Compendium of Architectural Psychology: On the design of built environments (essentials) 3658349174, 9783658349172

Citation preview

Antje Flade

Compendium of Architectural Psychology On the design of built environments

essentials

Springer essentials

Springer essentials provide up-to-date knowledge in a concentrated form. They aim to deliver the essence of what counts as “state-of-the-art” in the current academic discussion or in practice. With their quick, uncomplicated and comprehensible information, essentials provide: • an introduction to a current issue within your field of expertise • an introduction to a new topic of interest • an insight, in order to be able to join in the discussion on a particular topic Available in electronic and printed format, the books present expert knowledge from Springer specialist authors in a compact form. They are particularly suitable for use as eBooks on tablet PCs, eBook readers and smartphones. Springer essentials form modules of knowledge from the areas economics, social sciences and humanities, technology and natural sciences, as well as from medicine, psychology and health professions, written by renowned Springer-authors across many disciplines.

More information about this subseries at https://www.springer.com/series/16761

Antje Flade

Compendium of Architectural Psychology On the design of built environments

Antje Flade Hamburg, Germany

ISSN 2197-6708 essentials ISSN 2731-3107 Springer essentials ISBN 978-3-658-34917-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34917-2

ISSN 2197-6716 (electronic) ISSN 2731-3115 (electronic)

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 The translation was done with the help of artificial intelligence (machine translation by the service DeepL.com). A subsequent human revision was done primarily in terms of content. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Responsible Editor: Eva Brechtel-Wahl This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

What You Can Find in this essential

• An abridged version of architectural psychology • Basic concepts to describe and explain the interactions between the built environment and human experience and behaviour • Selected results of research in architectural psychology • Target groups for which planning and construction is carried out • An overview of the methods of architectural psychology research.

v

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Architecture — Psychology — Architectural Psychology . . . . . . 1.2 Paradigms of Man-Environment Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 4

2 Architectural Psychological Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Behavior Setting Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Perceived Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Affective Properties of Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Environmental Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Territoriality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Crowding and Distancing Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Environmental Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Restorative Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10 Third Places in Public Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 10 12 14 18 22 24 27 30 33 36

3 Target Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Elderly people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Lifestyles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 40 41 42

4 Methods of Architectural Psychology Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 45 46

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

vii

About the author

Dr. Antje Flade AWMF, Angewandte Wohn- und Mobilitätsforschung, Hamburg.

ix

1

Introduction

An alliance between architecture and psychology emerged at the end of the 1960s. The reasons for the awakening interest on the part of architecture in a psychology of the built environment were the desire to reduce the gap between builders and users that existed in complex societies based on the division of labour, the technological development that made an enormous variety of building forms possible, and finally the immense need for the built environment (Canter 1973). The gap began to open up when architecture produced by common people was replaced by architecture designed and created by professionals. Thanks to highly developed technology, architects are now able to produce buildings in almost any desired form. This raises the question of which structural form is best suited to a particular purpose. In the case of mass production of built environments, for example in the context of large urban development projects, wrong decisions can cause high financial and social costs. This is where psychological know-how can be useful in designing environments that meet people’s needs and follow Sommer’s (1983) guiding principle of “creating buildings with people in mind”. Although this guiding principle was formulated decades ago - which included an invitation to psychology - psychology’s interest in researching the influence of the physical-spatial environment on people has remained rather low. Gifford (2007) has referred to an “environmental numbness” (p. 349). Reducing this “numbness” is a central concern of architectural psychology.

1.1

Architecture — Psychology — Architectural Psychology

In architectural psychology, two fields meet that are very different in their origins, development, approaches, goals, and interests (Flade, 2008). Architecture is © Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 A. Flade, Compendium of Architectural Psychology, essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34917-2_1

1

2

1

Introduction

the art and skill of the planned design and production of built environments. Art in the context of architecture stands for an aesthetically pleasing design, while skill stands for the production of technically successful functional environments that meet the purpose. Planning units are environments of different types and scales. Psychology is the science concerned with the study of human experience and behaviour. Perceptual and thought processes, feelings, sensitivities, attitudes, motives, intentions to act, reactions, behaviours and actions are the content of psychological research. The units of study are individuals. Architectural psychology is that part of environmental psychology that deals with the relationships between people and the built environment. How comprehensive this part is, is shown by the answer to the question of what is meant by built environment: it is all that which is not natural environment. Natural environment in its original form is the total of inorganic and organic phenomena such as air, light, weather, climate, soil, water, vegetation, mountains and valleys, etc. that exists without human intervention (Flade, 2008). Built environments, on the other hand, are products of human activity, which include modifications of natural environments such as a landscape garden. Built environments and psychological research come together as architects begin to ask how their buildings affect people and how they influence their behavior, and psychologists begin to research how people experience built environments and act in real-world situations. Specific questions include: Why do people experience a space as homely? What makes it difficult to orient oneself in a previously unfamiliar building? What drives people to cover a bare wall with graffiti? Why do city dwellers strive after the countryside? What makes places in public space worth visiting? These few questions alone point to a large number of characteristics that can be important for the planning of built environments. These can be grouped into three categories: technical and functional, psychological and behavioural characteristics (Table 1.1). The assessment of the quality of built environments encompasses all three categories. This can be explained with an example: passive houses are characterised by a demonstrably low heating requirement. If this criterion alone is taken as a basis, they are optimal. However, a complete evaluation also includes determining whether the occupants feel comfortable in their house, how they experience the indoor climate, whether they can cope with the technology and whether they see it as a gain in comfort or as a loss of control if they have to keep the windows closed because there is an automatic ventilation system, and also the extent to which the technical performance of the house influences their behaviour. For example, residents may use energy more liberally because they know that the home automation

1.1 Architecture — psychology — architectural psychology

3

Table 1.1 Categories of characteristics of built environments (based on Schuemer, 1998, p. 155 f.) Categories

Examples

Technical characteristics

Safety and health aspects, statics, ceilings and walls, density, insulation, fire protection, sanitary facilities, lighting, heating system, energy consumption, ventilation, sound insulation

Functional characteristics

Fit between user activities and environmental characteristics, appropriateness of the spatial concept for different activities, ergonomic fits

Psychological and behavioral characteristics Environmental perception, emotional reactions, attitudes, well-being, needs, motives, intentions to act, spatial orientation, place attachment, place identity, environmental control, stress, territorial behavior, environmental appropriation

system is doing the saving. Such a boomerang effect: the absence of an expected reduction or even an even higher energy consumption, can only be explained psychologically (Flade & Lohmann, 2004). To order the plethora of architectural psychological issues, a multidimensional grid suggests itself. Its main dimensions are (Altman, 1975): • built environments of different types and scales • the psychological and behavioural characteristics related to an environment. Examples are: • The built environment is an open-plan office with partition walls of different heights between the individual workplaces. The well-being and job satisfaction of employees is investigated as a function of the height of the partitions (Yilderim et al., 2007). • The built environment is a large exhibition hall of a museum that can be divided into smaller islands. Depending on the room layout, the paths visitors take through the museum and the exposed objects they view are observed (Klein, 1993).

4

1

Introduction

“Built environment” is a comprehensive term that bundles everything that is not natural environment. The natural environment would also exist without humans; built environments, which serve housing, working, learning, care, leisure, health and recreation, social exchange and mobility, only exist because there are humans who produce them. Both terms, “built environment” and “built environments”, are in common use. The term “built environment” does not specify that environments have different scales, ranging from a single room to a city. “Setting” refers to a section of the environment. The dimension of psychological and behavioral characteristics in relation to the environment includes perceptions, emotional responses, cognitive mapping of spatial structures, privacy, territoriality, crowding, spatial behavior, environmental appropriation, stress and stress management, restoration, and social interactions. A third dimension is the time axis. The starting point is the architectural design, the end point may be demolition or decay or conversion, and in between are taking in possession and use of the building, its maintenance and modernisation. Longitudinal studies during use shed light on the evaluations that may have changed as a result of the experience gained. For example, residents are asked immediately after moving into a new dwelling and then one year later about their satisfaction with the dwelling and the reasons why they are satisfied or dissatisfied. A fourth dimension is the target groups for whom built environments are produced. It is an approach, if not at the individual level, then at least at the group level, to design buildings with users in mind. By “users” is meant the large group of all those for whom environments are created and built, which are subsequently occupied by them.

1.2

Paradigms of Man-Environment Relations

There are divergent ideas about what constitutes an optimal man-environment relationship and how to realize it, starting from environmental design. These “planning philosophies” have a significant impact on how environments are designed and built. Saegert and Winkel (1990) have referred to these ideas as paradigms and distinguished between the • adaptation paradigm • opportunity structure paradigm • sociocultural paradigm.

1.2 Paradigms of man-environment relations

5

Architects and planners acting on the of assumption of the adaptation paradigm view the relationship between people and their environment primarily as an ergonomic matter. The goal is maximum functionality: to design spaces according to the motto “form follows function” to suit physical dimensions, movement sequences and the activities that take place within them (Fig. 1.1). An example is the functional kitchen tailored to one person, designed by Grete Schütte-Lihotzky in the 1920s (Wenz-Gahler, 1979). One problem with the adaptation paradigm, however, is that it is very static; a momentary fit does not necessarily apply in later stages of life. For example, an apartment floor plan may be optimal for a family with two small children, but it is no longer optimal when the small children have grown into adolescents.

Fig. 1.1 The adaptation paradigm. (Picture courtesy of Niels Flade)

6

1

Introduction

Designs based on the opportunity structure paradigm allow for flexibility. People are not understood as passive beings who need a tailor-made built environment, but as active agents who can help shape and transform their environment for themselves, which is only possible if it has not been planned down to the smallest detail (Fig. 1.2). Open, divisible or interconnectable spaces, as well as unfurnished spaces, are based on the idea that the aim is to create opportunity structures. In the socio-cultural paradigm, symbolism is taken into account. The built environment is understood not only as a physical-spatial entity, but also as a cultural product in which guiding social ideas and cultural norms, as well as ideas of how things should be, are expressed. For example, Islamic cities look different from European or socialist cities (Rüthers, 2015). Or in school environments the philosophy of learning is reflected: “A classroom environment is much more than

Fig. 1.2 Opportunity structure paradigm. (Picture courtesy of Niels Flade)

1.2 Paradigms of man-environment relations

7

Fig. 1.3 Building symbolism

a place to house books, desks and materials…The environment of the classroom is a direct expression of the educational philosophy” (Martin, 2002, p. 139). Here, the building becomes a means of communication that informs something to the viewer and user. A monumental tall building expresses state power, a dense hedge between the properties signals that the neighbour values visual privacy. An example of building symbolism is the “Dockland” office building at the river Elbe designed by Hadi Teherani, which symbolises a ship heading towards the sea (Fig. 1.3). Cultures differ in the degree to which they emphasize and demand individuality or propagate uniformity and demand conformity (Altman and Chemers, 1980). The more advanced the technology, the more individual built forms can be realized, the more social and structural differentiation becomes possible, so that the built environment is increasingly better suited to express individuality thanks to technological development. When an ever more extensive network of internationally standardized cultural forms is laid out over the world, with international airports and hotel chains as typical locations of global cultural forms (Rüthers, 2015, p. 49), built environments lose their cultural character. Instead, the signature of the globally active and famous architects is revealed in the buildings.

