Content uploaded by David Uzzell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Uzzell on Nov 14, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 1
Environmental Psychology
Gabriel Moser1 and David Uzzell2
Published in Moser, G. and Uzzell, DL (2003) ‘Environmental Psychology’, in Millon, T., &
Lerner, M.J.(Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Volume 5: Personality and
Social Psychology, New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp 419 – 445.
1 Laboratoire de Psychologie Environnementale, CNRS / Université René Descartes-Paris V
2 Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 2
Contents
WHY PSYCHOLOGY NEEDS ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 3
Introduction 3
The Environment as Context 3
The Nature and Scope Environmental Psychology 6
DOMAINS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 8
Private Spaces 9
Public/Private Environments 10
Public Environments 12
The Global environment 13
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON KEY QUESTIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL
PSYCHOLOGY 15
Deterministic and Behaviourist Approaches 16
Interactionist Approaches 16
Transactional Approaches 21
TIME, SPACE AND THE FUTURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 25
Needs and Rights in Environmental Psychology 25
Cultural Differences and Temporal Processes 25
The Cultural Dimension 26
The Temporal Dimension 28
CONCLUSION: APPLYING ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 30
REFERENCES 31
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 3
WHY PSYCHOLOGY NEEDS ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
Introduction
This review, like the model of psychology we advocate, looks to the past, present and future
of environmental psychology. The chapter begins with a discussion of the importance of the
socio-environmental context for human behaviour. Having demonstrated that the
environment, far from being a silent witness to human actions, is an integral part of the plot,
the chapter continues with an examination of the nature and scope of environmental
psychology. Its interdisciplinary origins and applied emphasis have both conspired to
prevent a straightforward and uncontentious definition of environmental psychology. We
review some of these and suggest how recent definitions are beginning to adopt a more
inclusive, holistic and transactional perspective on people-environment relations. The next
section discusses the various spatial scales at which environmental psychologists operate -
from the micro level such as personal space and individual rooms, public/private spaces and
public spaces through to the global environment. This incorporates research on the home,
the workplace, the visual impact of buildings, the negative effects of cities, the restorative
role of nature, and environmental attitudes and sustainable behaviour. The third section
takes three key theoretical perspectives which have informed environmental psychology -
determinism, interactionalism, and transactionalism. - and uses these as an organising
framework to examine various theories used by environmental psychologists: arousal theory,
environmental load, adaptation level theory within a behaviourist and determinist paradigm;
control, stress adaptation, behavioural elasticity, cognitive mapping and environmental
evaluation within an interactionist paradigm; and behaviour settings, affordance theory and
theories of place, place identity and place attachment within transactionalism.
The fourth section looks to the future of environmental psychology by challenging the
assumptions and limiting perspectives of present research. The issues at the forefront of the
political and environmental agenda at the beginning of the 21st century - human rights, well-
being and quality of life, globalisation and sustainability - need to be addressed and tackled
by environmental psychologists in a way that incorporates both cross-cultural and temporal
dimensions. The impact of environmental psychology may be enhanced if researchers
worked within the larger cultural and temporal context which condition people’s perceptions
and behaviour within any given environment. This concluding section discusses some of the
work being undertaken by environmental psychologists which seeks to meet this challenge
and address what some have considered as an ‘application gap’ within environmental
psychology (i.e., the gap between the generation of general principles and ‘on the ground’
advice of direct use to practitioners).
The Environment as Context
One of the shortcomings of so much psychological research is that it treats the environment
simply as a value-free backdrop to human activity and a stage upon which we act out our
lives. In essence, the environment is regarded as noise. It is seen as expedient in
psychological investigations and experiments to remove or reduce as much extraneous
noise as possible that will affect the ‘purity’ of our results. This is understandable and
desirable in many situations, but when it comes to understanding human perceptions,
attitudes, and behaviours in real-world settings then the environment is a critical factor that
needs to be taken into account.
A paper was presented at an environmental psychology conference recently which reported
on an investigation of children’s classroom design preferences. The study was undertaken
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 4
by means of showing the children photographs of different classroom layouts. There were
three principal methodological flaws which illustrate well the issue of the role and importance
of environmental context in psychology. Firstly, the photographs included neither adults nor
children. In other words, the photographs did not illustrate or indicate how the environment
was actually being used by either children or adults. When the researcher was asked why
children and adults were excluded from the photographs, the response was that they would
have been a distraction. This is another variant of the failing identified in the above
paragraph. In this case, people are treated as noise and become environmental ‘objects’. It
is assumed that if we can get people too preferentially rate environments without those
environments being ‘contaminated’ with people, then we will arrive at a more ‘pure’ measure
of the impact of the environment on human preferences.
The second flaw with this study was that all the photographs were taken at adult height,
thereby providing an adult perspective on the environment even though it was children’s
perceptions and preferences that were being sought. Finally, all the photographs were taken
from an adult point of view (e.g., the framing, focus, what was included and excluded) as if
the environment is visually and symbolically neutral. In other words, the researcher thought
that taking photographs of the classrooms could provide an objective and impartial view of
the environment. If the photographs had been taken by the children from their own
perspective, the photographs might have come to mean very different things to the children
and brought about a very different evaluation. The environment provides us with
opportunities and constraints - sets of affordances - which we can choose to draw upon
(Gibson, 1979). Of course, not all children will perceive the same affordances in a single
environment, and neither will similar environments generate the same perceptions and
evaluations in a single child (Wohlwill and Heft, 1987).
It is a characteristic feature of environmental psychology that in any environmental
transaction attention should focus on the user of the environment as much as the
environment itself. For example, as it is not possible to understand the architecture and
spatial layout of a church, mosque or synagogue without reference to the liturgical precepts
which influenced their design, so it is no less possible to understand any landscape without
reference to the different social, economic and political systems and ideologies which inform
them.
One might well imagine, for example, a school landscape that looks extremely tidy, well
kempt, with clear demarcation of spaces, producing a controlled and undifferentiated
environment with easy surveillance, and with learning and other activities taking place in
pre-determined spaces. Such a designed environment reflects a traditional view of the
passive, ‘empty’ learner waiting for educational input. If one now imagines a school
landscape which appears on the surface to be more haphazard and not so well ordered,
unkempt with long grass, soft or even no edges between activities, less easy surveillance
and no obvious places for learning specific curriculum subjects, then this would seem to be
antithetic to learning and education. However, if one switches to another model of the child:
the child as a stimulus-seeking learner, then the sterile, formal, and rigid landscape
described above would seem like an inappropriate place for learning. On the other hand,
providing an unstructured, environmentally diverse set of landscapes would seem to be an
ideal place for learning, encouraging children to seek out the stimulation they need for
learning and development. Reading the environment in terms of the assumptions it makes
about the user is instructive. Understanding and designing the environment for human
activity can only be achieved when both the environment and the user and are considered
together as one transaction.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 5
The environmental setting is not a neutral and value free space; it is culture-bound. It is
constantly conveying meanings and messages and is an essential part of human functioning
and an integral part of human action. As Getzels writes, ‘Our vision of human nature finds
expression in the buildings we construct, and these constructions in turn do their silent yet
irresistible work of telling us who we are and what we must do’ (Getzels, 1975, p.12). The
environment embodies the social and cultural values of those who inhabit it. Some
psychologists argue that we need only focus on people because although the environment
contains the manifest evidence of the values and meanings held by people, these values
and meanings can be investigated ‘at source’, i.e., in the people themselves. As we know
that attitudes are not always good predictors of behaviour, so we might also assume that
what people say about the environment and their actions within it may actually be
contradicted by extant evidence from the environment itself. Furthermore, the environment
is not just a figment of our imagination or a social construct, it is real. If we take a
deterministic or even an interactionist position we would acknowledge that the environment
can have a direct effect on human actions. Within transactionalism the environment has a
physical manifestation in order to confer meaning in the first place. The environment
embodies the psychologies of those who live in it. It is used to confer meaning, to promote
identity, to locate the person socially, culturally and economically.
The role of environmental context in influencing social behaviour can be exemplified by
reference to interpersonal relations as well as institution-person relations. Helping behaviour
is a good example of the influence of environmental context on the interpersonal behaviour.
The conclusions of numerous research studies undertaken since the 70’s (Korte, 1980;
Korte and Kerr 1975; Krupat, 1985, Merrens, 1973) consistently demonstrate that the
conditions of urban life reduce the attention given to others and diminish our willingness to
help others. Aggressive reactions to a phone box out of order are more common in large
cities than in small towns (Moser, 1984). Those findings have been explained by the levels
of population densities such as we encounter in large urban areas which engender
individualism and an indifference towards others, a malaise noted by Simmel in 1903 who
suggested that city life is characterised by social withdrawal, egoistic behaviours,
detachment, and disinterest towards others. The reduction of attention to others can also be
observed when the individual is exposed to more isolated supplementary stressful condition
(Moser, 1992). Thus, excessive population density or the noise a pneumatic drill
significantly reduces the frequency of different helping behaviours (Moser, 1988). If,
generally speaking, politeness (as measured by holding the door for someone at the entry of
a large department store) is less frequent in Paris than in a small provincial town, then this
would suggest that population density and its immediate impact on the throughput of
shoppers will affect helping and politeness behaviour (Moser and Corroyer, 2001).
A good example of the effect of environmental context on human attitudes and behaviour in
an institution-person setting can be found in Rosengren and deVault’s (1974) study of the
ecology of time and space in an obstetrical hospital. They found that both the attitudes and
behaviour of all the protagonists involved in the process of delivering a baby – the mother,
nurses, doctors – were not only a function of where they were situated, but also when they
were situated there. Authority (i.e., who managed the mother’s labour and delivery) was not
so much a function of a formal position in the hierarchy but where each person was at a
particular time and who controlled that space. This time/space interaction not only impacted
upon staff-patient relations but also on perceptions of the appropriateness of medical
procedures as they related to the management of pain.
