Boxner & Wiseman, 1997). pi pi pi pi pi.. (McAndrew, 1993). , (10 15 ) pi pi ( pi ), pi

6

pi pipi pi pi, pipi pi, pi pi pi pi (, , , pi) pi pi. pi pi , pi , pi . pi ( pi pi) pi pi , pi pipi pi pi.. . pi pi pi (Bourassa, 1991, Cohen & HormWingerd, 1993), pi pi, . pi pi (pi.. pi ) pi pi pi. pi pi pi pi (pi.. pi 7: pi pi ), pi . pi pi , pi . pipi pi pi, pi pi.. pi pi pi . pi , pi pi pi pi pi pi, . pi pi pi. pi pi pi, pi pi . pipi, pi pi , pi pi pi , pi pipi pi pi, pi. pipi pi pi (pi.. pi ). pi pi, , pi pi pi . pi pi, pi pi pi pi , pi pi ( pi) pi pi pi. , pi pi , pi pi pi (Dearden, 1987).

4. - pi pipi pi pi pi pi , , pi , pi pi pi, , pi pi pi pi. pi pi pi pi , pi , pi pi pi . , pi pipi pi pi, pi pi pi . pi, pi pipi pi , pi pipi pi , pi pi pi , . pi pipi pi pi pi, pi pi pi pi pi. pi pi . pi pi pi pipi pi pi pi, , pi . pi pi pi, pi pi pi pi pi pi . pi , pi pi pi , pi pipi pi pi . pipi pi pi pi, pi , pi pi pi , pi . pi pi pi pi, pi pi pi . ,

7

pi pi , pi pi , , , pi pi pi, , pi . pi , pi pi pi , . pi pi pi pi pi pi, pi pi. . pi pipi , pi pi pi pi , pi pi , pipi (pi.. pi pi pi), pi pi , pi.

High school student landscape preferences according to cognitive models Papadopoulos P. Iakovos and Paraskevopoulos Stefanos

Abstract The main goal of the present study was to investigate High School student landscape preferences, mainly for forest settings. Sample of participants consisted from an urban and a rural area and appraisals obtained according to cognitive models, in particular via the information processing model. Photo slides of landscapes were presented to the participants and the analyzing method of results was a semi-structured interview. Reported views advocate that the proposed cognitive method can successfully predict landscape preferences. Differences between city and province students were not identified. Differentiation of views in terms of subjects sex, was also small. Naturalness, mystery, structure adaptation level, ease of orientation and visual penetration of the scenes, contributed to positive appraisals of the individuals. Keywords: forest landscape, High school students, cognitive models, naturalness, mystery.

Appleton, J. 1975. The Experience of the Landscape. Wiley, London. Bell, A.P., Fisher, D.J., Baum, A. and Greene, T.E. 1990. Environmental Psychology (3rd Ed.). Fort Worth: Holt

Rinehart & Winston, New York. Bourassa, S.C. 1991. The Aesthetics of Landscape. Belhaven Press, London. Boxner, X.F. and Wiseman, M. 1997. Environmental Perception of Rural and Urban Pupils. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 17, 111122. Brook, I. 2013. Aesthetic appreciation of landscape. In Howard, P., Thompson, I. and Waterton, E. (Eds.), The

Routledge Companion to Landscape Studies. Routledge, London. Cohen, S. and HormWingerd, D. 1993. Children and the Environment: Ecological Awareness Among

Preschool Children. Environment and Behavior, 25 (1), 103119. Daniel, T.C. and Vining, J. 1983. Methodological Issues in the Assessment of Landscape Quality. In Altman, I.

and Wohlwill, J.F, (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment, (3984). Plenum Press, New York. Dearden, P. 1987. Consensus and a Theoretical Framework for Landscape Evaluation. Journal of Environmental

Management, 34, 267278. , . 1989. pi

. , pi , pi, pi, .

, . 1996. pi pi: pipi . pi , 7(1), 4353.

Garrod, G.D. and Willis, K.G. 1999. Economic Valuation of the Environment: Methods and Case Studies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Hampel, B., Holdsworth, R. and Boldero, J. 1997. Urban/Rural Differences in Environmental Consciousness among Adolescents. Rural Society, 5(4), 13-27.

