Advertisement

Thinking about Home Environments

A Conceptual Framework
  • Amos Rapoport
Part of the Human Behavior and Environment book series (HUBE, volume 8)

Abstract

It is difficult to think about environments. Because theory and explicit conceptual frameworks are scarce, the numerous environment-behavior relations (EBR) studies have not been cumulative; indeed their very number has become counterproductive. In the case of home environments there is a particularly daunting amount of diverse and unintegrated work.

Keywords

Environmental Quality Housing Market York Time Home Environment Habitat Selection 
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. Ahlbrandt, R. S., and Brophy, P. C. Management—An important element of the housing environment. Environment and Behavior, 1976, 8 (4), 502–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altman, I., and Chemers, M. M. Culture and environment. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks Cole, 1980. American Behavioral Scientist. (Special issue, Patterns of Cultural Choice),1983, 26, 4. Anderson, J. R., and Moore, C. K. A study of object language in residential areas,1972. (Mimeographed)Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, L. M., Mulligan, B. E., Goodman, L. S., and Regen, H. Z. Effects of sounds on preferences for outdoor settings. Environment and Behavior, 1983, 15 (5), 539–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appleton, J. The experience of landscape. London: Wiley, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. Appleyard, D., and Lintell, M. The environmental quality of city streets: the residents’ viewpoint. American Institute of Planners Journal, 1972, 38 (2), 84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arreola, D. D. Fences as landscape taste: Tucson’s barrios. Journal of Cultural Geography, 1981, 2 (1), 96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Australia Bulletin. Australian aboriginal groups go back to their traditional bush homelands, 1978, 42, 8.Google Scholar
  8. Backler, A. L. A behavioral study of location change in upper class residential areas (the Detroit example). Bloomington: University of Indiana, Department of Geography Monograph Series 5, 1974.Google Scholar
  9. Bagby, D. G. The effects of traffic flow on residential property values. American Planning Association Journal, 1980, 46 (3), 88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baltimore City Planning Commission. The design of neighborhood parks. Baltimore: Department of Planning, 1977.Google Scholar
  11. Barnett, P. M. The Worcester three-decker: A study in the perception of form. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  12. Barnett, R. The libertarian suburb: Deliberate disorder. Landscape, 1977, 22 (3), 44–48.Google Scholar
  13. Barrett, F. The search process in residential location. Environment and Behavior, 1976, 8 (2), 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beattie, N. J. Perceived environmental quality: The use of linear models to approximate the environmental evaluation process. In R. Thorne and S. Arden (Eds.), People and the manmade environment. Sydney: Department of Architecture, University of Sydney, 1980, pp. 414–425.Google Scholar
  15. Bechtel, R. B. The public housing environment: A few surprises. In W. J. Mitchell (Ed.), Environmental design research and practice (EDRA 3). Los Angeles: UCLA, 1972, pp. 13–1–1–13–1–9.Google Scholar
  16. Beck, R. J., and Teasdale, P. User generated program for lowrise multiple dwelling housing: Summary of a research project. Montreal: Centre de Recherche et d’Innovations Urbaines, Universite de Montreal, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. Becker, F. D. User participation, personalization and environmental meaning: Three field studies. Ithaca: Program in Urban and Regional Studies, Cornell University, 1977.Google Scholar
  18. Beckley, R. M. A comparison of Milwaukee’s Central City residential areas and contemporary development standards: An exploration of issues related to bringing the area up to “standard.” Milwaukee: Urban Research Center, University of Milwaukee, 1977.Google Scholar
  19. Better homes: Selling dreams. New York Times, October 22, 1981.Google Scholar
  20. Bishop, J. Will the real Milton Keynes please stand up Paper presented at the British Associa- tion for the Advancement of Science, annual meeting (Section E5), Aug. 22–26, 1983.Google Scholar
