03.10.2010
1
Environmental preference and
design: Psychological perspectives
Part 1
Themes for this lecture:
Present a framework for decision making and for
the use of visual preference data in planning and
design: Kaplan and Kaplan´s Reasonable Person
model
Introduce a multidisciplinary model for
environmental aesthetics
Give some background and findings from the field
of environmental aesthetics in a psychological
perspective
“Economic Man”/“Rational Man”
model
Assumptions:
Individuals possess always perfect
knowledge
Individuals act always to maximise their gain
Problem: these assumptions about human
nature are incorrect (Earl, 1983; Einhorn &
Hogarth, 1985; Hernstein & Mazur, 1987)
03.10.2010
2
Reasonable Person Model
(Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989)
A psychologically more appropriate
framework than the widely adopted Rational
Man position
A conceptual framework:
For environmental decision making in general
For the proper use of visual preference data in
landscape planning and design
Being “reasonable”
Being constructive
Being co-operative
Being respectful of one another’s rights
Etc...
Not being rational in terms of maximising
one’s gain of one single value does not mean
that people are irrational !
The three principles of the Reasonable
Person Model
People can be reasonable, depending upon the
circumstances that surround them:
Reasonableness is not a trait, but the outcome of
an interaction between person and situation
People actively seek to understand their world, but
often possess extremely limited information
People’s needs are many and varied, and thus not
reducible to any single unitary value:
we are not maximisers but “satisficers”
03.10.2010
3
Guidelines for obtaining public input
according to the Reasonable Person Model
Presented information and reactions called for
must be compatible with human inclinations and
capabilities.
Needed information must be provided in such a
format that people can achieve understanding
effectively (visual information is well-suited)
The procedure should permit the expression of
multiple needs, and not concentrate all needs
into one unitary value
Classical aesthetics
From Greek:
aisthanesthai ‘to perceive’
aistheta, ‘’things perceptible’
‘Knowledge from the senses’ i.e. ‘the
study of perception’
One the normative disciplines:
Ethics: goodness
Logic: truth
Aesthetics: beauty
Modern aesthetics
The philosopher Gottlieb Baumgarten (1714-
62): aesthetics as ‘the theory of the liberal
arts ... the science of sensory cognition’
Negative connotations associated with Oscar
Wilde resulted in a narrow interest in art
alone
Mid-twentieth century: not theory of beauty, only
the theory of art.
03.10.2010
4
Problems of the philosophy of aesthetics
Rigorous modern aesthetics cannot handle
objects which have no author
The aesthetic properties of nature are in
large part ignored by present-day aesthetic
theories
Experimental aesthetics
Substantial agreement among subjects on
aesthetical judgements
de gustibus non est disputandum:NOT confirmed
by research
The twentieth century: A lack of interest in the
underlying laws or principles of aesthetics
Some reasons:
The failure of earlier attempts to discover aesthetic laws
The insistence that ‘beauty’ is an entirely subjective
experience (de gustibus…)
The growing precision of scientific method which has
led to an increasing isolation of the arts
The growth of the financial nexus in the fine art world
A general late twentieth-century desire to be free of
restrictive doctrines
03.10.2010
5
Some aesthetic concepts
Preference
Discrimination, making judgements
Sensory aesthetics
Plesasurableness of sensations: sounds,
colours, textures, and smells
Formal aesthetics
The shapes, rhythms, complexities and
sequences of the visual world
Symbolic aesthetics
meanings of environments
Some important concepts
Nature
(from Latin natura:"that which is born”)
common use: that part of reality which has not
been influenced by human beings
"natural environment"
nature experience vs natural environment
experience
Landscape
Classical use: ..."the totality of physiographic
and cultural (man-made) phenomena which
meet the eye in a single view - a selected,
framed section of the surroundings.
cultural landscape
agrarian landscape
natural landscape
03.10.2010
6
”Environment"
The aggregate of surrounding things,
conditions, or influences
Here: The physical environment
Perception
The experience of the world through the
senses
Porteous’ Environmental Aesthetics
Further the development of a new
interdiscipline - Environmental Aesthetics
Overview of a wide array of very disparate
literatures
A typological framework:
clusters relevant disciplines
emphasises linkages between them
relates work in the humanities and sciences to
public activities and professional planning
03.10.2010
7
Porteous’ Environmental Aesthetics
Resulting from a combination of extensive
personal reading and intuition.