The environmental context in which perceptions occur, attitudes are formed and behaviour
takes place also has a temporal dimension. We cannot understand space and place without
taking into account time. When we encounter an environment we not only encounter it in the
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 6
present, but also in the past and the future. We experience places not only now, in the
present, but places which have had a past which impinges upon and colours our
interpretation of the present. Furthermore, these same places have a future which, for
example, through anticipatory representations may guide our actions (Doise, 1976).
The Nature and Scope Environmental Psychology
Environmental psychology studies individuals and groups in their physical and social
context, by giving a prominent place to environmental perceptions, attitudes, evaluations,
and representations and accompanying behaviour. Environmental psychology focuses on
both the effects of environmental conditions on behaviour and how the individual perceives
and acts on the environment. The point of departure of analysis is often the physical
characteristics of the environment (e.g., noise, pollution, planning, and layout of physical
space) acting directly on the individual or mediated by social variables in the environment
(e.g., crowding, population heterogeneity). But physical and social factors are inextricably
linked in their effects on individuals’ perceptions and behaviour (Altman and Rogoff, 1987).
In order to achieve this effectively, environmental psychology research aims to identifying
processes which regulate and mediate this relationship. Environmental psychologists work
in collaboration with other psychologists such as social, cognitive, and occupational
psychologists, as well as other disciplines and professions such as architects,
educationalists, environmental scientists, engineers, landscape architects and planners.
Environmental psychology’s unit of analysis is the individual-environment relation. One can
only study this relation by examining cognitions and behaviour which occur in real-world
situations. For this reason, environmental psychology operates according to an inductive
logic: theories are generated from what can be observed and from data unearthed in
research in the real world. Kurt Lewin’s advocacy of theory-driven practical research ought
to have a resonance with environmental psychologists.
The conceptual model by which our perceptions, representations, and behaviour are
interdependent with the physical and social environment has frequently been mentioned in
psychology. Brunswik (1959) and Gibson (1950) in their work on perception, referred to the
role of the environment; Tolman (1948) used the concept of the “mental map” to describe the
cognitive mechanisms which accompany maze-learning; and Lewin (1951) in the domain of
psychology of form elaborated the theory of the environmental field, conceived as a series of
forces which operate on the individual. Lynch’s study of The Image of the City (1960),
although by an urban planner, was another major landmark in the early years of
environment-behaviour research. The first milestones of environmental psychology date
from the late 1960s (Barker, 1968; Lee, 1968; Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin, 1970; Craik,
1970). The intellectual and international origins of environmental psychology are
considerably broader than many, typically North American, textbooks suggest (Bonnes and
Secchiaroli, 1995).
Although environmental psychology can justly claim to be a sub-discipline in its own right, it
clearly has an affinity with other branches of psychology, especially social psychology, but
also cognitive, organisational, and developmental psychology. Examples of where
environmental psychology has been informed by and contributed to social psychology are
inter-group relations, group functioning, performance, identity, conflict and bystander
behaviour. However, social psychology often minimises the role of the environment as a
physical and social setting, and treats it as simply the stage on which individuals and groups
act rather than as an integral part of the plot. Environmental psychology adds an important
dimension to social psychology by making sense of differences in behaviour and perception
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 7
according to contextual variables – differences which can only be explained by reference to
environmental contingencies.
Although there are strong links to other areas of psychology, environmental psychology is
unique amongst the psychological sciences in terms of the relationship it has forged with the
social (e.g., sociology, human ecology, demography), environmental (e.g., environmental
sciences, geography) and design (e.g., architecture, planning, landscape architecture,
interior design) disciplines.
Because of the difficulties of defining environmental psychology, many writers have sought
instead to ‘characterise’ or describe it, as we have done in part ourselves above. The most
recent of these can be found in the fifth edition of Bell, Greene et al’s (2001) textbook
Environmental Psychology. They suggest that a) environmental psychology studies
environment-behaviour relationships as a unit, rather than separating them into distinct and
self-contained elements, b) environment-behaviour relationships are really interrelationships,
c) there is unlikely to be a sharp distinction between applied and basic research, d) it is part
of an international and inter-disciplinary field of study, and e) it employs an eclectic range of
methodologies. But description is not a substitute for definition. Leaving aside Proshansky
et al’s oft-quoted ‘environmental psychology is what environmental psychologists do’ (1970,
p5), the same authors suggested in 1970 that ‘…..in the long run, the only really satisfactory
way - is in terms of theory. And the simple fact is that as yet there is no adequate theory, or
even the beginnings of a theory, of environmental psychology on which such a definition
might be based.’ (1970, p5). By 1978, Bell, Fisher, and Loomis, in the first edition of the
aforementioned textbook Environmental Psychology, cautiously suggested that it is ‘the
study of the interrelationship between behaviour and the built and natural environment’,
although they preferred to opt for the initial Proshansky et al conclusion. Other, not
dissimilar, definitions followed: ‘… an area of psychology whose focus of investigation is the
interrelationship between the physical environment and human behaviour and experience’
(Holahan, 1982, p3); ‘….. is concerned with the interactions and relationships between
people and their environment’ (Proshansky, 1990); ‘…the discipline that is concerned with
the interactions and relationships between people and their environments’ (McAndrew, 1993,
p2).
The problem with some of these definitions is that while they describe ‘what environmental
psychologists do’, they also hint unfortunately at what other disciplines do as well. For
example, many (human) geographers could probably live quite comfortably with these
definitions. By 1995, Veitch and Arkkelin were no less specific and perhaps even enigmatic
with the introduction of the word ‘enhancing’: ‘a behavioural science that investigates, with
an eye towards enhancing, the interrelationships between the physical environment and
human behaviour.’
These are clearly not the only definitions of environmental psychology, but they are
reasonably representative. There are various noteworthy features about these definitions.
First, because the area is necessarily inter-disciplinary, the core theoretical perspectives
which should inform our approaches have sometimes been minimised. Thus Bonnes and
Secchiaroli (1995) draw attention to the need to define the field as a function of the
psychological processes studied. Most definitions of environmental psychology focus on the
relationship between the environment and behaviour, yet paradoxically most of the research
in environmental psychology has not been about behaviour but perceptions of and attitudes
towards the environment and attitudes towards behaviour in the environment. Second,
many of the definitions refer to relationships between people and the physical or built
environment. Proshansky acknowledged that this was problematic because this fails to
recognise the importance of the social environment. The distinction between built and
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 8
natural environments is becoming increasing untenable given the mutual dependency and
reciprocity which exists between them, especially within the context of the sustainability
debate. Finally, many of the definitions talk about the individual interacting with the
environment. Unfortunately, this ignores or minimises the social dimension of environmental
experience and behaviour. This is a strange omission given the strong influence of social
psychology on the area, although perhaps a reflection of the individualistic nature of much
social psychology.
Gifford more usefully offered the following: ‘Environmental psychology is the study of
transactions between individuals and their physical settings. In these transactions,
individuals change the environment and their behaviour and experiences are changed by the
environment. Environmental psychology includes research and practice aimed at making
buildings more humane and improving our relationship with the natural environment.’
(Gifford, 1997, p1). This is a far more inclusive definition and captures key concepts such as
experience, change, people-environment interactions and transactions and natural/built
environments. As long ago as 1987, Stokols suggested that ‘the translation of a
transactional world view into operational strategies for theory development and research
……..poses an ambitious but promising agenda for future work in environmental
psychology.’ (Stokols, 1987, p41). The essence of a transactional approach is ‘its emphasis
on the dynamic interplay between people and their everyday environmental settings, or
“contexts”’ (ibid, p42)
DOMAINS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
Environmental psychology deals with the relationship between the individual and his/her life-
space. That includes not only the environment to provide us with all what we need to
survive, but also the spaces in which to appreciate, understand and act to fulfil higher needs
and aspirations.
The individual’s cognitions and behaviour gain meaning in relation to the environment in
which these cognitions or behaviours are developed. Consequently, environmental
psychologists are confronted are the same issues as those with which all psychologists are
concerned. The basic domains of environmental psychology include: (1) environmental
perceptions and cognitions, (2) environmental values, attitudes and assessment, and (3)
behavioural issues. It studies these processes in relation to the environmental setting and
situation in which they occur. For instance, environmental perceptions are not typically
studied with the aim of identifying general laws concerning different aspects of the perceived
object. Environmental perception deals with built or natural landscape perception with an
emphasis on sites treated as entities (Ittelson, 1973); the perceiver is considered as part of
the scene and projects onto it his/her aspirations and goals which will have an aesthetic
dimension as well as a utilitarian function. The question the perceiver asks in appraising a
landscape is not just ‘do I like the appearance of this landscape?’, but also ‘what can this
landscape do for me (i.e., what function does it serve)?’ (Lee, 2001). Likewise, interpersonal
behaviour within an environmental psychology context is studied in order that we might
better understand how environmental settings influence these relationships (e.g., urban
constraints on frequency of relational behaviour with friends or relatives, Moser, 1992).
Environmental psychology, because of its very focus, has been and remains above all a
psychology of space, to the extent that it analyses individuals’ and communities’ perceptions,
attitudes and behaviours in explicit relation to the physical and social contexts within which
people and communities exist. Notions of space and place occupy a central position. The
discipline operates, then, at several levels of spatial reference enabling the investigation of
people-environment interactions (at the individual, group or societal level) at each level.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 9
Reference to the spatial dimension makes it possible to take into account different levels of
analysis:
Level I: Private Spaces (individual level): personal and private space, dwelling, housing,
workplace, office,
Level II: Public/Private Environments (neighbourhood-community level): semi-public
spaces, blocks of flats, the neighbourhood, parks, green spaces;
Level III: Public Environments (individual / community level, inhabitants) : involving both
built spaces (villages, towns, cities) as well as the natural environment (the countryside,
landscape, etc.), and
Level IV: The Global Environment (societal level) : the environment in its totality, both the
built and the natural environment, natural resources.