  21. Borukhov, E., Ginsberg, Y., and Werczberger, E. Housing prices and housing preferences in Israel. Urban Studies, 1978, 15 (2), 187–200.Google Scholar
  22. Britten, J. R. What is a satisfactory house? A report of some nonscholars’ views. Garston: Buildings Research Establishment Current Paper, 1977.Google Scholar
  23. Burby, R. J. III, and Weiss, S. F. New communities USA. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1976. Child-free living. New York Times, April 13, 1982.Google Scholar
  24. Co-op garden: Eyesore or source of pride? Milwaukee Journal, November 5, 1981. Cooper, C. Easter Hill Village. New York: The Free Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  25. Cooper-Marcus, C. The emotional content of house/self relationships. In S. Weidemann (Ed.), Priorities for environmental design research (EDRA 8 ). Washington, D.C.: EDRA, 1978, p. 419.Google Scholar
  26. Csikszentmihalyi, M., and Rochberg-Halton, E. The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cullen, I., Hammond, S., and Haimes, E. Employment and mobility in inner urban areas—An interpretive study. London: University College, Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, 1980.Google Scholar
  28. Developing homes for midlife. New York Times,April 16, 1982.Google Scholar
  29. Disputed Park Ave. deli gets ready for opening. New York Times,April 6, 1984. Donaldson, S. The suburban myth. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. Douglas, M., and Isherwood, B. The world of goods. New York: Basic Books, 1979. Downtown becoming childless ghetto. Toronto Star,October 17, 1979.Google Scholar
  30. Downtown Los Angeles: The new settlers. New York Times, April 12, 1984.Google Scholar
  31. Duncan, J. S. Landscape taste as a symbol of group identity. Geographical Review, 1973, 63, 334–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Duncan, J. S., and Duncan, N. G. Residential landscapes and social worlds: A case study in Hyderabad. Andhra Pradesh. In D. Sopher (Ed.), An exploration of India. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980, pp. 271–286.Google Scholar
  33. Elderly choose retirement living. New York Times,April 6, 1984.Google Scholar
  34. Ellis, R. M. Real estate investment analysis. Report by Caldwell Banker Co., 1976. ( Mimeographed )Google Scholar
  35. Ermuth, F. Residential satisfaction and urban environmental preferences (Geographical Monographs 3 ). Downsview, Ont.: Atkinson College, York University, 1974.Google Scholar
  36. Filp, J., Fuentes, E., Donoso, S., and Martinic, S. Environmental perception of mountain ecosystems in central Chile: An exploratory study. Human Ecology,1983, 11(3), 345351.Google Scholar
  37. Flachsbart, P. G. Residential site planning and perceived densities. American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Urban Planning and Design Division, 1979, 105, 103–117.Google Scholar
  38. Foddy, W. H. The use of common residential area open space in Australia. Ekistics, 1977, 43, 81–81.Google Scholar
  39. Francescato, G., Weidemann, S., Anderson, J. R., and Chenoweth, R. Residents’ satisfaction in HUD-assisted housing: Design and management factors. Champaign-Urbana: Housing Research and Development Program, University of Illinois, 1979.Google Scholar
  40. Furnishings, momentos reflect couple’s life. Milwaukee Journal,March 25, 1984.Google Scholar
  41. Gale, D. E. Middle class resettlement in older urban neighborhoods. American Planning Association Journal, 1979, 45 (3), 299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gardening rates high in poll. Milwaukee Journal,March 27, 1977.Google Scholar
  43. Goldberger, P. Transformed houses of the working class. New York Times, Oct. 22, 1981. Goldhaber, M. K., Houts, P. S., and DiSabella, R. Moving after crisis. Environment and behavior, 1983, 15 (1), 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Golledge, R. G., and Rushton, G. (Eds.), Spatial choice and spatial behavior. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  45. Grenell, P. Planning for invisible people: Some consequences of bureaucratic values and practices. In J. F. C. Turner and R. Fichter (Eds.), Freedom to build. New York: Macmillan, 1972, pp. 95–121.Google Scholar
  46. Hargreaves, P. L., and Robillard, D. A. A comparison of two high-income group residential choices in Milwaukee. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, 1979.Google Scholar