Takes into account the publicly stated goals
of modern scientists:
rigour: scientific theory-building and testing
relevance: (here:) usefulness for the solving of
current environmental problems
Porteous’model: Based on the attitudes
and goals of scientists, professionals and the public
Mitroff and Kilmann’s (1978) fourfold typology of
scientists:
Analytical Scientist (Sensing and Thinking)
currently dominating
Conceptual Theorist (Intuition and Thinking)
Conceptual Humanist (Intuition and Feeling)
Particular Humanist (Sensing and Feeling)
Four paradigms of Environmental
Aesthetics
Humanists:
Low immediate relevance and low scientific
rigour
Environmental activists:
Extremely high relevance
Experimentalist social scientists:
Extreme rigour
Planners:
moderate relevance and rigour
03.10.2010
8
The four approaches are complimentary:
Humanist: generates basic concepts
Experimentalists: tests and refines concepts
Activists: uses concepts to further specific
causes
Planners: evaluates inputs from the three
above before undertaking action in the public
domain.
?
Figur 1. Porteous' (1996) multidisciplinary model for four approaches to environmental
aesthetics
ACTIVISTS
HUMANISTS EXPERIMENTALISTS
PLANNERS
Scientific rigour
Relevance
Features of the typological framework
Postulates necessary and essential
interconnections among the four paradigms
Normative overtones: calls for strong
connections between academics (humanists
and experimentalists), professionals
(planners) and the public (activists)
Emphasises the political aspects of
environmental aesthetics (the activists)
03.10.2010
9
A cognitive model: Kaplan & Kaplan's (1989)
preference model
Analyses of the content of scenes:
landscapes can usefully be categorised
according to the balance between nature and
human influence in them
Spatial configurations:
degree of openness and spatial definition
Two domains of crucial importance to
information-processing:
understanding/exploration
degree of inference
The Preference Model (Kaplan &
Kaplan, 1989)
______________________________________________________
Understanding Exploration
______________________________________________________
Direct Coherence Complexity
(two dimensions)
Inferred Legibility Mystery
(three dimensions)
______________________________________________________
Informational variables predicting landscape
preference (adapted from Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989;
Herzog, 1992)
Coherence: How well the landscape in the photograph
'hangs together', how orderly it is.
Legibility: How easy it would be to find your way in the
landscape, to find out where you are at any given moment, or
to find the way back to a certain point in the setting.
Complexity: How heterogeneous or intricate the landscape
in the photograph is, how many different elements there are,
how much there is 'going on' in the photograph, how much
there is to look at.
Mystery: A 'promise' of learning more if one could 'enter into'
the landscape.
03.10.2010
10
Perception - based variables predicting
preference
Openness: Amount of space perceivable by
observing then photograph
Smoothness: Uniformity and shortness of
the surface/ground texture
Ease of Locomotion: How easily one can
move about without undue effort
Assumptions asssociated with the
Preference Model
Cognition can involve categorisation and
inference without conscious thought and
metaphoric responses as a result of a
schema
Preference as a largely unconscious and
automatic process
Ulrich's psychoevolutionary model (Ulrich, 1983; Ulrich
et al., 1991)
Affective responses as directly elicited by
environmental features
Use of physiological indices of arousal
03.10.2010
11
Nasar (1994): combining the preference model
with concepts from urban design aesthetics
Formal aesthetics: the structure of forms for
their own sake
Symbolic aesthetics: relating to the content of
forms
Criticism
Saegert & Winkel (1990):
the adaptation paradigm leaves inexplicit the
transactional nature of the processes and
variables they employ
The person is only seen as a biological and
psychological individual, not as a social agent
Landscape perception studies: Two
purposes
Description of individuals' actual
perception of the landscapes in question,
as opposed to constructing norms for how
they should be perceived.
