lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 473e481

Contents lists avai

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jep

Variations in perceptions of danger, fear and preference in a simulatednatural environment

Matthew Andrews*, Birgitta GaterslebenDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 14 April 2010

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 (0)1483 689306.E-mail address: m.andrews@surrey.ac.uk (M. Andr

0272-4944/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.001

a b s t r a c t

Although natural environments can help promote health, they also contain a number of dangers. Thisstudy attempted to examine how variations in the physical structure of a simulated natural environmentinfluenced perceptions of both overall and specific types of danger, fear and preference before exploringthe relationships between these variables. Three simulated walks through a natural environmentdiffering in levels of prospect-refuge were created for the study. Respondents were randomly assigned toone of the conditions and asked to imagine taking the walk for real. In support of the typology, the resultsfound that the walks with higher levels of prospect-refuge (higher visibility, fewer hiding places andmore accessibility) were perceived as less dangerous and fearful and more preferred than walks withlower levels of prospect-refuge. However despite levels of prospect-refuge appearing to impact on theperceived likelihood of encountering a physical danger or becoming lost, they were not found to impacton the perception of encountering a social danger.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Intuition would lead us to believe that people are more likely toprefer an environment and engage with it if they perceive it asbeing a safe environment. A consistent negative relationship hasemerged between perceived danger and preference in urbanenvironments (e.g. Blöbaum & Hunecke, 2005; Fisher & Nasar,1992; Herzog & Flynn-Smith, 2001; Herzog & Miller, 1988; Nasar& Fisher, 1993). One key factor that may influence perceptions ofsafety and danger is the physical structure of an environment.

1.1. Prospect-refuge theory

Incorporating Appleton’s (1975) prospect-refuge theory, Fisherand Nasar (1992) created their general typology for evaluating anindividual’s perception of safety. They stated that an individual’slevel of prospect and the level of refuge for a potential offender(secondary refuge) are taken into consideration when people judgehow safe they feel in an environment. Fisher and Nasar (1992) alsocite Archea’s (1985) access-exposure model that highlights the roleof visual access in perceptions of an environment to support theirargument that the degree towhich a space affords an opportunity toescape a potential attack plays a pivotal role in an individual’s

ews).

All rights reserved.

perception of safety. If little or an impeded escape is offered, theenvironment is less accessible and so an individual is more likely toperceive it as unsafe (more dangerous). It is possible that as a resultof evolution, such environments tend to be least preferred whileenvironments that offer early observation are associated withsurvival and tend to be preferred (Appleton,1975). In support of this,research has demonstrated that people tend to prefer naturalenvironments with openmeadows surrounded bywoods (e.g. Zube,Pitt, & Anderson, 1975). Woodland that receives the highest levels ofpreference tends to be deciduous, with little underbrush and anabsence of grass cover (Daniel & Boster, 1976). In general, environ-ments with less built elements, more distant views, topographychange and clear water bodies receive higher preference ratings(Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Steinitz, 1990; Zube et al., 1975).

Both field research and simulation techniques using Fisher andNasar’s (1992) typology have supported its claims. An environ-ment that offers little prospect, contains a high level of refuge fora potential offender and offers an impeded escape for a potentialvictim is perceived as more dangerous and fear-evoking and is lesspreferred than an environment that offers prospect, contains a lowlevel of refuge for a potential offender and offers a quick escape fora potential victim (Fisher & Nasar, 1992; Nasar, Fisher, & Grannis,1993; Nasar & Jones, 1997; Petherick, 2000/2001; Wang & Taylor,2006). However these studies have only examined the typologywithin urban alleys and park-like spaces within universitycampuses. Although the examination of the typology within

M. Andrews, B. Gatersleben / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 473e481474

park-like spaces represents an exploration of people’s experiencesin natural environments, these are examples of natural spaces inurban areas and are often in close proximity to an area of highcrime (e.g. Nasar et al., 1993; Nasar & Jones, 1997). This studyattempts to build on this body of research by exploring the typologywithin an exclusively natural environment.

There appears no reason as to why Fisher and Nasar’s (1992)typology cannot be successfully applied to explain perceptionsof danger or preference within an explicitly natural environment.There is a growing body of work within natural environments thathas demonstrated that variables contributing to visibility andlocomotor access are negatively related to perceived danger andfear but positively related to preference (e.g. Chapin, 1991; Herzog& Kirk, 2005; Herzog & Kropscott, 2004; Herzog & Kutzli, 2002).Many of the features that contribute to visibility and locomotoraccess (e.g. curving pathways, vegetation, partial concealment andshadows, cf. Herzog & Miller, 1998) are also regarded as featuresthat enhance mystery. Herzog and Miller (1998) define mystery asthe promise of further information from penetrating more deeplyinto a setting. However these features appear to have anextremely paradoxical role, having been shown to be a positivepredictor of both preference (e.g. Herzog, 1987; Kaplan & Kaplan,1989) and perceived danger (e.g. Fisher & Nasar, 1992; Nasar &Fisher, 1993; Schroeder & Anderson, 1984). Herzog and Bryce(2007) claim that in scenes of low prospect and visual access,mystery is often confused with surprise and so when properlyunderstood, mystery is positively related to preference. As there isa high level of concordance with physical features that enhancemystery and preference with elements of Fisher and Nasar’s(1992) typology, it appears that the typology could be success-fully applied to natural environments.

This study attempts to examine the effect of the typology onperceived danger, fear and preference within a simulated exampleof a specific natural environment. A country park is a managedpublic open space environment within the United Kingdom thathas a natural, rural atmosphere. Country parks are predominantlyvisited by those who do not want to venture into the wider coun-tryside. In England there are over 270 designated country parks andthey cover over 38,000 ha of land. The majority of these countryparks are managed and owned by local authorities, located on theruraleurban fringe and collectively receive an estimated 73 millionvisitors per year (The Countryside Agency, 2004).

1.2. Perceptions of danger and fear

Previous work has primarily measured perceived danger interms of perceived likelihood ratings of coming to harm (e.g.Herzog & Kirk, 2005; Herzog & Kropscott, 2004; Herzog & Kutzli,2002). Although this is an important component of perceiveddanger, some researchers claim that perceived danger does notjust consist of likelihood ratings, but also consequences of danger(Menzies & Clarke, 1995; Williams, Turner, & Peer, 1985; Williams& Watson, 1985) and the degree of control individuals feel theyhave over the situation (Rapee, 1997). The perceived dangermeasure used in this study will therefore incorporate likelihoodratings of coming to harm in addition to perceptions of severityand control.