Environmental psychology analyses and characterises people-environment interactions
and/or transactions at these different environmental levels. These relations can best be
understood through perception, needs, opportunities, and means of control.
Private Spaces
Personal space and privacy are important for individual and community well being and
quality of life. Altman (1975) defines privacy as the ‘selective control of access to the self or
one’s group’(p18). Thus privacy implicates control over the immediate environment. It is
important for the individual to be able to organise and personalise space. Privacy represents
a dynamic process of openness/closeness to others (Altman & Chemers, 1980). Thus,
privacy adjustments may be established with physical or even psychological barriers
wherever the individual seeks to isolate himself or to protect himself of the intrusion of
others. This may be important in one’s home, but also in the work environment or during
leisure activities (e.g., on the beach). Privacy involves not only visual, but also auditory
exclusivity (Sundstrom et al. 1994). Steady or transitionally occupied places produce place
attachment and are often accompanied with ties to personal objects like furniture, pictures
and souvenirs which mark the appropriation (Korosec-Serfaty, 1976). Appropriation can be
defined as a particular affective relation to an object. The appropriated object may become
part of the identity of the individual (Barbey, 1976). The appropriation of space has
essentially a social function in the sense that the individual or the group mark their control
over the space (Proshansky, 1976) which in turn produces a feeling of security. When
appropriation is not shared with others, or only with one’s group, control is absolute.
The use of space in the home or the office environment has produced a variety of studies.
The intended function of a room (e.g., kitchen, dormitory, etc.) implies a specific design and
determines how the space will be used. There are considerable individual and cultural
differences in the use of space in one’s home (Rapoport, 1969; Kent, 1991; Newell, 1998).
Personal space is defined as the invisible boundary surrounding each individual into which
others may not intrude without causing discomfort (Hall, 1966). Personal space regulates
interactions, and its extension depends on environmental variables. Its functions are
twofold: protection – it acts as a buffer against various interpersonal threats; communication
purpose – it determines which sensory communication-channel (touch, visual or verbal) can
and should be used. Thus interpersonal distances are cues for understanding the specific
relationship of two individuals. Research has looked at various social determinants of
personal space such as culture and ethnicity, age and gender (e.g., Aiello, 1987; Crawford
and Unger, 2000), psychological (Srivastava and Mandal (1990) and physical (Altman and
Vinsel, 1977; Jain, 1993, Evans, et al, 1998).
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 10
Territoriality is, in contrast to personal space, visibly delimited by boundaries and tends to be
home or workplace-centred. It is a demarcated and defended space and invariably is an
expression of identity and attachment to a place (Sommer, 1969). Territories are controlled
spaces which serve to enable the personalization and regularisation of intrusion. Therefore,
territoriality has an essential function in providing and promoting security, predictability,
order, and stability in one’s life. Altman and Chemers (1980) identified three types or levels
of territory – primary territories (e.g., home or office space) in which control is permanent and
high, and personalization is manifest; secondary territories (e.g., the classroom or open plan
office) where control, ownership and personalization is temporary, and public territories (e.g.,
the street, the mall) where there is competition for use, intrusion is difficult to control and
personalization is largely absent.
Public/Private Environments
The Home Environment: Analyses at Level II deal with the immediate environment of the
individual’s living space. These could be rows of houses or apartment blocks, the immediate
neighbourhood, the workplace, the leisure areas in the immediate surroundings of the home
like parks and green areas. These areas are referred to as semi-public or semi private
spaces, which mean that the control over them is shared within a community.
A great deal of research in environmental psychology concerns the immediate home
environment. Concepts like ‘attachment to place’ and ‘sense of community’ contribute to our
understanding of how individuals and groups create bonds to a specific place. Although the
‘size’ of the habitable space is essential for residential satisfaction, other aspects of the living
conditions also modulate its importance. Residents enhance the value of their
neighbourhood through the transactional relationships they establish with their place of
residence. For those who have already acquired ‘basic’ living conditions and who have an
income that allows them to achieve a good quality of life, the agreeable character of the
neighbourhood has a modulating effect on satisfaction concerning available space in the
dwelling. The affective relationship with the dwelling and anchorage in childhood seem to
play an important role. Giuliani (1991) found that affective feelings towards the home were
attributable to changing conceptions of the self in relation to the home over the life-span.
The feeling of being ‘at home’ is closely connected to a feeling of well-being, and varies with
the extent of the spatial representation of the neighbourhood. A spatially narrow
representation is correlated with a weak affective investment in the neighbourhood (Fleury-
Bahi, 1997; 1998). The degree of satisfaction felt with three of a neighbourhood’s
environmental attributes (green spaces, aesthetics of the built framework and degree of
noise) has an effect on the intensity of the affectivity developed towards it, as well as
feelings of well-being. The feeling of being at home in one’s neighbourhood is linked to the
frequency of encounters, the extent of the sphere of close relations, the nature of local
relationships and satisfaction with them. Low and Altman (1992) argue the origin and
development of place attachment is varied and complex, being influenced by biological,
environmental, psychological, and socio-cultural processes. Furthermore, the social
relations that a place signifies may be more important to feelings of attachment than the
place itself.
Beside the home and neighbourhood environments, other domains involve a problematic
congruence between people and their environment, for example, work, classroom, and
institutional environments (hospitals, prisons, homes for children or the elderly). How can
these environments be designed to meet the needs of their occupants? We will illustrate this
by examining one setting - the workplace.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 11
Environmental Psychology in the Workplace: Increasing attention is being paid to the
design of the workplace so that it matches more effectively the organisation’s goals and
cultural aspirations as well as employee needs and job demands and performance. There
has been a long history of research into the workplace (Becker, 1981; Wineman, 1986;
Sundstrom, 1987; Becker and Steele, 1995). Indeed, the famous ‘Hawthorne effect’ first
noted in the 1920’s emerged from a study of the effect of illumination on productivity. Since
then there have been many studies examining the ambient work environment investigating
the impact of sound, light, furniture layout, and design on performance and job satisfaction.
It is now recognised that the environment, space, and design can operate at a more subtle
level and can be used for as well as impact upon issues such as status, reward and the
promotion of corporate culture.
Decisions about space use and design should be examined for their embedded assumptions
as to how they will enhance or detract from the organisation’s goals and values. In other
words, whose assumptions underlie the design and management of space and what are the
implications of space planning decisions? The relationship between the organisation’s
cultures, the physical planning of the building/offices and the ‘feel’, look and use of the
facilities becomes most apparent especially when there is a mismatch. A mismatch often
occurs when a new building is planned according to criteria such as: how many people
should it accommodate? How many square feet should it occupy? How much equipment
should it have? How should it look to visitors? Questions typically posed and addressed by
environmental psychologists have a different emphasis: will the designs and space layout
enhance or detract from the desired corporate work styles? Is the organisation prepared to
accept that employees have different working styles and that these should be catered for in
the provision of space and facilities? How much control does the organisation currently
exert over its employees’ time and space use? To what extent is the employee permitted to
modify their own environment so that it enables them to do their job more effectively? In
what way, for whom and how does the management and design permit, encourage or
enhance: personal and group recognition; environmental control (heating; lighting;
ventilation; amount and type of furniture; personalised space); social integration and identity;
communication within the working group; communication with other working groups;
appropriate levels of privacy? How are issues such individual/group identity; individual
capacities, needs and preferences and working patterns reflected in space planning and the
allocation of environmental resources? Is space and resource allocation used as a means of
reflecting and rewarding status and marking distinctions between job classifications? Is the
organisation prepared to redefine their understanding of equity and provide space and
facilities on the basis of need rather than status?
There are many ways of looking at the relationship between corporate culture and physical
facilities. The effective use of the organisation’s resources lies not in fitting the staff to the
workplace, but recognising that there will be a transaction between staff and workplace, so
that if the employee cannot or will not be forced into the setting they will either attempt to
modify the setting so that it does approximate more closely their working needs and
preferences or they will become dissatisfied, disaffected and unproductive. For example,
instead of assigning an employee just one space, consideration should be given to
permitting if not encouraging. Instead of working in just one place (e.g., a desk), some
companies are giving employees access to a number of spaces (e.g., ‘hot-desking’) that will
allow them to undertake their tasks and with more satisfaction and effectiveness ]. Within
such an arrangement staff cannot claim territorial rights over specific spaces but are
regarded as temporary lodgers for as long as they need that space: informal privacy spaces
for talking to clients and colleagues; quiet, comfortable spaces for writing reports;
workstations for undertaking word-processing, data analysis; meeting rooms for discussing
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 12
issues with colleagues, small refreshment areas for informal socialising; quiet, private
telephone suites for confidential matters. There are various possibilities - the type of spaces
will depend on the type of work and how it can be undertaken effectively.
Public Environments
Cities are a human creation. They concentrate novelty, intensity, and choice - more so than
smaller towns and villages. They provide a variety of cultural, recreational, and educational
facilities. Equally, it is argued, cities have become more dangerous, since they concentrate
all sorts of crime and delinquency, and are noisy, overcrowded, and polluted. Three topics
addressed at this environmental level are discussed here: the negative effects of cities, the
visual impact of buildings and the restorative role of nature.
The Negative Effects of Cities. Living in metropolitan areas is considered as stressful.
The analysis of behaviour in cities has concentrated on noise, density, living conditions
(difficulty of access to services), high crime, and delinquency rates. A series of conceptual
considerations have been proposed to understand the consequences of these stressors for
typical urban behaviour like paying less attention to others, and being less affiliative and less
helpful. Environmental overload, environmental stress, and behavioural constraint all point
to the potentially negative effects of living in cities as compared with living in small towns.