  47. Hayward, D. G. An overview of psychological concepts of home. In R. L. Brauer (Ed.), Priorities for environmental design research (EDRA 8) (Part 2—Workshop Summaries). Washington, D.C.: EDRA, 1978, pp. 418–419.Google Scholar
  48. Hempel, D. J. The implications of housing choice for community planning. Paper given at conference on Changing Values and Social Trends, British and American Marketing Associations, Oxford, June, 1974. ( Mimeographed )Google Scholar
  49. Hempel, D. J., and Ayal, I. Transition rates and consumption systems: A conceptual framework for analyzing buyer behavior in housing markets. In A. G. Woodside, J. D. Sheth, and P. D. Bennett, (Eds.), Consumer and industrial buying behavior. New York: Elsevier—North Holland, 1977, pp. 201–218.Google Scholar
  50. Hester, R. T. Environmental autobiography: A tool for design education, programming and research. In R. R. Stough and A. Wandersman (Eds.), Optimizing environments: Research practice and policy (EDRA 11 ). Washington, D.C.: EDRA, 1980, p. 164.Google Scholar
  51. Hole, W. V. Local housing strategies. Building Research Establishment News, 1977, 40, 2–5.Google Scholar
  52. Hole, W. W., and Taylor, J. R. B. The housing needs of single young people and the use of older properties. Building Research Establishment News, Current Paper, 1978.Google Scholar
  53. How, R. F. C., and Russell, A. D. Obsolete housing. Building Research Establishment News, 1980, 51, 4–5.Google Scholar
  54. Howard, W. A., Herold, L. C., Drisscoll, L. B., and Laperriere, L. R. Residential environmental quality in Denver utilizing remote sensing techniques. Denver: University of Denver, Department of Geography, Publications in Geography, Technical Paper No. 74–1, 1974.Google Scholar
  55. Humphreys, J. S., and Whitelaw, J. S. Immigrants in an unfamiliar environment: Location decision-making under constrained circumstances. Geografiska Annaler Series B., 1979, 6 (1), 8–18.Google Scholar
  56. Increasing numbers of aged return north from Florida. New York Times,March 15, 1984. Is living room on way out? Milwaukee Journal,November 21, 1984.Google Scholar
  57. Jaanus, H., and Nieuwenhuijse, B. Determinants of housing preference in a small town. In A. H. Esser and B. B. Greenbie (Eds.), Design for community and privacy. New York: Plenum Press, 1978, pp. 525–274.Google Scholar
  58. Jones, C. Housing: The element of choice. Urban Studies,1979, 16(2), 197–204. Journal of Social Issues. (Special Issue, Residential mobility: Theory, research and policy),1983, 38(3).Google Scholar
  59. Kaplan, S. Where cognition and affect meet: A theoretical analysis of preference. In P. Bart, A. Chen, and G. Francescato (Eds.), Knowledge for design (EDRA 13 ). Washington, D.C.: EDRA, 1982, pp. 183–188.Google Scholar
  60. Kiecolt, K. J., and Nigg, J. M. Mobility and perception of a hazardous environment. Environment and Behavior, 1982, 14 (2), 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. King, A. D. Colonial urban development (Culture, social power and environment). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976. (a)Google Scholar
  62. King, A. D. Values, science and settlement: A case study in environmental control. In A. Rapoport (Ed.), The mutual interaction of people and their built environment. The Hague: Mouton, 1976, pp. 365–390. (b)Google Scholar
  63. Kron, J. Home Psych. The social psychology of home and decoration. New York: Potter, 1983.Google Scholar
  64. Ladd, F. C. Residential history: A personal element in planning and environmental design. Urban Planning, Policy Analysis and Administration (Policy Note P76–2), Department of City and Regional Planning, Harvard University, May, 1976. Land Use Digest,1984, 17(4).Google Scholar
  65. Lawrence, R. J. Meaning and the built environment: Spatial and temporal perspectives through the simulation of domestic space. In R. Thorne and S. Arden (Eds.), People and the man-made environment. Sydney: Department of Architecture, University of Sydney, 1980.Google Scholar
  66. Lawton, M. P., Moss, M., and Moles, E. The suprapersonal neighborhood context of older people: Age heterogeneity and well-being. Environment and Behavior, 1984, 16 (1), 89109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lee, T. Public housing, relocation and dislocation. Town Planning Review, 1978, 49 (1), 8492.Google Scholar
  68. Lipton, S. G. Evidence of central city revival. American Institute of Planners Journal, 1977, 42(2), 136. Living. Austin, Tex., Sept./Nov. 1980. Living. Houston, Tex., Jan./Feb. 1984. Living. Denver, Colo., March/April, 1984.Google Scholar
  69. McLaughlin, H. Density: The architect’s urban choices and attitudes. Architectural Record, Feb. 1976, pp. 95–100.Google Scholar
  70. Metcalf, J. Standards for older housing and its surroundings. Building Research Establishment News, 1977, 40, 6–9.Google Scholar
  71. Michelson, W. Man and his urban environment: A sociological approach. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970.Google Scholar
  72. Michelson, W. Environmental choice, human behavior and residential satisfaction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  73. Michelson, W. Long and short range criteria for housing choice and environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 1980, 36 (3), 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Michelson, W., and Reed, P. The theoretical status and operational usage of lifestyle in environmental research. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, Research Paper No. 36, Sept. 1970.Google Scholar
  75. Middle class dream fulfilled. Milwaukee Journal,March 18, 1979.Google Scholar
  76. Mitchell, A. The nine American lifestyles. New York: Macmillan, 1983.Google Scholar
  77. Moore, D. D. At home in America (Second generation New York Jews). New York: Columbia University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  78. Motz, A. B. Community action and airport noise: Small communities and the Ben Gurion International Airport. Selected Papers on the Environment in Israel, No. 11 (Publication No. 83–03, Jerusalem Environmental Protection Service) 1984, pp. 9–35.Google Scholar
  79. Nathanson, C. A., Newman, J. S., Moen, E., and Hiltabiddle, H. Moving plans among residents of a new town. American Institute of Planners Journal, 1976, 42 (3), 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Newman, S. J., and Duncan, G. J. Residential problems, dissatisfaction and mobility. American Planning Association Journal, 1979, 45 (2), 154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Noble, J. Contingency housing. Architects’ Journal, October 24, 1973, pp. 976–1000. Norcross, C. Townhouses and condominiums: Residents’ likes and dislikes. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1973.Google Scholar
  82. Number of vacancies at projects increasing. Milwaukee Journal,February 21, 1984.Google Scholar
  83. Oliver, P., Davis, I., and Bentley, I. Dunroamin’ (The suburban scene and its enemies). London: Barrie and Jenkins, 1981.Google Scholar
  84. Only a heartbeat from the Northwest frontier. Times (London), October 2, 1982.Google Scholar
  85. Phillips, J. W. Housing and the perception of density. Unpublished masters thesis, Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, 1982.Google Scholar
  86. Preston, V., and Taylor, S. M. Personal construct theory and residential choice. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 1981, 71 (3), 437–451.Google Scholar
  87. Proposition M: Minorities helped defeat measure. Los Angeles Times, November 10, 1983. Rainwater, L. Fear and house-as-haven in the lower class. American Institute of Planners Journal, 1966 32 (1), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rapoport, A. The personal element in housing: An argument for open-ended design. RIBA Journal, July 1968, pp. 302–307.Google Scholar
  89. Rapoport, A. House form and culture. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. (a) Rapoport, A. The pueblo and the hogan: A cross-cultural comparison of two responses to an environment. In P. Oliver (Ed.), Shelter and society. London: Barrie and Radcliffe, 1969, pp. 66–79. (b)Google Scholar
  90. Rapoport, A. An approach to the study of environmental quality. In M. Sanoff and S. Cohen (Eds.) EDRA 1, Raleigh, N.C., 1969. (c)Google Scholar
  91. Rapoport, A. People and environments. In A. Rapoport (Ed.), Australia as human setting. Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1972, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
  92. Rapoport, A. Urban design for the elderly: Some preliminary consideration. In T. O. Byerts (Ed.), Environmental research and aging. Washington, D.C.: Gerontological Society, 1974.Google Scholar
  93. Rapoport, A. Towards a redefinition of density. Environment and Behavior,1975, 7(2), 133158. (a)Google Scholar
  94. Rapoport, A. An “anthropological” approach to environmental design research. In B. Honikman (Ed.), Responding to social change,(EDRA 6). Stroudsburg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1975, pp. 145–151. (b)Google Scholar
