How Do Psychological Factors Influence The Design of Landscape by Luc Jones

AD6603_Cultural Context: Creativity & Philosophy_Luc Jones_S1405409_001_Reseach Paper

AD6603 How do Psychological Factors Influence the Design of Landscape? Luc Jones Contents

Introduction

What are Psychological Factors and how do they influence people in general within an environment

Understanding the impact landscape has on the users behaviour and perception

Design impact and social interaction

Conclusions

References

Bibliography

Assignment: AD6603 How do Psychological Factors Impact the Design of Landscape? Module Tutor: Robin Snowdon Student No. S1405409

Luc Jones â&#x20AC;&#x201C; S1405409 University of Gloucestershire

AD6603_Cultural Context: Creativity & Philosophy_Luc Jones_S1405409_001_Reseach Paper

01 Introduction Freud believed that people could be cured by making conscious their unconscious thoughts and motivations, thus gaining insight (Mcleod. 2007). Freud was a pioneer for psychoanalysis, which is the study of biology in order to understand what impact that will have on human behaviour. Psychologists and researchers have followed the ideas proposed by Freud and applied them to their own specific area of study. This paper will be focused on Environmental Psychology, which is “the study of the molar relationship between behaviour and experience and the built and natural environments” (Bell et al. 2001 p 5-10). Environmental Psychology is an important theory behind design for the built environment as it takes into account the impact of thoughts, feelings, health, and behaviour of the human user. Therefore, this research will formulate a rationale and understanding of how the designer can influence the mental processes of the user. Whilst at the same time it is important to understand how the psychological factors proposed in this paper can be manipulated by the designer and what methods the designer can use in order to improve the mental wellbeing of the people who use their environments. It is important to note that the term ‘environment’ will be used in reference to the experience one feels when subjected to a space, for example a classroom is an environment. Currently there has been evidence that a number of professionals practicing in landscape architecture put the welfare of the user at the summit of their design values as found in Thompson’s 1999 ‘Ecology, Community and Delight’. Therefore, this research paper is intended to further inform prospective landscape architects of the importance that a design and research relationship can have in order to create positive affects on the mental processes. In order to properly understand the dense psychological theories and jargon, the first part of this paper will provide a brief introduction to the psychological factors that a person experiences when submerged in an environment and what affects may occur, whether that be negative or positive. Furthermore, what will those factors do to a person’s welfare, behaviour and perceptions? Another important topic leading onto the way design impacts the user, is the question; are these behaviours and emotions innate or learned? If the behaviours are innate, then the designer cannot have an impact, however, if they are learned then the designer can teach the user positive emotions, behaviours and thoughts through design. This comfortably leads onto the second part of this paper, where the theories and ideas discussed in part one are applied to the experience of landscape. Finally in the third and final discussion of this paper, the previous two parts will have provided sufficient evidence and understanding of the psychological processes of a person in an environment, to allow for the discussion of how they can be applied to the design process. Furthermore, it will be briefly discussed how the psychological processes discussed in part 02 of this paper can be applied personally to the designer. The information in this paper will be based upon the results and conclusions drawn from a diverse range of past and present psychologists, sociologists, researchers, environmental psychologists, behaviour annalists and authors. The usage of books based on psychology and environment behaviour has provided sufficient information to illustrate the mental processes, behaviours, perceptions a person will experience. Journals have been sourced through desktop research to provide arguments relating to design values, effects, and models that will be discussed in all three parts of this research.

How do Psychological Factors Impact the Design of Landscape?

Luc Jones – S1405409

AD6603_Cultural Context: Creativity & Philosophy_Luc Jones_S1405409_001_Reseach Paper

02 What are Psychological Factors and how do they influence people in general within an environment?

It is important to this study to understand what exactly are the mental processes a person can experience in an environment, and what behaviours, feelings and emotions can be caused by the environment they are in. This part of the research looks to provide an introduction to these biological processes and psychological behaviours to understand how they affect a person in an environment situation. As discussed previously Environmental Psychology provides the means to study the behaviours in their physical environment. “Research has found that the environment influences and constraints behaviour, but it also leads to changes in the environment.” (Bell et al. 2001, p 5-10). This states clearly that research supports the idea that an environment can influence a person’s behaviour, and the behaviour it self can lead to changes. Furthermore, research has led to the ability for the negative affects inside an environment to be reduced. There are three key psychological factors that affect a person’s mental processes as proposed by Jacobs (2011) in the ‘Psychology of the Visual Landscape’. These are:

2.1

Biological Factors

‘Environmental Psychology’ (Bell et al. 2001) originally formulated five theoretical perspectives each proposed by individual Psychologists, and biologists to best illustrate the biological factors later proposed by Jacobs. i.

ii. iii. iv. v.

