Environmental Aesthetics: The Environment as a Source of Affect

  • Joachim F. Wohlwill


One might be tempted to dismiss the preceding statement, made at a Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference on Natural Beauty, by the Conference Chairman, Frank Masland, Jr., as the sort of rhetoric expected of a keynote speaker at such a gathering. Yet, though there may be no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the rather sweeping assertion concerning the power of beauty and ugliness to exert such profound effects on human beings (and this writer knows of none), it may well reflect commonly held beliefs about the impact of the aesthetic quality of the environment on the individual. Such convictions have, of course, been expressed for centuries by philosophers, naturalists, writers, etc., and are certainly not limited to laymen, or politicians, even today, as reflected in the following quote from an environmentally concerned biologist in a letter in Science:

...has there been, or will there soon be sufficient selection by polluted metropolitan environments to erase man’s unspoken needs for open spaces, wild mountains, clean lakes, or small towns? Does Dobzhansky mean it is desirable to permit (let alone encourage) adaptation to New York-type cities, their bleak lifeless canyons of stone crawling with humanity, their noisy streets and overcrowded subways?... I don’t know whether Dobzhansky has forgotten what it was like to walk the dunes in solitude or to swim in the ocean, but to most humans... it is pleasanter than basking in 5 P.M.traffic on Fifth Avenue (Iltis, 1967).*


Affective Response Aesthetic Quality Environmental Perception Aesthetic Judgment Natural Beauty 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barker, R. On the nature of the environment. Journal of Social Issues, 1963, 19, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, R., and Bell, P. A. Effects of heightened sexual arousal on physical aggression. Proceedings of the 81st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada, 1973, 8, 171–172.Google Scholar
  3. Basch, D. The uses of aesthetics in planning: A critical review. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 1972, 6, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechtel, R. B. Footsteps as a measure of human preference. Topeka, Kansas: Environmental Research Foundation, 1967.Google Scholar
  5. Berlyne, E. D. The influence of complexity and novelty in visual figures on orienting responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 55, 289–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berlyne, D. E. Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1963, 17, 274–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berlyne, D. E. Arousal and reinforcement. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1967, 15, 1–110.Google Scholar
  9. Berlyne, D. E. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century, 1972a.Google Scholar
  10. Berlyne, D. E. Uniformity in variety: Extension to three-element visual patterns and to non-verbal measures. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1972b, 26, 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berlyne, D. E. (Ed.). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. New York: Halsted Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  12. Berlyne, D. E., and Boudewijns, W. J. Hedonic effects of uniformity in variety. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1971, 25, 195–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Birkhoff, G. D. Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1933.Google Scholar
  14. Bockrath, J. Aesthetics and condemnation awards: Problems in preserving the aesthetic environment through eminent domain. Natural Resources Journal, 1974, 7, 621–633.Google Scholar
  15. Broughton, R. Aesthetics and environmental law: decisions and values. Land and Water Law Review, 1972, 7, 451–500.Google Scholar
  16. Brunswik, E. Distal focussing of perception: Size constancy in a representative sample of situations. Psychological Monographs,1944, 56 (1, Whole #254).Google Scholar
  17. Brunswik, E. Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1956.Google Scholar
  18. Buswell, G. T. How people look at pictures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935.Google Scholar
  19. Calvin, J. S., Dearinger, J. A., and Curtin, M. E. An attempt at assessing preferences for natural landscapes. Environment and Behavior, 1972, 4, 447–470.Google Scholar
  20. Canter, D. An intergroup comparison of connotative dimensions in architecture. Environment and Behavior, 1969, 1, 27–48.Google Scholar
  21. Christie, B., Delafield, G., Lucas, B., Winwood, M., and Gale, A. Stimulus complexity and the EEG: Differential effects of the number and the variety of display elements. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1972 26, 155–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Craik, K. H. Appraising the objectivity of landscape dimensions. In J. V. Krutilla (Ed.), Natural environments. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1972, 292–346.Google Scholar
  23. Craik, K. H. The personality research paradigm in environmental psychology. In S. Wapner, S. Cohen, and B. Kaplan (Eds.), Experiencing the environment. New York: Plenum, 1976, 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crozier, J. B. Verbal and exploratory responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York: Halsted Press, 1974, 27–90.Google Scholar
  25. Cullen, G. Townscape. London: Architectural Press, 1961.Google Scholar
