The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prospects and Refuges Re-Visited
Abstract
Abstract This article is a review of the first ten years of "prospect-refuge theory." It discusses briefly the purposes and limitations of simple explanatory models and compares the theory specifically with the "Davisian cycle." It identifies certain misconceptions about the theory and reviews some of the attempts that have been made to test it and to use it in landscape evaluation and landscape description and in literary and art criticism.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?
Lewicka, M. (2011) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001 · Cited by 2,753
STEDMAN, R. C. (2003) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920309189 · Cited by 1,373
Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century
Daniel, T. C. (2001) · Landscape and Urban Planning · doi:10.1016/s0169-2046(01)00141-4 · Cited by 982
KYTTÄ, M. (2002) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0249 · Cited by 366
The affective benefits of nature exposure
Bratman, G. N., Olvera‐Alvarez, H. A., & Gross, J. J. (2021) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12630 · Cited by 177
Metadata
- Authors
- Appleton, J.
- Venue
- Landscape Journal
- Publisher
- University of Wisconsin Press
- Published
- 1984
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 91-103
- ISSN
- 0277-2426 (ISSN-L)
- 1553-2704
- OpenAlex
- W1954179805
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prospects and Refuges Re-Visited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3368/lj.3.2.91
- The paper
- Appleton, J. (1984). Prospects and Refuges Re-Visited. Landscape Journal. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.3.2.91
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