Herzog, T.R. & Kropscott L.S. 2004. Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior, 36, 659-677.

Judith, B. (. , ..). 1997. . Gutenberg, .

Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

8

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Ryan, R. L. 1998. With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island.

Kaplan, S. 1987. Aesthetic, Affect, and Cognition: Environmental Preference from an Evolutionary Perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 332.

Knopf, C.R. 1991. Human Behavior, Cognition, and Affect in the Natural Environment. In Stokols, D. and Altman I., (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, (783809). Krieger Publishing Company, Florida.

Lien, J.N. and Buhyoff, G.J. 1986. Extension of Visual Quality Models for Urban Forests. Journal of Environmental Management, 22, 245254.

Litton, R.B.Jr. 1979. Descriptive Approaches to Landscape Analysis. In Elsner, G.H. and Smardon, R.C. (Eds.), Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource, (7787). USDA Forest Service Report PSW-35.

Lucas, O.W.R. 1997. Aesthetic considerations in British Forestry. 1997. Forestry, 70(4), 1997, 343-349. Lynch, J.A. and Gimblett, R.H. 1992. Perceptual Values in the Cultural Landscape: A Spatial Model for

Assessing and Mapping Perceived Mystery in Rural Environments. Journal of Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 16, 453471.

McAndrew, T.F. 1993. Environmental Psychology. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, California. Naveh, Z. 1995. Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32(1995), 4354. Oppenheim, A.N. 1996. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement (New Edition). Printer

Publishers, London & New York. Orians, G.H. 1980. Habitat selection: general theory and applications to human behavior. In: J.S. Lockard (Ed.),

The Evolution of Human Social Behavior, 49 - 66. Elsevier, New York.. , ., pi, ., , ., , . . 1996. pi,

pi pi . , .

pi, . 1991. pi . , pi , .

Panagopoulos, T. 2009. Linking forestry, sustainability and aesthetics. Ecological Economics 68(2009), 24852489.

Pitt, D.G. and Zube, E.H. 1991. Management of Natural Environments. In Stokols, D. and Altman, I. (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, (10091035). Krieger Publishing Company, Florida.

Porteous, J.D. 1996. Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics and Planning. Routledge, USA and Canada, New York.

Purcell, A.T. and Lamb, R.J. 1998. Preference and Naturalness: An Ecological Approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42 (1998), 5766.

Ribe, R.G. 1989. The Aesthetics of Forestry: What Has Empirical Preference Research Taught Us? Environmental Management, 13 (1), 56-74.

Rolston, H., III. 1995. Does aesthetic appreciation of Landscapes need to be science based? British Journal of Aesthetics, (35)4, October,1995.

Ruddell, J.E, Gramann, H.J., Rudis, A.V. and Westphal, M.J. 1989. The Psychological Utility of Visual Penetration in NearView Forest Scenic Beauty Models. Environment and Behavior, 21(4), 393410.

Scott, J.M. and Canter, D.V. 1997. Picture or Place? A multiple Sorting Study of Landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 263281.

Sebba, R. 1991. The Landscapes of Childhood: The Reflection of Childhoods Environment in Adult Memories and in Childrens Attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 23(4), 395420.

Sheppard, S.R.J. 2004. Visual analysis of forest landscapes. In Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences. Academic Press/Elsevier, Oxford, UK., 440-450.

Simonds, J.O. 1983. Landscape Architecture, (2nd Ed.). McGrawHill Book Company, New York. Stamps, A.E., III. 2004. Mystery, complexity, legibility, and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 24, 1-16. Ulrich, R.S., 1977. Visual landscape preference: a model and application, Man-Environment Systems. 7(5), 279 -

293. Van der Heide C.M. and Heijman, W. 2013. The Economic Value of Landscapes. Routledge. USA and Canada,

New York. , . pi, . 1992. pi.

pi, . Zube, E.H., Pitt D.G. and Evans G.W. 1983. A Lifespan Developmental Study of Landscape Assessment.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 115128. Zube, E.H., Simcox, D.E. & Law, C.S. 1987. Perceptual and scape simulations: History and prospect. Landscape

Journal, 6, 62-80.