Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Plants, complexity, and pleasure in urban and suburban environments

  • Published:
Environmental psychology and nonverbal behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes results of an experiment investigating the role of plant materials in affecting human response to the environment. Six pairs of photographic slides, representing five different urban or suburban landscape contexts (residential, industrial, urban commercial, stirp high way, and park) were selected—one without plants and one with plants. Other variables were held constant for each pair of slides. Groups of 10 to 15 subjects evaluated each slide for pleasure and complexity. For each pair of slides, scores of pleasure and complexity were compared using thet-test for independence of means. Results indicate that while plants generally increase pleasurable response to all landscape contexts, a hypothesized inverted U-shaped function between pleasure and complexity across the five landscape contexts was not adequately supported. The relationship between symbolic/associational affects and complexity affects of plants is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alluisi, E. A. Information and uncertainty: The metrics of communication. In K. B. De Greene (Ed.),Systems psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, A., & Davis, G. E. Spatial and social aspects of crowding perception.Environment and Behavior, 1976,8, 527–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E. Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1963,17, 274–290.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coss, Richard G. The cut-off hypothesis: Its relevance to the design of public places.Man-Environment Systems, 1973,3, 417–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, H. I. Looking time as a function of stimulus variables and individual differences.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966,22, 423–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckbo, G.Landscape for living. New York, Dodge, 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J.The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, Seymour M. The social benefits of trees in cities.Recreation Canada, 1977,35 (1), 29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herschberger, R. G. Predicting the meaning of architecture. In J. Lang et al. (Eds.),Designing for human behavior. Stroudsburg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iltis, H. H. Down the technological fix.Landscape Architecture, 1973,63, 361–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material.Perception and Psychophysics, 1972,12, 354–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, K.Site planning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A.An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munsinger, H., & Kessen, W. Uncertainty, structure, and preference.Psychological Monographs, 1964,78 (9, Whole No. 586).

  • Rapoport, A. Some aspects of the organization of urban space.Response to Environment, 1969,18, 122–139. School of Design, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A. Toward a redefinition of density.Environment and Behavior, 1975,7 (2), 133–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A., & Hawkes, R. The perception of urban complexity.AIP Journal, 1970,36, 106–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinette, G. O.Plants/people/environmental quality. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of the Interior, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thayer, R. L. Visual ecology: Revitalizing the aesthetics of landscape architecture.Landscape, 1976,20, 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlwill, J. F. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity.Perception and Psychophysics, 1968,5, 307–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlwill, J. F. The environment is not in the head! In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.),Environmental design research, Vol. 2, 4th International EDRA Conf. Stroudsberg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zion, R. L.Trees for architecture and the landscape. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., & Anderson, T. W. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the Northeast. In E. H. Zube et al. (Eds.),Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources. Stroudsburg, Penna.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Division of Environmental Planning and Management, University of California, Davis

    Robert L. Thayer Jr.

  2. the Environmental Division, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts

    Brian G. Atwood

Authors
  1. Robert L. Thayer Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian G. Atwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thayer, R.L., Atwood, B.G. Plants, complexity, and pleasure in urban and suburban environments. J Nonverbal Behav 3, 67–76 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01135604

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01135604

Keywords

Search

Navigation