Explaining the observed patterns of
preference in terms of a variety of
predictors, such as environmental
attributes, demography, environmental
attitudes and values, specific experiences
with types of landscapes and so on.
03.10.2010
12
Predictors of landscape preference
Preference-derived Perceptual categories
descriptions of lay perceptions on the basis of
content of scenes
Environmental attributes
Formal aesthetical characteristics
Predictors of preference
Preference-derived Perceptual categories
In landscape preference, consensus, rather than divergence,
seems to be the rule (cf Dearden, 1984).
Content of scenes has consistently emerged as a major
contributor to preference:
Most preferred:
scenes where human influence do not dominate the
natural elements
scenes where nature dominate
Least preferred:
scenes with intrusions into the natural environment
- Can aesthetical preferences be easily
measured?
- Do they vary randomly?
On the basis of over 275 experiments,
12,000 stimuli, and 41,000 respondents
Stamps (2000) argues that:
Beauty is easily measured as intensity of
visual pleasure.
There are valid principles which do apply to
more than one situation.
03.10.2010
13
Empirical data on possible demographic
effects in environmental preferences.
Reanalyses of 40 earlier studies including 5301
respondents and 1001 scenes, with respondents coming
form 21 different countries in Europe, North America,
Asia and Australia
Results:
For all demographic groups, the degree of consensus
for visual environmental preferences was r=.82.
to claim that there is no such correlation, it would be
necessary to submit data on over 100.000 stimuli
which generated a correlation of r= 0.0
Application of the model
Single projects:
Intervention: simulations of the project
Control or baseline group would be a random
sample of buildings in the neighbourhood.
Results would indicate whether the project would
enhance, maintain, or diminish the visual quality
of the neighbourhood.
Applications...
Several projects, for example architectural
competitions:
Projects represented by simulations
Respondents: a random sample of the area's
population,
Results: indicate whether any of the projects were
better than any others.
03.10.2010
14
Design review processes
Contrasts between projects as originally
submitted to the process as compared to the
same projects as modified by the process,
Contrasts between a random sample of
buildings which were or were not subjected to
the process.
For design review, the only required
information is how intensity of pleasure is
influenced by physical features of projects.
Ratings of pleasant/unpleasant are
predicted by physical design features
The public interest in environmental
aesthetics has been very well defined as
single preference ordering
Norwegian landscape preference study
(Strumse, 1996): Main research questions
Do most people distinguish between traditional and
modern agrarian landscapes in Western Norway?
What are the most and least preferred landscapes?
How should observed preference patterns for agrarian
landscapes be explained?
as a function of characteristics of the environments
themselves
as a function of individual or group characteristics
Both?
Is it possible to discern between learned/cultural and
innate/evolved influences on visual preferences?
03.10.2010
15
The visual stimuli
60 colour slides representing areas well
documented with respect to earlier research
(geography, ecology)
50% traditional agrarian landscapes
50% Modern agrarian landscape
Questionnaires
Visual preference rating sheet
Larger questionnaire including questions
about demographics, environmental concern
and outdoor recreation activities
Rating sheets for the judgments of eight
environmental attributes
Participants:
Study 1: Visual preference rating and
standard questionnaire
N= 198
male (n=72) and female (n=126)
landscape-related disciplines (n=94)
introductory courses in psychology (n=104)
mean age: 25.1 years (SD = 5.96, min. = 19
yrs, max. = 50 yrs)
Study 2: Rating of all scenes on
environmental attributes
Participants: N= 8
03.10.2010
16
A priori (”expert”-) categories: Basis for
environmental sampling
Traditional Modern
Built environment Built environment
Mechanical equipment Mechanical equipment
Activities Activities
Dominating elements Dominating elements
Form/colour Form/colour
Results: Mean preference ratings
Substantially higher preference for traditional
agrarian landscapes than for their modern
counterparts.