2.2

Arousal: First specified by Hebb, (1972) who stated arousal is, the effect of exposure to environmental stimulation is increased arousal leading to biological increases such as heart rate, adrenaline, blood pressure and respiration rate. Arousal can also lead to behaviourally increased motor activity (Hebb, 1972). Environmental Load: The second of the five perspectives stated by Bell et al. (2001) as dealing with the amount of environmental stimuli that we can handle before a person becomes over stimulated. Adaption Level: First presented by Wohlwill (1974) is the tendency a person has to quickly adapt. Behaviour Constraint: The penultimate perspective states that a person loses control and then perhaps experiences a sense of helplessness. (Proshanksy 1972; Altman 1973). Stress: The final theory was initially proposed by Seyle (1956), who proposed that stress consisted of elements such as noise and crowding described as ‘stressors’. Cultural Factors

Cultural factors are made up of, perceptions, construals, thoughts, feelings and behaviours. (Lehman et al. 2004). Jacobs refers to his earlier work by illustrating the effect cultural factors have on people by stating, “an individual, living in a culture is exposed to a perpetual stream of public expressions that might influence his thoughts about the object the public expression expound on.”(Jacobs, 2006 p6)

2.3

Individual Factors

Individual factors refer to the meanings a place has to a person. Research has shown that people develop networks of place meanings, as shown in Tuan’s (1980) Sense of Place work where he suggests during the course of life, people give meaning to particular places and become attached to places. This is a rather broad concept; therefore, to simplify the creation of meaning through mental process is by ways of using a places, aesthetic values, feelings, emotional attachment, memories, and knowledge of a place (Jacobs 2011). This is the process of creating a network of meaning as suggested by Tuan (1980).

How do Psychological Factors Impact the Design of Landscape?

Luc Jones – S1405409

AD6603_Cultural Context: Creativity & Philosophy_Luc Jones_S1405409_001_Reseach Paper

2.4 The Impact on Health and wellbeing All of the factors listed above contribute to the way people feel in an environment. These feelings can most definitely have a biological impact on the health and wellbeing of a person. This suggests therefore that health and wellbeing should play a pivotal role in the design of landscapes in order to reduce the negative stressors as stated in the biological factors (p3, 2.1, v). Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) expressed the idea of naturalness by describing nature as a content variable with restorative and aesthetic value. This therefore, poses the question do we have an innate predisposition towards a natural landscape? Ulrich (1984) found ties to improvement in health and wellbeing in patients recovering from surgery that had a view of a natural landscape, as opposed to those who had a view of a brick wall. To support this Kaplan (1984) also said that man has an evolutionary preference to nature over what is man made. Therefore, it is important to mitigate against the stressors that an environment can cause, in order to in directly affect the biological factors in humans in particular the stress and arousal theory (p3, 2.1, i & v).

Biological Factors Cultural Factors Individual Factors

Landscape Physical Mental Process Figure 1 – The model proposed by Maarten Jacobs illustrate the way psychological (2011) to best factors influence what he calls a ‘Psychological Landscape’.

How do Psychological Factors Impact the Design of Landscape?

Psychological Landscape

Luc Jones – S1405409

AD6603_Cultural Context: Creativity & Philosophy_Luc Jones_S1405409_001_Reseach Paper

03 Understanding the impact landscape has on the user behaviour and perception Using the psychological factors discussed previously, this part aims to apply the theories to understand the environmental experience. This section will be broken down into two key elements of perception that are most common when an individual is subject to an environment. Once inside a space (1) safety is essential in order to allow a person to feel comfortable and stay within the environment. The second element is preferences through (2) place attachment. ‘Place attachment’ is a positive affect bond or association between individuals and their environment (Shumaker & Taylor, 1983). To conclude, it is essential to understand whether the designer can have an impact on these factors, therefore are they learned or innate factors? 3.1 Safety Studies have found that safety is an essential component to creating an appealing environment, and if a person feels safe they are more likely to stay and enjoy that space. This will then improve the positive mental processes. Bechtel (1997) proposed seven environmental threats to best represent how people feel in an unsafe environment: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii.