8

1

Introduction

An increasingly important planning philosophy in the context of the sustainability discussion and the climate change debate is the ecological paradigm. It is unmistakable that not only economic interests and the consideration of user needs but also ecological concerns are increasingly being taken into account in the production of built environments. This does not mean technically optimised buildings wrapped in insulating materials that help to save heating energy, nor does it mean only grass roofs and green facades. What is meant was described by architect Marina Tabassum in an interview as follows: “When I see buildings that are completely dependent on air conditioning, it seems to me like a person in intensive care. If you turn off the units, the patient dies. Houses need to breathe, they need air and light. In a way, they are extensions of ourselves” (Weissmüller, 2020, p. 9). Important elements, as the architect points out, are courtyards and natural light that illuminates rooms and creates a spatial atmosphere.

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

Architectural psychological theories go beyond mere assumptions which type of design probably best fits by explaining the relationships between environmental conditions and human experience and behavior (Dieckmann et al. 1998). In doing so, it becomes apparent that these connections are rarely simple if–thenrelationships, because inner-psychic processes take place between environment and environmental experience with the consequence that the same environment is individually perceived differently. The fact that objective and perceived quality of built environments need not coincide is particularly evident in the satisfaction paradox: people are dissatisfied despite objectively good living conditions, while others are satisfied despite unfavourable environmental conditions. The concept of aspiration level can be used to resolve the paradox: Those who expect a lot tend to be dissatisfied, while those who expect little tend to be satisfied with little (Galster, 1987). The aspiration level functions as a moderator variable that influences the experienced satisfaction. A basic concept of environmental and architectural psychology is the mutual relationship between man and his environment. Man is not only a contemplative observer who allows the environment to affect him, but he is also an active agent. Consequently, there are two directions of action (Bell et al., 2001; Gifford, 2007): • Environment > Man • Man > Environment. They are the components of an ongoing transaction. Architectural psychological concepts are comparable to a toolbox. The tools are used to answer questions about planning and design for human behavior in a sound way. Examples are:

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 A. Flade, Compendium of Architectural Psychology, essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34917-2_2

9

10

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

• Why do some environments not function as expected despite high structural quality? > Behavior Setting concept • Why are feelings a crucial factor in the experience of space? > Affective qualities of environments • Can the impression of beauty be explained solely by formal characteristics? > Environmental aesthetics • How can it be achieved that the needs for solitude and retreat as well as for togetherness and social life can be satisfied in equal measure in built environments? > Privacy • If building density is to be achieved: Why is it not advisable to save secondary territories located between primary and public territories? > Territoriality • What are the effects of high building densities? > Crowding • What is the argument for not planning environments down to the smallest detail? > Environmental appropriation • Sometimes people experience stress in their everyday lives. How can stress management be supported? > Restorative environments • Humans are not only individuals but always social beings with needs for communication and belonging. What opportunities does the built environment offer to satisfy them? > Third places in public space.

2.1

The Behavior Setting Concept

Why, despite demonstrably high structural qualities, do some environments not function as expected? If the architecture is right, what is the reason? One approach to finding out is an analysis based on the Behavior Setting concept, a system consisting of three components: a particular section of the environment (setting), a behavior program, which is expressed in a visible uniformity of behavior, and the people present (participants). The participants are interchangeable; individual differences only play a role at the group level, e.g. in the distinction between teachers and students in learning environments. One reason for dysfunctionality can be that the targeted behavior patterns is not in accord with the setting. An example of a lack of congruence is an openplan office with no partitions between the individual desks where employees are doing work which, because it requires maximum concentration, does not tolerate any distractions. Here, the behavior program is effective work. Another example is a schoolyard where there is a school garden but not enough open space for students to “let off steam” during breaks, which is not only an accepted but desired behavior after sitting still during class. Recommendations for the design of school

2.1 The Behavior Setting Concept

11

environments that fit school behavior programmes can be found in Rittelmeyer (1994) and Walden (2015). A second reason why the system does not work as expected is that the number of participants does not conform with the space available. The question of the optimal number of participants is addressed by staffing theory, which explains why both too high (overstaffing) and too low a number of participants (understaffing) can destabilize a Behavior Setting (Bell et al., 2001, p. 126 f.). The willingness to behave socially and help others decreases when there are too many people present, none of whom feel responsible, which has been described as “diffusion of responsibility” (Bierhoff, 2006). In understaffing, on the other hand, the few people present are quickly overwhelmed and overworked if the behavioral program is so extensive that multiple participants are required to carry it out. For example, an architecturally successful clinic becomes a dysfunctional Behavior Setting when the number of caregivers is too small to perform the tasks at hand. Or a theatre with too little viewers lacks an applauding audience. To this must be added that not only the number but also the type of participants must be right for a Behavior Setting to work. A concert in a concert hall will be disrupted if the participants do not adhere to the behavioral program of being silent. A third reason for instability of the system are unclear behavioral programmes and misleading settings. For example, a learning programme in which fun and entertainment elements are integrated into the learning material with the intention of increasing motivation to learn loses clarity if entertainment becomes too prominent compared to edutainment (Norman, 2008, p. 399). The home office also lacks the clarity of a traditional office workplace, where there is no doubt that the associated behavioral programme is effective working. The home office, a mix of living (home) and working (office), is a setting with two behavioral programmes that need to be coordinated, which despite the euphemistic notion of ‘work-live balance’ is not always achieved. The opposite of unclear settings is an inherent prompting character of things and environments that leaves no doubt as to how use them. The term for the phenomenon of looking directly at things and environments to see what they are for and how to behave towards them is affordance. It refers to an inherent invitation to perform a particular behavior (Evans & McCoy, 1998). Examples include a church where people are quiet and do not talk loudly, or a chair that prompts people to sit, or a bike path that suggests a certain way of moving. Lack of affordance, conflicting instructions, and unclear settings alienate, frustrate, and can cause aggression, such as when pedestrians on a sidewalk where bicycling is also explicitly allowed are unaware of this part of the behavioral program. One way to provide clarity about the desired behaviors is through explanatory

12

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

cues. Gibson and Werner (1994) have demonstrated the usefulness of such cues in airport waiting areas, namely less familiar settings. In Summary The Behavior Setting Concept is a system consisting of three components: an environmental setting, the participants present in it, and a behavioral program. The concept can be used to explain why environments do not perform as expected despite the high constructional quality. Possible reasons are that the system components are not clearly defined or not compatible and that there are too many or too few people present.

2.2

The Perceived Environment

By perceiving, man enters into a relationship with his environment. The selection and reception of information from the environment by the sense organs is the first step, which is followed by the processing of the information, i.e. its interpretation and evaluation. Which information is selected and further processed is not determined solely by the characteristics of the environment, but depends crucially on the perceiving person, his personal characteristics, interests, experiences and intentions. For example, the forester perceives the same forest differently than the walker; he draws on other experiences and pursues other intentions. Similarly, the impression of a building that architects and non-architects have can be quite different. Architects judge from their expertise, non-architects rely on their experiential knowledge. Perception is always tied to environmental stimuli; these are “the initial gathering of information” (Gifford, 2007, p. 23). For this reason, perceptions are not pure constructions, because sensory impressions originate from real environments. Cognitive processes such as thinking, imagining, deliberating, and problem-solving are not merely the continuation of a processing of the received information, but inner-psychic processes detached from the sensory input, too. Perception encompasses sensory and cognitive processes. Structural features that make an environment distinctive promote its comprehensibility and readability. When such features are present, people find it easier to engage in “cognitive mapping”, i.e. to acquire a mental image of the environment that enables them to locate themselves in the environment, to orient themselves, to plan paths and to act in a goal-directed manner (Zurawski, 2014).

2.2 The Perceived Environment

13

Landmarks are a particularly important structural feature. They are unique objects, such as a fountain in a public square that exists only here and nowhere else, or a spectacular museum building that is so extraordinary that it also makes the city in which it is located widely known. Other spatial structural features described by Lynch (1960) include streets and road networks, nodes and squares, boundaries e.g. by rivers and city walls, and distinguishing sub-areas such as city centres, old town districts and new housing estates. City maps in public places with the indication of the location (“You are here”) are helpful as an orientation aid when there is a correspondence between the map and the real environment and the top of the map corresponds to straight ahead (Levine, 1982). Built environments are not only perceived and recognized, they are also evaluated. The judgements of users are based on individual experiential knowledge. They differ from the assessments of experts, who contribute their expert knowledge and apply objective assessment methods. The assessments of experts are therefore not sufficient if one wants to know how users experience and evaluate a built environment. A standardized instrument that can be used to reliably determine residents’ assessments is the questionnaire developed by Bonaiuto et al. (1999), which assesses residents’ perceived housing quality in four domains. The domains are. • architectural and urban planning features, including the appearance of the houses and the presence of green spaces, • neighbourly relations and the social life in the residential environment, • facilities and services such as schools, public transport, health services, • contextual features such as quietness, air quality and safety. For all four areas, there is a series of statements to which the residents state the scale value that applies to them on a four-point scale from “agree completely” to “disagree completely”. One result of the survey of female residents in residential areas in Rome conducted by Bonaiuto et al. was that they feel more connected to their living environment the higher they rate its quality, the nicer they find the area, the more they like the neighbours and the quieter it is there. The fact that a setting is not merely perceived as more or less beautiful, but that appearance is also a sign that indicates something, was demonstrated by Arneill and Devlin (2002) in an experiment in which they looked at the perception of waiting rooms. Their initial thought was that it would promote therapy if patients in a doctor’s office were relaxed rather than stressed while waiting. Subjects were shown photos of waiting rooms that varied in their décor (simple and plain rows of chairs, pretty plush furniture), color scheme, neatness, lighting, and expected

14

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

appearance. The doctor’s competence was rated higher when the waiting room had pleasant lighting and looked well-balanced and neat in terms of color. Waiting rooms that were described as dark, strange, cold, and unusual did not promote confidence because they appeared to be very different from the typical doctor’s office. They caused the doctor to be considered less competent. Waiting rooms should therefore also look like waiting rooms, i.e. be an unambiguous setting. They should be designed with the patient in mind. In Summary The perceived environment is the result of the selection and processing of information from the environment. How easy it is for humans to acquire a mental image of the environment depends on structural features. Landmarks are of outstanding importance. The perceived quality of the residential environment depends on architectural planning features, neighbourly relations, infrastructure and contextual features. The appearance of built environments is not only a question of aesthetics, but also strengthens the sense of place and says something about the characteristics of the people who live and work there.

2.3

Affective Properties of Spaces

Environments are spaces for experience and action and at the same time spaces with affective qualities. The mood (atmosphere) of a space is an overall emotional response that cannot be traced back to individual features and by which a person is more or less moved (Kruse, 1996). Environments have an atmosphere, they are perceived as sober, solemn, objective, cosy, comfortable, homely or as cold, repellent and oppressive. Such impressions are immediate: “When we think about or perceive an environment we judge more than its physical or objective properties. We judge how gloomy, how exciting, or how peaceful it is… we judge its affective properties” (Russell & Lanius, 1984, p. 119). The emotional impression is primary: there is an immediate emotional reaction to a space that one enters, even before the sensory input is analyzed in more detail. Emotional reactions are a kind of switch: one turns to an environment that triggers positive feelings. If, on the other hand, the emotional response is negative, because the place is perceived as unsafe, threatening and scary, one turns away and looks to get away. Such a place becomes an individual no-go area. In this case, the actual available living space is voluntarily reduced by a “narrowing of the field”. On the other hand, how vital such quick reactions are for survival becomes apparent in threatening

2.3 Affective Properties of Spaces

15

situations. If he reacts immediately by fleeing, the person has a chance to save himself. If he were to analyze the situation in more detail first, it might be too late to escape. The emotional response is an overall impression, which - speaking in terms of Gestalt psychology - is more than the sum of its parts. The individual features, which in different combinations determine the atmosphere, are nevertheless the basis for the planning of rooms. Essential features are: • • • • • • • •

the size of the room the room height the colour scheme the brightness the building materials the furnishing be able to see through the transition between inside and outside.