Most preferred were traditional scenes
containing human influence in balance with
the natural elements.
Modern scenes containing dominating human
influence were among the least preferred.
Results: Factoranalysis
Seven distinct categories in peoples'
perception of these landscapes
Followed the traditional-modern distinction
Content of scenes as the basis for
categorisation, i.e.: nature - human influence,
fields, farming activities etc.
03.10.2010
17
Preference-derived (n=198) perceptual categories in
Western Norwegian agrarian landscapes. Descriptive
statistics.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
# of
Label Description items Mean
________________________________________________________________________________________________
FARMING Persons doing manual labour or 12 3.63
using machines,products of such
activities, or reflections of
activities associated with farming
----------------------------------------------------------
OLD Old buildings or mechanical equipment 9 4.43
STRUCTURES embedded in a nature setting
but also a nature scene,
the ground covered with stone.
----------------------------------------------------------
GREEN, GRASSY Modern mowed fields or meadows. 9 3.14
FIELDS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Preference-derived (n=198) perceptual categories in
Western Norwegian agrarian landscapes. Descriptive
statistics.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
# of
Label Description items Mean
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MODERN FARMING Silos, drainpipes and 6 1.66
ELEMENTS forest machines.
------------------------------------------------------
NEW DOMINATING Modern buildings and
STRUCTURES constructions. 7 1.95
-------------------------------------------------------
FLOWERS Flowers and colourful meadows,
high in biological diversity 4 4.34
-------------------------------------------------------
SPRUCE Relatively dense spruce
PLANTATIONS plantations. 3 1.86
Two obvious interpretations of the
observed preference ratings
There seem to be a general dislike for the intrusive style
of human influence seen in modern agrarian
landscapes, pushing the natural elements aside,
There is a strong liking for the traditional style of human
influence, presumably suggesting to the observer a more
caring relation to nature.
03.10.2010
18
Environmental attributes
Application of a number of environmental
attributes in order to
(a) describe agrarian landscapes in western
Norway, and
(b) predict preferences for the same
landscapes.
Three domains of attributes:
Informational variables
Perception-based variables
Perceived Age of landscape
Perceived Age
How old the elements in the photograph
seem to be
Results
Highly preferred human-influenced
landscapes:
high degrees of Age and Mystery.
Highly preferred nature-dominated
landscapes:
high degrees of Coherence, Openness,
Smoothness and Ease of Locomotion
03.10.2010
19
Multiple regression analyses: testing the predictive
power of environmental attributes
Informational variables: most effective
domain of preference predictors
Other predictors:
Openness
Perceived Age
Results
Strong support to Kaplan & Kaplan's
(1989) evolutionary preference model:
All four informational variables are stat.
sig. positive predictors of preference
Attributes known to enhance preference
are present to a markedly higher degree in
traditional than in modern agrarian settings
Some of these attributes seem to function
differently in, respectively, humaninfluenced
and nature-dominated settings
Demographic differences in landscape
preference
General finding:
Few and small group differences
Most important predictors of preference
differences across landscape categories:
present population density
gender
organisation membership
expertise
03.10.2010
20
Demographic (group) differences
in landscape preference
Demograhic differences clearest in the
preferences for scenes depicting Farming
Activities:
Residents of cities in Western Norw. lower
pref. than other urban residents
Rural residents higher preferences than urban
r.
Older subjects higher pref. than younger
Members higher than nonmembers
Urban experts higher pref. than urb. nonexp.