Shock and dismay Anger and outrage Feeling trapped Felling stupid Disbelief and denial Hopelessness in another Conformity

Supporting the argument that people are more inclined to safe environments would be Appleton’s (1975) ‘Prospect-Refuge’ theory. His study explained people preferences in landscape. “prospect-refuge theory argues that we derive feelings of safety and pleasure from inhabiting environments that offer both views and a sense of enclosure”(Dosen & Oswold 2016 p4). Furthermore, The ‘Prospect-Refuge’ theory has found links with the arousal theory when Berlyne (1951) suggested “that an increase of pleasure is felt when a person views a space or scene that has a degree of uncertainty or novelty about it, but if uncertainty is increased beyond that point, feelings of anxiety begin to occur” (Dosen & Oswold 2016 p4). 3.2 Preferences in Landscape through Place Attachment Whilst architects have now found ways of using Prospect Refuge to justify and dictate the design of spaces in cities, ‘place meaning’ can play its part in affecting the psychological factors of a person. Therefore, it is not just our survival value that can affect the landscape preference of a person, but also place Identity. This refers to the specific experiences and socialisation unique to that individual. (Proshanksy, 1978). This theory presents a link with Jacobs (2011) ‘Individual Factors’. Additionally Tuan’s (1980) work on place meaning, suggest identifying through place attachment can further affect secondary socialisation of those who use the environment. Secondary socialisation is the process of learning behaviours and values through ones experience. Resulting in a person associating an environment with personal meaning, this will have a positive affect on how they perceive the space. Whereas if there is a failure to attach meaning to an environment then this will cause a negative psychological experience. Which leads onto the question are these behaviours that people experience in an environment learned or innate. 3.3

Are these Behaviours Learned or Innate?

we have an innate disposition related to certain aspects of our environments (Jacobs, 2011). Furthermore, early genetic emotion research (by Darwin, Ekman, Ledoux) has demonstrated that many aspects of emotions are innate. (Jacobs, 2011). Consequently, this means that the biological factors are genetically determined, meaning they cannot be directly affected by socialisation, or the impact from the designer. It would be possible to use Appleton’s (1975) Prospect refuge theory to support this as he compares human relationships to animals,

How do Psychological Factors Impact the Design of Landscape?

Luc Jones – S1405409

AD6603_Cultural Context: Creativity & Philosophy_Luc Jones_S1405409_001_Reseach Paper

suggesting that the connection to nature is primitive. Thus can the designer then teach people to like an environment? Lynch (1960) led the way for ‘cognitive learning’ methods in the built urban environment. Therefrom, developed the idea of Environmental Cognition, which is mostly associated with way finding and how we orient ourselves around an environment. Lynch (1960) proposed five cues a person can use to learn an environment: i. ii. iii. iv. v.

Paths Edges Nodes Districts Landmarks

Whilst these present good cues for learning, O’Keefe and Nadel (1978) found that Lynch’s work had not appeared to hold up over time. Kaplan and Kaplan (1987 p3-32) stated that “Gaining Knowledge of Landscape depends on four factors: Coherence, Legibility, complexity and Mystery.” As a consequence these four factors are not biological factors (Jacobs, 2011), which means that if they are not biological, then these four factors (Proposed by Kaplan & Kaplan) can be learned. In support of this Jacobs (2006) suggests that the emotional system cannot be an adaption exercise to cognitive capacities.

04 Design Impact and Social interaction

This final part will take the ideas talked about in the last two sections and apply them to the process of design. It will provide an observation of the relationship between environment psychology and design, and the means in which the designer can influence a person’s behaviour, emotions and feelings. 4.1

Methods for design “Research from a wide range of fields including architecture, urban planning, psychology, anthropology and others indicates that physical environments can structure the ways that individuals behave and interact and that place acts on individual and group behaviour at and below level of consciousness” (Austin, 2002 p355)