Large empty rooms convey the impression of vastness, one feels free instead of crowded - but possibly also lost in the great emptiness. The height of a room determines the size relationship between man and space and thus also the extent to which man feels small and overwhelmed by the monumental structure towering far above him. Rooms can be colorful or colorless, they can be lighter or darker, the building material can be noble and precious or cheap, the furnishings can be sparse or lavish, the walls can be concrete or glass. Doors into a building can be inconspicuous and hidden or unmissable and striking in their decor. Colors are an inexpensive design tool with considerable emotional impact, including neural processes and body physiology. Blue and green have a rather calming effect. Red, orange and yellow, on the other hand, are particularly stimulating (Küller, 1996). Moods as well as feelings such as joy and sadness can be described, categorized and quantified by using semantic space. Its dimensions are (Russell & Lanius, 1984; Russell & Snodgrass, 1987; Gifford, 2007): • Valence (pleasure, evaluation) • Activation (arousal, activity) • Dominance (potency). Environments are experienced as more or less pleasant and more or less activating. Bright colourfulness, as is characteristic of striking graffiti, activates the senses, whereas monochrome grey wall surfaces are low in stimulation. The scheme in

16

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

Fig. 2.1 Two major dimensions of emotion (Gifford, 2007, p. 85; reprinted by permission of the author)

Fig. 2.1 with the two major dimensions valence and activation illustrates the classification of affective qualities in a coordinate system. Contextual features such as noise or quietness influence the level of arousal. Based on this knowledge, background music is used in shopping centres, for example, to dampen excessive sensory and social stimulation. With the help of quiet and slow music in a recurring unexciting rhythm, a relaxed atmosphere is created that invites people to stay longer and then also to increase consumption (North et al., 2004). An example of an extremely activating setting is a disco. The opposite is a quiet forest. Affective qualities are by no means unimportant in transit environments either, even if one spends only a short time there, because one anticipates how one would feel there on the basis of the experiences made there. Appeals such as using the more ecologically compatible public transport instead of the car are not successful as long as public transport is rejected emotionally. Positive emotional reactions are a prerequisite for such appeals to be effective (Flade, 2000). The dimension of dominance ranges between the impression of being confronted with an overpowering environment and the conviction of having the

2.3 Affective Properties of Spaces

17

Fig. 2.2 Oversized bench

environment “under control” and being able to control it. Overwhelming are environments towards which humans feel small, insignificant and powerless. Crucial to this impression is the size relationship between the person and the built environment. The effect of dominance is also used in the design of sculptures and monuments as well as in artistry. An oversized bench, for example, makes the user appear small (Fig. 2.2). Such a bench demonstrates that man - wrongly always makes himself the measure of all things. Massive buildings radiate dominance. How can the impression of their massiveness be mitigated? In an experiment in which he simulated the massiveness of buildings with schematized forms, Stamps (2000) investigated which measures could be used to reduce the impression of massiveness (Fig. 2.3). As expected, less bulky buildings proved to be the most effective. However, the impression of massiveness can also be reduced by differentiations such as vertical subdivisions of surfaces, the insertion of windows and trees in front of the building facades. Windows, seen from the exterior, are also one of the means of making buildings appear less dominant and intimidating. If the opposite is intended, one reduces the size of the windows or omits them. In Summary The environment is not only a space for human experience and action, but also an emotionally experienced environment. Positive reactions cause a person to turn towards an environment, negative reactions result in avoidance behaviour. Feelings and moods can be described by placing them in the coordinate system of semantic space with the dimensions valence, activation and dominance.

18

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

Fig. 2.3 Reducing the impression of bulkiness (excerpt from Stamps 2000, p. 54)

2.4

Environmental Aesthetics

The atmosphere of an environment can be both positive and negative; a room can be comfortable and inviting or cold and forbidding. A prerequisite for an environment to be experienced as beautiful is a positive emotional response (Nasar 1997). A beautiful environment is valued for reasons other than rational and economic alone. Preferred environments are, • that you understand immediately, • that motivate to explore.

2.4 Environmental Aesthetics

19

Kaplan and Kaplan’s (1989) evolutionary statement for why understandable as well as interesting environments are more likely to be perceived as beautiful than environments that are incomprehensible or seem uninteresting is: People prefer environments that are most likely to guarantee survival, which is all the more likely if it is a manageable and comprehensible environment, so that one can effortlessly find one’s way around in it and therefore feel safe, and if - starting from this safe base - the environment stimulates one to explore what lies outside the familiar and already known. In this way, the home can be compared to a safe haven from which one sets out for new shores. With the expansion of the living space, new possibilities for experience and action arise, environmental and experiential knowledge increases, which in turn increases life prospects. The environments to which people respond positively emotionally are characterised by certain features, namely coherence, legibility, complexity and mystery (Table 2.1). A scene is coherent if the individual parts form a coherent whole. Lack of coherence means incoherence: the individual elements or parts are not related to each other, they do not form a gestalt. Intentionally incoherent are pictures consisting of small individual scenes which can only be viewed one after the other. An example is the widely known picture painted by Bruegel the Elder in the sixteenth century, which depicts in individual small scenes the children’s games that were commonplace in the Middle Ages. Pictures like this are informative, but not beautiful. Environments are legible if they are easy to represent cognitively (see Sect. 2.2). A particularly important structural feature is landmarks, which, because they are unique and conspicuous, make it easier to locate and orient oneself. A spatially structured city with a city centre, city districts and city fringes are more

Table 2.1 Characteristics of preferred environments (Bell et al., 2001, p. 43 f.) Features

Characterization

Coherence

the degree to which a scene ‘hangs together’ or has organzisation

Legibility

the degree of distinctiveness that enables the individual to understand or categorize the contents of a scene

Complexity the number and variety of elements in a scene Mystery

the degree to which a scene contains hidden information so that one is drawn into the scene to try to find out this information

20

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

legible than an unstructured city consisting only of uniform rows of houses. Legible environments are also valued because they satisfy the needs for safety and environmental control. A key element is complexity, formally defined as the number and variety of elements contained in an environment. The more numerous and diverse these are, the higher the degree of complexity. But there is an optimum and thus not only an under-complexity but also an over-complexity. An overcomplex structure looks like this: “High levels of complexity created by variety and intensity lead to an overabundance of stimulation. The sheer diversity of elements and size of the space combine to overload the senses. The space lacks any strong unifying theme or pattern” (Evans and McCoy, 1998, p. 86). Large and small windows, special doors, patterns made of different colours or materials, projections, columns, varied facades, shapes, figures, decorations, ornaments, roof and house shapes are elements to create diversity and increase the degree of complexity. Under-complex, on the other hand, are built environments that consist of only a few different parts, e.g. monochrome, plain, uniform blocks of houses without any ornament. The fact that one should avoid designing built environments that are too plain can be derived from the aesthetic theory of vandalism, according to which damage, destruction of property and unwanted graffiti can be traced back to undercomplexity. First and foremost, what is damaged and painted is that which appears excessively plain and charmless. Bare grey concrete walls virtually demand to be made more colourful. A preventive measure is therefore to make built environments less monotonous so that there is no undesirable increase in complexity (Flade, 1996). Trees make built environments more complex and thus more beautiful, because in the midst of the built environment they are an element that contributes to diversity. Lohr and Pearson-Mims (2006) demonstrated in an experiment that trees can do this. They showed subjects images of schematized built environments with and without trees. The aesthetic impression was recorded with the statement “I think this scenery is attractive”, to which the test subjects were asked to give their impression on a scale from 1 (= not at all true) to 5 (= true exactly). People reported more positive emotions, such as friendliness, when looking at urban scenes containing a tree than when looking at the same scenes with inanimate objects.The scenes without a tree were judged to be the least attractive with a mean value of 1.97; for the scenes with a tree, the mean value was significantly higher at 2.78. The type of trees is also not unimportant. For example, trees with spreading forms were rated best, which the researchers explained in terms of evolutionary theory: spreading tree forms protected people in prehistoric

2.4 Environmental Aesthetics

21

times from scorching sunlight. The experiment provides further evidence of the beneficial impacts of trees on people’s well-being in urban settings. Complexity can be created with adding different elements. Stamps (2000) varied the degree of complexity of schematized building silhouettes by varying the number of corners or changes in direction, the lengths of the respective sections, angles, and symmetry. A clear result was that aesthetic impression correlates with the number of corners. A uniform row of buildings lacks complexity. It was also clear that symmetry reduces complexity. From this it can be deduced that under-complex buildings are more likely to tolerate an asymmetrical design than highly complex buildings. Mystery, like complexity, is a key element of aesthetic impression. “Mystery” can be described as an enigma, uncertainty, and secrecy. It is “the degree to which a scene contains hidden information so that one is drawn into the scene to try to find out this information” (Bell et al., 2001, p. 45). Similarly, Evans and McCoy (1998) state: “Mystery, the promise of further information, invites the user to explore the scene further” (p. 86). One is “drawn into” and motivated to bring what is hidden to light. Mystery plays a major role in visual art, as the photographer Josef Koudelka put it in a nutshell: “In every good photo there must be a mystery something that cannot be explained”.1 Reducing brightness is particularly effective in creating mystery (Stamps, 2007). “Nightlife” is exciting not least because of the darkness. Trees not only make built environments more complex but at the same time more mysterious by hiding something behind them (Ikemi, 2005). A hilly topography that obscures parts of it contains more mystery than a flat completely straightforward plain. Curved streets are perceived higher in mystery than straight ones (Nasar and Cubukcu, 2011). Too much mystery should be avoided, however, because then the secrecy might become scary. “Mystery…is intriguing… Reported correlations of rated mystery with rated pleasure have ranged from -0.45 to + 0.95, leaving the mystery of environmental mystery a wide-open mystery” (Stamps, 2007, p. 165). Negative correlations are expressions of fearful mystery. Whether it is too much of mystery depends not only on whether a person is fearful but also on the context and time of day. Urban environments tend to be perceived as unsafe and dangerous (Herzog & Miller, 1998), so mystery in planning and designing urban spaces should be used sparingly. Lighting in times of darkness mitigates feelings of danger and fear (Flade, 2019). 1

https://de.leica-camera.com/Die-Leica-Welt/Leica-News/Global/2020/Josef-Koudelka.

22

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

What constitutes the value of beautiful environments? An environment that is experienced as beautiful promotes social interactions, it promotes social life. Research findings are i.a. that in residential environments where there are trees, flowers, and green spaces rather than paved surfaces and rows of garages, residents stay more often, stay longer, and talk more with each other (Sullivan et al., 2004), and that emotional attachment to place is stronger among residents who find their living environment beautiful (Bonaiuto et al., 1999). Thus, a beautiful appearance of the environment is not a minor point. In Summary Environmental aesthetics is concerned with the question of what distinguishes environments that are perceived as beautiful. The aesthetic response is a favorable emotional appraisal or evaluation. Characteristics of preferred environments are coherence, legibility, complexity and mystery. These characteristics have two effects: that one understands the environment instantly and that one is motivated to explore what is hidden in it, what is not immediately visible.

