Advertisement

Perception, Cognition, and Evaluation of Urban Places

  • Jack L. Nasar
Part of the Human Behavior and Environment book series (HUBE, volume 10)

Abstract

Just walking through the vast main concourse of Grand Central Terminal in New York . . . almost always triggers in me a spontaneous and quiet change in perception. . . . The change—one that is reasonably well known to all of us . . . — lets me gently refocus my attention and allows a more general awareness of a great many things at once: sights, sounds, smells and sensations of touch and balance as well as thoughts and feelings. When this general kind of awareness occurs, I feel relaxed and alert at the same time. (Hiss, 1987, p. 45)

Keywords

Visual Quality Building Type Imageable Element Salient Dimension Esthetic Quality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, L. M., Mulligan, B. E., Goodman, L. S.,& Rezen, H. Z. (1983). Effects of sounds on preferences for outdoor settings. Environment and Behavior, 15 ,539–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Appleyard, D. (1969). Why buildings are known. Environment and Behavior, 1 ,131–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appleyard, D. (1976). Planning a pluralistic city. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  5. Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable streets. Berkely: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Appleyard, D.,& Lintell, M. (1972). The environmental quality of city streets: The residents– viewpoint. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 38 ,84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  8. Bureau of Census (1987). National data book and guide to sources: Statistical abstracts of the United States (107th. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  9. Canter, D.,& Thorne, R. (1972). Attitudes to housing: A crosscultural comparison. Environment and Behavior ,4, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carp, F.,& Carp, A. (1982). Perceived environmental quality of neighborhoods: Development of assessment scales and their relation to age and gender. Journal of Environmental Psychology ,2, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carp, F., Zawadsky, R.,& Shokrin, H. (1976). Dimensions of urban quality. Environment and Behavior, 8 ,239–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craik, K. H. (1983). The psychology of the large scale environment. In N. R. Feimer& E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environment psychology: Directions and perspectives (pp. 67–105). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  13. Devlin, A. (1976). The“Small Town” cognitive map: Adjusting to a new environment. In G. Moore& R. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental knowing (pp. 58–67). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson& Ross.Google Scholar
  14. Devlin, K.,& Nasar, J. (1987). Beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of\“popular” vs.“High”architecture and public vs. architect judgments of same (Department of City and Regional Planning working paper). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  15. Esposito, C. V. (1984). Methodological issues in the assessment of environmental sound perception: A strategy for empirical research. In D. Duerk& D. Campbell (Eds.), EDRA 15: The challenge of diversity (pp. 179–184). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  16. Evans, G. (1980). Environmental cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 88 ,259,–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans, G., Marrero, D.,& Butler, P. (1981). Environmental learning and cognitive mapping. Environment and Behavior, 13 ,83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, G., Smith, C.,& Pezdek, K. (1982). Cognitive maps and urban form. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48 ,232–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gärling, T. (1976). The structural analysis of environmental perception and cognition: A multidimensional scaling approach. Environment and Behavior, 8 ,385–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geller, D. M., Cook, J. B., O–Connor, M. A.,& Low, S. K. (1982). Perceptions of urban scenes by small town and urban residents: A multidimensional scaling analysis. In P. Bart, A. Chen,& G. Francescato (Eds.), Knowledge for design: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association (pp. 128–141). College Park, MD: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  21. Gifford, R.,& Ng, C. F. (1982). The relative contribution of visual and auditory cues to environmental perception. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2 ,275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldberger, P. (1983). On the rise: Architecture and design in a postmodern age. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  23. Groat, L. (1979). Does post-modernism communicate? Progressive Architecture, 12 ,84–87.Google Scholar
  24. Groat, L. (1984). Public opinions of contextual fit. Architecture, 73 ,72–75.Google Scholar
  25. Harrison, J. D.,& Howard, W. A. (1972). The role of meaning in the urban image. Environment and Behavior, 4 ,398–411.Google Scholar
  26. Heft, H. (1979). The role of environmental features in route-learning: Two exploratory studies of way-finding. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3 ,172–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hershberger, R. G.,& Cass, R. (1988). Predicting user responses to buildings. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and application (pp. 195–211). New York: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1974)Google Scholar
  28. Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, R.,& Kaplan, S. (1976). The prediction of preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior, 8 ,627–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hesselgren, S. (1976). Man–s perception of man-made environment. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson& Ross.Google Scholar
  30. Hiss, T. (1987, June 22). Reflections: Experiencing places-I. New Yorker ,pp. 45–68.Google Scholar
  31. Horayangkura, V. (1978). Semantic dimensional structures: A methodological approach. Environment and Behavior, 10 ,555–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaplan, S.,& Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  33. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R.,& Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12 ,354–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Langdon, P. (1982, April 22). Suburbanites pick favorite home styles. The New York Times ,p. C12.Google Scholar
  35. Lansing, J. B., Marans, R. W.,& Zehner, R. B. (1970). Planned residential environments. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  36. Locasso, R. (1988). The influence of a beautiful vs. an ugly interior on ratings of photographs of human faces: A replication of Maslow and Mintz. In J. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 135–142). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lowenthal, D.,& Riel, M. (1972). The nature of perceived and imagined environments. Environment and Behavior, 4 ,189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lozano, E. (1974). Visual needs in the environment. Town Planning Review, 43 ,351–374.Google Scholar
  39. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lynes, R. (1954). The tastemakers. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  41. Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior, 15 ,487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mandler, G.,& Shebo, B. J. (1983). Knowing and liking. Motivation and Emotion, 7 ,125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Michelson, W. (1976). Man and his urban environment: A sociological approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  44. Mintz, N. L. (1956). Effects of esthetic surroundings: II. Prolonged and repeated experience in a beautiful and an ugly room. Journal of Psychology, 41 ,459–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moore, G. T. (1979). Knowing about environmental knowing: The current state of theory and research on environmental cognition. Environment and Behavior, 11(2) ,33–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nasar, J. L. (1979). The evaluative image of the city. In A. D. Seidel& S. Danford (Eds.), Environmental design: Research, theory, and application. Proceedings of the 10thAnnual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association (pp. 38–45). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  47. Nasar, J. L. (1980a). Chattanooga preference survey and design recommendations. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, School of Architecture.Google Scholar
  48. Nasar, J. L. (1980b). Influence of familiarity on responses to visual quality of neighborhoods. Perceptual& Motor Skills, 51 ,632–642.Google Scholar
  49. Nasar, J. L. (1983). Adult viewer preferences in residential scenes. Environment and Behavior, 15 ,589–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nasar, J. L. (1984a). Cognition in relation to downtown street-scenes: A comparison between Japan and the United States. In D. Duerk& D. Campbell (Eds.), EDRA 15 1984 proceedings: The challenge of diversity (pp. 122–128). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.Google Scholar
  51. Nasar, J. L. (1984b). Visual preferences in urban scenes: A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the U.S. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1 ,79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nasar, J. L. (1986). What the public notices and prefers in commercial signs. Paper presented at the 94th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, August.Google Scholar
  53. Nasar, J. L. (1987a). Effect of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of retail scenes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53 ,499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nasar, J. L. (1987b). Environmental correlates of evaluative appraisals of central business district scenes. Landscape and Planning Research, 14 ,117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nasar, J. L. (1988a). Perception and evaluation of housing scenes. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Research, theory and application (pp. 275–289). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Nasar, J. L. (1988b). Urban scenes: Editor–s introduction. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and applications (pp. 257–259). New York : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Nasar, J. L., Julian, D., Buchman, S., Humphreys, D., Mrohaly, M. (1983). The emotional quality of scenes and observation points: A look at prospect and refuge. Landscape Planning, 10 ,355–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nasar, J. L., Zaff, B., Dunworth, L. A., Duran, J.,& Rezoski, A. (1987, August). House style and meaning. Paper presented at the 95th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York.Google Scholar
  59. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4332 (1976).Google Scholar
  60. Oostendorp, A. (1978). The identification and interpretation of dimensions underlying aesthetic behavior in the daily urban environment. Doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto. Dissertation Abstracts International ,40(028), 990.Google Scholar
  61. Oostendorp, A.,& Berlyne, D. E. (1978). Dimensions in the perception of architecture: Identification and interpretation of dimensions of similarity. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 19 ,73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G.,& Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  63. Pearlman, K. T. (1988). Aesthetic regulation and the courts. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and application (pp. 476–492). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Purcell, A. T. (1986). Environmental perception and affect: A schema discrepancy model. Environment and Behavior, 18 ,3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity and leadership: Histiometric inquiries. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Smith, G. F.,& Dorfman, D. D. (1975). The effect of stimulus uncertainty on the relationship between frequency of exposure and liking. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 31 ,150–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sonnenfeld, J. (1966). Variable values in the space and landscape: An inquiry into the nature of environmental necessity. Journal of Social Issues, 4 ,71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. South worth, M. (1969). The sonic environment of cities. Environment and Behavior, 1 ,49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tuttle, P. (1983). Suburban fantasies. Unpublished master–s thesis, School of Architecture, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
  71. Ulrich, R. (1973). Scenery and the shopping trip: The roadside environment as a factor in route choice. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dissertation Abstracts International ,35(01A), 346.Google Scholar
  72. Ulrich, R. (1981). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman& J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research: Vol. 6. Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  73. Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window influences recovery from surgery. Science, 224 ,420–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ward, L. M.,& Russell, J. A. (1981). The psychological representation of molar physical environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110 ,121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Whyte, W. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.Google Scholar
  76. Winkel, G., Malek, R.,& Thiel, P. (1970). A study of human response to selected roadside environments. In H. Sanoff& S. Cohn (Eds.), Proceedings ofEDRA (pp. 224,–240). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  77. Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman& J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 37–86). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wohlwill, J. F. (1982). The visual impact of development in coastal zone areas. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 9 ,225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wohlwill, J. F. (1983). The concept of nature: A psychologist–s view. In I. Altman& J. F. Wohlwül (Eds.), Human behavior and the environment: Advances in theory and research: Vol. 6. Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 5–37). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  80. Wohlwül, J. F.,& Kohn, I. (1973). The environment as experienced by the migrant: An adaptation-level view. Respresentative Research in Social Psychology, 4 ,35–164.Google Scholar
  81. Woodcock, D. M. (1982). A functionalist approach to environmental preference. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dissertation Abstracts International ,43(028), 515.Google Scholar
  82. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G.,& Evans, S. W. (1983). A lifespan development study of landscape assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3 ,115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zube, E. H., Vining, J., Law, C. S.,&Bechtel, R. B. (1985). Perceived urban residential quality: A cross-cultural bimodal study. Environment and Behavior, 17 ,327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack L. Nasar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of City and Regional PlanningThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations