Advertisement

Measuring Constraints to Inhabitant Activities

  • David B. Lantrip
Part of the Plenum Series in Rehabilitation and Health book series (SSRH)

Abstract

The nature of the relationship between human behavior and proximate environment rules out any simple definition of “physical disability” or “good design.” A person’s physical disability is given meaning and value only when it is found to interfere with some desired activity. Furthermore, an environment may be said to handicap each of its inhabitants regardless of physical ability, to the extent that it interferes with desired activities. To understand the widespread potential of environmental handicapping one need look only as far as the modern kitchen, where most able-bodied women are significantly handicapped in reaching over-the-counter kitchen cabinets. Neither clinical definitions of physical ability nor architectural jury pronouncements offer useful measures of the handicapping potentialities of an environment-behavior interaction.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altman, L., & Rogoff, B. (1987). World views in psychology: Trait, interactional, organismic, and transactional perspectives. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 7–40). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Baum, A., & Epstein, Y. M. (1978). Human response to crowding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Baum, A., & Paulus, P. B. (1987). Crowding. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 533–570). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Brill, M., Margulis, S., & Konar, E. (1984). Using office design to increase productivity. Buffalo, NY: Workplace Design and Productivity.Google Scholar
  5. Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of experiments (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Churchman, A., Stokols, D., Scharf, T., & Nishimoto, R. (1990, July). Measuring environmental change in the office: A contextual approach. Paper presented at the 22nd International Congress of Applied Psychology, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
  7. Flynn, J. E., & Spencer, T. J. (1977, April). The effects of light source color on user impression and satisfaction. Journal of the Illumination Engineering Society, 167–179.Google Scholar
  8. Fowler, Jr., & Floyd, J. (1988). Survey research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Heimsath, C. (1977). Behavioral architecture. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Lantrip, D. B. (1986). ISOKIN: A quantitative model of the kinesthetic aspects of spatial habitability. In Proceedings of Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting, 1 (pp. 33–37). Dayton, OH: Human Factors Society.Google Scholar
  12. Lantrip, D. B. (1988). The design and analysis of space for haptic and kinesthetic habitability. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  13. Lantrip, D. B. (1990). The built environment as a constraint to human freedom: An activity-based stochastic model. In R. I. Selby, K. H. Anthony, J. Choi, & B. Olrand (Ed.), Proceedings of 21st Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) (pp. 52–63). Denver, CO: EDRA.Google Scholar
  14. Lantrip, D. B. (1993). Environmental constraint of human movement: A case study of the effects on office worker environmental satisfaction and self-rated productivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  15. Marans, R. W., & Yan, X. (1989). Lighting quality and environmental satisfaction in open and enclosed offices. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 6(2), 118–131.Google Scholar
  16. Oldham, G. R. (1988). Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Perin, C. (1970). With man in mind: An interdisciplinary prospectus for environmental design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pophan, W. J. (1979). Criterion-referenced measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Spreckelmeyer, K. F. (1993). Office relocation and environmental change: A case study. Environment and Behavior, 25(2), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stokols, D. (1986). New tools for evaluating facilities design and productivity. In 7th Annual Conference of the International Facility Management Association. Chicago: IFMA.Google Scholar
  21. Sundstrom, E., & Altman, I. (1989). Physical environments and work-group effectiveness. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 175–209.Google Scholar
  22. Thiel, P. (forthcoming). The stream of experience: Notations for an experienciable envirotecture. Seattle: College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  23. West, B. J., & Goldberger, A. L. (1987, July–August). Physiology in fractal dimensions. American Scientist, 75, 354–365.Google Scholar
  24. Wohlwill, J. F. (1974). Human response to levels of environmental stimulation. Human Ecology, 2, 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Lantrip
    • 1
  1. 1.Cartia, Inc.OxnardUSA

Personalised recommendations