Open Access
Issue
2012
Article Number 01002
Number of page(s) 20
Section Introduction Papers
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/3u3d/201201002
Published online 24 October 2012
  1. 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. [Google Scholar]
  2. W. A. Shewhart, Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control, 1986 ed. New York: Dover, 1939. [Google Scholar]
  3. J. M. Juran, Juran on quality by design: the new steps for planning quality into goods and services. New York: The Free Press, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  4. W. E. Deming, The new economics for industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA: Center for Advanced Engineering Study, MIT, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  5. D. H. Krantz, R. D. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky, Foundations of measurement 1. Mineola, New York: Dover, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  6. W. E. Deming, Some theory of sampling. New York: Dover, 1950. [Google Scholar]
  7. R. A. Fisher, The design of experiments, 1971 ed. New York: Hafner, 1935. [Google Scholar]
  8. A. L. Cochrane, Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services, 2004 ed. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  9. C. Collaboration. (2012, 13 July). Cochrane Reviews. Available: www.cochrane.org/cochrane-reviews [Google Scholar]
  10. K. Dickersin, “To reform U.S. health care, start with systematic reviews,” Science, 329, pp. 516–517, 2010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. C. Collaboration. (2012, 13 July). About-us. Available: www.cochrane.org/about-us [Google Scholar]
  12. Cochrane Collaboration. (2005, August 21). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (4.2.5 ed.). Available: http://www.cochrane.org [Google Scholar]
  13. 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] [Google Scholar]
  14. G. V. Glass, “Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research,” Educational Researcher,10, pp. 3–8, 1976. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. L. V. Hedges and I. Olkin, Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. [Google Scholar]
  17. S. Shuttleworth, “Consensus and the perception of landscape quality,” Landscape Research, 9, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  18. 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] [Google Scholar]
  19. H. W. Schroeder, “Environmental perception rating scales: a case for simple methods of analysis,” Environment and Behavior, 16, pp. 573–598, 1984. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. [Google Scholar]
  21. A. E. Stamps, “Advances in peer review research: an introduction,” Science and Engineering Ethics, 3 (1), pp. 3–10, 1997. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. A. E. Stamps, “Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review,” Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, pp. 85–98, 1997. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. 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. [Google Scholar]
  24. San Francisco Planning Department. (2010, 16 July 2010). Discretionary Review Reform. [Google Scholar]
  25. San Francisco Planning Department. (2003, 16 July 2010). Residential Design Guidelines. [Google Scholar]
  26. A. E. Stamps, Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic, 2000. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. 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] [Google Scholar]
  28. B. C. Lightner, “Survey of design review practices,” American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois, Planning Advisory Service MemoJanuary, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  29. 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. [Google Scholar]
  30. S. Loew, “Design control in France,” Built Environment, 20, pp. 88–103, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  31. G. Pantel, “Design control in German Planning,” Built Environment, 20, pp. 104–112, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  32. L. Nystrom, “Design control in planning: the Swedish case,” Built Environment, 20, pp. 113–126, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  33. A. Vignozzi, “Design control in Italian planning,” Built Environment, 20, pp. 127–141, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  34. N. Nelissen and C. L. de Vocht, “Design control in the Netherlands,” Built Environment, 20, pp. 142–156, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  35. E. Calderon, “Design control in the Spanish planning system,” Built Environment, 20, pp. 157–168, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  36. U. Hohn, “Townscape preservation in Japanese urban planning,” Town Planning Review, 68, pp. 213–255, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  37. J. Punter and M. Carmona, The design dimension of planning: theory, content, and best practice for design policies. London: E&F Spon, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  38. 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] [Google Scholar]
  39. A. E. Stamps, “How distance mitigates perceived threat at 30-90m,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 114, pp. 1–8, 2012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. N. R. Feimer, “Environmental perception: the effects of media, evaluative context, and observer sample,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, pp. 61–80, 1984. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. A. E. Stamps, “Demographic effects in environmental preferences: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Planning Literature, 14, pp. 155–175, 1999. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. R. A. Fisher, Statistical methods for research workers, 4th ed. ed. London: Oliver & Boyd, 1932. [Google Scholar]
  43. B. Fletcher, A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method, 17 ed. New York: harles Scribners’ Sons, 1963. [Google Scholar]
  44. 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] [Google Scholar]
  45. A. E. Stamps, “Parameters of contextual fit: diversity, matching, individual style, responses,” Journal of Urbanism, 4,pp. 7 – 24, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  46. W. LaBounty (2009, 13 December 2011). The Gellert Brothers and Lakeshore Park. Available: http://www.outsidelands.org/lakeshore.php [Google Scholar]
  47. L. Ungaretti, San Francisco’s Sunset District. Charlestown, South Carolina: Arcadia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  48. J. H. Schomaker, “Measurements of preferences for proposed landscape modifications,” Landscape Research, 3, pp. 5–9, 1978. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  49. 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. [Google Scholar]
  50. J. Vining and B. Orland, “The video advantage: a comparison of two environmental representation techniques,” Journal of Environmental Management, 29, pp. 275–283, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  51. 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. [Google Scholar]
  52. K. Killeen and G. Buhyoff, “The relation of landscape preference to abstract topography,” Journal of environmental management, 17, pp. 381–392, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  53. 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. [Google Scholar]
  54. 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. [Google Scholar]
  55. 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. [Google Scholar]
  56. 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. [Google Scholar]
  57. J. I. Nassauer, “Framing the landscape in photographic simulation,” Journal of environmental management, 17, pp. 1–16, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  58. C. S. Law and E. H. Zube, “Effects of photographic composition on landscape perception,” Landscape research, 8, pp. 22–23, 1983. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  59. 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. [Google Scholar]
  60. A. E. Stamps, “Use of photographs to simulate environments: a meta-analysis,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, pp. 907–913, 1990. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  61. A. E. Stamps, “Comparing preferences of neighbors and a neighborhood design review board,” Environment and Behavior, 23, pp. 616–629, 1991. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  62. 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] [Google Scholar]
  63. A. E. Stamps, “Simulation effects on environmental preference,” Journal of Environmental Management, 38, pp. 115–132, 1993. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  64. A. E. Stamps, “A study in scale and character: contextual effects on environmental preferences,” Journal of Environmental Management, 42, pp. 223–245, 1994. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  65. 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] [Google Scholar]
  66. 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] [Google Scholar]
  67. 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. [Google Scholar]
  68. 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] [Google Scholar]
  69. J. N. Lien and G. J. Buhyoff, “Extension of visual quality models for urban forests,” Journal of Environmental Management, 22, pp. 245–254, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  70. B. Hernandez and M. C. Hidalgo, “Effect of urban vegetation on psychological restorativeness,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, pp. 1025–1028, 2005. [Google Scholar]