2.5

Privacy

People strive to be able to control their physical and social environment (Fischer & Stephan, 1996). This includes the control of social relationships. In contrast to the everyday concept of privacy as withdrawal and being alone, privacy is defined in psychology as controlling the boundary between the self and other people (Altman, 1975). It is about controlling in both directions: being able to determine for oneself whether one closes oneself off or opens oneself up. A loss of control can therefore result in both social stress (too much being together) and loneliness (too much being alone). Privacy means being able to close oneself off and “being off stage” as well as being together. Built environments in which one can choose self-determinedly between being alone and being together ensure privacy, whereby it is primarily a matter of visual and acoustic privacy, i.e. being able to withdraw from the gaze and sounds of other people or, if one so wishes, also to expose oneself to them. Visual privacy is also important in work environments because job satisfaction and job performance depend on it, as Yildirim et al. (2007) found by comparing two companies in open plan offices. In company 1, the partitions between individual workstations had a height of 1.20 m, while in company 2 they were 20 cm higher (Fig. 2.4). The employees in company 2 were considerably more satisfied with their working

2.5 Privacy

23

Fig. 2.4 Shaped workstation modules with different separators (Yildirim et al., 2007, p. 158; reprinted by permission of the author)

conditions than the employees in company 1, which was explained by the fact that one is not exposed to the gaze of others and is more protected from unwanted noise and distractions when the partitions are sufficiently high. One place that is expected to provide a high degree of privacy is one’s own apartment or house. Residents can decide whether or not to let outsiders in. The element that provides this control is the apartment or house door. Within the house, it is the floor plan. A single large room in a home where more than one person lives provides spaciousness but not privacy. Meanwhile, how much control is possible depends not only on the floor plan, but also on the number of occupants. A dwelling in which more people live than there are rooms is in this sense “overstaffed” (cf. Sect. 2.1). You are unintentionally together more than you might like. In customary real environments, the question of visual and acoustic privacy arises. In smart environments, it is about informational privacy, that is being able to control what information about oneself becomes known to other people (Bauriedl & Strüver, 2018). The inhabitants of the smart home continuously provide data about themselves without being aware of it; via the digital equipment they are permanently accessible or under pressure to be accessible at all times according to this new social norm. In smart environments, an area where architecture and urban planning meet information and communication technology, informational privacy is an emerging aspect.

24

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

In Summary Privacy is defined as controlling the boundary between one’s self and other people. Privacy does not only mean withdrawal but beyond that being able to determine for oneself whether one wants to be alone or together. How much withdrawal and opening to the outside are possible depends on elements in the built environment with which access can be controlled. Until now, the production of built environments has been primarily about ensuring visual and acoustic privacy. With the smart home and the smart city, a further question is that of informational privacy.

2.6

Territoriality

Why should transitional areas located between private and public space not be eliminated under any circumstances, even if the areas for building in cities are scarce and one would like to make maximum use of them? An answer is provided on the one hand by negative experiences, including the spectacular planning error of Pruitt Igoe, where it was once believed that these intermediate areas could be saved (see below), and on the other hand by the concept of territoriality. Unlike privacy, territoriality is not an exclusively sociocultural product, but has a biological origin: animals occupy and defend territories where there is food and water, where they can better ward off danger, and where they can build a protected nest (Taylor, 1988). For humans, in addition to the protection of scarce resources, warding off threats, and striving for security and the rearing of offspring, territorial regulations have the function of enabling low-conflict coexistence. Spatial regulatory structures prevent conflicts, provided that there is agreement on their accessibility, right of use and type of use. They supplement or replace prohibitions and regulations such as signs “no trespassing!”. The starting point is the division into three sub-areas, which differ in terms of their rights of access and use. The sub-areas designated as primary, secondary and public (tertiary) territories differ in terms of the duration of use, the extent of personalization and the reactions to border violations (Table 2.2). The importance of such a differentiated spatial structure lies in the fact that it has a normative effect and contributes to regulated social interactions. What is allowed in primary territories, such as practicing the violin, is not possible or accepted in public territories - unless it is a street musician who has mastered playing the violin. “Territoriality refers to the legitimate users’ sense of ownership or appropriation which reduces the opportunities for offending by discouraging illegitimate users … Territoriality aims to eliminate unassigned spaces and ensure

2.6 Territoriality

25

Table 2.2 Territorial behaviors associated with type of territory (extract from Bell et al., 2001, p. 277) Territory

extent to which territory is occupied/ extent of perceived ownership

amount of personalization/likelihood of defence if violated

Primary

high

extensively personalized/ intrusion is a serious matter

Secondary

moderate

may be personalized to some extent during period of legimate occupancy

Public (tertiary)

low

sometimes personalized in a temporary way/ little likelihood of defense

that all spaces have a clearly defined and designated purpose” (Montoya et al., 2016, p. 519). One’s own home is a primary territory over which the occupants have permanent possession and exclusive use, allowing for extensive personalization. The right to the “inviolability of the home” underpins this claim and affirms that trespassing on a primary territory is a serious offence. Secondary territories are spatial areas that can be used for a certain period of time and for certain purposes by the persons entitled to access. The length of time and purpose vary greatly. Examples include libraries, playgrounds, day care centers, common areas in apartment complexes, club rooms, sports venues, museums, theaters, and concert halls. Those who have a library card or ticket, are of a certain age, belong to the neighbourhood or are members of the club authorized to use the areas. The common feature of these very different areas is that only certain groups are authorised to access. Living environments, the total of dwelling and living environment, differ from other environments in that they always contain a primary territory, namely the dwelling. The spatial structure of the living environment varies according to the type of development, the type of building and the form of settlement. A private garden is primary territory, a communal garden is secondary territory. Provided that it is not a public thoroughfare, but opens into a cul-de-sac, the area between rows of houses is a secondary territory in the perception of the residents. In public territories, the distinction between those entitled and those not entitled does not exist. The right of use refers to groups, in primary territories to individuals. Public territories are places like parks, streets, shops and squares to which everyone has access. Anonymity - most people are strangers to each other - frees

26

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

people from social control, but can also make them feel insecure. This is especially true in the “hot spots of fear,” the places in public space that more often than other places evoke feelings of insecurity (Fisher & Nasar, 1993; Nasar & Jones, 1997). One does not know the others and does not know what they are up to. Places that are experienced as unsafe and thus “unpleasant” are avoided and develop into no-go areas. Strategies to prevent this are: • The features that cause insecurity are eliminated: Dark places and paths are illuminated, dense bushes obstructing the view are cleared, security personnel is increased. • Public territory is turned into secondary territory by restricting accessibility. The transformation can be more or less clear. It is already happening to some extent through roofing: A shopping mile covered by a glass roof appears less public than a street with shops under the open sky. The transformation into gated communities and the privatisation of public space in business centres and malls, which are subject to defined access rules, are striking (Rüthers, 2015). Affluent people concerned with their safety are retreating into gated communities fenced off and equipped with surveillance systems. As Wilson-Doenges (2000) found in a study in North America, residents living in gated communities feel significantly safer compared to those living outside them. They rate their living environment as quieter, cleaner and better maintained. For them, gated communities are also beneficial because they promote social life in a homogeneous neighbourhood. From a municipal perspective, these gated residential complexes are an expression of increasing socio-spatial segregation and social polarisation (Glasze, 2003; Wilson-Doenges, 2000). The demarcated gated communities are secondary territories in their entirety. In traditional urban residential areas with a socially heterogeneous population, secondary territories have a different function. Here, they are not a section of public space, but a transitional area between the primary and the public realm. The importance of such intermediate spaces is made visible by the consequences when they are missing. In the large housing development of Pruitt Igoe in St. Louis/Mississippi, this mistake had been made. The conclusion was that such a settlement would not work without secondary territories. It was blown up after less than 20 years since its construction. At the planning stage, the settlement had been praised by experts because no space had been wasted on supposedly superfluous spatial areas (Bell et al., 2001, p. 357). Yet this very frugality had been a cause of later disaster. There was a lack of opportunities for social contact and communication with neighbours and the formation of social and local bonds. The

2.7 Crowding and distancing behaviour

27

insight was: one must not build so densely, especially in larger urban development projects, that the intermediate spaces between private housing and public space shrink or are eliminated, because this would bring the social life outside the apartment door, which unfolds in these transitional areas, to a standstill. Without the secondary territories that function as intermediate areas, it is difficult for social bondedness to develop. In Summary Differentiated spatial structures are one of the means of regulating accessibility and the right of use. Territorial structures enable low-conflict coexistence, they prevent conflicts. A distinction is made between primary, secondary and public territories. Feelings of insecurity in public territories can be prevented by restricting accessibility. Gated communities are secondary territories with strict access restrictions. Secondary territories are transitional areas between primary territories and public spaces that are essential for social life especially in residential environments.

2.7

Crowding and Distancing Behaviour

High building density is characteristic of cities. When more and more people live in large cities and fewer and fewer in rural regions, villages and small towns, building density can hardly be avoided. Brownfields and open spaces are being turned into building land, buildings are being raised, additional storeys are being added, and distances and spaces between buildings are being minimised. The question is, however, how people react to spatial and social density. Animal studies have shown that an increase in density can destroy previously functioning social structures (Bell et al., 2001, p. 296 ff.). Although these results cannot be readily extrapolated to human communities, they are a warning signal. Density is an objective measure that expresses a ratio. The square metres of living space or the number of living rooms in relation to the number of household members is a measure of housing density that tells us how much space a person has on average in their home and how spatially close their housemates are on average. In Germany, someone living alone in an apartment has on average more than twice as much living space (66.7 m2 ) as someone in a household with three or more people (30.6 m2 ) (destatis, 2016). Those who live alone experience less constriction, but perhaps more loneliness (cf. Sect. 2.5). The objective density can be easily determined and defined. Thus, the building density in the outdoor area is described with the density measures ground area

28

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

ratio (GRZ = ratio of built-up area to plot area)) and floor area ratio (GFZ = ratio of sum of floor areas to the plot area). These two measures clearly indicate how much land area must be left free and how high the buildings may be. What is considered normal in terms building density depends on socio-cultural norms and the type of area, as well as on the subjective norms arising from these. Megacities in Asia have different norms than Western European cities, and higher densities are normal in inner cities than in suburbs. Because the acceptance of structural and social density is measured against the yardstick of culturally and locally applicable norms, a differentiation between objective (density) and experienced density (crowding) is necessary, because objective and experienced density are not identical. “Central to the analysis is the distinction between density, a physical condition involving the limitation of space, and crowding, an experiential state in which the restrictive aspects of limited space are perceived by the individuals exposed to them” (Stokols, 1976, p. 50). Experienced density and respectively crowding is the impression that the density prevailing in a space exceeds an acceptable level. It is “das Erleben von Beengung bzw. Überfüllung…, verbunden mit dem Gefühl von Belastung und Stress” (Hellbrück and Kals, 2012, p. 75). The consequences are • a sensory and information overload: When people crowd together in a small space, overstimulation is inevitable. Particularly disturbing are unwanted sound and odor nuisances against which one cannot shield oneself, • behavioural restrictions: The individual space for action shrinks; courses of action are disturbed or interrupted; space and resources have to be shared; some activities cannot be carried out at all. Overstimulation and information overload and behavioral restrictions cause stress. The consequences can be irritability, apathy, loss of control and helplessness, reduced empathy, a dwindling sense of community and increased aggressiveness. Furthermore, crowding can cause feelings of insecurity, because one feels helpless due to limited possibilities for action. The central question is therefore how the negative consequences of high building density can be avoided. One approach is to reduce the impression of enclosure. An experiment by Stamps (2005) is informative here, in which he simulated building density through enclosure with massive wall blocks. Subjects were shown pictures in which these blocks are moved closer together and with more or less openings between them. Each scene was to be judged in terms of the impression of enclosure and the safety that would likely be experienced in a corresponding real-world environment. Perceived enclosure and feelings of insecurity