  26. Day, H. Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 1967, 2, 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dember, W. N., and Earl, R. W. Analysis of exploratory, manipulatory and curiosity behaviors. Psychological Review, 1957, 64, 91–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dorfman, D. D., and McKenna, H. Pattern preferences as a function of pattern uncertainty. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1966, 20, 143–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Downs, R. The cognitive structure of an urban shopping center. Environment and Behavior, 1970, 2, 13–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ertel, S. Exploratory choice and verbal judgment. In D. E. Berlyne and K. B. Madsen (Eds.), Pleasure, reward, preference. New York: Academic Press, 1973, 115–132.Google Scholar
  31. Fabos, J. G., Careaga, R., Greene, C., and Williston, S. Model for landscape resource assessment. Part I of the “Metropolitan Landscape Planning Model” (METLAND). Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts, Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, 1973.Google Scholar
  32. Fiske, D. W., and Maddi, S. A conceptual framework. In D. W. Fiske and S. Maddi (Eds.), Functions of varied experience. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1961, 11–56.Google Scholar
  33. Gale, A., Bramley, P., Lucas, B., and Christie, B. Differential effect of visual and auditory complexity on the EEG: Negative hedonic value as a crucial variable: Psychonomic Science, 17, 1972, 21–24.Google Scholar
  34. Governor’s Conference on Natural Beauty. The Governor’s Conference on Natural Beauty, September 12, 13, 1966. Community Center: Hershey, Pa., 1966.Google Scholar
  35. Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.Google Scholar
  36. Harrison, J., and Sarre, P. Personal construct theory in the measurement of environmen- tal images: Problems and methods. Environment and Behavior, 1971, 3, 351–374.Google Scholar
  37. Hendrix, W. G., and Fabos, J. G. Visual land use compatibility as a significant contributor to visual resource quality. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 1975, 8, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hochberg, J. Representative sampling and the purposes of research: Pictures of the world, and the world of pictures. In K. Hammond (Ed.), The psychology of Egon Brunswik. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966, 361–381.Google Scholar
  39. Iltis, H. H. A plea for man and nature. (Letter). Science, 1967, 156, 581.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Iltis, H. H. The optimum human environment and its relation to modern agricultural preoccupations. The Biologist, 1968, 50, 114–125.Google Scholar
  41. Jacobs, J. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage, 1961.Google Scholar
  42. Jacobs, P., and Way, D. How much development can landscape absorb? Landscape Architecture, 1969, 59, 296–298.Google Scholar
  43. Kaplan, R. Predictors of environmental preference: Designers and “clients.” In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental design research. Vol. 1. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1973, 265–274.Google Scholar
  44. Kaplan, R. Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In E. H. Zube, G. G. Fabos, and R. O. Brush (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources. New York: Halsted Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  45. Kaplan, S. An informal model for the prediction of preference. In E. H. Zube, G. G. Fabos, and R. O. Brush (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources. New York: Halsted Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  46. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., and Wendt, J. S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics, 1972, 12, 334–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kates, R. W. The pursuit of beauty in the environment. Landscape, Winter 1966/67, 16, 21–25.Google Scholar
  48. Koestler, A. Insight and outlook: An inquiry into the common foundations of science, art and social ethics. New York: Macmillan, 1949.Google Scholar
  49. Killer, R. A semantic model for describing perceived environment. Stockholm: National Swedish Institute for Building Research, 1972.Google Scholar
  50. Leighty, L. L. Aesthetics as a legal basis for environmental control. Wayne Law Review, 1971, 17, 1347–1396.Google Scholar
  51. Leopold, L. Landscape aesthetics. In A. Meyer (Ed.), Encountering the environment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971, 29–46.Google Scholar
  52. Leopold, L. B., and Marchand, M. O’B. On the quantitative inventory of the riverscape. Water Resources Research, 1968, 4, 709–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Litton, R. B. Jr., Aesthetic dimensions of the landscape. In J. V. Krutilla (Ed.), Natural environments. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1972, 262–291.Google Scholar
  54. Lowenthal, D., and Riel, M. Milieu and observer differences in environmental associations. New York: American Geographic Society, 1972a. (Publications in Environmental Perception, 7).Google Scholar
  55. Lowenthal, D., and Riel, M. The nature of perceived and imagined environments. Environment and Behavior, 1972b, 4, 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lozano, E. Visual needs in the urban environment. Town Planning Review, 1974, 45, 351–374.Google Scholar
  57. Lynch, K. The image of the city. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  58. Mackworth, N. H., and Morandi, A. J. The gaze selects informative details within pictures, Perception and Psychophysics, 1967, 2, 547–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., and Lowell, E. L. The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century, 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McKechnie, G. E. A study of environmental life-styles. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of California (Berkeley), 1972.Google Scholar
  61. Melton, A. W. Visitor behavior in museums: Some early research in environmental design. Human Factors, 1972, 14, 393–403.Google Scholar