This study will also examine how variations in the physicalstructure of the environment according to Fisher and Nasar’s (1992)typology impact on fear ratings. Despite the strong positive corre-lations typically found between perceived danger and fear (e.g.Herzog & Kutzli, 2002), there is a clear distinction between the twoconstructs. Perceived danger refers to a cognitive appraisal ofdanger while fear refers to an emotional reaction towards a stim-ulus or event. Gabriel and Greve (2003) claim that fear must always

be accompanied by a cognitive element i.e. the cognitive perceptionof whether a situation is dangerous. However the distinctionbetween emotional reactions such as fear and cognitive processessuch as perceived danger is important. Although one expectsa congruent emotional reaction in conjunction with a cognitiveappraisal of danger, some sources of danger (e.g. extreme sports)may actually be perceived as attractive by some individuals,particularly if these dangers derive from nature. Van den Berg andter Heijne (2005) found then when asked to describe a fearfulexperience with nature, participants recalled situations and eventsthat evoked both negative and positive emotions. Overcoming thephysical and psychological challenges of nature have also beenshown to lead to a sense of enhanced well-being and self-esteem(Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).

1.3. Dangers in natural environments

Natural environments such as country parks contain a diverserange of potential dangers that very little previous research hastried to distinguish. Herzog and Smith’s (1988) study using simu-lated urban alleys and narrow canyons distinguished betweensocial and physical danger, with social danger defined as a dangerstemming from a social source (e.g. being attacked by anotherperson) while physical danger is defined as a danger stemmingfrom the physical structure of the environment (e.g. being attackedby an animal, injury from tripping over obstacles, weather). Thestudy found that only social danger was negatively related topreference. The threat of social danger in terms of physical or sexualassault in a natural environment is a very real one, particularly forwomen (Burgess,1995; Coble, Selin, & Erickson, 2003; Henderson &Bialeschki, 1993). Other examples of potentially fear-evokingdangers that may be present in a natural environment include theweather, dangerous animals, the dark and falling branches (Bixler &Floyd, 1997; Van den Berg & ter Heijne, 2005).

The effect of the physical structure of a natural environmentmay have on an individual’s perception of how likely they could fallvictim to these different types of dangers is something that doesnot appear to have been examined by previous research. Fisher andNasar’s (1992) typology is a useful framework for examining anypotential differences in these perceptions because levels of pros-pect, refuge and escape are all likely to impact on perceptions ofsocial and physical danger. A further potential danger that onecould realistically encounter in a natural environment is becominglost (Bixler, Carlisle, Hammitt & Floyd, 1994; Coble et al., 2003;Kaplan & Talbot, 1983). There is some research which shows thatvariations in prospect, refuge and escape could be applied to thedanger of becoming lost. Herzog and Kropscott (2004) demon-strated that both a lack of visual landmarks and a low level ofmovement ease acted as significant independent negative predic-tors of legibility, which in turn was a significant negative predictorof perceived danger. Therefore scenes low in legibility may provedisorientating and be associated with as harbouring a greaterlikelihood of becoming lost.

As a result of the vast majority of existing research failing todistinguish between different types of danger in natural envi-ronments, very little is known about the relationships betweendifferent types of danger and more general constructs such asperceived danger, fear and preference. To date only the distinc-tion between social and physical danger and their relationshipswith preference have been explored (Herzog & Smith, 1988). Withthis study also measuring perceived danger, fear and preferenceas well as making a further distinction of the danger of becominglost, the authors feel that exploring these relationships mayreveal some interesting results that could contribute to theresearch area.

M. Andrews, B. Gatersleben / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 473e481 475

1.4. Aim of study

The study examines the effect of prospect-refuge on perceptionsof danger, fear and preference. Three different simulated walksthrough a natural environment were developed with low, mediumor high levels of prospect-refuge (Fisher & Nasar, 1992). From thereviewed literature, it is expected that a walk through a highprospect-low refuge environment (high levels of prospect andaccessibility and few hiding places for a potential offender) will beperceived as less dangerous, fear-evoking and as harbouringa lower likelihood of encountering a social or physical danger orbecoming lost than a walk through a similar environment withlower levels of prospect-refuge. Because of the higher adaptivevalue of an environment high in prospect-refuge to afford survivalthrough greater forewarning over potential threats, it is alsoexpected that respondents will prefer higher levels of prospect-refuge. This study also hopes to add to existing research by inves-tigating the underlying relationships between the constructs, withperceived danger and fear both expected to have a negative rela-tionship with preference. Given that the distinction betweendifferent types of danger is something that has received littleattention by existing research, this study will also explore therelationships between the perceived likelihood of encounteringspecific types of danger and how they relate to perceived danger,fear and preference.

2. Method

2.1. Respondents and design

Two hundred and sixty nine respondents consisting of under-graduate, postgraduate and alumni members of a University in theSouth-East of England were recruited using a snowball samplingtechnique through the University’s social networking intranetwebsite (71 male, 198 female; M ¼ 22.48 years, SD ¼ 7.84 years;18e27 years). The website contained a request for respondents onthe home page, directing those interested in participating to clickon a weblink to the online questionnaire immediately after fin-ishing a working day they found fatiguing and stressful. Followingthe completion of the questionnaire, respondents were also askedto forward the link on to any other members of the networking sitethat they thought may be interested in participating in the study.Participation in the study was voluntary and no compensation wasgiven.

Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three simulatedenvironmental conditions that differed in levels of prospect-refugeaccording to Fisher and Nasar’s (1992) typology (low, n ¼ 90;medium, n ¼ 89; high, n ¼ 90). This formed the single between-subject factor.

Table 1Range of reliability scores (Crondbach’s a) for the photographs selected for eachprospect-refuge condition in response to prospect, hiding places and accessibilitysort.

Level of prospect-refuge

Low Medium High

Prospect .93e1 (1) .79e.93 (2) .93e1 (3)Hiding places .86e.93 (3) .71e.79 (2) .79e.93 (1)Accessibility .93e1 (1) .79e.93 (2) .86e1 (3)

Note: Number in bracket represents level of agreement (1 ¼ low, 2 ¼ medium,3 ¼ high).