  95. Rapoport, A. Socio-cultural aspects of man—environment studies. In A. Rapoport (Ed.), The mutual interaction of people and their built environment. The Hague: Mouton, 1976, pp. 7–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rapoport, A. Human aspects of urban forum. Oxford: Pergamon, 1977.Google Scholar
  97. Rapoport, A. The environment as an enculturating medium. In S. Weideman and J. Anderson (Eds.), Priorities for environmental design research (EDRA 8). Washington, D.C.: EDRA, 1978. (a)Google Scholar
  98. Rapoport, A. Nomadism as a man—environment system. Environment and Behavior,1978, 10(2), 215–146. (b)Google Scholar
  99. Rapoport, A. An approach to designing Third World environments. Third World Planning Review, 1979, 1 (1), 23–40.Google Scholar
  100. Rapoport, A. Cross-cultural aspects of environmental design. In I. Altman, A. Rapoport, J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research: Vol. 4. Culture and environment. New York: Plenum Press, 1980, pp. 7–46. (a)Google Scholar
  101. Rapoport, A. Towards a cross-culturally valid definition of housing. In R. R. Stough and A. Wandersman (Eds.), Optimizing environments (Research practice and theory) EDRA 11. Washington, D.C.: EDRA, 1980. (b)Google Scholar
  102. Rapoport, A. Preference, habitat selection and urban housing. Journal of Social Issues,1980, 36(3), 118–134. (c)Google Scholar
  103. Rapoport, A. Culture, site layout and housing. Architecture Association Quarterly,1980, 12(1), 4–7. (d)Google Scholar
  104. Rapoport, A. Vernacular architecture and the cultural determinants of form. In A. D. King (Ed.), Buildings and society (Essay on the social development of the built environment). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980, pp. 283–305. (e)Google Scholar
  105. Rapoport, A. Neighborhood homogeneity or heterogeneity. Architecture and Behavior, 1980/1981, 1, 1.Google Scholar
  106. Rapoport, A. Some thought on units of settlement. Ekistics,1981, 48(29), 447453. (a)Google Scholar
  107. Rapoport, A. Identity and environment: A cross-cultural perspective. In J. S. Duncan (Ed.), Housing and identity: Cross-cultural perspectives. London: Croom Helm, 1981, pp. 6–35. (b)Google Scholar
  108. Rapoport, A. The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982. (a)Google Scholar
  109. Rapoport, A. Urban design and human systems: On ways of relating buildings to urban fabric. In P. Laconte, J. Gibson, and A. Rapoport (Eds.), Human and energy systems in urban planning. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982, pp. 161–184. (b)Google Scholar
  110. Rapoport, A. The effect of environment on behavior. In J. B. Calhoun (Ed.), Environment and population (Problems of adaptation). New York: Praeger, 1983, pp. 200–201.Google Scholar
  111. Rapoport, A. Development, culture change and supportive design. Habitat International, 1983, 7(5/6), 249–268. (b)Google Scholar
  112. Rapoport, A. Debating architectural alternatives. RIBA Transactions, 1983, 3, 105–109. (c) Rapoport, A. Culture and the urban order. In J. Agnew, J. Mercer, and D. Sopher (Eds.), The city in cultural context. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1984.Google Scholar
  113. Rappaport, R. A. Ecology, meaning and religion. Richmond, Calif.: North Atlantic Books, 1979.Google Scholar
  114. Reed, P. Situated interaction: Normative and non-normative bases of social behavior in two urban settings. Urban Life and Culture, Jan. 1974, 2, pp. 460–487.Google Scholar
  115. Research Report. MIT—Harvard Joint Center for Urban Studies, Oct. 1979, 20, 1–2. Residents disagree on bicycle path. Milwaukee Sentinel, March 1, 1978.Google Scholar
  116. Retirees from state keep busy in Eden. Milwaukee Journal,April 15, 1979.Google Scholar
  117. Return to bush is only part-time. Australian,May 25, 1982.Google Scholar
  118. Roberts, C. Stressful experiences in urban places: Some implications for design. Paper presented at EDRA 8, April, 1977.Google Scholar
  119. Rossi, P. H. Why families move. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1980.Google Scholar
  120. Rowley, G., and Wilson, S. An analysis of housing and travel preferences. Environment and Planning, 1975, 7 (2), 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Royse, D. C. Social inferences via environmental cues. Unliublished doctoral dissertation, MIT Department of Planning, Cambridge, 1969.Google Scholar
