The physical environment has typically been defined either in terms that are independent of the perceiving individual (Barker, 1965; Brunswik, 1956; Wohlwill, 1973) or in terms of individual perception and constructs of the environment (Boulding, 1956; Ittelson, 1976; Klausner, 1971; Wapner, Kaplan, and Cohen, 1973). Research in environmental aesthetics, for example, which most often treats the physical setting as the principal determinant of preference, defines setting variables through the use of objective measures (Shafer, Hamilton, and Schmidt, 1969) or normative judgments (S. Kaplan, 1975– Wohlwill, 1968, 1976). In contrast to Moore's (1977) assertion that “there is an underemphasis on the role of the environment and of the physical environment in particular” (p. 16) in environment-behavior studies, and Wohlwill's (1973) statement that there is a “widespread tendency to define the environment in subjective personal terms, rather than objective, physical ones” (p. 166), it is argued that research in environmental aesthetics has overemphasized the influence of objective setting variables. This is not to say the role of such variables is insignificant, but that these variables have been studied in isolation from the actively perceiving and cognizing individual. This research, unlike previous research in environmental aesthetics, attempts to identify the underlying dimensions through which individuals construe the natural environment and the relationship of these dimensions to aesthetic response.

The objective specification of stimulus features in studies of landscape evaluation and preference has been viewed by researchers developing these techniques as particularly advantageous, in that the scenic beauty of an area can be quantified and therefore easily compared with other specifiable resources of a natural area or with other regions.