The quote above by Austin (2002) best illustrates the following idea of how subconsciously design elements impact our innate predisposition to want to be surrounded by other people. “A natural landscape becomes a place – ‘a space that’s in your head’- when it is cultivated, when it constrains human activity and is constrained by it, when it focuses as a centre of felt value because, humans needs; cultural and social as well as biological are satisfied in it” (Sagoff, 1996 p 349, 358). This suggests that in order to create a place with meaning or purpose it must be cultivated. Gehl (2010) took this idea further and proposed the idea that people attract people, and attracting more people into a space will result in an improved experience of an environment. One way of attracting people would be through the introduction of ‘comfort spots’, which gives the subject a sense of ownership of a space (Gehl, 2010). In addition to this, “passive engagement is one index of psychological and behavioural aspect and it makes significant contributions to the success of a pubic space.” (Hajmirsadeghi, Shamsuddin, Foroughi, 2014 p 98-102,). Passive engagement is the idea that people like the company of others around them, creating a sense of security, even if they are not directly interacting with them. Lynch (1960) initially suggested the idea of spatial control in his book ‘Theory of good city form’. Lynch suggested five forms of spatial control; Presence, Use and Action, Appropriation, Modification, Disposition. He then concluded “control is the ability of an individual or group to gain access to, utilise, influence, gain ownership over, and attach meaning to public space” (Lynch, 1960 p130).

How do Psychological Factors Impact the Design of Landscape?

Luc Jones – S1405409

AD6603_Cultural Context: Creativity & Philosophy_Luc Jones_S1405409_001_Reseach Paper

4.2

The Research and Design Relationship

Ziesel (1984) looked at the relationship between researcher and designer, to see how they impact one another. He found that designers have a problem where they want to control the behavioural effects of the design decisions they make. They want their designs of open spaces to meet the social and psychological needs of those who use them. However, this is not easy because more often than not the design is for strangers. Ziesel goes on to quote who suggests that “the model of design has changed to satisfy the cultural, climatic, physical, and maintenance requirements”(Rappoport 1969, p1-8). Therefore, the researchers evidence on the impact of psychological factors can aid and assist the motive suggested originally by Zeisel (1984), with regards to designing for social and psychological needs, and prevent the direction Rapoport suggested the discipline was going. With this in mind “psychologies most important contributions may be an insight into the complex process of information gathering and decision making that occurs through design” (Lang 1987; Zeisel, 1981 p18-31). Nonetheless, Altman (1989) suggests that designers attend primarily to design criteria, and to particular places or settings, whereas, the researchers are more likely to stress on going behavioural processes, such as; Privacy, territoriality or personal space. 4.3

How is the Designer Influenced? “The professional identity of the designers is being transformed from those of isolated creative individuals to that of politically active professionals” (Fahriye Sancar & Baris Eyikan, 1998 p378-397)

Devlin and Nasar (1987) said, “Style influenced the architect”, meaning that their design values are primarily aimed to please the client as opposed to what is ‘biologically beneficial’, thus style is a concept that no doubt greatly impacts any designer today. Studies by numerous American researchers and psychologists (such as; Langdon 1982, Tuttle 1983, Nasar, Zaff, Dunworth, Duran & Resoski 1987) have said that stylistic preferences of architecture suggest that cues in broad stylistic categories and in specific styles may organise and give meaning to buildings and that training or exposure influences those meanings (Nasar, 1989). This suggests that designers are being taught away from their own values, and merely fulfilling the need of what is required or asked of them. Consequently, graduates will most often prefer postmodern architectures, whereas those who are trained differently may favour purely modern forms (Bell et al. 2001). Furthermore, designers may feel their values are not adequately weighed in the politicised negotiations of selecting alternatives (Bell et al. 2001). However, Thompson (1999) Talks of designers with a social conscience, and he found that landscape architects, favour wellbeing at the summit of their personal value systems. Therefore, this suggests that designers’ values have been directed to favour the welfare of the users. The same psychological factors one will experience in an environment can be applied to designers, considering the evidence shown, this will be more likely to be Cultural, and individual factors.

05 Conclusions Jacobs (2011) proposed three key psychological factors that influences a human in an environment; (1) Biological, (2) Cultural and (3) Individual. These factors, can be applied to the built landscape as well as a natural landscape. Biological Factors relate to the physiological affects, such as; blood pressure, heart rate, and adrenaline levels, which are all, triggered under the stress, load, and arousal theories. These are the main physiological factors that an environment can influence. Cultural Factors are made up of perceptions, construals, thoughts, feelings and behaviours, (Lehman et al. 2004) and the environment that an individual is exposed to will have an affect on his thoughts. (Jacobs, 2006) Finally the individual factors relate to the level of meaning an environment has to the user. Therefore, in order to have an impact the designer must develop a sense of place (Tuan, 1980). How do Psychological Factors Impact the Design of Landscape?