Demographic (group) differences
in landscape preference
Preferences for Green Grassy Fields
Women higher than men
Nonexperts higher than experts
Preferences for Modern Farming Elements
Urban residents higher than rural
Preferences for New Dominating Structures
Urban residents higher than rural
Preferences for Flowers
Women higher than men
Members higher than nonmembers
Relevance of the study
Practical implications:
Prevent negative outcomes in landscape planning
and management, which often can traced back to a
lack of knowledge about landscape perceptions of
lay people and local residents
Both practical and theoretically interest:
visual preference studies advance our knowledge
about what characterise environments in which
humans are likely to thrive
more knowledge about the nature of human
perception and information processing
03.10.2010
21
Perceived values of agrarian
landscapes in Eastern and Western
Norway
Einar Strumse
Lillehammer University College
Lillehammer
Norway
www.hil.no
Theme of the paper
Lay people’s evaluations of a set of scenes from cultural
landscapes where they live according to six criteria:
Visual preference
Conservation value
Cultural heritage/Cultural landscape value
Economic utilitarian value
Importance for everyday well –being
How typical each scene is for the landscape where one
lives.
Importance of theme:
Too little knowledge about the public perceptions of agrarian
landscapes. Such knowledge is important for successful
implementation measures aiming at an increase in the aesthetical
and recreative value of agrarian landscapes, as well as for the
evaluation of such measures.
What we know about people’s landscape
preferences
The content of scenes: a major contributor to
landscape preference
Most preferred scenes are often those where
human influence do not dominate the natural
elements or where nature dominate
Least preferred scenes often represent intrusions
into the natural environment
03.10.2010
22
Additional important factors explaining
landscape preference
Environmental attributes enhancing the
processes of understanding and exploration
Spatial information indicating how well one
could function in the space represented
Group differences in landscape preferences
due to familiarity (how well one knows the
landscape in question), cultural and ethnic
variation, formal knowledge and expertise.
Previous findings in Norway (Strumse, 1996, 1998,
Strumse & Hauge, 1998)
Strong dislike for modern agrarian landscapes, and
an equally strong liking for traditional landscapes
Positive association between support to
environmental protection and preference for
traditional, nature-dominated landscapes
Positive relation between support to environmental
protection and preference for farming activities
Awareness of the aesthetical value of a landscape
scene is related to the wish to protect it.
Positive associations between landscape preferences and
evaluations of the importance of protecting cultural
landscapes, natural landscapes, and species of plants and
animals
Are preferred environments also
health promoting?
Restorative or recreating effects of nature:
Exposure to natural environments resulted in reduced
autonomic arousal and less selective attention (Laumann et al
2003)
Walking in natural environment provide measurable recovery
and stress reduction as indicated by cardiovascular measures,
emotional measures and task performance (Laumann et al,
submitted)
In the present study, health effects are treated only
indirectly by looking at how participants evaluate the
importance of each landscape scene for their everyday
subjective well-being
03.10.2010
23
The effect of the physical environment
on subjective well-being
Very little research on the topic
Reason for modest expectations with respect
to how much social and environmental
factors may contribute:
Subjective well being is particularly frequent in
individuals who generally tend to judge their
surroundings as good rather than bad
Typicality of landscapes
How typical a scene is perceived to be for
where one lives is probably important for the
same scene’s importance for subjective well-
being.
A correspondence between surroundings and
knowledge structure (Nasar, 1994): Moderate
correspondence would probably lead to
involvement or exploration because there is
the suggestion that more information will be
obtained through cognitive activity.
The landscapes studied
The area surrounding the town of Hamar in Central
Eastern Norway: large and varied agricultural land,
nature reserves and densely populated areas One of the
most important agricultural districts in Norway
The Inner Sogn region, Western Norway: Complex
traditional cultural landscape. Stages, ranging from
traditional practice to succession in marginal areas
where fields and seminatural vegetation of meadows and
pastures rapidly become invaded by woodland.
03.10.2010
24
Specific research questions
Are nature-dominated and/or traditional landscapes
generally more highly valued than other landscape
types?
Are landscape types which are perceived as typical of
place of residence also perceived as more important for
subjective well-being than other scenes?