2.2. Environmental simulations

The three environmental conditions were represented usinga series of photographs that had been taken for this study ina country park in the south of England (The Queen ElizabethCountry Park near Portsmouth in the South of England). The parkcontains a diverse range of habitats from calcareous grassland andyew woodland to coniferous and beech plantations spread overmore than 1400 acres that can be explored by walkers, cyclists andhorse riders. An initial set of 124 photographs were taken, ata resolution of 2080� 1544 pixels all on a summer afternoon undersunny and clear weather conditions. To prevent any attention beingdrawn away from the landscape, photographs did not contain otherhuman beings or animals.

For the manipulation of prospect-refuge, a small pre-test wasconducted with 7 respondents consisting of five students and twoalumni (4 female; M ¼ 32.15 years, SD ¼ 8.16 years; 20e56 years).Respondents were asked to place each of the 124 photographs intoone of three piles representing low, medium or high agreement inresponse to three independent questions measuring prospect (‘Theextent your view is unobstructed to allow your field of vision toextend deep into the scene’), the number of hiding places (‘Thenumber of potential hiding places and opportunities for conceal-ment’) and accessibility (‘The ease in which you can move throughthe scene’). This meant that respondents sorted all 124 photo-graphs a total of three times. Photographs were shuffled betweeneach sort and the order of the three questions was randomisedbetween respondents to prevent order effects.

Each photograph’s mean rank for prospect, accessibility andnumber of hiding places was then created to allow the final slideselection to be made for each of the three environmental condi-tions. For the low prospect-high refuge condition, the photographsthat were all ranked in both the bottom 20% for prospect andaccessibility and the top 20% for hiding places were selected. Forthe medium prospect-medium refuge condition, the photographsthat were all ranked in the middle 20% for prospect, accessibilityand hiding places were selected. Finally for the high prospect-lowrefuge condition, the photographs that were all ranked in both thetop 10% for prospect and accessibility and the bottom 20% for hidingplaces were selected. This process resulted in 36 photographsequally divided between the three conditions being selected for theuse in the main study. To ensure the photographs selected wereconsistently classified into one of the three specific piles, the pileswere coded (low agreement ¼ 1, medium agreement ¼ 2, highagreement ¼ 3) and a series of reliability tests using Crondbach’sa were conducted. As can be seen in Table 1, the pilot test founda good level of internal consistency for the photographs selected tobe used in the study.

The twelve photographs chosen for each condition werearranged into a believable sequence with respect to landscape andlight to depict a short walk through the environment (see Figs. 1, 2and 3). To help emphasise the physical structure of the environ-ment, each condition was preceded by a short description of thephysical structure and background to the walk that respondentswere about to see in the photographs. Previous studies within thefield have used descriptions to help respondents better imaginetaking the walk for real (e.g. Staats, Gatersleben, & Hartig, 1997).Each description made indirect reference to levels of prospect,accessibility and hiding places by describing physical features suchas light, vegetation, obstructions and pathways of the environment(see Appendix).

2.3. Measures

Perceived dangerwas measured using 3 items that were phrasedwithout reference to a specific source of danger: “How likely do youthink it is that you could come to harm during your walk through

Fig. 1. Photograph from the low prospect-high refuge condition. Fig. 3. Photograph from the high prospect-low refuge condition.

M. Andrews, B. Gatersleben / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 473e481476

this environment? How severe are the dangers you could poten-tially face walking through this environment? How well do youthink you could control any potential dangers in this environ-ment?” The response options once again ranged from 1 (not at all)to 7 (very much so) and permitted a scale score after responses fromthe third questionwere reversed (mean response) that ranged from1 (not at all dangerous) to 7 (very dangerous). The scale hada respectable level of internal consistency (Crondbach’s a ¼ .73).

Social danger as broadly defined by Herzog and Smith (1988) as‘danger that stems from a social source’ was measured using 3items: “How likely do you think it is that you could be followed bya stranger in this environment? How likely do you think it is thatyou could be assaulted by a stranger in this environment? Howlikely do you think it is that you could be mugged by a stranger inthis environment?” The response options ranged from 1 (not at all)to 7 (very much so) that permitted a scale score (mean response)that ranged from 1 (very little social danger) to 7 (great deal of socialdanger). The scale had a high level of internal consistency (Crond-bach’s a ¼ .94).

Physical danger as broadly defined by Herzog and Smith (1988)as ‘danger that stems from the physical structure of the environ-ment’ was measured using 3 items: “How likely do you think it isthat you could accidentally step on a snake in this environment?How likely do you think it is that you could become caught out ina violent thunderstorm? How likely do you think it is that youbecome injured by tripping over unseen obstacles?” The response

Fig. 2. Photograph from the medium prospect-medium refuge condition.

options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much so) that permitteda scale score (mean response) that ranged from 1 (very little physicaldanger) to 7 (great deal of physical danger). The scale had anacceptable level of internal consistency (Crondbach’s a ¼ .71).

Lost danger was measured using one item: “How likely do youthink it is that you could lose your way and become lost walkingthrough this environment?” The response options ranged from 1(not at all) to 7 (very much so).

Fear was measured using 3 items: “How frightened would yoube taking awalk through this environment? How scared would yoube taking a walk through this environment? How uneasy wouldyou be taking a walk through this environment?” The responseoptions ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much so) that permitteda scale score (mean response) that ranged from 1 (perceived as notat all fear evoking) to 7 (perceived as very fear evoking). The scale hada high level of internal consistency (Crondbach’s a ¼ .93).

Preference was measured using 4 items that encompassed bothbeauty ratings and preference relative to other environments:“How pretty do you find this environment? To what extent do youlike this environment? Towhat extent do you like this environmentmore than other natural environments you have visited? Howbeautiful do you find this environment?” The response optionsranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much so) and permitted a scalescore (mean response) that ranged from 1 (not at all preferred) to 7(very highly preferred). The scale had a high level of internalconsistency (Crondbach’s a ¼ .90).

One item was used to ensure that there were no significantdifferences in previous experience of visiting country parksbetween the three experimental conditions: “How often do youvisit country parks?” The response options ranged from 1 (not at alloften) to 7 (very often). Also used to check the environmentalmanipulations, respondents were asked whether they felt thesimulationwas a representative awalk through a country parkwiththe item: “Do you feel the photographs and description just shownto be a representative example of a walk through a typical countrypark in the United Kingdom?” The ratings ranged from 1 (not at all)to 7 (very much so).