Environmental conditions like noise and crowding not only effect general urban conditions,
but they also have a specific effect on behaviour. A comparison of behaviour at the same
site but under different environmental conditions (noisy-quiet, high-low density) show a more
marked negative effect in the case of high noise and high density (Moser, 1992). Higher
crime and delinquency rates are commonly explained by the numerous opportunities the city
offers, along with deindividuation (Zimbardo, 1969). The probability of being recognised is
lower and the criminal can escape without being identified. Fear of crime (which is not
necessarily correlated with objective crime rates) restricts people’s behaviour by making
them feel vulnerable. It is exacerbated by an environment which appears uncared for (for
example, through littering, vandalism).
Whereas the effect of air pollution on health (e.g., respiratory problems for children and
elderly) is well documented (Lewis et al, 1970; Godlee and Walker, 1992), it has little direct
effect on the behaviour of urban residents. The relationship between exposure to air
pollution and health is mediated by perceptions of the exposure (Elliot, Cole et al. 1999).
The extent to which people feel they can control the source of air pollution, for instance,
influences their response to this pollution. Perceptions of air pollution are also important
because they influence people’s response to certain air pollution management strategies.
Whether or not people perceive air pollution as a problem is of course related to the actual
existence of the problem. Generally, people are more likely to perceive environmental
problems when they can hear (noise), see (smoke), smell, or feel them. Another important
source of information is the media because the media’s interpretation of pollution levels may
have a social amplification effect and influence public perceptions and attitudes (Kasperson,
Renn et al, 1988). People believe that heavy goods vehicles, commuters, and business
traffic are the principal sources of urban air pollution. On the other hand, school traffic is
often seen to be one of the most important causes of transport problems. It is often argued
that reducing school trips by car would make a significant difference to urban transport
problems. Paradoxically, although seen as a major source of congestion, school traffic is not
seen as a major source of pollution (Gatersleben and Uzzell, 2000).
The Visual Impact of Buildings. The city is where the majority of us live. The architecture
which surrounds us is more than public sculpture. Research on the visual impact of
buildings demonstrates perhaps more than any other area that different user groups
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 13
perceive and evaluate the environment dissimilarly. The criteria used most widely by the
public to assess the visual impact of a building is how contextually compatible it appears with
the surrounding environment (Uzzell, 2000). Architects and their clients, however, tend to
value more highly the distinctiveness and contrast of buildings. Although there is a place for
both, the indication is that there are diverging points of view on what constitutes a desirable
building between groups of people (Hubbard, 1994; 1996). Groat has found differences of
opinion to be greatest between the public and architects and most similar between the public
and planners (Groat, 1994). Several studies (e.g., Purcell & Nasar, 1992; Nasar, 1993) have
demonstrated that architects and educated ‘laypeople’ differ in their preferences for building
styles and in the meanings they infer from various styles. For example, Devlin and Nasar
(1989) found that architects rated more unusual and distinctive residential architecture as
more meaningful, clear, coherent, pleasant, and relaxing, whereas non-architects judged
more conventional and popular residential architecture as such. Similarly, Nasar (1993)
found that not only did architects differ from the public in their preferences and in the
meanings they inferred from different styles, but they also misjudged the preferences of the
public.
Individual design features such as colour, texture, illumination, the shape and the placement
of windows can have a significant impact on evaluations. Overall, such research findings
regarding order (including coherence, compatibility, congruity, legibility and clarity) have
been reasonably consistent; increases in order have been found to enhance the evaluative
quality of cities (Nasar, 1979), downtown street-scenes (Nasar, 1984) and residential scenes
(Nasar, 1981, 1983).
The Restorative Role of Nature. Despite city living, many urban residents desire a private
house with garden or at least to be able to visit urban parks and recreational areas. Urban
residents often seek nature and research consistently points to its positive psychological
function (Staats et al, 1997; Staats et al, 2000). Green spaces and the natural environment
can provide not only an aesthetically pleasing setting, but also restorative experiences
(Kaplan, 1995) including a positive effect on health (Ulrich, 1984; Moore, 1982). Gifford
(1987) has summarised this research and identified the following main benefits of nature:
cognitive freedom, escape, the experience of nature, ecosystem connectedness, growth,
challenge, guidance, sociability, health, and self-control. What seems to be important is the
sense of freedom and control felt in nature, in contrast to an urban environment which is
perceived as constraining?
The Global environment
Local agendas are increasingly informed by global perspectives and processes (Lechner
and Boli, 1999). The interaction between the local and the global is crucial and is the
essence of globalisation. (Bauman, 1998; Beck, 1999). Although environmental issues are
increasingly seen as international in terms of extent, impact and necessary response, social
psychological studies have traditionally treated many environmental problems as locally
centred and limited to a single country. Thus they have been de-contextualised in that not
only has the local/global environmental dimension been minimised, but perhaps more
significantly the local/global social psychological effects have also been minimised. This is
well illustrated by Bonaiuto et al (1996) who examined the role of social identity processes
as they manifest themselves in place (i.e., local) and national identity in the perception and
evaluation of beach pollution. It was found that subjects who were more attracted to their
town or their nation tended to perceive their local and national beaches as being less
polluted.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 14
Three phenomena – mass media coverage of environmental issues, the growth in
environmental organisations and the placing of environmental issues on international
political agendas – have, intentionally or unintentionally, emphasised the seriousness of
global as opposed to local or even national environmental problems. On the other hand, it
has been suggested that people are only able to relate to environmental issues if they are
concrete, immediate, and local. Consequently, it might be hypothesised that people will
consider environmental problems to be more serious at a local rather than global level. If
this is the case then what is the effect of the public’s perceptions of the seriousness of
environmental problems on their sense of responsibility for taking action? In a series of
cross-cultural studies undertaken in Australia, Ireland, Slovakia, and the UK, members of the
public and environmental groups, environmental science students, and children were asked
about the seriousness of various environmental problems in terms of their impact on the
individual, the local area, the country, the continent and the world (Uzzell, 2000b). It was
consistently found that respondents were not only able to conceptualise problems at a global
level, but an inverse distance effect was found such that environmental problems were
perceived to be more serious the farther away they are from the perceiver. This
phenomenon occurred repeatedly in each country for all groups. An inverse relationship
was also found between a sense of responsibility for environmental problems and spatial
scale resulting in feelings of powerlessness at the global level.
We are increasingly conscious of the effect of global environmental processes on local
climate. The effects of extreme weather conditions - wind, heat or extreme cold – as, for
example, investigated by Suedfeld and others in Antarctic survey stations, have
demonstrated various impacts on individuals (Suedfeld, 1998; Weiss, Suedfeld et al, 2000).
The effect of seasonal daylight availability on mood has been described as seasonal
affective disorder (Rosenthal et al., 1984). Likewise, sunlight has been found to enhance
positive mood (Cunningham, 1979).
The most significant topic analysed at the level of global environment is without doubt
individuals’ attitudes towards and support of sustainable development. A major challenge for
environmental psychology is to enable the understanding and development of strategies to
encourage environmentally friendly behaviour. There is consistent field research in
environmental psychology about the ways to encourage environmentally responsible
behaviour concerning resources conservation (e.g., energy and water), littering, and
recycling. The effect of environmental education, commitment, modelling, feedback,
rewards and disincentives, are on the whole effective only if such behaviour is reinforced
and opportunities are provided which encourage environmentally friendly behaviour.
Growing ecological concern in our societies is attributed to a series of beliefs and attitudes
favourable to the environment originally conceptualised by Dunlap (1980) and Dunlap and
Van Liere (1984) as the ‘New Environmental Paradigm’ and now superseded by the New
Ecological Paradigm Scale (Dunlap, Van Liere et al, 2000). But it is clear from research that
pro-environmental attitudes do not necessarily lead to pro-environmental behaviours.
Environmental problems can often be conceptualised as ‘commons dilemma’ problems
(Vlek, et al., 1993; Van Lange, et al., 1998). In psychology, this is referred to as a social
dilemma. The defining characteristics of such dilemmas are that a) each participant receives
more benefits and less costs for a self-interest choice (e.g., going by car) than for a public
interest choice (e.g., cycling) and b) all participants as a group, would benefit more if they all
choose to act in the public interest (e.g., cycling) than if they all choose to act in self-interest
(e.g., going by car) (Gatersleben and Uzzell, forthcoming). The social dilemma paradigm
can explain why many people prefer to travel by car, even though they are aware of the
environmental costs of car use and believe more sustainable transport options are
necessary. It is in the self-interest of every individual to use cars. Nevertheless, it is in the
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 15
common interest to use other modes of transport. However, the problems of car use are
neither caused by nor can single individuals solve them. They are typically collective
problems. People therefore do feel neither personally responsible for the problems nor do
they feel in control of the solutions.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON KEY QUESTIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL
PSYCHOLOGY
It was suggested at the beginning of this chapter that the context – the environment – in
which people act out their lives is a critical factor in understanding human perceptions,
attitudes, and behaviour. Psychologists have largely ignored this context assuming most
explanation for behaviour is largely person-centred, rather than person-in-environment
centred. Because environmental psychologists are in a position to understand person-in-
environment questions, the history of environmental psychology has been strongly
influenced by the need to answer questions posed by the practical concerns of architects,
planners and other professions responsible for the planning, design and management of the
environment (Uzzell, 2000a). These questions include: how does the environmental
stimulate behaviour and what happens with excessive stimulation? How does the
environment constrain and cause stress? How do we form maps of the environment in our
heads and use them to navigate through the environment? What factors are important in
people’s evaluation of the built and natural environment and how satisfied are they with
different environments and environmental conditions? What is the influence of the
environment or behaviour setting on people? What are the physical properties of the
environment that facilitate some behaviour and discourage others? Do we have a sense of
place? What effect does this have on our identity? In this section we outline some of the
approaches that have been taken to answering these questions.