2.7 Crowding and distancing behaviour

29

were highly significantly correlated. Walls and partitions, which are supposed to protect people, can have exactly the opposite effect, namely when people feel enclosed. An important result was that openings can soften the impression of enclosure and thus also reduce feelings of insecurity. In another experiment, Stamps (2009) found that the more spacious the area between the buildings rising on either side, the less likely feelings of confinement would be. When this spaciousness cannot be produced, openings are all the more important. Not only do windows let in natural light, they can also reduce the feeling of being trapped by providing a view of the surrounding area and incorporating that environment into the setting. In office environments, a workstation by or near a window increases job satisfaction and employee well-being (Leather et al., 1998; Yildirim et al., 2007). The importance of a view is also emphasized by prospect-refuge theory, which states that perceived safety and thus well-being depend on the extent to which one can survey one’s surroundings. The second relevant factor is a sheltering space to which one can take refuge when danger threatens (Fisher & Nasar, 1992; Nasar & Jones, 1997). A window recess provides both (Fig. 2.5). One feels safe and protected and can overlook the surroundings from this advantageous position. Crowding means a loss of control. The others move closer to you than you would like. The degree of closeness accepted in each case varies with the nature of the social relationship. Gifford (2007) has described four distance zones: • the intimate distance (up to 0.45 m), where close physical contact is accepted, • the personal distance (0.45 to 1.20 m), which is typical for contacts between friends and familiar people, • the social distance (1.20 to 3.50 m), which is common in impersonal and businesslike relationships, • the public distance (from 3.50 m), which one tries to keep towards strangers. Visible distance behaviour is a means of communication that says something about the nature of the social relationship between people, provided that the distance can be freely chosen. In the case of high density or regulations as to what distances must be maintained, interpersonal distance no longer has a communication function. In Summary A differentiation between objective (density) and experienced density (crowding) is necessary, because objective and experienced density are not identical. Experienced density, unlike objective density, is dependent on social and subjective norms.

30

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

Fig. 2.5 Window recess: view and security

Crowding is the impression that the density prevailing in a space exceeds an acceptable level. The consequences are overstimulation and information overload as well as restricted possibilities for action, which have a negative effect on wellbeing and behaviour. Windows can reduce crowding. High densities limit the possibilities of being able to determine the distances between other people and oneself.

2.8

Environmental Appropriation

Environmental appropriation presupposes environmental control: the conviction that one can influence one’s environment. People strive to control, i.e. to influence, predict and explain events and conditions in their environment (Fischer &

2.8 Environmental appropriation

31

Stephan, 1996). “Control is defined…as mastery or the ability to either alter the physical environment or regulate exposure to one’s surroundings” (Evans & McCoy, 1998, p. 88). Those who do not have control cannot act in a selfdetermined manner; they are more or less helplessly exposed to the influences of the physical and social environment. The opposite is true when one can exert influence and appropriate the environment. A broad definition comes from Graumann (1996), who called all actions directed towards the environment environmental appropriation. Because action, in contrast to behaviour - the externally observable doing - also includes inner-psychic processes namely intentions to act, goal conceptions and the anticipation of action results, an appropriated environment allows us to infer a person’s preferences and intentions. This is exactly what the proverb says: “Tell me how you live and I will tell you who you are”. Related to the basic concept of the interaction between man and the environment with the two directions of action: • Environment > Man • Man > Environment, environmental appropriation is about the direction man > environment. It should be noted that in addition to the psychological level: the individual makes the environment his own, there is also the historical-anthropological level of collective environmental appropriation: the mankind makes use of natural resources and creates a livelihood and habitat for itself in the form of built environments. The exploitation of nature as a source of raw materials, the domestication of animals, and the conquest and subjugation of other lands and peoples and the transformation of natural environments into built environments are environmental appropriations of humanity. The psychological level refers to humans as individuals who appropriate the environment both cognitively and factually. A cognitive appropriation is the exploration of space as well as the mental mapping, categorizing and naming of places and spaces (Graumann, 1996). The person who cognitively appropriates the environment does not change the environment; he himself becomes another by becoming wiser. Environmental characteristics play an essential role here, because how easy it is to acquire knowledge about the environment and about spatial structures depends on environmental characteristics (cf. Sect. 2.2). The factual appropriation of the environment or “personalisation” leaves visible traces. Individual activities in this direction are not possible without limits, but are generally restricted to primary territories (cf. Sect. 2.6). What is meant

32

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

here is not a change in the “hard architecture” but a shaping of the “soft architecture”. Martin (2002) uses the term “hard architecture” to refer to the permanently installed components such as load-bearing walls, windows, doors, radiators, sinks, sockets and built-in cupboards, etc. The “soft architecture” is the way the space is used and furnished. The given “hard architecture” can facilitate appropriation e.g. by making rooms open to use. An example is a classroom that is spacious enough to rearrange the non-fixed desks and benches, and where the walls can be used to hang students’ pictures from art class. The result is a distinctive classroom. Appropriated environment takes on a personal meaning, because you yourself have contributed to its creation, so that something of yourself is contained in it, with which you identify. Identification means experiencing something as belonging to oneself. Identification with objects and places is a component of the self (Fuhrer, 2008). An appropriated environment becomes a part of self. One obstacle that gets in the way of individual appropriation of the environment, even where there would be opportunities, is the fear that you can’t do it or you won’t do it right, so you hire an interior design expert or professional garden designer. It can also be the need to belong; because you don’t want to be left out, you do it the way everyone else does. Nohl (2003) has cited the design of allotment gardens as an example: The scope for design that exists in principle is hardly used; instead, conformity prevails, recognisable by the fact that the gardens, including the garden house, are very similar. Although people differ in the weighting of individual and social needs and in the conviction to what extent they can do something and do it right, opportunities for environmental appropriation are an offer that can be used. The architect Amos Rapaport, a co-founder of the Environment-Behavior-Studies (EBS), already propagated in the 1960s that these opportunities should exist: “…architects should leave more room for the users of houses to exert an influence on the finished product” (Rapaport, 1968, cited by Canter 1969, p. 41). In Summary Not only does the environment affect people but people also do something with the environment by appropriating it. Environmental appropriation means all actions directed towards the environment. Cognitive appropriation is the exploration of space through perceiving, mentally mapping, categorizing, and naming places and spaces. Factual appropriation leaves traces; the environment is changed. Appropriated environments are personally important. It is something self-made with which the individual identifies. Environmental appropriation is encouraged by opportunities such as spaces that are open for use. The extent to which these opportunities are

2.9 Restorative environments

33

used depends on whether one considers oneself competent and how pronounced the need to belong is.

2.9

Restorative Environments

At the International Congress in Athens in 1933, architects and urban planners proclaimed the separation of the functions of living, working, recreation and transport as a new urban planning model, which was published a few years later by Le Corbusier as the “Charta von Athen” (Lichtenberger, 2002). The fact that recreation was included can be understood as a reaction to the unhealthy, constricting living conditions in the cities at the time. Recreation promised the restoration of physical and mental performance, well-being, and a physiological normal condition (Valtchanov & Ellard, 2015). One reason for the new relevance is urbanization: more and more people live in large, distant from nature, densely populated cities. This life is undoubtedly stressful, because “Greater building height affected restoration likelihood negatively” (Lindall & Hartig, 2013, p. 34). The focus is on nature because, as a contrasting world, it promises restoration and because the recreational effect of the natural environment has been confirmed again and again in numerous studies. It requires a high degree of concentration and strain to focus attention on one task or thing for a prolonged period of time and to fend off distractions (Kaplan, 1995). Consciously blocking and fading out competing impressions is mentally fatiguing. Associated consequences include indecision, decreased selfcontrol, and impeded learning. The question, therefore, is how to regain the ability to concentrate (Crossan and Salmoni, 2019). This is done by spending time in environments that fascinate and in this way attract involuntary attention, for which no volitional effort is required, allowing the mechanism of voluntary attention to recover. This process has been called attentional recovery theory (Crossan & Salmoni, 2019). Natural environments are suitable recovery environments in that they fascinate (Fig. 2.6). “Clouds, sunsets, snow patterns, the motion of the leaves in the breeze - these readily hold the attention, but in an undramatic fashion. Attending to these patterns is effortless, and they leave ample opportunity for thinking about other things” (Kaplan 1995, p.174). A typical experimental design to make the recovery effect of nature visible is: The subjects are mentally fatigued by a series of test tasks that require fast work and a lot of concentration. This is followed by a break in a natural or built environment. Then their cognitive performance is tested. If the “nature group”

34

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

Fig. 2.6 Attention recovery theory. (Picture courtesy of Niels Flade)

performs better than the “city group”, this speaks to the restorative effect of natural environments. Berto (2005) proceeded in this way by fatiguing subjects at the beginning by a series of test tasks. They were then presented with three sets of pictures: Pictures with nature, with built environment and with geometric patterns. This was followed by test items again. The subjects who had viewed images of nature performed significantly better on subsequent tests. It does not even have to be real natural environments, as confirmed by Ziesenitz (2010) and Crossan and Salmoni (2019), who had subjects walk on a treadmill through environments with different scenery on the walls. A natural setting on the wall promotes recovery. A second restorative factor is the “change of scenery”, referred to as “being away” (Table 2.3). It is a spatial or a psychological being away or both at the same time (Laumann et al., 2001). That is the sense of being away does not require that the setting be distant (Kaplan, 1995). A city park near the home or office can also be a restful elsewhere. The feeling of being far away from a world full of stress and obligations, tiring routines and demands, is more likely to occur in natural than in built environments. Both the stimulating novelty of the elsewhere and an escape from the everyday world are effective (Laumann et al., 2001).

2.9 Restorative environments

35

Table 2.3 Restorative factors (based on Kaplan 1995, Korpela & Hartig, 1996) Restorative factor

Concrete statements on this

Fascination

This place is fascinating for me; here I can enjoy the view and discover many things

Being away

A feeling of being far away and removed from everyday life; In this place, I can leave all my worries and problems behind and free myself from everything

Extent/ Connectedness This place is limitless; A feeling of liberation and vastness Compatibility

The feeling of being in harmony with the environment and being able to realize intended behavior; this place suits me; Here I can do what I have in mind

A third restorative factor is extent, the opposite of constriction. Environments that offer a liberating expanse rather than confinement and space “to engage the mind” (Kaplan, 1995, p.17) are restful. This expansiveness is rarely found indoors, nor in high-density urban outdoor spaces. One reason why people like to go for a walk in a large city park is that - apart from being away - it offers spaciousness. Compatibility, the fourth restorative factor, is described as “the degree to which the affordances and requirements of the environment match and support the person’s goals and inclinations” (Kelz et al., 2015, p. 120). An environment is compatible if it fits the needs and intentions of people. This factor places special demands on design because what is compatible varies from individual to individual. This means that an environment must provide a wide range of opportunities for many kinds of activities to meet the diversity of individual needs and intentions. Again, the large city park is an example where one can walk, play sports, play chess, contemplate nature, enjoy the sunshine, picnic, walk with the dog, rest, watch others, let children play safely and splash in the water. In sum, a park or natural landscape has more compatibility than a show garden with exotic plants, which is highly fascinating, but where you can only look. Given the four restorative factors there are different processes that bring about recreation. Small green spaces, which offer neither liberating vastness nor compatibility for all, can be restful because of their fascinating planting. Large parks offer extent and, with the diverse offerings possible there, a high degree of compatibility. However, the number of visitors also depends on the socio-spatial environment and, not least, on public safety in the surrounding area (Park, 2020). It follows that the planning of recreational places must not only focus on the places themselves, but also on their socio-spatial environment.