2.4. Procedure

An online questionnaire was developed for the study withrespondents being e-mailed an online link to the study. The linkinstructed respondents to ‘complete the questionnaire immedi-ately following a working day that was stressful or fatiguing withina quiet environment without any distractions’. Following a briefexplanation of the study, respondents were randomly assigned to

Table 2Demographics (standard deviation) for the three prospect-refuge conditions.

Low Medium High

Age (years) 26.62 (9.83)a 24.89 (6.26)a 24.92 (6.91)aGender ratio (% male) 27.8%a 24.7%a 26.7%aExperience of visiting

country parks4.20 (1.49)a 4.29 (1.57)a 4.67 (1.42)a

Note: means with similar letters do not differ significantly.

Table 4Meanmanipulation check ratings (standard deviation) for the three prospect-refugeconditions.

Low Medium High

Prospect 4.83 (1.23)a 4.07 (1.02)b 3.43 (1.34)cHiding places 6.03 (1.16)a 5.35 (1.38)b 4.81 (1.60)cAccessibility 3.59 (1.51)a 5.25 (1.36)b 5.86 (1.35)c

Note: means with similar letters do not differ significantly.

M. Andrews, B. Gatersleben / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 473e481 477

one of the three environmental simulation conditions. They weregiven the short walk description and instructed to imagine theywere taking the walk for real before viewing the twelvephotographs. The photographs were presented as a slideshow.Each photograph was presented landscape at a size of23.08 cm � 17.13 cm and displayed for 3 s before merging into thenext one using a fade-out technique for transition. The eightmeasures (perceived danger, social danger, physical danger, lostdanger, fear, preference, previous environmental experience andaccuracy of representation) were randomly split into two groupswith respondents completing each of the three groups of measuresin-between reading the description and seeing the slideshow.Following the completion of the eight measures, respondents werepresented the slideshow one further time and asked to completethree manipulation check items that measured prospect, hidingplaces and accessibility. This resulted in the same simulated walkbeing shown a total of three times to respondents. This multipleexposure was done so that the walk remained salient for respon-dents when completing the measures rather than trying tocomplete all measures having only viewed thewalk once. The orderof both the items and the measures within each of the groups ofmeasures was randomised to prevent order effects. Aftercompleting the measures, respondents were asked to record theirage, gender and any further comments they may have had.

Table 5Mean ratings (standard deviation) for the three prospect-refuge conditions.

Low Medium High

2.5. Manipulation checks

Although some researchers claim that differences in landscapepreference ratings may be a function of age, gender and land-scape exposure (e.g. Lyons, 1983) an extensive meta-analysis oflandscape preference ratings by Stamps (1999) suggests a likelyabsence of individual differences related to similar demographics.Nonetheless from an experimental standpoint, it makes sense tohave comparable groups. As can be seen in Table 2, no significantdifferences in age (c2 (2) ¼ .22, p ¼ .89), gender (c2 (2) ¼ .22,p ¼ .90) or experience of visiting country parks (F (2, 266) ¼ 2.48,p ¼ .09) were found between the three environmental simulationconditions.

On average respondents agreed that the simulated walk waslargely representative of awalk through a country park in the UnitedKingdom (M ¼ 5.24, SD ¼ 1.26). These ratings were not found to beoverall significantly different between the three environmentalsimulation conditions (F (2, 266) ¼ .62, p ¼ .54) while the plannedcontrasts in Table 3 failed to find any significant differences betweenindividual environmental simulation conditions.

The same three questions from the pilot study were asked tocheck that the manipulation of prospect-refuge was successful (‘The

Table 3Mean representation example ratings (standard deviation) for the three prospect-refuge conditions.

Low Medium High

Representation of walk 5.14 (1.58)a 5.19 (1.67)a 5.39 (1.44)a

Note: means with similar letters do not differ significantly.

extent your view is unobstructed to allow your field of vision toextenddeep into the scene’; ‘the ease inwhichyou canmove throughthe scene’; ‘the number of potential hiding places and opportunitiesfor concealment’). The results revealed significant differences inratings of prospect, accessibility andhiding places between the threeexperimental conditions (all p’s < .001). Planned contrasts revealedthe differencesbetween each of the three conditionswere significantand in the expected direction (see Table 4).

3. Results

3.1. Effect of prospect-refuge

To test the effects of prospect-refuge, a series of one-waybetween-subjects analyses of variance (ANOVA) each with 3 plan-ned contrasts (low vs. medium; low vs. high; medium vs. high)were conducted with prospect-refuge as the single between-subjects factor. Themean ratings for perceived danger, fear, types ofdanger and preference along with the results of the plannedcontrasts for each of the three prospect-refuge conditions are dis-played in Table 5.

Significant differences in perceived danger (F (2, 266) ¼ 11.88,p < .001, hp2 ¼ .08) were found between the three prospect-refugeconditions. As can be seen in Table 5, the high prospect-low refugeenvironment was perceived as significantly less dangerous thanboth the medium (t (266) ¼ �2.16, p < .03, d ¼ .26) and lowprospect-high refuge environments (t (266) ¼ �4.87, p < .001,d ¼ .60). The low prospect-high refuge environment was alsoperceived as significantly more dangerous than the medium pros-pect-medium refuge environment (t (266) ¼ 2.69, p < .01, d ¼ .33).

Similar findings were found in relation to fear, with significantdifferences found between the three prospect-refuge conditionsfollowing aWelch correction as the assumption of homogeneity hadbeen broken (F (2, 175.13) ¼ 21.64, p < .001, hp2 ¼ .15). The highprospect-lowrefuge environmentwas evaluated as significantly lessfearful than both the medium (t (174.75) ¼ �2.32, p < .03, d ¼ .35)and low prospect-high refuge environments (t (165.21) ¼ �6.58,p < .001, d ¼ .67). The low prospect-high refuge environment wasalso evaluated as significantly more fearful than the medium pros-pect-medium refuge environment (t (172.02) ¼ 4.31, p < .001,d ¼ .66).