Are highly preferred landscape scenes more important
for subjective well-being than less preferred landscapes?
Is it possible to obtain support for the assumptions about
biological and cultural modes for landscape experience?
Method
Mail-back survey:
Photo-survey: 6 different ratings of 32 color prints
in a 4-page booklet (only 28 photos applied in the
present analysis)
Standard Questionnaire
Samples
Randomly drawn from telephone directory of
two defined areas.
Whole sample:
447 subjects, 204 men, 224 women (22 nonresponse),
i.e. response rate of 44,7%
Age: <19 - >70
Western Norway sample: 241 subjects
Eastern Norway sample: 196 subjects
03.10.2010
25
Participants were asked to rank scenes according to a
criteria using the following response formats:
Visual preference, ranked on a five-point scale with 1 = “Does
not like at all” and 5= “Likes very much”.
Conservation value ranked on a five-point scale with 1 = “Not
valuable at all” and 5= “Extremely valuable”.
Cultural heritage and cultural landscape value ranked on a fivepoint
scale with 1 = “Not valuable at all” and 5= “Extremely
valuable”.
Economic use value ranked on a five-point scale with 1 = “Not
use value at all” and 5= “Extremely high use value”.
Importance for everyday subjective well-being ranked on a
five-point scale with 1 = “Not important at all” and 5= “Extremely
important”.
How typical the landscape shown is for the place in which each
participant live, ranked on a five-point scale with 1 = “Not typical
at all” and 5= “Extremely typical”.
Statistical analyses
Frequency distributions, one-way analyses of
variance and correlations were applied in
order to identify central tendencies and
bivariate relations.
Identification of landscape dimensions was
accomplished by means of principal
components analysis (PCA).
Results
Participants did appear to perceive the landscapes according to
general dimensions or categories
These dimensions were valued differently
The identified dimensions group themselves relatively clearly
along the nature – human influence continuum
Nature-dominated dimensions received the highest mean
ratings both in terms of visual preference, conservation value,
cultural heritage value and importance for subjective well-being
Scenes containing cultivated fields received the highest mean
ratings on economic use value: A necessary conflict between
the landscape most people value and the landscapes that
provide income?
03.10.2010
26
Results
Indications of separate biological and cultural modes for
landscape perception: Few between-group differences
in evaluation of nature-dominated scenes, larger
differences in evaluations of scenes dominated by built
structures
The more typical Eastern Norwegian scenes are
perceived to be for where one lives, the more important
are the same scenes for well-being
Highly preferred landscapes are also important for well-
being
Applications of preference studies:
Some examples
1. Citizens’ perception of a storm
drain
Purpose: How to make the drain more
attractive to residents living along it
Study focus: People’s responses to potential
changes to the drain: such changes could
have major impact on their neighbourhood
03.10.2010
27
Method
Standard questionnaire: Questions about
possible changes to the drain
Photoquestionnaire with two 5-point rating
scales beneath each scene:
Ratings of similarity of participants' actual view of
the waterway with the scene depicted in the
picture,
Ratings of how much one would prefer the
waterway near one’s home to look like the scene
in question.
Findings of particular importance for
landscape planning and design
Proposals for change are easily perceived as
threatening in preferred everyday natural
environment
When the environment is unattractive,
familiarity might contribute to the acceptance
of almost any proposed modifications
Strong regional differences in the perceptions
of problems and of the preferred alternatives:
Different solutions for different portions of the
storm drain.
2. Public input to assist the design of a
vest-pocket park
Method:
Physical models of three different designs of the
site, and a series of photographs from various
directions
Participants rated the scenes on a 5-point scale in
terms of how pleasing they would find it if the park
was as pictured
03.10.2010
28
Results:
Those who worked near the park:
highest in their preferences, and in particular for
scenes showing opportunity for sitting in the park.
Those who lived near the park,
Sensitive to elements in the scenes that might
pose threatening situations
Openness was important
3. Simulation of the location of a proposed
nuclear power plant along New York’s Hudson
River
Background:
Proposed location was the geographic center
of inspiration for the Hudson River School of
painters (19th century)
Method:
Responses to photographs simulating the plant
Interviews and an analysis of the historical
significance of the region
Result:
For the first time in the history of the nuclear
power industry: recommendation against the
application to build a plant --on the basis of
aesthetic concerns.
Suggestions for application of visual preference
data to landscape planning and design
A way of mapping local residents’
perceptions of the effects of restoration, or of
simulations of restoration
Information on landscape preferences would
be of help in designing informational and
educational material on landscapes in
question
Exploring farm environments for the future in
simulation studies
03.10.2010
29
Stamps (2000): The aesthetics of the
built environment: New methods in
design review
New methods assisting environmental decision makers
by focusing on basic issues in design review
Definition of design review
"a governmental function the purpose of
which is to manage the physical development
of a geographical area in a manner which
reflects public determination of what that area
should look like in the future." (Stamps,
2000,p. 3)
Conventional reasons why design
review is not possible
(a) beauty is subjective (in the eye of the
beholder)
(b) there are differences in taste between
experts and the general public
real environments cannot be simulated through
pictures
each situation is uniqueand so there are no
general principles, and
(e) beauty cannot be measured
03.10.2010
30
None of these reasons are valid
On the basis of over 275 experiments,
12,000 stimuli, and 41,000 respondents
Stamps (2000) argues that:
Beauty is easily measured as intensity of
visual pleasure.
There are valid principles which do apply to
more than one situation.
Conventional design review mainly
uses discretion
Discretion: A personal judgement of taste based
on inspection of a project and experience.
US cities: 22% used reviewers' judgement
without any guidelines, 21% only general
principles, 13% only diagrams or drawings, only
20% had rules which were not subject to
discretion.
The empirical method has been far more
effective for the purpose of predicting
preferences for as-built projects.
Contemporary design review use often
vague ideas
Examples:
in context
in keeping
in harmony
appropriate
high standard
high quality
raising standards
protection of the environment
03.10.2010
31
Problems in design review:
Vagueness
The criterion of non-vagueness is a list of properties such
that their presence or absence determines set membership.
One need to find discrete concepts which can be used
instead of diffuse notions.
Use of tautologies (contain no information and can be ignored)
Mixing purposes
the purpose should be predicting future aesthetic effects
Confusing feelings with descriptions of physical objects
terms such as "interesting", "overwhelming", or "beautiful" to
describe the physical environment is not useful
Feelings and Features of Physical
Environments.
Feelings can be described in terms of intensities
of pleasure, arousal and dominance
Physical objects can be described in terms of
materials and spatial relations
Design review decisions need only a description
of intensity of pleasure and a description of the
object
Vague notions to physical concepts
Subjective measure of visual detail.
Door and window trim: Most important
Texture:least important
Impression of complexity:
Predicted by number of turns and symmetry in the
silhouette
03.10.2010
32
Vague notions to physical concepts
Character.
Three components needed:
a definite region (block face),
A set of design features (style, number of
stories…)
A critical frequency
A feature is part of a block's character if the
frequency of that feature in the block is higher than
the critical frequency
Results: a design feature would have to be present in
88% of the buildings before more than half of the
respondents would describe the overall character of
the block as having that feature
The commons
The land belonging to the community at large.
Someplace where someone could actually stand
All parts are connected ---there is only one commons
The visual commons
The space bounded by the objects visible from
publicly-accessible locations.
Typically larger than the commons: we can see
beyond where we stand.
If they are visible from a publicly-accessible place,
private spaces are part of the visual commons.
Empirical data on possible demographic
effects in environmental preferences.
Reanalyses of 40 earlier studies including 5301
respondents and 1001 scenes, with respondents coming
form 21 different countries in Europe, North America,
Asia and Australia
Results:
For all demographic groups, the degree of consensus
for visual environmental preferences was r=.82.
to claim that there is no such correlation, it would be
necessary to submit data on over 100.000 stimuli
which generated a correlation of r= 0.0
03.10.2010
33
A Psycological Protocol (correct
procedure) for Design Review
Think of a design proposal as a change or
an intervention in an existing state of
affairs
Net effect of the change:
difference between the existing condition (the
“before”) and the condition following he intervention
(the “after”).
Use measurements which have the same
meanings over different applications
Suitable measure: The standardised
mean difference (d).
Calculation of d requires three inputs:
two averages (µafter and µbefore)
an estimate of the population standard
deviation (σ).
The net aesthetic effect of an intervention
is mesured as:
EQ 1: d = (µafter - µbefore)
(σ)
Importance of random sampling
For environmental aesthetics, a random
protocol would be to compare a physical
intervention against a random sample of
existing environmental scenes in an intended
area
03.10.2010
34
Interpreting D(the standardised
mean difference)
(Remember: one stimulus group consists of a random
sample (of scenes), the another stimulus group consists
of images of a proposed project)
If d is negative, the net effect will be to
diminish the visual amenity of the target
area;
If d is zero, the net effect will be to maintain
the visual amenity of the target area
If d is positive, the net effect will be to
increase the visual amenity of the target
area.
Values of d corresponding to differences
in visual images
More than a mountain:
it is quite clear which is better and which is worse: the
difference between a park and a factory (standardised
contrast = 3.1).
Grossly perceptible: When the d is less than 1 but above
.5.
Large enough to be visible to the naked eye: At the,
still clear which is the better and which the worse (d = .5)
Small (d = .2): he distinction between better and worse
becomes difficult: is a 5/2 split in house styles better than
a 2/5 split?
Realm of the molehills: (d = 0). Example: a 4/3 split in
house styles versus a 4/3 split.
Summary of protocol
Create a control group by selecting a random
sample of existing buildings in the target
region.
Create simulations of the proposed project.
Conduct a preference experiment
Measure the aesthetic effect as a
standardised mean difference between the
control group and the intervention
The aesthetic impact will be noticeably
beneficial if d > +0.2, trivial if d <0.2, and
noticeably harmful if d < -0.2.
03.10.2010
35
Application of the model
Single projects:
Intervention: simulations of the project
Control or baseline group would be a random
sample of buildings in the neighbourhood.
Results would indicate whether the project would
enhance, maintain, or diminish the visual quality
of the neighbourhood.
Applications...
Several projects, for example architectural
competitions:
Projects represented by simulations
Respondents: a random sample of the area's
population,
Results: indicate whether any of the projects were
better than any others.
Design review processes
Contrasts between projects as originally
submitted to the process as compared to the
same projects as modified by the process,
Contrasts between a random sample of
buildings which were or were not subjected to
the process.
03.10.2010
36
The main points of the book:
Clear concepts rather than in vague notions.
For physical objects, "clear concepts" means expressions only in
terms of materials and spatial relationships.
For feelings, "clear concepts" means expression in terns of intensity
of pleasure, intensity of arousal, and intensity and polarity of
dominance
For design review, the only required information is how intensity
of pleasure is influenced by physical features of projects.
Ratings of pleasant/unpleasant are predicted by physical
design features.
The public interest in environmental aesthetics has been very
well defined as single preference ordering.
Main points...
The magnitude of aesthetic effects can be measured in terms of a
standardised mean difference …..
d = (µafter - µbefore)
(σ)
Randomisation is needed in order to eliminate bias due to
convenience, expectations, personal preference, disingeniousness,
or other factors. Vague verbal evaluations such as "preventing harm
to amenity", "keeping in keeping", ot having a "significant effect" can
all be expressed much more clearly in terms of wheteher d is
harmful d<-.2), trivial (|d|<.2), or beneficial (d > +.2).
Use of scientific protocols will eliminate most potential challenges to
the legitimacy of design review.The scientific protocol can be
applied to many types of design review decisions,