36

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

In Summary Life in densely built-up cities is stressful in many respects. In order for city dwellers to regenerate, there is a need for environments that enable restoration. Four factors are characteristic of restorative environments: Fascination, Being away, Extent and Compatibility. Natural environments are more restful than built environments because they possess a high recreational potential. Therefore, apart from aesthetic considerations, it is obvious to integrate nature into built environments.

2.10

Third Places in Public Space

A typical characteristic of public space is its accessibility for everyone. It is thus also the appropriate place for unplanned chance meetings. Precisely because one cannot predict whom one will encounter, public space is a kind of social mystery; as such, it motivates explorations in the social environment. Oldenburg (1999, 2001) has referred to such places in public space as Third places, using the term “third” to express that a third category is important after First places (homes) and Second places (work environments). Third places are behavior settings whose behavioral program includes gathering. The settings are cafes, bistros, garden pubs, ice cream parlours, small bookshops and boutiques. They are places in public spaces that are experienced as pleasant and stimulating and which people therefore like to visit often. At the same time, they are social places, where one is seen and sees others, meets acquaintances and gets to know new people. The typical characteristics of these settings, described by Metha and Bosson (2010) as community-gathering places, are: • • • • • • • • •

They are easy to reach. They are small-scale. They are distinctive. There’s seating. They are more plain than styled. You can have a drink and a meal there. They are not affected by car traffic. There are canopies that protect against too much sun and rain. You can switch between indoors and outdoors.

Not all features need to be present to make a place a Third place. However, distinctiveness, small scale and seating are important. The “distinctiveness” criterion

2.10 Third places in public space

37

excludes some places that might be considered Third Places at first glance. “Officials of a popular coffeehouse chain often claim that their establishments are Third places, but they aren’t” (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 3). Oldenburg (2001) saw Third Places as “focal points of community life” (p. 3), suggesting that people would retreat into their shells if such places did not exist. “We are, after all, social animals. We are an associating species whose nature is to share space just as we share experiences… A habitat that discourages association, one in which people withdraw to privacy as turtles into their shells, denies community” (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 203). According to Metha (2007), social places in public spaces are becoming more important because more and more people are living alone; this is where they can satisfy their social needs. Seating contributes to this because it invites people to stay (Fig. 2.7). If places in public space are to be visited, it is necessary to provide seating (Abdulkarim and Nasar 2014). Chairs and benches possess affordances, they invite people to settle down. They are an inexpensive means of enriching and enlivening spaces. In digitized societies, Third places will become increasingly important (Flade, 2017). They answer the question weather there is still a need for meeting places when more and more communication takes place online.

Fig. 2.7 Typical third place with ice cream store

38

2

Architectural Psychological Concepts

In Summary Third Places are emotionally positive, stimulating and social places in public spaces accessible to everyone, which are suitable for satisfying the social needs for contact and communication. They are easily accessible, small-scale and distinctive places with seating that invite people to stay and communicate. Because more and more people live alone, these places could become increasingly important as communitygathering-places.

3

Target Groups

People are individuals who differ in many ways, including their needs, preferences, attitudes, and intentions. Some like to live in a small apartment in the city, while others prefer a spacious house surrounded by a large garden in the countryside. Since it is not possible to provide each individual with the optimal environment for him or her, it is obvious to start from the opportunity structure paradigm, which allows environmental appropriation (cf. Sect. 1.2). Furthermore, individual differences can be met, at least to some extent, by forming target groups with similar needs and demands on the environment. Young singles, students, children and families, single elderly people, etc. are such target groups. It is typical for children that their scope of experience and action is constantly increasing and that their environmental relationships are becoming more numerous and diverse. Here, it is important to support the formation of experience and the expansion of living space by planning not only dwellings with suitable floor plans, but also living environments in such a way that the free range of children can grow successively. In the 1980s, families were an important target group in housing construction (Flade, 2006). Today, in view of demographic development, it is above all the elderly for whom decreasing mobility is typical. Here it is all the more important to design the dwelling and the immediate living environment in a way that meets the special needs of older people. In principle, target groups can be formed based on numerous individual characteristics. A prominent model in psychology is the “big fives” with which people can be characterized: Openness to new experiences, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and self-confidence (Asendorpf, 2019). It makes sense to target groups based on a particular personality trait, if that trait correlates with needs and preferences related to the built environment. For example, shared apartments might be more suitable for extraverts than for introverts. The lifestyle could

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 A. Flade, Compendium of Architectural Psychology, essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34917-2_3

39

40

3 Target Groups

also be suitable for target group formation, because different residential locations are preferred depending on lifestyle (Böltken et al., 1999).

3.1

Children

For children, the built environment is not only their present living space but also the environment in which they develop and become adults. The environment is thus a long-term influencing factor that helps determine the course of their development and socialization, i.e. the way they grow into society. Development includes physical growth and maturation processes as well as motor, cognitive, emotional, motivational and social development. Parenting: the intentional influence directed toward the acquisition of experiences, skills, and abilities, is also subject to environmental influences (Schneewind & Pekrun, 1994). For how parents behave towards their children depends more or less on environmental conditions. For example, confined living cause parents, exposed to increased stress, to practice an overly controlling parenting style (Chawla, 1991). Restrictions and an unfavorable family climate, recognizable by increased control and rejection of children instead of granting autonomy and affectionate care, negatively affect development and developmental outcomes. The built environment is child-friendly when it has the following characteristics: • It is traffic-safe and offers children opportunities for movement, which promotes motor development. • It is stimulating so that it encourages exploration, which benefits cognitive and motivational development. • It is rich in opportunities to be with other children so that it promotes social development. As long as they can be covered on foot or by bicycle, even the routes to school offer opportunities for physical activity. Restricting children’s independent mobility (IM) is serious because: “Restricting IM not only reduces children’s physical activity levels but also has the potential to influence their mental and social development” (Villanueva et al., 2012, p. 680). The child can be independent in the “free range”. It is the area in the living space in which the child can act in a self-determined manner and which it can visit unaccompanied because it is safe (Flade, 1993). The free range should be able to expand with increasing age, i.e. it is not enough to think only of smaller children and to create a playground for them near the house. Independently

3.2 Elderly people

41

accessible social places for older children and adolescents are also required. What is stimulating is what is different and fascinating - one of the reasons why children should experience nature that is different from everyday life in built spaces (Thompson et al., 2008). Trees, plants and green spaces in the city are not only an aesthetic and ecological asset; they are also developmental by enabling children to learn through experiential education (Schneewind & Pekrun, 1994).

3.2

Elderly people

In view of the demographic development, old people have become an important target group, with which not only gerontologists but also architects and planners are concerned (Wahl et al., 1999). Typical for this target group is a decreasing “vita activa”. The living space shrinks to the home and its immediate surroundings (Saup, 1999). Man-environment relations are becoming more one-sided, with the environment will be a more dominant influencing factor, while people are less and less able to influence their environment. Factors on which environmental control depends are the state of health, sensory and motor skills and abilities, cognitive performance, the ability to lead an independent life and to cope with crises and stresses, as well as the ability to establish contacts, to communicate and to take part (Schmitz-Scherzer, 2005). Important in this context are (Kahana et al., 2003): • • • • •

Facilities and amenities A stimulating and beauty living environment Public safety Privacy Social inclusion.

Amenities such as benches, shops for daily needs, medical care and a bus stop nearby, an inspiring and beautiful appearance of the outdoor space that invites to stay outside, a safe environment, being able to be alone as well as together and being socially integrated characterize age-appropriate living environments. It varies from person to person whether elderly people prefer to live among their peers or in a mixed-age environment. Retirement communities are the preferred form of housing for only some of the elderly. Most of them would like to stay in their current home for as long as possible (Altus & Mathews, 2000). One of the reasons is that they cope better with age-related changes, crises and stresses if their previous living environment remains constant. This continuity is important for them because the home is a place of personal memories and thus part of

42

3 Target Groups

themselves (Fuhrer, 2008). In the meantime, a wide range of services, which are increasingly also provided by technical assistance systems, make it possible for the elderly to continue living in their previous home even if they have limited mobility (Meyer, 2018). In view of the lamented housing shortage, the question is raised here and there whether the elderly, who now live alone in an “empty nest” in their previous large apartment, should not leave it to young families and move into a small apartment. Psychosocial reasons, including emotional ties to the place of residence and the neighbours, which have developed and strengthened over a long period of time, as well as the existing behavioral routines and habits, argue against this. An architectural solution would be to build large apartments that can be divided if necessary, so that the apartment can be downsized and a move to another neighborhood is no longer an option.

3.3

Lifestyles

The lifestyle concept has not yet played a role in the formation of target groups. However, it could become a starting point to promote building away from the big cities. Lifestyle is a multidimensional concept. In addition to objective characteristics such as socio-economic situation and age, subjective personal characteristics such as individual values, tastes, attitudes, interests, cultural preferences, life goals, leisure activities, consumer behaviour, media use and residential location preferences are included (Schneider & Spellerberg, 1999). One starting point for forming target groups on the basis of the lifestyle concept is the finding that preferred residential locations differ according to lifestyle. Böltken et al. (1999) have classified the diverse lifestyle groups into two opposing groups: the “active” with a highlife style and the “withdrawn” with a homelife style. The active people are looking for variety, they want to get ahead professionally, they are politically engaged and culturally interested, family life and also neighbourly relations are not in the foreground. They are more interested in a variety of experiences than in the development of their home and garden. All this explains why they prefer to live in big cities rather than in the countryside. For the withdrawn people, domesticity, security and family life are very important. They prefer small towns and rural areas as their place of residence (Fig. 3.1). This preference is also more or less realised, because the active people actually live more often in the big cities, the withdrawn people more often in rural areas (Böltken et al., 1999). It is an example of an interaction.

3.3 Lifestyles

43

Fig. 3.1 Preferred residential location according to lifestyle. (Taken from Böltken et al. 1999, p. 150, own illustration)

The lifestyle concept has not yet played a role in the formation of target groups with regard to the planning of built environments. It could become a starting point to promote building in not so big cities and towns to relieve the housing market in the large cities. Already two decades ago, it had been thought that new technologies that allow to work in the home office would trigger a suburbanization of service industries and that people in the future would increasingly settle in more rural regions (Bauriedl & Strüver, 2018).

4

Methods of Architectural Psychology Research

4.1

Overview

Finally, we take a brief look at the methodical approach. Any study contains information about the participants, the research design, the measures, the procedure and the analysis of the data: Which group of people are we talking about? Is it a certain age group? Is it the inhabitants of a large housing estate that has fallen into disrepute as a social hotspot? Are they subjects participating in an experiment to investigate the restorative effect of natural environments? How is the research design laid out? What comparisons are made? Often they are before-after comparisons, whereby a “treatment” is carried out between the before and after phases. For example, one compares the behavior of students in a schoolyard before and after its remodeling (Weinstein & Pinciotti, 1988). If students behave less aggressively than before, the redesign (treatment) has had the desired effect. Or in the before phase, subjects are exposed to a tiring cognitively demanding activity, after which they are allowed to walk in a green environment or else downtown. This is followed by a concentration test (Hartig et al., 2003). If those who have been out and about in green surroundings perform better in the test than the group that has taken the inner city walk, it is concluded that nature has a restorative effect. What data is collected, how and what is measured? Data is obtained through interviews, behavioural observations and measurements. For example, the number of errors or correct answers or the time taken to complete a

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 A. Flade, Compendium of Architectural Psychology, essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34917-2_4

45

46

4

Methods of Architectural Psychology Research

task are recorded. Commonly used is the Backward Digit Span Test, in which rows of 3 to 9 numbers are given to be reproduced in reverse order. The Necker Cube Test is also popular. The Necker Cube is a tilting figure whose perceived depth perspective tilts back and forth as it is viewed. To maintain a depth perspective, one must concentrate hard. The figure tilts more often in the fatigued state (Crossan & Salmoni, 2019). How is the data analysed? The analysis of the data is carried out using the procedures of statistics. With the methods of descriptive statistics, the data obtained are summarized and clearly presented in the form of mean values, percentages, correlation coefficients and graphs. In inferential statistics, the data from a sample are used to draw conclusions about the population as a whole. One does not stop at the individual case, but can generalize. A concise overview of research methodology in environmental psychology can be found in Bell et al. (2001, p. 10 ff.). A detailed overview is provided by the contributions in the reader edited by Gifford (2016). The following section shows the variety of methods for obtaining data in architectural psychology research.

