The Relationship Between Women’s Preferences for Landscape Spatial Configurations and Relevant Socio-Economic Variables

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. Appleton J

   . 1975. Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. The transactions of the institute of British geographers. 66:120-123.

   OpenUrl
2. ↵
   1. Berman M,
   2. Kross E,
   3. Krpan K,
   4. Askren M,
   5. Burson A,
   6. Deldin P,
   7. Kaplan S,
   8. Sherdell L,
   9. Gotlib I,
   10. Jonides J

   . 2012. Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders. 140:300-305.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
3. ↵
   1. Buijs AE,
   2. Elands BH,
   3. Langers F

   . 2009. No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning. 91(3):113-123.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
4. ↵
   1. Council of Europe

   . 2000. Landscape European Convention. Council of Europe, Florence, Italy.
5. ↵
   1. De Vaus DA

   . 2002. Surveys in social research. 5th Edition. London (UK): Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. 379 p.
6. ↵
   1. Dowse R,
   2. Ehlers MS

   . 2001. The evaluation of pharmaceutical pictograms in a low-literate South African population. Patient Education and Counseling. 45(2):87-99.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. ↵
   1. Ellis N,
   2. Heal O,
   3. Dent J,
   4. Firbank L

   . 1999. Pluriactivity, farm household socio-economics and the botanical characteristics of grass fields in the Grampian region of Scotland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 76:121-134.

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Ferreira S,
   2. Moro M

   . 2013. Income and preferences for the environment: evidence from subjective well-being data. Environment and Planning A. 45(3):650-667.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
9. ↵
   1. Ghamari A,
   2. Talischi G,
   3. Dejdar O

   . 2015. Analytical approach to investigate the gender and its differences in understanding physical space, case study: cultural centers in Tehran. Armanshahr. 10(21):77-86.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Grahn P,
    2. Stigsdotter UK

    . 2010. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning. 95(3-4):264-275.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Grühn D,
    2. Scheibe S

    . 2008. Age-related differences in valence and arousal ratings of pictures from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS): do ratings become more extreme with age? Behavior Research Methods. 40:512-521.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. ↵
    1. Hami A,
    2. Fazle F,
    3. Emami M

    . 2016. Factors affecting people preferences toward environment landscape, case study: shopping mall in Kuala Lumpur. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 5(4):108-117.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Hami A,
    2. Tarashkar M

    . 2018. Assessment of women’s familiarity perceptions and preferences in terms of plants origins in the urban parks of Tabriz, Iran. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 32:168-176.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Hawthorne M,
    2. Alabaster T

    . 1999. Citizen 2000: development of a model of environmental citizenship. Global Environmental Change. 9:25-43.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
15. ↵
    1. Howley P

    . 2011. Landscape aesthetics: assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics. 72:161-169.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Howley P,
    2. Donoghue CO,
    3. Hynes S

    . 2012. Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 104:66-74.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Hull RB,
    2. Stewart WP

    . 1992. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 12(2):101-114.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
18. ↵
    1. Jackson-Smith DB,
    2. McEvoy JP

    . 2011. Assessing the long-term impacts of water quality outreach and education efforts on agricultural landowners. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 17(4):341-353.

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Joas M,
    2. Jahn D,
    3. Kern K

    . 2008. Governing a common sea: environmental policies in the Baltic Sea region. London (UK): Earth Scan. 257 p.
20. ↵
    1. Kaltenborn BP,
    2. Bjerke T

    . 2002. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning. 59:1-11.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
21. ↵
    1. Kaplan R,
    2. Kaplan S

    . 1989. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. 340 p.
22. ↵
    1. Kaplan R,
    2. Kaplan S,
    3. Ryan RL

    . 1998. With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Washington (DC, USA): Island Press. 239 p.
23. ↵
    1. Kaplan S,
    2. Kaplan R

    . 1982. Cognition and environment: functioning in an uncertain world. New York (NY, USA): Praeger. 287 p.
24. ↵
    1. Ozyavuz M