  122. Sanoff, H. Search. A collection of games. Raleigh, N.C.: Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State University/U.S. Department of Agriculture, May, 1971.Google Scholar
  123. Sauer, L. Differing fates for two nearly identical housing developments. American Institute of Architects Journal, Feb. 1977, p. 126.Google Scholar
  124. Schroeder, J. T. The impact of tree removal on neighborhoods. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, 1976.Google Scholar
  125. Schwartz, B. (Ed.), The changing face of the suburbs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  126. Series on neighborhoods. Milwaukee Journal,December 7, 1980.Google Scholar
  127. Smit, B., and Joseph, A. Trade-off analysis of preferences for urban services. Environment and Behavior1982, 14(2), 238–258.Google Scholar
  128. Smith, B. N. P., and Thorns, D. C. Housing need and demand characteristics. Wellington, New Zealand: National Housing Commission, Research Paper 78 /1, 1978.Google Scholar
  129. Smith, B. N. P., and Thorns, D. C. Constraints, choices and housing environments. Wellington, New Zealand: National Housing Commission, Research Paper 79 /1, 1979.Google Scholar
  130. So what’s wrong with little boxes? Times (London), September 15, 1982.Google Scholar
  131. Sudjic, D. The people’s choice. Sunday Times Magazine, London, Oct. 17, 1982, pp. 70–73. Taylor, N. The village in the city. London: Temple Smith, 1973.Google Scholar
  132. Taylor, R. B. Perception of density (Individual differences?). Environment and Behavior, 1981, 13 (1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Thorne, R., Diesner, M., Munro-Clark, M., and Hall, R. Consumer Survey of Housing Demand—Sydney: 18–39 Year Age Group. Ian Buchan Fell Research Project on Housing, Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney, 1980.Google Scholar
  134. Thorns, D. C. The role of the family life-cycle in residential mobility. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, C.nter for Urban and Regional Studies, Working Paper No. 69, 1980. Three different styles of retirement life. New York Times, April 12, 1984.Google Scholar
  135. Tipple, G. Design a house game. Town Planning Review, 1977, 48(2), 141–148. Tranquil town is expensive. New York Times, October 20, 1983.Google Scholar
  136. Ulrich, R. S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research. Vol. 6. Behavior and the natural environment. New York: Plenum Press, 1983, pp. 85–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Varady, D. P. Housing problems and mobility plans among the elderly. American Planning Association Journal, 1980, 46 (3), 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Vayda, A. P. Progressive contextualization: Methods for research in human ecology. Human Ecology, 1983, 11 (3), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Watson, M. K., and Winchester, D. R. Housing, social status and neighborhood gestalts. New Zealand Geographer, 1981, 37 (2), 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Webb, S. D. Mental health in rural and urban environments. Ekistics, 1978, 45(266), 37–42. Weichart, P. Assessment of the natural environment—A determinant of residential preference? Urban Ecology, 1983, 7 (4), 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Weisner, T. S., and Weibel, J. C. Home environments and family lifestyles in California. Environment and Behavior, 1981, 13 (4), 417–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Wheeler, L. Behavioral and social aspects of the Santa Cruz Riverside Project. Man–Environment Systems, 1977, 7(4), 203–205.Google Scholar
  143. Whitbread, M. Two trade-off experiments to evaluate the quality of residential environments. Urban Studies, 1978, 15 (2), 149–166.Google Scholar
  144. Whitelaw, J. S. Migration patterns and residential selection in Auckland, New Zealand. Australian Geographical Studies, 1971, 9, 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Zeisel, J. Symbolic meaning of space and the physical dimension of social relations: A case study of sociological research as the basis for architectural planning. In J. Walton and D. Cams (Eds.), Cities in change: Studies on the urban condition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1973, pp. 252–263.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amos Rapoport
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureUniversity of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations