MaryCarol R. Hunter
University of Michigan
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by MaryCarol R. Hunter.
Insect Conservation and Diversity | 2008
MaryCarol R. Hunter; Mark D. Hunter
Abstract. 1 The conservation of insects is not a priority for most urban dwellers, yet can be accomplished in urban settings by the careful design of urban nature. Our goal is to foster cross‐talk between practitioners of insect conservation biology who develop the knowledge base and professional design practitioners who are poised to apply this knowledge in designs and management plans for urban green space. The collaborative product promises a built environment that promotes human well‐being and urban beauty while maximizing the potential for the conservation of insects. 2 There is precedence for collaboration between science and design communities to achieve conservation, and existing professional and civic organizations offer a structure to formalize and expand collaboration. Design professionals, particularly landscape architects, are trained to support insect conservation in the urban landscape through land planning and ecological site design. 3 Ecological site design is based in principles of sustainability and so must address the well being of humans and nature simultaneously. This powerful approach for insect conservation is illustrated in examples from around the world focusing on roadway‐easement corridors, stormwater management areas, and greenroofs. 4 To improve insect conservation and its public support we offer recommendations, organized in response to cultural aspects of sustainability. Considerations include: a) social drivers for support of conservation practices, b) public perception of urban space, c) applying conservation biology principles in urban areas, and d) merging insect conservation goals with human cultural demands.
Frontiers in Psychology | 2015
Omid Kardan; Emre Demiralp; Michael C. Hout; MaryCarol R. Hunter; Hossein Karimi; Taylor Hanayik; Grigori Yourganov; John Jonides; Marc G. Berman
Previous research has shown that viewing images of nature scenes can have a beneficial effect on memory, attention, and mood. In this study, we aimed to determine whether the preference of natural versus man-made scenes is driven by bottom–up processing of the low-level visual features of nature. We used participants’ ratings of perceived naturalness as well as esthetic preference for 307 images with varied natural and urban content. We then quantified 10 low-level image features for each image (a combination of spatial and color properties). These features were used to predict esthetic preference in the images, as well as to decompose perceived naturalness to its predictable (modeled by the low-level visual features) and non-modeled aspects. Interactions of these separate aspects of naturalness with the time it took to make a preference judgment showed that naturalness based on low-level features related more to preference when the judgment was faster (bottom–up). On the other hand, perceived naturalness that was not modeled by low-level features was related more to preference when the judgment was slower. A quadratic discriminant classification analysis showed how relevant each aspect of naturalness (modeled and non-modeled) was to predicting preference ratings, as well as the image features on their own. Finally, we compared the effect of color-related and structure-related modeled naturalness, and the remaining unmodeled naturalness in predicting esthetic preference. In summary, bottom–up (color and spatial) properties of natural images captured by our features and the non-modeled naturalness are important to esthetic judgments of natural and man-made scenes, with each predicting unique variance.
Frontiers in Psychology | 2015
MaryCarol R. Hunter; Ali Askarinejad
It is well-established that the experience of nature produces an array of positive benefits to mental well-being. Much less is known about the specific attributes of green space which produce these effects. In the absence of translational research that links theory with application, it is challenging to design urban green space for its greatest restorative potential. This translational research provides a method for identifying which specific physical attributes of an environmental setting are most likely to influence preference and restoration responses. Attribute identification was based on a triangulation process invoking environmental psychology and aesthetics theories, principles of design founded in mathematics and aesthetics, and empirical research on the role of specific physical attributes of the environment in preference or restoration responses. From this integration emerged a list of physical attributes defining aspects of spatial structure and environmental content found to be most relevant to the perceptions involved with preference and restoration. The physical attribute list offers a starting point for deciphering which scene stimuli dominate or collaborate in preference and restoration responses. To support this, functional definitions and metrics—efficient methods for attribute quantification are presented. Use of these research products and the process for defining place-based metrics can provide (a) greater control in the selection and interpretation of the scenes/images used in tests of preference and restoration and (b) an expanded evidence base for well-being designers of the built environment.
Frontiers in Psychology | 2017
Frank Ibarra; Omid Kardan; MaryCarol R. Hunter; Hiroki P. Kotabe; Francisco Meyer; Marc G. Berman
Previous research has investigated ways to quantify visual information of a scene in terms of a visual processing hierarchy, i.e., making sense of visual environment by segmentation and integration of elementary sensory input. Guided by this research, studies have developed categories for low-level visual features (e.g., edges, colors), high-level visual features (scene-level entities that convey semantic information such as objects), and how models of those features predict aesthetic preference and naturalness. For example, in Kardan et al. (2015a), 52 participants provided aesthetic preference and naturalness ratings, which are used in the current study, for 307 images of mixed natural and urban content. Kardan et al. (2015a) then developed a model using low-level features to predict aesthetic preference and naturalness and could do so with high accuracy. What has yet to be explored is the ability of higher-level visual features (e.g., horizon line position relative to viewer, geometry of building distribution relative to visual access) to predict aesthetic preference and naturalness of scenes, and whether higher-level features mediate some of the association between the low-level features and aesthetic preference or naturalness. In this study we investigated these relationships and found that low- and high- level features explain 68.4% of the variance in aesthetic preference ratings and 88.7% of the variance in naturalness ratings. Additionally, several high-level features mediated the relationship between the low-level visual features and aaesthetic preference. In a multiple mediation analysis, the high-level feature mediators accounted for over 50% of the variance in predicting aesthetic preference. These results show that high-level visual features play a prominent role predicting aesthetic preference, but do not completely eliminate the predictive power of the low-level visual features. These strong predictors provide powerful insights for future research relating to landscape and urban design with the aim of maximizing subjective well-being, which could lead to improved health outcomes on a larger scale.
Landscape and Urban Planning | 2012
MaryCarol R. Hunter; Daniel G. Brown
PLOS ONE | 2014
Marc G. Berman; Michael C. Hout; Omid Kardan; MaryCarol R. Hunter; Grigori Yourganov; John M. Henderson; Taylor Hanayik; Hossein Karimi; John Jonides
Restoration Ecology | 2012
Nathan L. Haan; MaryCarol R. Hunter; Mark D. Hunter
Landscape and Urban Planning | 2015
Sara Hadavi; Rachel Kaplan; MaryCarol R. Hunter
Landscape and Urban Planning | 2011
MaryCarol R. Hunter
Places Journal | 2008
MaryCarol R. Hunter