    1. Kaymaz IC

    . 2012. Landscape perception. In: Ozyavuz M, editor. Landscape Planning. London (UK): IntechOpen. p. 251–276.
25. ↵
    1. Lindemann-Matthies P,
    2. Briegel R,
    3. Schüpbach B,
    4. Junge X

    . 2010. Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: the impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning. 98(2):99-109.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
26. ↵
    1. Mitra A,
    2. Lankford S

    . 1999. Research methods in park, recreation, and leisure services. Urbana (IL, USA): Sagamore Publishing. 334 p.
27. ↵
    1. Molnarova K,
    2. Sklenicka P,
    3. Stiborek J,
    4. Svobodova K,
    5. Salek M,
    6. Brabec E

    . 2012. Visual preferences for wind turbines: location, numbers and respondent characteristics. Applied Energy. 92:269-278.

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. Morren M,
    2. Grinstein A

    . 2016. Explaining environmental behavior across borders: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environment Psychology. 47:91-106.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Nielsen AB,
    2. Heyman E,
    3. Richnau G

    . 2012. Liked, disliked and unseen forest attributes: relation to modes of viewing and cognitive constructs. Journal of Environmental Management. 113:456-466.

    OpenUrlPubMed
30. ↵
    1. Rezai G,
    2. Mohamed Z,
    3. Shamsudin MN

    . 2011. Malaysian consumer’s perception towards purchasing organically produced vegetable. Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Business and Economics Research, Malaysia. 9 p.
31. ↵
    1. Richardson EA,
    2. Mitchell R

    . 2010. Gender differences in relationships between urban green space and health in the United Kingdom. Social Science and Medicine. 71(3):568-575.

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    1. Soliva R,
    2. Hunziker M

    . 2009. Beyond the visual dimension: using ideal type narratives to analyze people’s assessments of landscape scenarios. Land Use Policy. 26:284-294.

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Suhardi M

    . 2006. A perceptual study of wetlands: implications for wetland restoration in the urban areas in Malaysia [Doctoral Dissertation]. Blacksburg (VA, USA): Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 242 p.
34. ↵
    1. Torgler B,
    2. García Valiñas MA,
    3. Macintyre A

    . 2008. Differences in preferences towards the environment: the impact of a gender, age and parental effect. FEEM Working Paper No. 18.2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1105320
35. ↵
    1. Tuncer G,
    2. Ertepinar H,
    3. Tekkaya C,
    4. Sungur S

    . 2007. Environmental attitudes of young people in Turkey: effects of school type and gender. Environmental Education Research. 11(2):215-233.

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Tveit M,
    2. Ode Å,
    3. Fry G

    . 2006. Key visual concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Research. 31:229-255.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
37. ↵
    1. Van den Berg AE,
    2. Hartig T,
    3. Staats H

    . 2007. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues. 63(1):79-96.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
38. ↵
    1. Van den Berg AE,
    2. Koole SL

    . 2006. New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development plans. Landscape and Urban Planning. 78(4):362-372.

    OpenUrl
39. ↵
    1. Van der Jagt APN,
    2. Craig T,
    3. Anable J,
    4. Brewer MJ,
    5. Pearson DG

    . 2014. Unearthing the picturesque: the validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning. 124:1-13.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
40. ↵
    1. Vouligny E,
    2. Domon G,
    3. Ruiz J

    . 2009. An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an expert and by its residents: landscape values in areas of intensive agricultural use. Land Use Policy. 26:890-900.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
41. ↵
    1. Wang R,
    2. Zhao J

    . 2017. Demographic groups’ differences in visual preference for vegetated landscapes in urban green space. Sustainable Cities and Society. 28:350-357.

    OpenUrl
42. ↵
    1. Xiao C,
    2. McCright AM

    . 2015. Gender differences in environmental concern: revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA. Environment and Behavior. 47(1):17-37.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
43. ↵
    1. Zelezny LC,
    2. Chua P,
    3. Aldrich C

    . 2000. Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues. 56:443-457.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science