Although decreasing prospect and increasing refuge were foundto be associated with significantly higher ratings of perceived

Perceived Danger 3.53 (1.45)a 3.00 (1.27)b 2.57 (1.25)cFear 4.87 (2.52)a 3.38 (2.10)b 2.69 (1.89)c

Social danger 3.60 (1.64)a 3.69 (1.45)a 3.27 (1.53)aPhysical danger 3.27 (1.17)a 2.96 (1.20)b 2.71 (1.06)bLost danger 4.71 (1.77)a 4.36 (1.65)a 3.77 (1.55)b

Preference 4.46 (1.28)a 5.10 (1.08)b 5.30 (1.00)b

Note: means with similar letters do not differ significantly.

Table 6Summary of multiple regression statistics for the predictor variables on preferenceratings.

Predictor variable B SE B b t p

Likelihood of social danger �.14 .05 �.18 7.98 <.001Likelihood of physical danger �.09 .07 �.09 .12 .90Likelihood of lost danger �.15 .05 �.22 4.65 <.001

B ¼ Unstandardized beta coefficient, SE B ¼ standard error, b ¼ Standardized betacoefficient, t ¼ t-test statistic, p ¼ significance value.

Table 7Summary of multiple regression statistics for the predictor variables on perceiveddanger ratings.

Predictor variable B SE B b t p

Likelihood of social danger .42 .04 .48 9.68 <.001Likelihood of physical danger .17 .06 .14 2.74 <.01Likelihood of lost danger .21 .04 .25 5.02 <.001

B ¼ Unstandardized beta coefficient, SE B ¼ standard error, b ¼ Standardized betacoefficient, t ¼ t-test statistic, p ¼ significance value.

M. Andrews, B. Gatersleben / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 473e481478

danger and fear, this was not found for perceptions of the perceivedlikelihood of encountering a social danger (F (2, 266)¼ 1.82, p¼ .16,hp2 ¼ .01). As can be seen in Table 5, none of the contrasts between

the three prospect-refuge conditions were significant. Howeversignificant differences were found between the three prospect-refuge conditions for the perceived likelihood of encounteringa physical danger (F (2, 266) ¼ 5.25, p < .001, hp2 ¼ .04) andbecoming lost (F (2, 266) ¼ 7.44, p < .001, hp2 ¼ .05). Plannedcontrasts revealed a significantly greater perceived likelihood ofencountering a physical danger in the low prospect-high refugeenvironment as opposed to the medium (t (266) ¼ 1.82, p < .05,d ¼ .22) and the high prospect-low refuge environments(t (266) ¼ �3.23, p < .001, d ¼ .40). However the chance ofencountering a physical danger was perceived as equally likelybetween the medium prospect-medium refuge and high prospect-low refuge environments (t (266) ¼ 1.40, p ¼ .08, d ¼ .17). In termsof the perceived likelihood of becoming lost, planned contrastsrevealed that this was significantly lower in the high prospect-lowrefuge environment than in both the low (t (266)¼�3.82, p< .001,d ¼ .47) and medium prospect-medium refuge environments(t (266)¼�2.39, p< .01, d¼ .29). However the perceived likelihoodof becoming lost was judged equally likely between the low pros-pect-high refuge and medium prospect-medium refuge environ-ments (t (266) ¼ 1.42, p ¼ .08, d ¼ .17).

Significant differences in preference were also found betweenthe three prospect-refuge conditions (F (2, 266) ¼ 13.77, p < .001,hp2 ¼ .09). As can be seen in Table 5, although the high prospect-low

refuge environment was preferred over the low prospect-highrefuge environment (t (266) ¼ 5.03, p < .001, d ¼ .62), it was notpreferred significantly more than the medium prospect-mediumrefuge environment (t (266) ¼ 1.22, p ¼ .22, d ¼ .15). However themedium prospect-medium refuge environment was preferred overthe low prospect-high refuge environment (t (266)¼ 3.80, p< .001,d ¼ .47).

3.2. Relationships between variables

To investigate the relationships between variables, a series oflinear and multiple regressions were conducted. A moderatenegative relationship (Spearman’s r ¼ �.32, p < .001) was foundbetween perceived danger and preference (R2 adj ¼ 10.1%, F(1, 267)¼ 31.27, p< .001). A stronger negative relationship betweenfear and preference was found (Spearman’s r ¼ �.51, p < .001) withthe regression model once again revealing a significant fit(R2adj ¼ 25.4%, F (1, 267) ¼ 92.07, p < .001). Further analysis usingFisher’s Z-transformation revealed fear to be a significantlystronger negative predictor of preference than perceived danger(Z ¼ �6.37, p < .001).

Perceived likelihood ratings of encountering the three differenttypes of danger were also used as predictor variables in a multipleregression examining the effect on preference. The three ratings ofthe dangers were found to share a significant but moderate nega-tive relationship with preference (Spearman’s r ¼ �.38, p < .001)and the overall regression model revealed a significant fit(R2adj ¼ 13.6%, F (3, 265) ¼ 15.05, p < .001). However as can be seenin Table 6, only the perceived likelihood of encountering social andlost dangers were found to have a significant negative effect onpreference.

Perceived likelihood ratings of encountering the three differenttypes of dangers were also found to share a significant and strongpositive relationship with perceived danger (Spearman’s r ¼ .70,p < .001). Once again the overall regression model produceda significant fit (R2adj ¼ 47.8%, F (3, 265) ¼ 82.93, p < .001) with allthree perceived likelihood danger ratings having a significantpositive effect on perceived danger (see Table 7).

The three perceived likelihood ratings of the dangers were alsofound to share a significant and strong positive relationship withfear (Spearman’s r¼ .59,p< .001). Theoverall regressionmodel onceagain produced a significant fit (R2adj ¼ 34.3%, F (3, 265) ¼ 47.73,p< .001). As can be seen in Table 8, only the perceived likelihood ofencountering a social danger or becoming lost had a significantpositive effect on fear.

4. Discussion

This study attempted to examine how variations in the physicalstructure of a simulated natural environment influenced percep-tions of danger, fear and preference before exploring the relation-ships between these variables.

4.1. The effect of prospect-refuge

Using Fisher and Nasar’s (1992) typology as a framework,significant expected differences in perceived danger, fear and pref-erence were found between the simulated walks through the threeprospect-refuge conditions. Walks low in prospect and accessibilitybut with high refuge were perceived as more dangerous and fearfulbut less preferred than walks high in prospect and accessibility butwith low refuge. These results are consistentwith Fisher andNasar’s(1992) typology and emphasise the roles of prospect, refuge andescape on perceptions made within an environment. Existing workusing the typology has been largely confined to urban alleyways andpark-like spaces within university campuses (e.g. Fisher & Nasar,1992; Nasar, Fisher & Grannis, 1993; Nasar & Jones, 1997;Petherick, 2000/2001; Wang & Taylor, 2006). The results of thisstudy suggest that the typology can also be successfully appliedbeyond urban environments and natural spaces within urban areasto a distinct natural environment to explain variations in percep-tions of danger, fear and preference.

This study also examined how variations in the physical struc-ture of the environment according to the typology impacted onperceptions of the likelihood of one encountering three specifictypes of danger. The results suggested that variations in prospect-refuge levels had a significant impact on perceptions of the likeli-hood of encountering both a physical danger and becoming lost.The direction of these results was as expected, with environmentslow in prospect and accessibility but with high refuge wereperceived as harbouring a greater chance of falling victim to thesedangers. However no significant differences were found for the

Table 8Summary of multiple regression statistics for the predictor variables on fear ratings.

Predictor variable B SE B b t p

Likelihood of social danger .67 .08 .44 7.98 <.001Likelihood of physical danger .02 .12 .01 .12 .90Likelihood of lost danger .37 .08 .26 4.65 <.001

B ¼ Unstandardized beta coefficient, SE B ¼ standard error, b ¼ Standardized betacoefficient, t ¼ t-test statistic, p ¼ significance value.

M. Andrews, B. Gatersleben / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 473e481 479

perception of how likely one could encounter a social danger. Atface value, this result is highly surprising. Fisher and Nasar’s (1992)typology of prospect-refuge is based upon the risk of social danger,an individual’s perception of safety from a potential offender withinan urban environment. Existing work within urban environmentshas found lower levels of prospect and accessibility but higherlevels of refuge tend to be associated with heightened perceptionsof becoming a victim of social danger (e.g. Petherick, 2000/2001;Wang & Taylor, 2006). Even work within urban parks has demon-strated high levels of dense understory vegetation that impedesprospect and offers potential attackers a place to hide to be asso-ciated with a higher fear of crime (e.g. Fisher & Nasar, 1992; Kuo,Bacaicoa, & Sullivan, 1998; Troy & Grove, 2008). Indeed Michael,Hull, and Zahm (2001) claim that vegetation that impedes pros-pect is likely to facilitate criminal activity and this is likely to resultin not just an increased fear of crime, but also an increasedperceived likelihood of crime. However it is worth considering thatthe majority of these existing studies have been conducted in NorthAmerica whereas this study has been conducted within a specificexample of a natural environment within the United Kingdom.Therefore it is possible that the contrasting results of this studycould be attributed to cultural differences. However as previouslystated, country parks tend to be much larger and provide a far morenatural rural atmosphere than urban parks and so the authors feelthe contrasting results are a result of environmental differences. Forexample, people may expect country parks to contain far less of thecriminal and social dangers that urban environments have becomeassociated with. Therefore people may perceive the perceivedlikelihood of encountering a social danger as being much lower ina country park environment than in an urban park or urban envi-ronment. Indeed mean ratings for the likelihood of encounteringa social danger fell midway on the scale suggesting that people onlyperceived a moderate likelihood of a encountering a social danger.Because a country park is not typically associated with socialdanger, prospect-refuge may not actually be that important andrespondents may have generalised the perceived likelihood ofencountering a social danger in terms of a country park regardlessof its physical structure.

Kuo and Sullivan (2001) report a series of active programs inNorth America to remove vegetation in urban parks in an attemptto reduce the perceived likelihood and fear of crime. Indeed Forsythand Musacchio (2005) dedicate an entire chapter in their book‘Designing Small Parks’ to improving perceptions of safety fromcrime and suggest the removal of vegetation that offers conceal-ment because people tend to feel safer when the understory isclear. Other guidelines for the design of urban parks include goodlighting and clear view corridors (Forsyth & Musacchio, 2005).Whilst these design guidelines may work for urban parks, theresults of this study suggest that it is unlikely that changes toimprove prospect and remove refuge for a potential offender willhave a significant impact on reducing people’s perceptions of socialdanger within a country park. It should also be noted thatperceptions may vary during different times of day. For example,Fisher and Nasar (1992) have demonstrated that fear intensifiesafter dark and so the perception of a fear-evoking threat or dangeris more likely to have a larger detrimental effect on preference in

the evening than it does during the day. Although people areunlikely to visit natural environments such as country parks atnight, theymay still be visitors at timeswhen it starts to get dark. Attimes such as these, the perception of a fear-evoking danger mayhave a greater impact than at brighter times of the day.

Of course it seems plausible that the physical structure of theenvironment is more likely to play some part in an individual’sperceptions and emotional reactions if a social danger is actuallypresent. The researchers are currently examining whether varia-tions in prospect, refuge and escape consistent with the typologycan evoke significant differences in perceptions of danger, fear andpreference if an implied social danger is encountered duringa simulated walk through a country park.

4.2. The relationships between perceived danger, fear, specific typesof danger and preference

The distinction between perceived danger and fear was high-lighted earlier in this study and appears to be warranted becausealthough both constructs were significant negative predictors ofpreference, fear was a significantly stronger negative predictor ofpreference than perceived danger. One possible explanation forthis is that perceptions of danger can sometimes be attractivee.g. extreme sports. Conversely fear represents an extremelyunpleasant emotional reaction coupled with heightened arousalthat has become associated with a threat to human survival. Thismeans that fear is far less likely to be associated with positivecognitions or emotions than perceptions of danger. Fear can evenlead to people avoiding places that become associated with it(Keane, 1998).

Although fear normally accompanies perceptions of danger, thismay not always be the case. The results demonstrated thatperceptions of physical danger were related to general perceptionsof danger but not to fear. Fear and preference in this study wereonly related to perceptions of social and physical danger and not tophysical dangers. This may be because social dangers and thedanger of getting lost weremore strongly associated with threats tosurvival than physical dangers. Many incidents of physical dangerare not so severe as to threaten survival which would be likely toevoke fear. For example, physical challenges such as climbing overtricky obstacles, crossing a stream and making one’s way throughbrambles could cause injury and be perceived as dangerous, butthey are unlikely to evoke fear because they represent rather minordangers that do not threaten survival. Indeed successfully con-fronting the physical challenges and dangers that ‘lurk in thewoods’ may lead to individuals feeling refreshed and invigorated(Kaplan & Talbot, 1983). Existing research has found that whencoming into contact with sources of physical danger in a naturalenvironment, people may experience negative as well as positiveemotions (e.g. Kaplan & Talbot, 1983; Van den Berg & ter Heijne,2005). These positive emotions may dilute negative emotionssuch as fear and may help explain why unlike the other types ofdangers; the perceived likelihood of encountering a physicaldanger was not found to have a significant effect on fear.

These results clearly support the distinction between differenttypes of danger being made which is something that has receivedlittle attention in existing research. However this study onlyexplored a small sample of the physical dangers that may bepresent in a natural environment. Future research in the area maylike to disseminate specific types of danger further. For example,examining both animate (e.g. animals, snakes etc.) and inanimatesources of physical danger (e.g. obstacles and physical features thatcould lead to personal injury) may warrant future exploration asthe threat they pose to survival and their subsequent effects onperceptions of an environment may differ.

M. Andrews, B. Gatersleben / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 473e481480

4.3. Limitations

Several methodological issues regarding this study warrantconsideration. Having respondents rate both dependent measures(types of danger, perceived danger, fear and preference) alongsidethe independent measures of prospect, hiding places and accessi-bility may have given risen to a bias whereby completing one set ofmeasures influences the other. Because of this, relationships foundin the regression analyses may be overstated. However this will nothave affected the results of the analyses of variance as respondentscompleted the ratings of danger, fear and preference before theratings of prospect and refuge. This means that there was noopportunity for the independent measures to influence thedependent measures. Although there remained an opportunityfor the completion of the dependent measures to influence theindependent measures, the strong congruence in ratings of theindependent measures with the pilot study (with a different groupof respondents) can allay this concern. Moreover although thestrength of the relationships in the analyses of variance may havebeen affected, there is no reason to assume that the pattern ofrelationships may have been aversely affected. Therefore althoughthe regression findings should be interpretedwith care, they do stillprovide significant insight, into the previously unexplored rela-tionships between environmental design, perceptions of danger,fear and preference.

It should also be acknowledged that the use of an online ques-tionnaire does give rise to potential variations between respon-dents, including differences between computer specifications andsizes that may have resulted in significant variations in the size andquality of the images respondents saw. However the photographswere presented at a specific resolution and size that the vastmajority of modern laptop and desktop computers could project.There is also no reason to believe that such random error wassystematically different between experimental groups. An addi-tional concern that should be noted when collecting data via anonline procedure is a lack of control over the sampling procedure.Further research may therefore, need to verify the current findingsusing different sampling strategies. In this present study, however,every attempt was made to alleviate any problems resulting fromthis procedure. Although we have no reason to believe thatrespondents did not follow the instructions regarding completingthe questionnaire at the end of a fatiguing day, we cannot becompletely sure they did. We felt that asking respondents tocomplete the questionnaire at the end of a fatiguing day repre-sented a more ecologically valid technique than making respon-dents complete the questionnaire at a specified time when theymay not be fatigued. Staats, Kievet, and Hartig (2003) demon-strated a heightened preference for a natural environment when ina state of attentional fatigue. If, as one would expect, an increasedpreference for an environment means an individual is more likelyto visit it, then ensuring respondents are in a state where they aremore likely to actually visit the environment improves theecological validity of our methodology.

The use of a simulation method invariably evokes reservationsregarding ecological validity. Despite the walks being created usingdisparate photographs from the same environment, responses froma manipulation check item indicated that the descriptions andphotographs were considered as representative of walks througha country park. Nonetheless, despite sequential slides beingsuccessful in providing route information, they are not successfulfor providing spatial information (Hunt, 1993). Spatial informationis likely to be very different for scenes of low and high prospect-lowrefuge, with low prospect-high refuge scenes characterised byenclosed surroundings that make much it harder to navigate andpinpoint one’s location than high prospect-low refuge scenes.

However the manipulation check did suggest that anticipations ofgetting lost and losing orientation were significantly differentbetween conditions in the expected direction. These results suggestthat themethod employedwas successful in getting respondents togenerate some level of spatial-orientation information.

The simulation technique used also restricts respondents to onlyexperience the visual characteristics of a walk through a countrypark environment. Other characteristics that may be consideredintegral to the experience such as smell and touch were notexperienced by the respondents. Being asked to imagine makingthe walk is also essentially a passive experience, not allowing thebehavioural freedom and decision making that invariably formspart of a real walk. Environmental simulation has a relatively longhistory in environmental psychology and environmental assess-ment judgments (cf. Marans & Stokols, 1993). However the use ofsimulations can only make it harder to detect any real effects andshould therefore be supported with field experiments.

The use of a student or recently graduated sample also invari-ably raises questions about the generalisability of the results toother demographics and groups. A meta-analysis by Stamps (1999)provides grounds for confidence that such a sample may be gen-eralisable to the general population, but future research is neededto settle the debate.

4.4. Implications

Within the United Kingdom a number of public health strategieshave been developed including the ‘Active Woods e naturally goodfor you’ campaign which encourages participation in outdoorrecreation and the exploration of natural environments such ascountry parks. These environments represent an important tool tohelp improve the physiological and psychological well-being of anincreasingly urbanized population within the United Kingdom. Thesuccess of these strategies will ultimately rely on visitors keen toexplore these environments and so it is essential that they areperceived as preferable and safe environments that facilitateexploration, interaction and discovery.

Expected differences in overall ratings of perceived danger, fearand preference between the three conditions further highlight theimportance of physical features such as prospect, refuge andpotential escape in how an individual perceives and experiencesa natural environment. The manipulation of these physicalfeatures so that there is a high level of prospect, a low level ofrefuge and an unobstructed potential escape route appears oneway of reducing perceptions of danger and fear while making theenvironment more preferable. This is likely to be due in part tosuch a physical structure reducing the perceived likelihood ofencountering a physical danger or becoming lost. However thephysical structure of the environment does not seem to influencethe perceived likelihood of encountering a social danger. Giventhat this type of danger appears to be highly fear-evoking anddamaging to preference, other ways of managing the perception ofsocial danger needs to be explored to help protect the value ofnatural environments.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewersfor their valuable comments and suggestions.