4.2

Data collection

Interviews Survey methods are very diverse, because questions can be formulated openly and answered freely, categories of answers can be specified, from which the individually applicable one is to be ticked; the questions can be asked orally or in writing, and directly or indirectly (Table 4.1). The use of several point-scales makes it easier for respondents to answer and for the researchers to evaluate the questions. The semantic differential consisting of scales varying in number, type and fineness of gradation is used to capture connotative meanings, moods and feelings. The theoretical basis is the semantic space with the dimensions valence (pleasant-unpleasant), activation (active-passive) and dominance (strong-weak) (Sect. 2.3). A distinction must be made between denotative and connotative meanings. Feelings and moods are about connotations. Thus, the adjective “oppressive” denotes an emotional experience and not a low room height. The statement “in need of renovation” says something about the state of preservation of a building; this is

4.2 Data collection

47

Table 4.1 Direct and indirect questions on housing satisfaction (Flade, 2006, p. 55 f.) Direct questions (scale from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied”)

Indirect questions (scale from “not at all” to “definitely”)

How satisfied are you with your apartment/house?

Would you move in here again? Would you recommend this apartment to others?

How satisfied are you with your living environment/neighborhood?

Would you recommend this neighborhood/location to others?

All in all, how would you rate your overall housing satisfaction?

Will you still be living here in the next two years?

a denotation. Connotative, on the other hand, are associative emotive meanings. A typical semantic differential is shown in Fig. 4.1.The semantic differential of Canter consists of 45 seven-point scales to capture the connotations of plans and elevations of houses, and drawings of interiors of rooms. Fig. 4.1 Semantic differential (excerpt from the Semantic differential of Canter 1969, p. 40)

48

4

Methods of Architectural Psychology Research

Rittelmeyer (1994) compiled 25 five-point scales with which he had students rate photographs of school buildings. Stamps (2005, 2007) often used eight-point scales in his simulation experiments. Surveys are often part of a method mix. For example, the post-occupancy evaluation (POE = the evaluation of buildings that have been completed and put into use) usually also includes a survey of the users, whose statements provide feedback and thus a basis for any improvements or architectural modifications (Schuemer, 1998). A special form is the walk-through interview, in which the users assess the structural details of the building during a tour. A POE, which systematically examines whether the built environment is performing as intended, represents the opposite of a “never look back” attitude, for which it is typical that the builders consider the task as completed as soon as the building is finished (Schuemer, 1998; Sommer, 1993). Behavioral Observations Observations are objective methods. What is directly observable is recorded. In behavioral mapping, trained observers record behavior in real settings. For this purpose, the total space over which the observation extends is subdivided into small segments. According to a certain schedule, the whereabouts of the persons present are marked and their activities are noted. Then it is analysed what distinguishes the more frequently visited from the less visited places. When using technical means such as drones that take aerial photographs of an area, observers are no longer needed. Park (2020) has used this method to record the whereabouts and activity patterns in a large park area. Another method is tracking. Individuals are continuously observed over a defined period of time and their routes, stops and the duration of the stops are noted. Klein (1993) carried out such observations in museums and drew conclusions for an optimal presentation of exhibits and the recommended room division. With webbased mapping, observers are no longer needed (Zhuo et al., 2016). Mobile digital devices record where a person is, where they have been for a while and which paths they have taken. In a broader sense, the recording of traces of use that have resulted from the use and appropriation of the environment also counts as an observation method. A distinction is made between “erosion” in the sense that something has been taken away, and changes in the original state in that something has been added. An example is the trail, which can be seen both as erosion, namely the loss of planting, and as an addition, namely a new shorter trail. In the broadest sense, built environment can be seen as an “impactful” trace of use, namely as a change in the original natural environment, and both as erosion and as something that has been added to it. The interpretation depends on the perspective.

4.2 Data collection

49

Experiments In experiments, questioning, observation and measurement take place under controlled conditions. This makes it possible to determine the effects of certain environmental characteristics comparatively free of “confounding influences” that are always present in real environments. Another advantage of experiments, as pointed out by Stamps (2000), is that one can measure the influencing factors under investigation very precisely, rather than stopping at vague labels such as “visual richness”. The schematised visual scenes and patterns, where lengths, angles, the number and variety of elements, brightness, depth of view, extent of occlusion, etc. are finely graded, allow precise measurements. Scales are also frequently used in experiments. For example, subjects are shown schematised pictures of built environments with and without trees or photos in which certain elements such as seating, sculptures and works of art, as well as places where people can eat and drink, are present or absent. For this purpose, statements are given to which the subjects can express their personal view on multi-level scales (Table 4.2). Pair matching is also a popular method. In an experiment in which he varied the complexity of building silhouettes, Stamps (2000) used this method. Subjects were each presented with two image patterns to compare in terms of their degree of complexity. The response categories were: the patterns are equally complex; the one pattern is a little more complex; it is clearly more complex; it is very much more complex. The visual material used in experiments ranges from photographs of real environments to schematized visual scenes. Arneill and Devlin (2002) showed subjects photographs of various real waiting rooms that differed in size, color scheme, lighting, furniture, and decoration. They were asked to rate the waiting rooms in terms of the presumed competence of the doctor and how pleasant they found the waiting rooms shown. A continuous scale, namely a 10 cm long band, was available for

Table 4.2 Statements to be commented - examples

Statements

Scales

I think this scene is attractive I feel good I am sad

“not at all” (=1) to “very much” (=5)

This is a place I would choose to meet a friend I would visit this place regularly

“not at all” (=0) to “agree completely” (=10)

50

4

Methods of Architectural Psychology Research

answering, on which 0 meant “not competent” or “not appealing” and 10 meant “very competent” or “very appealing”. Responses were made by ticking a point on this continuum. New possibilities for experimentation offer simulations of environments in which subjects can walk around. Stamps (2009) used this approach to investigate the relationships between environmental features and the impression of spaciousness. To induce stress, Ziesenitz (2010) had subjects complete cognitively demanding tasks under time pressure in an emotionally stressful situation. Subsequent treatments were a walk in a real city park or on a treadmill in the research laboratory, running either a video film with real nature images or with computer-generated virtual city park scenes on the walls. The control group walked on the treadmill while looking at bare walls. The sight of nature scenes - of any kind - produced more rapid stress reduction. The bottom line was: It doesn’t have to be the real natural landscape; computer-generated nature can also have a restorative effect. The use of technical means to conduct surveys, behavioural observations and experiments is an enormous enrichment because they broaden the spectrum of possible approaches to answer questions of architectural psychology.

What You Learned from this essential

• Over the past five decades, architectural psychology has become a tool of knowledge that provides answers to the question of how built environments affect people. • A conceptual basis is provided with which the relationships between man and the built environment can be explained and generalized beyond the individual case, allowing sound conclusions to be drawn, including design recommendations. • The appearance of built environments is not a trivial matter. People react emotionally positively to a beautiful appearance and like to spend time in appealing environments. The aesthetic response depends on the coherence, legibility, complexity and mystery of the environment. • Statements are made about questions of building densification, the possibilities of restoration, and the growing importance of public space in an increasingly individualizing society. • It is advisable to take a walk in a green environment after stress experiences and cognitively demanding work.

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 A. Flade, Compendium of Architectural Psychology, essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34917-2

51

References

Abdulkarim, D., & Nasar, J. L. (2014). Do seats, food vendors, and sculptures improve plaza visitability? Environment and Behavior,46, 805–825. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Brooks/Cole. Altman, I., & Chemers, M. (1980). Culture and environment. Brooks/Cole. Altus, D. E., & Mathews, R. M. (2000). Examining satisfaction of older home owners with intergenerational home sharing. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology,6, 139–147. Arneill, A. B., & Devlin, A. (2002). Perceived quality of care: The influence of the waiting room environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology,22, 345–360. Asendorpf, J. B. (2019). Persönlichkeitspsychologie für Bachelor (4th ed.). Springer Lehrbuch. Bauriedl, S., & Strüver, A. (Eds.). (2018). Smart City. Kritische Perspektiven auf die Digitalisierung in Städten. transcript. Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental psychology (5th ed.). Harcourt College Publishers. Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology,25, 249–259. Bierhoff, H.-W. (2006). Sozialpsychologie zwischenmenschlichen Verhaltens. In K. Pawlik (Ed.), Handbuch Psychologie: Wissenschaft, Anwendung, Berufsfelder. Springer. Böltken, F., Schneider, N., & Spellerberg, A. (1999). Wohnen – Wunsch und Wirklichkeit. Informationen Zur Raumentwicklung,2, 141–156. Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology,19, 331–352. Canter, D. (1969). An intergroup comparison of connotative dimensions in architecture. Environment and Behavior,1, 37–48. Canter, D. (1973). Menschen und Gebäude – Eine kurzgefasste Übersicht über die Forschung auf diesem Gebiet. In D. Canter (Ed.), Architekturpsychologie. Theorie, Laboruntersuchungen, Feldarbeit (pp. 130–136). Bertelsmann (original edition: Canter, D. (1970). Architectural Psychology. Proceedings of a conference held at Dalandhui University of Strathclyde 1969. London: RIBA Publications Limited). Chawla, L. (1991). Homes for children in a changing society. In E. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior and design (Vol. 3, pp. 188–228). Plenum. © Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 A. Flade, Compendium of Architectural Psychology, essentials, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34917-2