Typically within environmental psychology these questions have been addressed from one
of three perspectives. First, from a deterministic and essentially behaviourist perspective
that argues that the environment has a direct impact on people’s perceptions, attitudes, and
behaviour. The second approach has been referred to as interactionism – the environment
impacts upon individuals and groups, who in turn respond by impacting upon the
environment. The third perspective is transactional in which neither the person nor
environment has priority nor neither can one be defined without reference to the other.
Bonnes and Secchiaroli (1995) suggest that transactionalism has two primary features: the
continuous exchange and reciprocity between the individual and the environment, and the
primarily active and intentional role of the individual to the environment.
It is impossible in a chapter of this length to discuss all the theories which have driven
environmental psychology research. The varying scales at which environmental
psychologists work, as we have seen, assume different models of man, make different
assumptions about people-environment and environment-behaviour relations, require
different methodologies and involve different interpretive frameworks. In this section we
discuss the three principal approaches which have been employed in environmental
psychology to account for people’s behavioural response to their environmental settings.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 16
Deterministic and Behaviourist Approaches
Arousal theory, environmental load, and adaptation level provide good illustrations of
theories which are essentially behaviourist in their assumptions and determinist in their
environment-behaviour orientation.
Arousal theory: Arousal theory stipulates that the environment provides a certain amount of
physiological stimulation which, depending on the individual’s interpretation and attribution of
the causes, has particular behavioural effects. Each particular behaviour is best performed
at a definite level of arousal. The relation between levels of arousal and optimal
performance or behaviour is curvilinear (Yerkes-Dodson law). Whereas individuals seek
stimulation when arousal is too low, too high levels of arousal produced by either pleasant or
unpleasant stimulation or experiences have negative effects on performance and behaviour.
Anomic behaviour in urban environments is attributed to high stimulation levels due to
environmental conditions like excessive noise or crowding (Cohen and Spacapan, 1984).
On the other hand, under-stimulation may occur in certain environments like the arctic
causing unease and depression (Suedfeld and Steel, 2000).
The environmental load or over-stimulation approach: According to this model people
have a limited capacity to process incoming stimuli, and overload occurs when the amount
of incoming stimuli exceed the individual’s capacity to process them. Individuals deal with
an overloaded situation by concentrating their attention on the most important aspects of a
task or focusing on a fixed goal, ignoring peripheral stimulation in order to avoid distraction.
Paying attention to a particular task in an overloaded situation is very demanding and
produces fatigue (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Typical after-effects of being exposed to an
overload situation are, according to the overload model, less tolerance to frustration, less
attention and reduced capacity to react in an adaptive way. Milgram (1970) attributes the
deterioration of social life in cities to the wide variety of demands on citizens causing a
reduced capacity to pay attention to others. The overload approach explains why certain
environmental conditions lead to undesirable behavioural consequences like aggression,
lack of helping behaviour and selfishness in urban environments.
Adaptation level theory: Adaptation level theory (Wohlwill, 1974) is in certain ways a
logical extension of arousal theory and the overload approach. It assumes that there is an
intermediate level of stimulation which is individually optimal. Three categories of
stimulation can be distinguished: sensory stimulation, social stimulation, and movement.
These categories can be described along three dimensions of stimulation: intensity,
diversity, and patterning (i.e., the structure and degree of uncertainty of the stimulation). In
ideal circumstances, a stimulus has to be of average intensity, reasonably diverse and must
be structured with a reasonable degree of uncertainty. The level of stimulation at which an
individual feels comfortable depends on his/her past experience, or more precisely the
environmental conditions under which he or she has grown up. This reference level is
nevertheless subject to adaptation when the individual changes their life environment. If
rural people can be very unsettled by urban environments, they may also adapt to this new
situation after a certain period of residence. Adaptation level theory postulates an active
and dynamic relation of the individual with his/her environment.
Interactionist Approaches
Analyses of the individual's exposure to environmental stressor in terms of control and of
behavioural elasticity on one hand, and environmental cognition (cognitive mapping,
environmental evaluations, etc.) on the other hand, refer typically to an interactionist rational
of individual-environment relations.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 17
Stress and Control: Some authors (Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin, 1970; Stokols, 1978,
Zlutnick and Altman, 1972) consider certain environmental conditions as being constraining
to the individual. Similarly, others (Baum, Singer and Baum, 1981, Evans and Cohen,
1987; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) describe such situations as being stressful. Both
approaches lead to conditions as being potentially constraining or stressful, and introduce
the concept of ‘control’. Individuals exposed to such situations engage in coping processes.
Coping is an attempt to re-establish or gain control over the situation identified as stressing
or constraining. According to the psychological stress model, environmental conditions
such as noise, crowding or daily hassles provoke physiological, emotional, and behavioural
reactions identified as stress (Lazarus, 1966). Three types of stressors can be
distinguished: cataclysmic events (e.g., volcanic eruptions, floods, and earthquakes),
personal life events (e.g., illness, death, family, or work problems), and background
conditions (e.g., transportation difficulties, access to services, noise, crowding). Such
conditions are potentially stressful according to their nature provided that the individual
identifies them as such (Cohen et al., 1986).
An environment is constraining when something is limiting or prevents the individual from
achieving their intentions. This may occur with environmental conditions or stressors like
noise or crowding, but also with specific environmental features like fences, barriers, or bad
weather. The constraining situation is interpreted by the individual as being out of his/her
control. The feeling of not being able to master the situation produces psychological
reactance (Brehm, 1966). Unpleasant feelings of being constrained lead the individual to
attempt to recover his/her freedom of action in controlling the situation. Having freedom of
action or controlling one’s environment seems to be an important aspect of everyday life
and individuals’ well-being. When people perceive control in a noisy situation, their
performance is improved (Glass and Singer, 1972), they are less aggressive (Donnerstein
and Wilson, 1976; Moser and Lévy-Leboyer, 1985), and they are more often helpful
(Sherrod and Dowes, 1974). On the contrary, the perception of loss of control produced by
a stressful situation or constraints has several negative consequences on behaviour
(Barnes, 1981) as well as on well-being and health.
Confronted with a potentially stressful condition, the individual appraises the situation.
Appraisals involve both assessing the situation (primary appraisal) and evaluating the
possibilities of cope with it (secondary appraisal). The identification of a situation as being
stressful depends on cognitive appraisal. Cognitive appraisal of a situation as being
potentially disturbing or threatening or even harmful, involves an interaction between the
objective characteristics of the situation as well as the individual’s interpretation of the
situation in the light of past experience. The secondary appraisal leads to consider the
situation as challenging with reference to a coping strategy. Coping strategies depend on
individual and situational factors. They consist of problem-focused direct action like fleeing
the situation, trying to stop, remove, or reduce the identified stressor, or cognitive and
emotion-focused reactions such as re-evaluating the threatening aspects of the situation.
Reaction to a stressful situation may lead the individual to concentrate on the task, focusing
on the goals, ignore, or even deny the distracting stimuli. Repeated or steady exposure to
stressors may result in adaptation and therefore weaker reactions to this type of situation. If
the threatening character of the situation exceeds the coping capacities of the individual,
this may cause fatigue and a sense of helplessness (Garber and Seligman, 1981;
Seligman, 1975).
The stress-adaptation model: In everyday life, the individual is exposed to both
background stressors and occasionally to excessive environmental stimulation.
Consequently, the individual’s behaviour can only be appreciated when considered in a
context perceived and evaluated by the person themselves and in reference to baseline
exposure (Moser, 1992). Any exposure to a constraining or disagreeable stimulus invokes a
neuro-vegetative reaction. Confronted with such stimulation, the individual mobilises
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 18
cognitive strategies and evaluates the aversive situation with reference to her or his
threshold of individual and situational tolerance, as well as the context in which exposure
occurs. This evaluation creates a stimulation level which is judged against a personal norm
of exposure. In response the individual judges the stimulus as being weak, average and
tolerable, or strong. Cognitive processes intervene to permit the individual to engage in
adaptive behaviour to control the situation. A situation in which the constraints are too high
or in which stimulation is excessive, produces increased physiological arousal thereby
preventing any cognitive intervention and therefore also control of the situation.
Behavioural elasticity. This model introduces the temporal dimension of exposure to
environmental conditions, and refers to individual norms of exposure (Moser, 2002,
forthcoming). The influence of stressors is well-documented, but the findings are rarely
analysed in terms of adaptation to long term or before-after comparisons. Yet one can
assume that where there are no constraining factors the individual will revert to their own set
of norms which are elaborated through their history of exposure. The principle of elasticity
provides a good illustration of individual behaviour in the context of environmental
conditions. Using the principle of elasticity from solids mechanics to characterise the
adaptive capacities of individuals exposed to environmental constraints, three essential
behavioural specificities as a consequence of changing environmental contingencies can be
distinguished: (1) returning to an earlier state, that is a point of reference, in which
constraints were not present; (2) the ability to adapt to a state of constraint as long as the
constraint is permanent; (3) the existence of limits on one’s flexibility. The latter becomes
manifest through reduced flexibility in the face of increased constraints, the existence of a
breaking point, (when the constraints are too great), and by the progressive reduction of
elasticity as a function of both continuous constraints and of ageing.
(1) Returning to an earlier ‘base-line’. While attention is mostly given to attitude change and
modifying behaviour in particular situations, the stability over time of these behaviours is
rarely analysed. Yet longitudinal research often shows that pro-environmental behaviour
resorts to the initial state before the constraints were encountered. This is has been shown
for instance in the context of encouraging people to sort their domestic waste (Moser and
Matheau, in press) or in levels of concern about global environmental issues (Uzzell, 2000b).