Appendix. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online version, at doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.001.

M. Andrews, B. Gatersleben / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 473e481 481

References

Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of place. London: Wiley.Archea, J. C. (1985). The use of architectural props in the conduct of criminal acts.

The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2, 245e259.Bixler, R. D., Carlisle, C. L., Hammitt, W. E., & Floyd, M. F. (1994). Observed fears and

discomforts among urban students on school field trips to wildland areas.Journal of Environmental Education, 26, 24e33.

Bixler, R. D., & Floyd, M. F. (1997). Nature is scary, disgusting and uncomfortable.Environment and Behavior, 29, 443e467.

Blöbaum, A., & Hunecke, M. (2005). Perceived danger in urban public space: theimpacts of physical features and personal factors. Environment and Behavior, 37,465e486.

Burgess, J. (1995).Growing in confidenceeUnderstanding people’s perceptions of urbanfringe woodlands. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Countryside Commission.

Chapin, D. (1991). Making green places safer places: experiences in New York city.Landscape Architecture Review, 12, 16e18.

Coble, T. G., Selin, S. W., & Erickson, B. B. (2003). Hiking alone: understanding fear,negotiation strategies and leisure experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 35, 1e22.

Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscapes aesthetics: The SBE method.Boulder: USDA.

Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior sitefeatures: prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35e65.

Forsyth, A., & Musacchio, L. (2005). Designing small parks: A manual for addressingsocial and ecological concerns. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Gabriel, U., & Greve, W. (2003). The psychology of fear of crime. Conceptual andmethodological perspectives. The British Journal of Criminology, 43, 600e614.

Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (1993). Fear as a constraint to active lifestylesfor females. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 44e47.

Herzog, T. R. (1987). A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments:mountains, canyons, deserts. Landscape Journal, 6, 140e152.

Herzog, T. R., & Bryce, A. G. (2007). Mystery and preference in within-forest settings.Environment and Behavior, 39, 779e796.

Herzog, T. R., & Flynn-Smith, J. A. (2001). Preference and perceived danger asa function of the perceived curvature, length and width of urban alleys. Envi-ronment and Behavior, 33, 655e668.

Herzog, T. R., & Kirk, K. M. (2005). Pathway curvature and border visibility aspredictors of preference and danger in forest settings. Environment andBehavior, 37, 620e639.

Herzog, T. R., & Kropscott, L. S. (2004). Legibility, mystery, and visual access aspredictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings withoutpathways. Environment and Behavior, 36, 659e677.

Herzog, T. R., & Kutzli, G. E. (2002). Preference and perceived danger in field/forestsettings. Environment and Behavior, 34, 819e835.

Herzog, T. R., & Miller, E. J. (1998). The role of mystery in percieved danger andenvironmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 429e449.

Herzog, T. R., & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery and environmental preference.Environment and Behavior, 20, 320e344.

Hunt, M. E. (1993). Environmental simulation research for an aging society. Familiar-izing older people with the unknown. In R. W. Marans, & D. Stokols (Eds.), Envi-ronmental simulation: Research and policy (pp. 87e112). New York: Plenum Press.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Kaplan, S., & Talbot, J. F. (1983). Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. InI. Altman, & J. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances intheory and research, Vol. 6 (pp. 163e203). New York: Plenum Press.

Keane, C. (1998). Evaluating the influence of fear of crime as an environmentalmobilityrestrictor onwomen’s routine activities. Environment and Behavior, 30, 60e74.

Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes.Environment and Behavior, 30, 28e59.

Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city. Envi-ronment and Behavior, 33, 343e367.

Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment andBehavior, 15, 487e511.

Marans, R. W., & Stokols, D. (1993). Environmental simulation: Research and policy.New York: Plenum Press.

Menzies, R. G., & Clarke, J. C. (1995). Danger expectancies and insight in acrophobia.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 215e221.

Michael, S., Hull, R., & Zahm, D. (2001). Environmental factors influencing autoBurglary e a case study. Environment and Behavior, 33, 368e388.

Nasar, J., & Fisher, B. (1993). Hot spots’ of fear and crime: a multi-method investi-gation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 187e206.

Nasar, J., Fisher, B., & Grannis, M. (1993). Priximate cues to fear of crime. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 26, 161e178.

Nasar, J., & Jones, K. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior,29, 291e323.

Petherick, N. (2000/2001). Environmental design and fear: the prospect-refugemodel and the university college of the Cariboo campus. Western Geography, 10(11), 89e112.

Rapee, R. (1997). Perceived threat and perceived control as predictors of thedegree of fear in physical and social situations. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,11, 455e461.

Schroeder, H. W., & Anderson, L. M. (1984). Perceptions of personal safety in urbanrecreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 178e194.

Staats, H., Gatersleben, B., & Hartig, T. (1997). Change in mood as a function ofenvironmental design: arousal and pleasure on a simulated forest hike. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 17, 288e300.

Staats, H., Kievet, A., & Hartig, T. (2003). Where to recover from attentional fatigue:an expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 23, 147e157.

Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: a meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 155e175.

Steinitz, C. (1990). Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference andhigh ecological integrity: the loop road in Acadia national park USA. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 19, 213e250.

The Countryside Agency. (2004). Towards a country park renaissance. Available atwww.countryside.gov.uk/WiderWelcome/Countryside_Recreation/countryParks/index.asp.

Troy, A., & Grove, J. M. (2008). Property values, parks, and crime: a hedonic analysisin Baltimore, MD. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87, 233e245.

Van den Berg, A. E., & ter Heijne, M. (2005). Fear versus fascination: an explorationof emotional responses to natural threats. Journal of Environmental Psychology,25, 261e272.

Wang, K., & Taylor, R. B. (2006). Simulated walks through dangerous alleys: impactsof features and progress on fear. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26,269e283.

Williams, S. L., Turner, S. M., & Peer, D. F. (1985). Guided mastery and performancedesensitization treatments for severe acrophobia. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 53, 237e247.

Williams, S. L., & Watson, N. (1985). Perceived danger and perceived self-efficacyas cognitive determinants of acrophobic behavior. Behavioral Therapy, 16,136e146.

Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., & Anderson, T. W. (1975). Perception and prediction of scenicre-sources values of the Northeast. In E. H. Zube, R. Brush, & J. Fabos (Eds.),Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources (pp. 151e167). NewYork: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.