53

54

References

Crossan, & Salmoni (2019). A simulated walk in nature: Testing predictions from the attention restoration theory. Environment and Behavior, online first, 1–19. destatis. (2016). https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Wohnen/Tab ellen/liste-haushaltsstruktur-wohnflaeche. Zugegriffen: 8. Mai 2020. Dieckmann, F., Flade, A., Schuemer, R., Ströhlein, G., & Walden, R. (1998). Psychologie und gebaute Umwelt. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungsbeispiele. Institut Wohnen und Umwelt. Evans, G. W., & McCoy, J. M. (1998). When buildings don’t work: The role of architecture in human health. Journal of Environmental Psychology,18, 85–94. Fischer, M., & Stephan, E. (1996). Kontrolle und Kontrollverlust. In L. Kruse, C. F. Graumann, & E. D. Lantermann (Eds.), Ökologische Psychologie. Ein Handbuch in Schlüsselbegriffen (pp. 166–175). Psychologie Verlags Union. Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features. Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior,24, 35–65. Fisher, B., & Nasar, J. (1993). Hot spots of fear and crime: A multi-method investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology,13, 187–206. Flade, A. (1993). Spielen von Kindern im Wohnviertel. Das home range-Konzept. In H.-J. Harloff (Eds.), Psychologie des Wohnungs- und Siedlungsbaus (pp. 185–194). Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie. Flade, A. (1996). Kriminalität und Vandalismus. In L. Kruse, C. F. Graumann, & E. D. Lantermann (Eds.), Ökologische Psychologie. Ein Handbuch in Schlüsselbegriffen (pp. 518–524). Psychologie Verlags Union. Flade, A. (2000). Emotionale Aspekte Räumlicher Mobilität. Umweltpsychologie, 4(1), 50– 63. Flade, A. (2006). Wohnen psychologisch betrachtet. Huber. Flade, A. (2008). Architektur psychologisch betrachtet. Huber. Flade, A. (2017). Third Places – Reale Inseln in der virtuellen Welt. Ausflüge in die Cyberpsychologie. Springer. Flade, A. (2019). Mehr öffentliche Sicherheit durch mehr Beleuchtung – Oder geht es auch anders? Transforming Cities, Issue,2, 80–84. Flade, A., & Lohmann, G. (2004). Wohnen in Passivhäusern. Ein umweltpsychologischer Forschungsansatz. Umweltpsychologie, 8(1), 66–83. Fuhrer, U. (2008). Ortsidentität, Selbst und Umwelt. In E.-D. Lantermann & V. Linneweber (Eds.), Grundlagen, Paradigmen und Methoden der Umweltpsychologie (pp. 415–442). Hogrefe. Galster, G. (1987). Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction. Environment and Behavior,19, 539–568. Gibson, B., & Werner, C. (1994). Airport waiting areas as behavior settings: The role of legibility cues in communicating the setting program. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66, 1049–1060. Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology. Principles and practice (4th ed.). Optimal Books. Gifford, R. (Ed.). (2016). Research methods for environmental psychology. Wiley. Glasze, G. (2003). Die fragmentierte Stadt. Ursachen und Folgen bewachter Wohnkomplexe im Libanon. Leske + Budrich.

References

55

Graumann, C. F. (1996). Aneignung. In L. Kruse, C. F. Graumann, & E. D. Lantermann (Eds.), Ökologische Psychologie. Ein Handbuch in Schlüsselbegriffen (pp. 124–130). Psychologie Verlags Union. Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology,23, 109–123. Hellbrück, J., & Kals, E. (2012). Umweltpsychologie. Lehrbuch. Springer VS. Herzog, T. R., & Miller, E. J. (1998). The role of mystery, and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior,30, 429–449. Ikemi, M. (2005). The effects of mystery on preference for residential facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology,25, 167–173. Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., & Kahana, M. (2003). Person, environment, and person-environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of elders. Environment and Behavior,35, 434–453. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. A psychological perspective. Cambridge University. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature. Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology,15, 169–182. Kelz, C., Evans, G. W., & Röderer, K. (2015). The restorative effects of redesigning the schoolyard: A multi-methodolodical, quasi-experimental study in rural Austrian middle schools. Environment and Behavior,47, 119–139. Klein, H.-J. (1993). Tracking visitor circulation in museum settings. Environment and Behavior,25, 782–800. Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology,16, 221–233. Kruse, L. (1996). Raum und Bewegung. In L. Kruse, C. F. Graumann, & E. D. Lantermann (Eds.), Ökologische Psychologie. Ein Handbuch in Schlüsselbegriffen (pp. 313–324). Psychologie Verlags Union. Küller, R. (1996). Licht, Farbe und menschliches Verhalten. In L. Kruse, C. F. Graumann, & E. D. Lantermann (Eds.), Ökologische Psychologie. Ein Handbuch in Schlüsselbegriffen (pp. 614–619). Psychologie Verlags Union. Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measure of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology,21, 31–44. Leather, P., Pyrgas, M., Beale, D., & Lawrence, C. (1998). Windows in the workplace: Sunlight, view, and occupational stress. Environment and Behavior,30, 739–762. Levine, M. (1982). You-are-here-maps. Psychological considerations. Environment and Behavior,14, 221–237. Lichtenberger, E. (2002). Die Stadt. Von der Polis zur Metropolis. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Lindal, P. J., & Hartig, T. (2013). Architectural variation, building height, and the restorative quality of urban residential streetscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology,33, 26–36. Lohr, V. I., & Pearson-Mims, C. H. (2006). Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environment and Behavior,38, 667–688. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT. Martin, S. H. (2002). The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers. Journal of Environmental Psychology,22, 139–156.

56

References

Metha, V. (2007). Lively streets. Determining environmental characteristics to support social behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research,27, 165–187. Metha, V., & Bosson, J. K. (2010). Third places and the social life of streets. Environment and Behavior,42, 779–805. Meyer, S. (2018). Technische Assistenzsysteme zu Hause – Warum nicht? Vergleichende Evaluation von 14 aktuellen Forschungs- und Anwendungsprojekten. In H. Künemund & U. Fachinger (Eds.), Alter und Technik. Sozialwissenschaftliche Befunde und Perspektiven (pp. 147–176). Springer VS. Montoya, L., Junger, M., & Ongena, Y. (2016). The relation between residential property and its surroundings and day- and night-time residential burglary. Environment and Behavior,48, 515–549. Nohl, W. (2003). Die Kleingärten im Nachkriegsdeutschland. Ein ästhetisches Modell für private Gartenräume der Zukunft? In S. Lamnek & M.-T. Tinnefeld (Eds.), Privatheit, Garten und politische Kultur (pp. 189–213). Leske + Budrich. Nasar, J. L. (1997). New developments in aesthetics for urban design. In G. T. Moore & R. W. Marans (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (pp. 151–193). Plenum. Nasar, J. L., & Cubukcu, E. (2011). Evaluative appraisals of environmental mystery and surprise. Environment and Behavior,43, 387–414. Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. M. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior,29, 291–323. Norman, K. L. (2008). CyberPsychology: Introduction to the psychology of human/computer interaction. Cambridge University. North, A. C., Tarrant, M., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2004). The effects of music on helping behavior: A field study. Environment and Behavior,36, 266–275. Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Da Capo Press. Oldenburg, R. (2001). Celebrating the third place. Inspiring stories about the “Great Good Places” at the heart of our communities. Marlowe. Park, K. (2020). Park and neighborhood attributes associated with park use: An observational study using unmanned aerial vehicles. Environment and Behavior,52, 518–543. Rapaport, A. (1968). The personal element in housing. Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects (July), 300–307 (zit. bei Canter 1969). Rittelmeyer, C. (1994). Schulbauten positiv gestalten. Bauverlag. Rüthers, M. (2015). Historische Stadtforschung. In A. Flade (Ed.), Stadt und Gesellschaft im Fokus aktueller Stadtforschung. Konzepte – Herausforderungen – Perspektiven (pp. 13– 59). Springer VS Verlag. Russell, J. A., & Lanius, U. F. (1984). Adaption level and the affective appraisal of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology,4, 119–135. Russell, J. A., & Snodgrass, J. (1987). Emotion and environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 245–280). Wiley. Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1990). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology,41, 441–477. Saup, W.(1999). Alte Menschen in ihrer Wohnung: Sichtweisen der ökologischen Psychologie und Gerontologie. In H.-W. Wahl, H. Mollenkopf, & F. Oswald (Eds.), Alte Menschen in ihrer Umwelt (pp. 43–51). Westdeutscher Verlag.

References

57

Schmitz-Scherzer, R. (2005). Persönlichkeit und Kompetenz alternder Menschen. In D. Frey & C. Graf Hoyos (Eds.), Psychologie in Gesellschaft, Kultur und Umwelt (pp. 121–125). Beltz Verlag. Schneewind, K. A., & Pekrun, R. (1994). Theorien der Erziehungs- und Sozialisationspsychologie. In K. A. Schneewind (Ed.), Theorien der Erziehungs- und Sozialisationspsychologie (pp. 3–39). Hogrefe. Schneider, N., & Spellerberg, A. (1999). Lebensstile, Wohnbedürfnisse und räumliche Mobilität. Leske + Budrich. Schuemer, R. (1998). Nutzerorientierte Evaluation gebauter Umwelten. In F. Dieckmann, A. Flade, R. Schuemer, G. Ströhlein, & R. Walden (Eds.), Psychologie und gebaute Umwelt. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungsbeispiele (pp. 153–173). Institut Wohnen und Umwelt. Sommer, R. (1983). Social design. Creating buildings with people in mind. Prentice Hall. Stamps, A. E. (2000). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Kluwer Academic Publisher. Stamps, A. E. (2005). Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety and enclosure. Environment and Behavior,37, 587–619. Stamps, A. E. (2007). Mystery of environmental mystery. Effects of light, occlusion, and depth of view. Environment and Behavior,39, 165–197. Stamps, A. E. (2009). On shape and spaciousness. Environment and Behavior,41, 526–548. Stokols, D. (1976). The experience of crowding in primary and secondary environments. Environment and Behavior,8, 49–86. Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & DePooter, S. F. (2004). The fruit of urban nature. Environment and Behavior,36, 678–700. Taylor, R. B. (1988). Human territorial functioning. Cambridge University. Thompson, C. W., Aspinall, P., & Montarzino, A. (2008). The childhood factor: Adult visits to green places and the significance of childhood experience. Environment and Behavior,40, 111–143. Valtchanov, D., & Ellard, C. G. (2015). Cognitive and affective responses to natural scenes: Effects of low level viszal properties on preference, cognitive load and eye-movements. Journal of Environmental Psychology,43, 184–195. Villanueva, K., Giles-Corti, B., Bulsara, M., Timperio, A., McCormack, G., Beesley, B., Trapp, G., & Middleton, N. (2012). Where do children travel to and what local opportunities are available? The relationship between neighborhood destinations and children’s independent mobility. Environment and Behavior,45, 679–705. Wahl, H.-W., Oswald, F., & Mollenkopf, H. (1999). Alter und Umwelt – Beobachtungen und Analysen der Ökologischen Gerontologie. In H.-W. Wahl, H. Mollenkopf, & F. Oswald (Eds.), Alte Menschen in ihrer Umwelt (pp. 13–22). Westdeutscher Verlag. Walden, R. (2015). Criteria for the judgment of the quality of school buildings. In R. Walden (Ed.), Schools for the future. Design proposals from architectural psychology (pp. 201– 222). Springer. Weinstein, C. S., & Pinciotti, P. (1988). Changing a schoolyard. Environment and Behavior,20, 345–371. Weissmüller, L. (16. Juni 2020). Das Atmen des Lehms. Interview mit der Architektin Marina Tabassum. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 2020, pp. 9. Wenz-Gahler, I. (1979). Die Küche. In M. Andritzky & G. Selle (Eds.), Lernbereich Wohnen (Vol. 1, pp. 266–287). Rowohlt.

58

References

Wilson-Doenges, G. (2000). An exploration of sense of community and fear of crime in gated communities. Environment and Behavior,32, 597–611. Yildirim, K., Akalin-Baskaya, A., & Celebi, M. (2007). The effects of window proximity, partition height, and gender on perceptions of open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology,27, 154–165. Zhou, X., Dongying, L., & Larsen, L. (2016). Using web-based participatory mapping to investigate children’s perceptions and the spatial distribution of outdoor play places. Environment and Behavior,48, 859–884. Ziesenitz, A. (2010). Die Natur als Erholungs(t)raum? Ein empirischer Vergleich von virtueller und physischer Natur. Dissertation, Universität Kassel. urn:nbn:de:hebis:34– 2010011131639. Zurawski, N. (2014). Raum – Weltbild – Kontrolle. Raumvorstellungen als Grundlage gesellschaftlicher Ordnung und ihrer Überwachung. Budrich Uni Press.