Exposure to constraints creates disequilibrium and the individual, having a tendency to
reincorporate initial behaviour, reverts to the earlier state of equilibrium.
(2) Adaptation - the ability to put up with a constraining situation in so far as it is continuous.
Observing behaviour in the urban environment provides evidence of the constraining
conditions of the urban context. Residents of large cities walk faster in the street and
demonstrate greater withdrawal than those living in small towns: they look straight ahead,
only rarely maintain eye-contact with others, and respond less frequently to the various
requests for help from other people. In other words, faced with an over-stimulating urban
environment, people use a filtering process by which they focus their attention on those
requests they evaluate as important, disregarding peripheral stimulation. The constant
expression of this type of adaptive behaviour suggests that it has become normative. The
walking speed of inhabitants of small towns is slower that the walking speeds of inhabitants
on large cities (Bornstein, 1979). So we can assert that such behaviour provides evidence
of the individual’s capacity to respond to particular environmentally constraining conditions.
(3) The extent and limits of flexibility: The limits of flexibility and, more particularly, the
breakdown following constraints which are too great, are best seen in aggressive behaviour.
The distinction between instrumental and hostile aggression (Feshbach, 1964), recalls the
distinction between adaptive behaviour aimed at effectively confronting a threat and a
reactive and impulsive behaviour ineffectual for adaptation. Three limits of flexibility can be
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 19
identified: (a) reduced flexibility in the face of increased constraints. When exposure to
accustomed constraints is relatively high, there is a lower probability of performing an
adaptive response, and therefore an increase in reactive behaviours. There is decreased
flexibility in the face of constraint, more so if the constraint is added onto already existing
constraints affecting the individual. This is most clearly evident in aggressive behaviours
(Moser, 1984). People react more strongly to the same stimulation in the urban environment
than in small towns. Hostile aggression thus becomes more frequent. This results in a
decrease in adaptive capacities and therefore of flexibility, if additional constraints are
‘grafted’ onto those already present. (b) The existence of a breaking point when the
constraints are too great: Intervention by cognitive processes is prevented if stimulation
produces too extreme a neuro-vegetative reaction (Zillmann, 1978, Moser, 1992). This is
most evident with violent or hostile aggressive behaviour. This involves non-adaptive
reactive behaviour which is clearly of a different order. As a consequence, breakdown and a
limit on flexibility results. Yet, contrary to what occurs when there is elasticity, this
breakdown fortunately occurs only occasionally, on an ad hoc basis. (c) The progressive
loss of elasticity as a function of the persistence of exposure to constraints: This has been
examined under laboratory conditions in the form of post-exposure effects. Outside the
laboratory, the constant mobilisation of coping processes, for example, for those living near
airports produces fatigue and lowers the capacity to face new stressful situations (Altman,
1975). One encounters, in particular, greater vulnerability and irritability and a significant
decrease in the ability to resist stressful events. These effects demonstrate that there is a
decreased tolerance threshold, and so a decreased flexibility following prolonged exposure
to different environmental constraints.
The elasticity model is an appropriate framework to illustrate the mechanisms and limits of
behavioural plasticity. It may perhaps stimulate the generation of a model of behavioural
adjustments by placing an emphasis on the temporal dimension and the cognitive processes
governing behaviour. Environmental cognition, cognitive mapping, and environmental
appraisals are likely to fall within an interactionist framework. While they can be
individualistic, they are invariably set within a social context. Environmental cognition would
be enriched by more research in terms of social representations (Moscovici, 1989) providing
the opportunity to emphasize the role of cultural values, aspirations and needs as a frame of
reference for environmental behaviour.
Cognitive mapping
How do we form maps of the environment in our heads and use them to navigate through
the environment? Cognition and memory of places produce mental images of our
environment. The individual has an organised mental representation of his/her environment
(e.g., neighbourhood, district, city, specific places) which environmental psychologists call
cognitive maps. Cities need to be legible so that people can ‘read’ and navigate them. The
study of cognitive maps has its origin in the work of Tolman (1948) who studied the way in
which rats find their way in mazes. Lynch (1960), an urban planner, introduced the topic and
a methodology to study the way people perceive the urban environment. Lynch established
a simple but effective method to collect and analyse mental maps. He suggested that
people categorise the city according to five key elements: paths (e.g., streets, lanes), edges
(e.g., spatial limits: rivers, railtracks); districts (e.g., larger spatial areas or neighbourhoods
that have specific characteristics and are typically named, such as ‘Soho’); nodes (e.g.,
intersections, plazas); and landmarks (e.g., reference points for the majority of people).
Furthermore, one can distinguish sequential representations (i.e., elements that the
individual encounters when travelling from one point of the city to another, rich in paths and
nodes) and spatial representations emphasising landmarks and districts (Appleyard, 1970).
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 20
Cognitive maps will vary, for example, as a function of familiarity with the city and stage in
the lifecycle. Such maps can be used either to characterise an individual’s specific
environment interests or preferences (Milgram & Jodelet, 1976), or the qualities and legibility
of a particular environment (Gärling and Evans, 1991; Kitchen, Blades and Golledge, 1997).
Wayfinding is a complex process involving a variety of cognitive operations like localisation
of the target and choosing the route and the type of transportation to reach the goal (Gärling
et al. 1986). Sketch maps often carry typical errors that point to the cognitive elaboration of
the individual’s environmental representation: non-exhaustive; spatial distortions (too close,
too apart); simplification of paths and spaces; overestimation of the size of familiar places.
Environmental evaluations.
What factors are important in people’s evaluation of the built and natural environment and
how satisfied are they with different environments and environmental conditions? Some
environmental evaluations called the place-centred method, focus on the objective physical
properties of the environment such as pollution levels or the amount of urban development
over the previous ten years. The aim is to measure the qualities of an environment by
‘experts’ or by actual or potential users. Such evaluations are done without taking into
account the referential framework of the evaluator, i.e. the values, preferences, or
significations attached to the place. These kinds of appraisals are important, but when it is
remembered that what may be an environmental problem for one person may be of no
consequence to another, it is clear that environmental assessment also has an important
subjective dimension. This is called the ‘person-centred method’ and focuses on the
feelings, subjective appreciation of, and satisfaction with a particular environment (Craik and
Zube, 1976; Russell and Lanius, 1984).
Some environmental appraisals take the form of contrasting social categories such as
architects versus the public (Groat, 1994; Hubbard, 1994) or scientists versus lay people
(Mertz, Slovic et al, 1998), or categorising people who hold particular attitudes (e.g., pro/anti
conservation: Nord, Luloff et al, 1998). The focus of attention is on the role the individual
occupies or the attitudes held and the consequent effect that this has on environmental
attitudes and behaviour.
Evaluations can either be carried out in the environment which is being evaluated, or they
can be undertaken through simulations. Horswill and McKenna (1999) have developed a
video-based technique for measuring drivers’ speed choice which has the advantage of
maintaining experimental control and ensuring external and ecological validity. They found
that speed choice during video simulation related highly to real driving experiences.
Research consistently confirms colour photographs as a valid measure of on-site response,
especially for visual issues (Nasar and Hong, 1999; Stamps, 1990; Brown, Daniel, Richards
and King, 1988; Bateson and Hui, 1992). Stamps (1990) conducted a meta-analysis of
research that had previously used simulated environments to measure perceptions of real
versus photographed environments (e.g., presented as slides, colour prints and black and
white prints). He demonstrated that there is highly significant correlation between
evaluations of real and simulated (photographed) environments. The advent of digital
imaging means that it is now possible to ‘manipulate’ photographs so that environments can
be changed in a systematic and highly convincing way in order to assess public preferences
and reactions. The photographs in Figure 1 were manipulated with the intention of
assessing the impact of different traffic calming measures on drivers’ estimates of speed
(Uzzell and Leach, 2001). The research demonstrated that drivers clearly were able to
discriminate between the different conditions presented in manipulated photographs. When
estimated speeds were correlated against actual speeds along the road as it exists at
present this suggested which design solutions would lead to an increase or decrease in
speeding behaviour.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 21
Figure 1: The use of digitally manipulated photographs to assessing the impact of
alternative traffic calming measures on drivers’ estimates of speed
Transactional Approaches
Three approaches are discussed here as examples of transactional approaches in
environmental psychology: Barker’s behaviour setting approach, affordances, place theory,
identity, and attachment
Barker’s Behaviour Settings
Barker’s behaviour settings approach has both a theoretical and methodological importance
as it provides a framework for analysing the logic of behaviour in particular settings. Barker
(1968, 1990) considered the environment as a place where prescribed patterns of
behaviour, called programs, occur. There is a correspondence between the nature of the
physical milieu and a determined number and type of collective behaviour taking place in it.
According to ecological psychology, knowing the setting will provide information about the
number of programs (i.e., behaviours) in it. Such programs are recurrent activities, regularly
performed by persons holding specific roles. A church, for instance, induces behaviours
like explaining, listening, praying, singing, etc., but each type of activity is performed by
persons endorsing specific roles. According to his/her role, the priest is a ‘performer’ and
the congregation are ‘non-performers’. This setting also has a layout and particular
furniture which fits that purpose and fixes the program, i.e. what type of behaviour should
happen in it? The so called ‘behaviour setting’ (i.e., the physical place and the behaviours)
determines what type of behaviour is appropriate and therefore can or should occur.
Patterns of behaviour (e.g., worshipping) as well as settings (e.g., churches) are
nevertheless independent: a religious office can be held in the open air, and the church can
be used for a concert. It is their role-environment structure or synomorphology that create
the behaviour setting. Barker’s analysis supposes interdependency between collective
patterns of behaviour, the program, and the physical space or milieu in which these
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 22
behaviours take place. Behaviours are supposed to be unique in the specific setting and
dependent on the setting in which they occur. Settings are delimited places such as within
walls, fences, or symbolic barriers. They can be identified and described. Barriers between
settings also delimit programs. Knowing about the setting (e.g., its purpose or intention)
infers the typical behaviours of the people in that setting. Barker’s conceptualisation
permits an understanding of environment-behaviour relationships such that space might be
organised in a certain way in order to meet its various purposes. Behaviour settings are
dynamic structures that evolve over time (Wicker, 1979, 1987).
Staffing (formerly manning) theory completes Barker’s approach, by proposing a set of
concepts related to the number of people the behaviour setting needs in order to be
functional (Barker, 1960, Wicker and Kirkmeyer, 1976). Beside key concepts like
performers who carry out the primary tasks, and the non-performers who observe, the
minimum number of people needed to maintain the functioning of a behaviour setting is
called the maintenance minimum, and the maximum, its capacity. Applicants are people
seeking to become part of the behaviour setting. Overstaffing or understaffing is a
consequence of too few or too many applicants for a behaviour setting. The consequences
of understaffing are that people have to work harder and must endorse a greater range of
different roles in order to maintain the functioning of the setting. They will also feel more
committed to the group and endorse more important roles. On the other hand, overstaffing
requires the fulfilment of adaptive measures to maintain the functioning, such as increasing
the size of the setting.
Behaviour settings and staffing theory are helpful tools to solve environmental design
problems and to improve the functioning of environments. Barker’s approach has been
successfully applied to the analyses of work environments, schools, and small towns. It
helps to document community life and enables the evaluation of the structure of
organisations in terms of efficiency and responsibility.
Affordance theory
Gibson (1979) argues that, contrary to the orthodox view held in the design professions,
people do not see form and shape when perceiving a place. Rather, the environment can be
seen as offering a set of ‘affordances’; that is, the environment is assessed in terms of what
it can do for us. The design professions are typically taught that the building blocks of
perception comprise shape, colour, and form. This stems from the view that architecture
and landscape architecture is often taught as a visual art rather than a way of providing
functional space in which people can work, live, and engage in recreation. Gibson argues
that ‘the affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or
furnishes either for good or ill’ (Gibson, 1979, p. 127). Affordances are ecological resources
from a functional point of view. They are an objectively specifiable and psychologically
meaningful taxonomy of the environment. The environment offers opportunities for use and
manipulation. How we use the environment as children, parents or senior citizens will vary
depending upon our needs and interests, values and aspirations.
This perspective suggests that the degree to which built or natural environments are utilised
change as people’s roles, relationships, and activities in the environment change.
Therefore, the environment can be seen to have a developmental dimension to it. As people
develop their cognitive, affective, and behavioural capacities, the resources that the
environment offers change. Furthermore, the environment can be designed to facilitate,
support, and encourage this. Heft (1988) argues that utilising Gibson’s theory of affordances
allows us to describe environmental features in terms of their functional significance for an
individual or group. He postulated that to arrive at a functional description of an
environment, one requires three sorts of information; the characteristics of the person, the
characteristics of the environment and the behaviour of the individual in question. Heft
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 23
(1988) was interested in children’s environment-behaviour interactions, with the aim of
creating a taxonomy that would describe the functionally significant properties of children’s
environments. Based on his analysis of three significant books on children’s use of their
environment (Barker and Wright, 1951; Hart, 1979; Moore, 1986), Heft created a functional
taxonomy of children’s outdoor environments in terms of the environmental features and
activities they afford for the child. The ten environmental features were: flat, relatively
smooth surface; relatively smooth slope; graspable/detached object; attached object; non-
rigid, attached object; climbable feature; aperture; shelter; moldable materials; water.
Heft also pointed out that as there is a developmental aspect to the taxonomy, the value of
the environment will change for the developing child. As children move from pre-teenagers
through to adolescence so the affordances of different types of environments change in
response to their need for social interaction and privacy (Woolley et al. 1999). Clark and
Uzzell (forthcoming) found the use of the neighbourhood for interaction decreased with age
and by the time the young people had reached 11 years old the number of affordances was
significantly lower than for those aged 7 years old. There was no decrease in the use of the
neighbourhood for retreat. Therefore the neighbourhood retains its importance for retreat
behaviours.
Exemplifying Bonaiuto and Bonnes’ (1996) assertion that the experience of small and large
city living is notably different, Kyttä (1995) examined children’s activities in the city, a small
town and a rural area in Finland. Using the affordance approach but including categories on
social affordances and nature, Kyttä found that the number of positive affordances was
highest in the rural area and lowest in the city. However, when the quality of affordances
was analysed, there were no differences between the areas for eight out of the eleven
affordance categories. The attitudes of parents play a significant role in how children
perceive affordances. Children with a limited autonomy over their spatial range, due to
parental restrictions through fears about safety, see little of the environment and therefore its
affordances.
Theories of Place, Place Identity, and Place Attachment.
One of the earliest theories of place was proposed by Canter (1977), who’s conceptual, as
opposed to behavioural, model proposed that the cognitive system contains information
about where places are, what is likely to happen there and who is likely to be present.
Canter defined place as ‘a unit of environmental experience’ and postulated that the unit of
place was the result of the relationships between actions (i.e., behaviour is associated or
anticipated), conceptions and physical attributes.
A second influential theory of place is the transactional theory of Stokols and Shumaker
(1981) who defined place as the ‘entity between aspects of meaning, physical properties,
and relative activity’. This is not so dissimilar from Canter’s notions of actions, conceptions,
and physical properties. Stokols and Shumaker emphasise the collective perceptions of
place and propose that a place has a ‘social imageability’. This imageability is the
collectively held social meanings that the place has amongst its occupants or users. Within
social psychology these would be called social representations (Farr and Moscovici, 1984;
Moscovici, 1989). Stokols proposed that there are three dimensions that contribute to a
group’s ‘social imageability’ of place: functions, goals, and evaluations. Functions are
individual or group activities that occur within the place regularly and include the norms
associated with the activities and the identity and social roles of the occupants/users of the
place; goals can be either personal or collective and relate to the purpose of the place;
evaluations include the occupants, physical features, social functions associated with the
place.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 24
Thus, Stokols and Shumaker conclude that the perceived social imageability of a place is the
result of the functional, motivational, and evaluative meanings conveyed by the environment.
Stokols places particular emphasis upon the functional dimension of place and the need to
explore the affective and motivational processes in the relationship between people and
place. As Bonnes and Secchiaroli (1995) point out, to live in an environment does not mean
structuring experiences only with respect to its physical reality. Places carry a role in the
fulfilment of biological, cultural, psychological, and social needs of the person in the many
situations that they will face over their lifetime.
One such role is their contribution to personal and group identity. There are two ways in
which place has been related to identity. The first is what could be referred to as place
identification. This refers to a person’s expressed identification with a place. For example, a
person from London may refer to themselves as a Londoner. In this sense "Londoner" can
be considered to be a social category and will be subject to the same rules as a social
identification within social identity theory. Hogg and Abrams (1988) suggest that social
identity comprises different social identifications, any one of which will become salient
depending on the context. Taking this position suggests that the concept of place identity is
subsumed into and becomes a part of social identity.
The second way in which place has been related to identity is through the term place
identity, a construct promoted by Proshansky et al (1983, 1987) which calls for a more
radical re-evaluation of the construct of identity. He proposes that place identity is another
aspect of identity comparable to social identity that describes the person’s socialisation with
the physical world. This understanding stands place identity alongside and independent of
self identity, rather than subsumed within it.
Whilst it may be possible to discuss the relationship between the physical environment and
identity without reference to a group, to have two forms of identity would focus discussion on
whether or not identity was more ‘social’ or more ‘place’. This would not seem to be useful
in explanatory terms. In addition it contradicts environmental psychologists’ transactional
perspective on place (Sageart and Winkel, 1990). Although we agree with Proshansky that
there has been a neglect of the physical environment by self-theorists, we would suggest
that rather than there being a separate part of identity concerned with place, all aspects of
identity will, to a greater or lesser extent, have place-related implications. Although place
identity is seen to be a crucial part of the relationship between self and environment,
Proshansky never really operationalised the concept. Breakwell’s identity process model
(1986), with its constructs of distinctiveness, continuity, self-esteem, and self-efficacy,
provides such an investigatory and analytical framework. Although these constructs have a
particularly social orientation in Breakwell’s formulation, they nevertheless would seem to
have useful transfer relevance to other dimensions of identity including place (Uzzell, 1995;
Bonaiuto et al, 1996). For example, distinctiveness and continuity are essential elements in
Korpela (1989) and Lalli’s (1992) conceptualisations of place identity.
One important mechanism through which place identity is supported is place attachment.
Spencer and Woolley (2000), for example, argue that children gain their personal identity
through place attachment. Place attachment refers to an emotional bonding between the
individual and their lifespace which could be the home, the neighbourhood or places and
spaces at a larger scale (Giuliani, 1991, Altman and Low, 1992; Giuliani and Feldman,
1993).
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 25
Time, Space and the Future of Environmental Psychology
Needs and Rights in Environmental Psychology
The emphasis of much environmental psychology has been on identifying and then assisting
in the process of providing for and satisfying people’s needs. It is assumed within the
philosophy of Brandt and Bruntland that environmental needs should be defined by those in
power (i.e. the West), not the people whose needs are supposedly being satisfied. This
form of donor benevolence as a strategy for tackling environmental deficits operates at the
local, national, and international level. Thus, it is argued, we need to conserve the
rainforests, wildlife, energy, water supplies and prevent pollution, etc. The West finds it
difficult to understand why those experiencing environmental degradation, but also suffering
poverty, malnutrition, poor housing, unemployment, high mortality rates have different
priorities. The needs-based approach is often carried through to be an assumption which
guides environmental psychology research.