Luc Jones – S1405409

AD6603_Cultural Context: Creativity & Philosophy_Luc Jones_S1405409_001_Reseach Paper

“Designers, such as landscape architects, architects & urban designers play an influential role in shaping public space. Design often defines the behavioural rules of public space, communicating what is allowed and what is forbidden in open spaces.” (Francis, 1989). The landscape architect or designer can influence the Cultural and Individual factors directly. In order to do this it is important for the designer use coherence, legibility, complexity, and mystery (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1987) in order to allow the user to gain knowledge of a space. By doing this, it is more likely that a person will develop ‘place attachment’ (Shumaker & Taylor, 1983) which means that they will have associated the landscape with meaning, thus reducing the chances of negative stressors impacting the biological factors as discussed above. This can be done by cultivating a site, (Sagoff, 1996) through attracting more people in to a space, via the creation of comfort spots, (Gehl, 2010) passive engagement (Hajmirsadeghi, Shamsuddin, Foroughi, 2014) and spatial control (Lynch, 1981). To conclude, designers have a problem where they want to control the behavioural affects of the design decisions they make (Zeisel, 1984) and evidence has shown that the model for design has changed to satisfy the requirements of the clients and superiors. Furthermore, Nasar (1989) suggested that designers are being taught away from their own values, in order to fulfil the request of what is asked of them. Nevertheless, times have begun to change and the idea of designers with a social conscious has begun to evolve, (Thompson 1999). Landscape architects in particular are now holding the welfare of the user at the summit of their values, and research has shown that relationship between design and environmental psychology has had positive affects. Therefore, although this research has shown that the designer cannot have a direct affect on the biological factors in an environment, through research and collaboration the cultural and individual factors can be influenced, which means the biological factors can be influenced indirectly by reducing the negative stressors, proposed in the stress theory (Seyle, 1956), Environmental Load (Bell et al. 2001), and arousal (Hebb, 1972). Therefore this will have a positive affect by improving and sustaining the mental health and wellbeing of the user.

How do Psychological Factors Impact the Design of Landscape?

Luc Jones – S1405409

AD6603_Cultural Context: Creativity & Philosophy_Luc Jones_S1405409_001_Reseach Paper

06 References Altman. I (1973) Some Perspectives on the study of man-environment phenomena. Representative research in social psychology, 4, 109-126. Altman. I, Zube. H. (1989). Public Places and Spaces: Human Behaviour and Environment; Volume 10, Chapter 4 (Nasar, J. L.) Plenum publishing Corporation. Altman. I, Zube. H. (1989) Public Places and Spaces: Human Behaviour and Environment; Volume 10, Chapter 6. (Francis. M) Plenum publishing Corporation.. Appleton, J. (1975) The Experience of Landscape. London Wiley. Austin, E.K. (2002). the social bond and place: a study of how the bureau of land management contributes to civil society, Administrative Theory & Praxis (Administrative Theory & Praxis), 24, 2, p. 355, Bell, P.A. (2001). Environmental Psychology: Fifth Edition. Chapter 1 The Why, What and How of Environmental Psychology, (pp. 510). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Bell, P.A. (2001). Environmental Psychology: Fifth Edition. Chapter 3, Environmental Perception and Cognition, (pp. 70-73). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Bell, P.A. (2001) Environmental Psychology: Fifth Edition. Chapter 4, Theories of Environment-Behaviour Relationships (pp. 103-130). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Bell, P.A. (2001). Environmental Psychology: Fifth Edition. Chapter 11, Planning and Design for Human Behaviour (pp. 371- 394). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Betchel, R. B. (1997). Environment & Psychology: An Introduction. Sage Publications, Inc. Berlyne, D.E (1951) Attention, perception and behaviour theory. Psychol Rev 58(2):137– 146 Devlin, K. & Nasar. J. (1987) Beauty and the Beast: Some preliminary comparisons of “Popular” vs. “High” architecture and public vs. architect judgements of same. (Department of City and Regional planning working paper). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Dosen, A.S & Ostwald, M. J (2016) City, Territory and ArchitectureAn interdisciplinary debate on project perspectives. 3, 4. Francis, M. (1989) Public Places and Spaces: Human Behaviour and Environment: Chapter 6, Control as a Dimension of Public-Space Quality, Chapter 6, 147-169. Gelh, J. (2010) Cities for People. Island Press. Hajmirsadeghi, R, Shamsuddin, S, & Foroughi, A 2014, The Relationship between Behavioral & Psychological Aspects of Design Factors and Social Interaction in Public Squares, Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 140, 2nd World Conference on Psychology and Sociology, PSYSOC 2013, 27-29 November 2013, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 98-102, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, viewed 21 November 2016. rd Hebb, D. O. (1972) Text Book of Psychology (3 ed.). Philadelphia. Saunders. Jacobs, M. H. (2006) The production of mindscapes. Wageningen, Wageningen University.