  62. Meyer, L. B. Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Milgram, S. A psychological map of New York City, American Scientist, 1972, 60, 181–194.Google Scholar
  63. Mindus, L. The role of redundancy and complexity in the perception of tone patterns. Unpublished MA thesis, Clark Univeristy, 1968.Google Scholar
  64. Nairn, I. The American landscape. New York: Random House, 1963.Google Scholar
  65. Newman, O. Defensible space. New York: Macmillan, 1973.Google Scholar
  66. Nunnally, J. C., Faw, T. T., and Bashford, M. B. Effect of degrees of incongruity on visual fixations in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 81, 360–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Peterson, G. L. A model of preference: Quantitative analysis of the perception of the visual appearance of residential neighborhoods. Journal of Regional Science, 1967, 7, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rapoport, A., and Hawkes, R. The perception of urban complexity. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1970, 36, 106–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rapoport, A., and Kantor, R. E. Complexity and ambiguity in environmental design. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 1967, 33, 210–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sanoff, H. Visual attributes of the physical environment. In G. J. Coates and K. M. Moffett (Eds.), Response to the environment. Raleigh, N.C.: School of Design, North Carolina State University, 1969, 37–60.Google Scholar
  71. Santayana, G. The sense of beauty. New York: Scribners, 1896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schwarz, H., and Werbik, H. Eine experimentelle Untersuchung über den Einfluss der syntaktischen Information der Anordnung von Baukörpern entlang einer Strasse auf Stimmungen des Betrachters. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 1971, 18, 499–511.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Shafer, E. L., Jr., Hamilton, J. F., Jr., and Schmidt, E. A. Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research, 1969, 1, 1–19.Google Scholar
  74. Shafer, E. L., Jr., and Mietz, J. Aesthetic and emotional experiences rate high with northeast wilderness hikers. Environment and Behavior, 1969, 1, 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shafer, E. L., Jr., and Richards, T. A. A comparison of viewer reactions of outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Research Paper NE-302, 1974.Google Scholar
  76. Shephard, P. Man in the landscape: A historic view of the aesthetics of nature. New York: Knopf, 1967.Google Scholar
  77. Sonnenfeld, J. Environmental perception and adaptation-level in the arctic. In D. Lowenthal (Ed.), Environmental perception and behavior. Chicago: Department of Geography, University of Chicago, 1967, 42–59. (Research Paper #109).Google Scholar
  78. Southworth, M. The sonic environment of cities. Environment and Behavior1969 14970.Google Scholar
  79. Steinitz, C., and Way, D. A model for evaluating the visual consequences of urbanization. In C. Steinitz, and P. Rogers (Eds.), Qualitative values in environmental planning: A study of resource use in urbanizing watersheds. Section I II. Washington, D.C.: Office of Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, 1969.Google Scholar
  80. Stevens, S. S. A metric for the social consensus. Science, 1966, 151, 530–541.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Torgerson, W. J. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
  82. Tuan, Y.-F. Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes and values. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.Google Scholar
  83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aesthetics in environmental planning. Washington, D.C.: Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.Google Scholar
  84. Venturi, R. Complexity and contradiction in architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1966.Google Scholar
  85. Venturi, R., Brown, D. S., and Izenour, S. Learning from Las Vegas. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  86. Wathen-Dunn, W. (Ed.), Models for the perception of speech and visual form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  87. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., and Sechrest, D. Unobtrusive measures. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.Google Scholar
  88. Wenger, W. D., and Widebeck, R. Pupillary response as a measure of aesthetic reaction to forest scenes. Syracuse: College of Forestry, State University of New York, 1968. (Report No. 1, Project K.) Google Scholar
  89. White, M., and White, L. The intellectual versus the city. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  90. Wohlwill, J. F. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 1968, 4, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wohlwill, J. F. Human response to levels of environmental stimulation. Human Ecology, 1974, 2, 127–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wohlwill, J. F. Children’s responses to meaningful pictures varying in diversity: Exploration time vs. preference. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1975, 20, 341–351.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wohlwill, J. F. Complexity and other stimulus determinants of preference and interest for scenes from the outdoor environment. Paper in preparation, 1976.Google Scholar
  94. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., and Anderson, T. W. Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Amherst, Massachusetts: Institute for Man and his Environment, University of Massachusetts, 1974.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim F. Wohlwill
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Man-Environment RelationsThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations