- J. M. Juran, Ed., A history of managing for quality: the evolution, trends, and future directions of managing for quality. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press, 1995.
- W. A. Shewhart, Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control, 1986 ed. New York: Dover, 1939.
- J. M. Juran, Juran on quality by design: the new steps for planning quality into goods and services. New York: The Free Press, 1992.
- W. E. Deming, The new economics for industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA: Center for Advanced Engineering Study, MIT, 1994.
- D. H. Krantz, R. D. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky, Foundations of measurement 1. Mineola, New York: Dover, 1971.
- W. E. Deming, Some theory of sampling. New York: Dover, 1950.
- R. A. Fisher, The design of experiments, 1971 ed. New York: Hafner, 1935.
- A. L. Cochrane, Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services, 2004 ed. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 1972.
- C. Collaboration. (2012, 13 July). Cochrane Reviews. Available: www.cochrane.org/cochrane-reviews
- K. Dickersin, “To reform U.S. health care, start with systematic reviews,” Science, 329, pp. 516–517, 2010. [CrossRef]
- C. Collaboration. (2012, 13 July). About-us. Available: www.cochrane.org/about-us
- Cochrane Collaboration. (2005, August 21). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (4.2.5 ed.). Available: http://www.cochrane.org
- S. Nakagawa and I. C. Cuthill, “Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists,” Biological Review, 82, pp. 591–605, 2007. [CrossRef]
- G. V. Glass, “Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research,” Educational Researcher,10, pp. 3–8, 1976. [CrossRef]
- L. V. Hedges and I. Olkin, Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 1985.
- E. H. Zube, D. G. Pitt, and T. V. Anderson, Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the Southern Connecticut river valley. Amhurst, MA: Institute for Man and His Environment, University of Massachusetts, 1974.
- S. Shuttleworth, “Consensus and the perception of landscape quality,” Landscape Research, 9, 1984.
- G. J. Buhyoff and L. K. Arndt, “Interval scaling of landscape preference by direct-and indirect measurement methods,” Landscape Planning, 8, pp. 257–267, 1981. [CrossRef]
- H. W. Schroeder, “Environmental perception rating scales: a case for simple methods of analysis,” Environment and Behavior, 16, pp. 573–598, 1984. [CrossRef]
- A. E. Stamps, “Meta-analysis in environmental research,” in Usage, Usability, and Utility of 3D City Models – European COST Action TU0801, M. S. Amiel and J. C. Vischer, Eds., ed Montreal, Canada: Edmond, OK: Environmental Design Research Association, 1997, pp. 114–124.
- A. E. Stamps, “Advances in peer review research: an introduction,” Science and Engineering Ethics, 3 (1), pp. 3–10, 1997. [CrossRef]
- A. E. Stamps, “Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review,” Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, pp. 85–98, 1997. [CrossRef]
- M. Mullins, “Interpretation of simulations in interactive VR environments: depth perception in Cave and panorama,” Journal of Architectural and planning research, 23, pp. 328–340, 2006.
- San Francisco Planning Department. (2010, 16 July 2010). Discretionary Review Reform.
- San Francisco Planning Department. (2003, 16 July 2010). Residential Design Guidelines.
- A. E. Stamps, Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic, 2000. [CrossRef]
- A. E. Stamps, “Use of static and dynamic media to simulate environments: a meta-analysis,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 111, pp. 1–12, 2010. [CrossRef]
- B. C. Lightner, “Survey of design review practices,” American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois, Planning Advisory Service MemoJanuary, 1993.
- D. L. Uzzell and E. M. Jones, “Incorporating the visual impact of buildings into BREEAM: a study for the Building Research Establishment,” University of Surrey, Guilford, 1996.
- S. Loew, “Design control in France,” Built Environment, 20, pp. 88–103, 1994.
- G. Pantel, “Design control in German Planning,” Built Environment, 20, pp. 104–112, 1994.
- L. Nystrom, “Design control in planning: the Swedish case,” Built Environment, 20, pp. 113–126, 1994.
- A. Vignozzi, “Design control in Italian planning,” Built Environment, 20, pp. 127–141, 1994.
- N. Nelissen and C. L. de Vocht, “Design control in the Netherlands,” Built Environment, 20, pp. 142–156, 1994.
- E. Calderon, “Design control in the Spanish planning system,” Built Environment, 20, pp. 157–168, 1994.
- U. Hohn, “Townscape preservation in Japanese urban planning,” Town Planning Review, 68, pp. 213–255, 1997.
- J. Punter and M. Carmona, The design dimension of planning: theory, content, and best practice for design policies. London: E&F Spon, 1997.
- A. J. Oswald and S. Wu, “Objective confirmation of subjective measures of human well-being: evidence from the U.S.A.,” Science, 327, pp. 576–579, 2010. [CrossRef]
- A. E. Stamps, “How distance mitigates perceived threat at 30-90m,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 114, pp. 1–8, 2012. [CrossRef]
- N. R. Feimer, “Environmental perception: the effects of media, evaluative context, and observer sample,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, pp. 61–80, 1984. [CrossRef]
- A. E. Stamps, “Demographic effects in environmental preferences: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Planning Literature, 14, pp. 155–175, 1999. [CrossRef]
- R. A. Fisher, Statistical methods for research workers, 4th ed. ed. London: Oliver & Boyd, 1932.
- B. Fletcher, A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method, 17 ed. New York: harles Scribners’ Sons, 1963.
- J. L. Nasar and A. E. Stamps, “Infill McMansions: style and the psychophysics of size,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, pp. 110–123, 2009. [CrossRef]
- A. E. Stamps, “Parameters of contextual fit: diversity, matching, individual style, responses,” Journal of Urbanism, 4,pp. 7 – 24, 2011.
- W. LaBounty (2009, 13 December 2011). The Gellert Brothers and Lakeshore Park. Available: http://www.outsidelands.org/lakeshore.php
- L. Ungaretti, San Francisco’s Sunset District. Charlestown, South Carolina: Arcadia, 2003.
- J. H. Schomaker, “Measurements of preferences for proposed landscape modifications,” Landscape Research, 3, pp. 5–9, 1978. [CrossRef]
- R. H. Gimblett, “Identifying the experimental qualities of landscapes: an exploration of artificial intelligence techniques,” in Coming of age, EDRA 21.1990, 1990, pp. 196–203.
- J. Vining and B. Orland, “The video advantage: a comparison of two environmental representation techniques,” Journal of Environmental Management, 29, pp. 275–283, 1989.
- W. E. Tips and T. Savasdisara, “Landscape preference evaluation and sociocultural background: a comparison among Asian countries,” Journal of Environmental Management, 22, pp. 113–124, 1986.
- K. Killeen and G. Buhyoff, “The relation of landscape preference to abstract topography,” Journal of environmental management, 17, pp. 381–392, 1983.
- B. Shelby and R. Harris, “Comparing methods for determining visitor evaluations of ecological impacts: site visits, photographs, and written descriptions,” Journal of leisure research, 17, pp. 57–67, 1985.
- R. W. Seaton and J. B. Collins, “Validity and reliability of ratings of simulated buildings,” in Environmental design: research and practice, W. S. Mitchell, Ed., ed Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972.
- J. J. Lau, “Differences between full-size and scale-model rooms in assessment of lighting quality,” in Usage, Usability, and Utility of 3D City Models – European COST Action TU0801, University of Strathclyde, 1969, 1970, pp. 43–48.
- R. B. Howard, F. G. Mlynarski, and G. C. Sauer, “A comparative analysis of affective responses to real and represented environments,” in Environment and Cognition, W. Mitchell, Ed., ed New York: Seminar Press, 1972, pp. 6-6-6.
- J. I. Nassauer, “Framing the landscape in photographic simulation,” Journal of environmental management, 17, pp. 1–16, 1983.
- C. S. Law and E. H. Zube, “Effects of photographic composition on landscape perception,” Landscape research, 8, pp. 22–23, 1983. [CrossRef]
- I. D. Bishop and R. N. Leahy, “Assessing the visual impact of development proposals: the validity of computer simulations,” Landscape Journal, 8, pp. 92–100, 1989.
- A. E. Stamps, “Use of photographs to simulate environments: a meta-analysis,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, pp. 907–913, 1990. [CrossRef]
- A. E. Stamps, “Comparing preferences of neighbors and a neighborhood design review board,” Environment and Behavior, 23, pp. 616–629, 1991. [CrossRef]
- A. E. Stamps, “Use of comparative choice paradigm in governmental design review: a case study,” Journal of Environmental Management, 33, pp. 351–364, 1991. [CrossRef]
- A. E. Stamps, “Simulation effects on environmental preference,” Journal of Environmental Management, 38, pp. 115–132, 1993. [CrossRef]
- A. E. Stamps, “A study in scale and character: contextual effects on environmental preferences,” Journal of Environmental Management, 42, pp. 223–245, 1994. [CrossRef]
- A. E. Stamps and S. D. Miller, “Advocacy membership, design guidelines, and predicting preferences for residential infill designs,” Environment and Behavior, 25, pp. 367–409, 1993. [CrossRef]
- R. Weber, J. Schnier, and T. Jacobsen, “Aesthetics of streetscapes: influence of fundamental properties on aesthetic judgments of urban space,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106, pp. 128–146, 2008. [CrossRef]
- H. W. Schroeder, G. J. Buhyoff, and W. M. Cannon, “Cross-validation of predictive models for esthetic quality of residential streets,” Journal of Environmental Management, 23, pp. 309–316, 1986.
- A. E. Stamps, “Some streets of San Francisco: preference effects of trees, cars, wires, and buildings,” Environment and Planning B: planning and design, 24, pp. 81–93, 1997. [CrossRef]
- J. N. Lien and G. J. Buhyoff, “Extension of visual quality models for urban forests,” Journal of Environmental Management, 22, pp. 245–254, 1986.
- B. Hernandez and M. C. Hidalgo, “Effect of urban vegetation on psychological restorativeness,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, pp. 1025–1028, 2005.
|Number of page(s)||20|
|Published online||24 October 2012|
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.