The experiment to be reported used matched sets of outdoor scenes from the Padua region of northern Italy and the Sydney region of Australia. Both clear-cut and ambiguous examples of the type of scene represented were selected. The participants in the experiment were drawn from students living in each region. Participants first made an overall preference judgment and a judgment of whether the scene was natural or built without reference to a particular scene type. Following these judgments, participants were supplied with the name of a scene type - for example landscape, woodland, city street - for the clear-cut instances and with the names of a number of possible scene types for ambiguous instances. In the ambiguous cases respondents chose one type and all subsequent judgments were made in relation to the nominated type. Judgments of typicality and familiarity and two focussed preference judgments - degree of preference for each as a place to visit on a holiday and as a place to live and work - were obtained. For each judgment participants were asked to indicate the basis on which they had made the judgment. The experiment was designed to address three broad sets of issues. The first concerns the role of similarities and differences in environmental experience which result from differences between the physical attributes characteristic of different locations. This is in contrast to an often implicit emphasis on soclo-cultural differences as the major determinants of differences in environmental experience. The use of scenes from two different regions with judgments by residents of the two regions for each set of scenes addresses this issue. The second concerns the context within which the judgment is made. Much research in this area obtains judgments of diverse sets of places in terms of the instances as examples of landscapes. This assumes that the landscape represents a environmental type or category that is applicable to a diversity of outdoor scenes. However it is possible that there are a number of different types of outdoor scenes and that participants shift the basis for their judgment to accord with their classification of each instance. This may particularly be the case where a scene contains elements from different scene types; that is where an instance is ambiguous. Participants could also introduce a different type of context in making their judgments. Scenes may not be judged on the basis of their perceptual attributes but in terms of meanings associated with the scene such as the place as setting for particular types of activities. For example a landscape could be judged in terms of the desirability of living in or visiting such a setting. The specification of scene type and different settings for the judgment addresses this set of issues. The third issue relates to the aspect of experience that is assessed in relation to the scenes. Often overall preference or, to a lesser extent, judgments of other types of affective experience are obtained. These are frequently treated as independent aspects of experience with the effects, again often implicitly, also being treated as though the experiences were induced directly by the particular attributes of the instance. With an approach that treats each aspect of experience as independent in these ways, it is difficult to develop models of the processes which generate the different types of experience and particularly how current experience relates to and depends on past similar experiences. The use of measures which are related to representations of past experience, such as judgments of typicality and familiarity, can however be used in conjunction with measures of affective experience to address these questions.