How do Psychological Factors Impact the Design of Landscape?

Jacobs. M (2011). [online] Psychology of the Visual Landscape. Exploring the Visual Landscape: Advances in physiognomic landscape research in the Netherlands, Available from: http://rius.tudelft.nl/index.php/rius/issue/vie w/68. Date Accessed: 23/10/2016 Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger. Kaplan, R. (1984) The Impact of urban nature: A theoretical analysis. Urban Ecology, 8, 189197. Kaplan, S. (1987) Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental preferences from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 19(1); 3-32 Lehman, D. R., Chiu, C.Y., and Challer, M. (2004) Psychology and culture. Annual Review of Psychology 55; 689-714 Lynch, K. (1960) Image of the City, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Mcleod, S. (2007). [online] Simply Psychology. Available from: http://www.simplypsychology.org/psychoana lysis.html. Date Accessed: 15/12/2016. Nasar, J.L (1989) Public Places and Spaces: Human Behaviour and Environment: Chapter 2, Perception, Cognition, Evaluation of Urban Spaces. O’Keefe, J. & Nadel, L. (1978). The Hippocampus as a Cognative map. New York: Oxford University Press. Proshanksy. H.M. (1972) Methodology in Environment Psychology: Problems and Issues. Human Factors, 14, 451-460. Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment & Behavior, 10, 147-169. Rapport, A (1969) House form and Culture: Englewood Cliffs, N.J Prentince-Hall Sagoff. M. (1992) Settling America or The Concept of Place in Environmental Ethics, p 349, 358 Sancar, F. & Eyikan, B. (1998) Studio Instructors talk about skills, knowledge, and professional roles in architecture and landscape architecture. Environment and Behaviour, 30, 378-397. Selye, H. (1956) The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shumaker, S. A., & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Toward a clarification of people-place relationships: A model of attachment to place. In N. Feimer & E. Galler, (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives (pp. 219-251). New York; Praeger Thompson. I. (1999) Ecology, Community & Delight. E & FN Spon. Tuan, Y.F. (1980) Topophilia. A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc. Ulrich. R (1984). View Through a Window influences recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420421. Wohlwill, J.F. (1966) The Physical Environment: A Problem for a Psychology of Stimulation. Journal of Social Issues, 22, 29-38. Zeisel. J. (1984) Inquirey by Design: Tools for Environment-Behaviour Research. Cambridge University Press.

Luc Jones – S1405409

AD6603_Cultural Context: Creativity & Philosophy_Luc Jones_S1405409_001_Reseach Paper

07 Bibliography Bourassa, SC (1990), A paradigm for landscape aesthetics, Environment & Behavior, 22, 6, p. 787, Environment Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 November 2016. Brown, B. B., & Werner, C. M. (1985). Social cohesiveness, territoriality, and holiday decorations: The influence of cul-de-sacs. Environment & Behavior, 17, 539-565. Bullivant. L. (2007). 4dsocial: Interactive Design Environments. Wiley. Farrell, STTF (2012), Making People-Friendly Towns, Taylor and Francis, . Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [28 November 2016]. Jorgensen, B, & Stedman, R (2006), A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of place dimensions: Attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore properties, Journal Of Environmental Management, 79, 3, pp. 316-327, Environment Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 November 2016 Maslow, A. H., & Mintz, N. L. (1972). Effects of esthetic surroundings: I. short-term effects of three esthetic conditions upon perceiving “energy” and “well being” in faces. In R. Gutman (Ed.), People and buildings (pp. 212-219). New York: Basic Books. Smith, A. (2012) Events and Urban Regeneration: The Strategic Us of Events to Revitalise Cities. Routlage.

How do Psychological Factors Impact the Design of Landscape?

110

Luc Jones – S1405409