[Akbar K.F., Hale W.H.G., Headley A.D. 2003. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63, 139–144.]Search in Google Scholar
[Arnberger A., Haider W. 2005. Social effects on crowding preferences of urban forest visitors. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 3 (3/4), 125–136.]Search in Google Scholar
[Arriaza M., Canas-Ortega J.F., Canas-Madueno J.A., Ruiz-Aviles P. 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 115–125.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bell S. 1997. Design for outdoor recreation. Spon Press 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bogdanowski J. 1990. Metoda jednostek i wnętrz architektoniczno-krajobrazowych (JARK-WAK) w studiach i projektowaniu. [The method of units and scenic-architectural interiors (JARK-WAK) in study and design]. Politechnika Krakowska, Kraków [in Polish].]Search in Google Scholar
[Borkowski Z. 2003. Ocena atrakcyjności wizualnej ciągu pieszego doliny Marianki [Assessment of visual attractiveness of the pedestrian route in Marianka valley]. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, 11, 177–183 [in Polish].]Search in Google Scholar
[Clay G.R., Smidt R.K. 2004. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 66, 239–255.]Search in Google Scholar
[European Landscape Convention signed in Florence. 2000. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/236096/8413.pdf. accessed 27 November 2015.]Search in Google Scholar
[Evans G.W., Wood K.W. 1980. Assessment of environmental aesthetics in scenic highway corridors. Environment and Behavior, 12 (2), 255–273.]Search in Google Scholar
[Forczek-Brataniec U. 2007. Droga w krajobrazie. Projektowanie dróg z uwzględnieniem czynników otaczającego krajobrazu. [Road in the landscape. Designing roads taking into account the surrounding landscape factors]. Autostrady, 4, 56-64 [in Polish].]Search in Google Scholar
[Forczek-Brataniec U. 2008. Widok z drogi. Krajobraz w percepcji dynamicznej. [View from the road. Landscape in the perception of dynamic]. Elamed, Katowice [in Polish].]Search in Google Scholar
[Gundersen V.S., Frivold L.H. 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 7 (4), 241–258.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hammitt W.E., Patterson M.E., Noe F.P. 1994. Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 29, 171–183.]Search in Google Scholar
[Janeczko E. 2002. Environmental and social determinants of recreational functions of forests Mazowiecki Landscape Park. Ph.D. thesis, SGGW, Warsaw [in Polish].]Search in Google Scholar
[Janeczko E. 2012. Assessment of forest landscape along some communication routes. Wydawnictwo SGGW, Warsaw [in Polish].]Search in Google Scholar
[Jensen F.S. 1993. Landscape managers’ and politicians’ perception of the forest and landscape preferences of the population. Forest and Landscape Research, 1 (1), 79–93.]Search in Google Scholar
[Jones G.R., Sorey D.F., Scott C.C. 2007. Landscape Architecture Graphic Standards. Hoboken. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.]Search in Google Scholar
[Karjalainen E., Komulainen M. 1999. The visual effect of felling on small- and medium-scale landscapes in north-eastern Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 55 (3), 167–181.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kellomäki S., Savolainen R. 1984. The scenic value of forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landscape Planning, 11 (2), 97–107.]Search in Google Scholar
[Paschalis P. 2009. Leśnictwo a leśna turystyka i rekreacja. [Forestry and forest tourism and recreation]. Studia i Materiały Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Leśnej, 4 (23), 29–35 [in Polish].]Search in Google Scholar
[Polat A.T., Akay A. 2015. Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14 (3), 573–582.]Search in Google Scholar
[Scrinzi G., Floris A. 2000. Featuring and modelling forest recreation in Italy. Forestry, 73 (2), 173–185.]Search in Google Scholar
[Śleszyński P. 1997. Z badań nad fizjonomią środowiska przyrodniczego. [From the research on natural environment physiognomy]. Prace i Studia Geograficzne, 21, 255–297 [in Polish].]Search in Google Scholar
[Sullivan W.C. 1994. Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe. Citizen preferences for nature and developer settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 29, 85–101.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tahvanainen L., Tyrvainen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N., Kolehmainen O. 2001. Forest management and public perceptions-visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning, 53, 53–70.]Search in Google Scholar
[The National Road Safety Programme GAMBIT, 2005. http://www.krbrd.gov.pl/gambit/gambit_2005.htm. Accessed 27 November 2015.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tunnard Ch., Pushkarev B. 1963. Man – made America. Chaos or control? Yale University Press, New Haven.]Search in Google Scholar
[Vander Stoep G.A., Duniavy L. 1992. Public involvement in developing park and open space recreation management strategies. In: Proceedings of the Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Gen Tech Rep NE-176, 63–68.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wójcicki T. 1995. Rules of landscaping in the vicinity of roads. Zeszyty Naukowo-Techniczne Oddziału Stowarzyszenia Inżynierów i Techników Komunikacji w Krakowie, 38.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wolf K.L. 2003. Freeway roadside management: the urban forest beyond the white line. Journal of Arboriculture, 29 (3), 127–136.]Search in Google Scholar