An alternative approach focuses on environmental rights in which those without power define
their needs themselves and try to secure the rightful access to resources to satisfy those
needs. There is a difficulty with trying to integrate a bottom-up ‘rights’ approach with a top-
down ‘needs-driven’ approach because one is faced with the problem of who sets the
agenda. Groups will have difficulties asserting their rights when the allocation processes
and agendas are structured by others. A ‘rights’ approach does not mean that neither help
nor resources are required nor given. Clearly it is essential that the ‘haves’ of the world
continue to provide for the ‘have nots’, but within a context of participation, self-
determination, transparency in decision-making and accountability by all concerned. The
essential factor is that the starting point for discussing the allocation of resources is different.
Long term change and development will only come about through informed community
action, rather than a dependency relationship on experts and technological-fix solutions.
The development of environmental consciousness and capacities without the simultaneous
development of opportunities for action leads to a feeling of powerlessness (Uzzell, 1999).
For this reason co-operation between all agencies and institutions is necessary in order to
secure action opportunities. Psychologists in general and environmental psychologists in
particular have the expertise and experience to play an important role in this process. It is
here that we can see the value of research in suggesting prescriptive roles and functions for
an environmental psychology which should be taken seriously by policy makers and
practitioners alike. Some have suggested that the implementation of sustainable
development through, for example, Local Agenda 21 initiatives will only be possible with
local community consensus, (Robinson, 1997). Petts (1995) argues that traditional
participatory approaches have been reactive in that the public are expected to respond
simply to previously formulated plans. The trend now is for proactive, consensus building
approaches which attempt to involve people in the decision-making process itself.
Cultural Differences and Temporal Processes
Environmental psychology, like other areas of psychology, has focussed almost exclusively
on topics, theories, and methodologies which have been oriented towards Western
assumptions and worldviews. Two topics seem to have been neglected in environmental
psychology as they have in other areas of psychology: cultural differences and temporal
processes. Both approaches are even more important at the beginning of the 21st century
as on the one hand the processes of globalisation have the effect of destroying cultural
differences, and on the other hand, sustainable development is seen as a way of ensuring
the long term integrity of bio-cultural systems.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 26
By defining sustainable development as “development that meets the need of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, the
Bruntland Report (1987) opened the way to concerns related to quality of life. The reference
to needs allows not only the requirement that development be harmonious towards and
respectful of the environment, but equally for the recognition of the individual’s own well-
being. Of course, the issue posed above requires us to consider whether we should be
thinking in terms of needs or rights, and indeed, whose needs and whose rights?
Globalisation and its corollary, global trade and communications, creates pressure towards
cultural uniformity in life-styles. The progressive deployment of globalisation has brought on,
with reason, fear of a standardisation of values and increased anonymity threatening both
individual and group identity. It gives rise to movements demanding recognition of local,
regional, and national priorities and cultural differences and therefore also specific needs.
This search for identity finds its expression spatially. Furthermore, the increase in regional,
national, and international forced or voluntary mobility (e.g., political refugees and asylum-
seekers, economic migration of job-seeking populations; executives dislocated by their
companies) exacerbates confrontations between cultures with different needs, values, and
customs. Globalisation provides the impetus to situate environmental psychology in a more
globally, and at the same time, culturally relative framework. The traditional concepts of
local community, environmental appropriation, and identity take on new meanings in the
context of sustainable development and globalisation.
The Cultural Dimension
Quality of life standards are culturally determined. Needs concerning personal space, social
life in the neighbourhood and urban experience are different from one culture to another.
Furthermore, acting in sustainable ways depends on culturally marked values concerning the
environment. From a globalisation perspective how universal is the need for personal space
and privacy? Are they the same everywhere? Research in environmental psychology has
taught us that, for instance, spatial needs vary both from one culture to another and also on
one’s stage in the lifecycle. (Sundstrom, 1978; Altman, 1975). Some studies, such as
Nasar and Min (1984) show that people living in the Mediterranean region and in Asia react
very differently to confined spatial arrangements. But many such studies are conducted in a
culturally homogeneous environment, and so only allow for conclusions concerning
interpersonal differences related to the cultural origins of the research participants (see, for
example, Loo and Ong, 1984). We need more longitudinal research and intercultural studies
such as those undertaken to study reactions to density and spatial needs
.
The norms, needs, and strategies for adapting to conditions very different from our own are
likely to provide us with insights on the dynamics of how people relate to the physical and
social dimensions of both their and our environments. Such studies should be able to
answer these questions more systematically. Privacy may signify and represent very
different conditions not only at the individual level, but also between different cultures
(Altman and Chemers, 1980). Individual versus collective housing preferences and the use
of different facilities inside and around the dwelling are all culturally defined. While individual
dwelling units appear as an ideal in Anglo-Saxon cultural settings, in some Latin American
societies, there is a stronger preference for collective housing units, particularly in Brazil,
mainly for reasons of increased security. More systematic research in this area should be
able to provide guidelines for architects and designers, allowing them to take account of
culturally-dependent needs beyond the simplistic notions of conception and layout (such as
kitchens clearly separated from dining rooms). Kent (1991) has proposed a classification of
different cultural groups according to their use of domestic space. Such a distinction is
particularly relevant to the functional segmentation of spatial arrangements. Kent noted that
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 27
occupants remodel their domestic environment to fit their own cultural imperatives if they find
themselves in an environment which fails to correspond to their own cultural standards.
Well-being has different meanings in different cultures, and instead of imposing western
standards, environmental psychology should contribute more to identifying culturally-specific
standards to enable the construction of modular spaces to satisfy diversified needs. This
becomes more important than ever in the context of an increasingly mobile (forced or
voluntary) society.
At the neighbourhood level, well-being depends on how the immediate environment is able
to satisfy the specific needs of culturally different people, thereby providing opportunities for
appropriation. Currently there is a preference for homogenisation of populations within
neighbourhoods. Yet arguably, such a strategy may pose more risks for the future than
encouraging a process of heterogeneity in terms of the impact on how we perceive others
and how we perceive space occupied by ‘foreigners’. These are classic lessons which can
be learnt from social psychology (Tajfel, 1982). Neighbourhoods not directly controlled or
appropriated by the individual can lead to antagonism between culturally different
communities. More socio-cultural research on living in areas with heterogeneous
populations and trans-cultural relations should be undertaken in order to identify barriers to
integration.
Environmental psychology has repeatedly pointed to the negative consequences of living
conditions in large urban centres: anonymity, insecurity, indifference to others and exposure
to various types of stress (Moser, 1992). This presents a rather dark portrait of urban living
conditions. An environmental psychology has emerged which has deprecated urban centres
and lauded the virtues of supposedly more attractive suburban residential environments
(Lindberg, Hartig, Garvill and Gärling, 1992). Taking the Anglo-Saxon single-family house
as its model (Cooper, 1972; Thorne, Hall and Munro-Clark, 1982), this approach has failed
to account for what is happening in cities such as Paris where the city centre is invariably
highly valued as a thriving, attractive, and lively residential as well as commercial and
cultural environment. Two-thirds of those living in the Paris region indicate they would prefer
to live within the ‘walls’ of Paris itself, while one-fifth would prefer to live in a small provincial
town and only 15% show a preference for the Parisian suburbs (Moser, Ratiu & Fleury-Bahi,
2002). Such results are in direct contrast to those found in the United States. The America
experience cannot be taken as the norm; unfortunately this is often the case in
environmental psychology and other branches of psychology. These differences go beyond
merely the characteristics of urban and suburban environments and raise questions
concerning the aspirations and needs of city-dwellers and the processes which are
generating the transformation of cities. Inhabitants of large cities are increasingly culturally
diverse and, as a consequence, so are their needs. How do cities manage the influx of
foreign populations, some of them culturally very different? What are the conditions of
territorial appropriation of ethnic and cultural minorities, and what is the territorial behaviour
of these populations (e.g., segregation, assimilation, or integration in respect of the wider
community)?
Over the last few years environmental psychologists have made tentative steps towards
building models of the conditions necessary for generating behaviour favourable to the
global environment, as a function of both values and human well-being (Vlek, Skolnik &
Gatersleben, 1998). How are inter-cultural differences, particularly with respect to values,
compatible with pro-environmental benefits for future generations? Many studies point to
individualistic behaviour in the face of limited resources (i.e., ‘the tragedy of the commons’:
Hardin, 1968; Thompson and Stoutemyer, 1991) which can be interpreted in more familiar
social psychological terms as a social dilemma problem (Van Lange, Van Vugt et al, 1998).
Other studies focus on the different ways of envisaging our relationship with the
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 28
environment, such as ‘the New Environmental Paradigm‘(Arcury and Christianson, 1990;
Dunlap, Van Liere et al, 2000). Perception, attitudes, and behaviour concerning the
environment differ from one culture to another to the extent that they are modulated by
environmental variations, the resources available and the societal context including values,
regulations, infrastructure, and opportunities for action (Lévy-Leboyer et al., 1996). For
instance, the different cultural representations of water form interpretative filters of the
objective conditions and normative references orienting individual and collective behaviour
(de Vanssay et al., 1997). The resolution of the dilemma between individual short-term
behaviour and collective action which is common in these types of problematic situations
depends on cultural values, accessibility to resources, and the perception of these
resources. The representation of water is shaped by the values attached to water: affective
and aesthetic values lead to a dynamic, global ecological vision, whereas functional values
and spatial and temporal proximity constitute a limited representation of the same
phenomenon.
The Temporal Dimension
There has been a growing interest in recent years in the historicity of psychological
processes (Gergen and Gergen, 1984). Too often in psychology time, like the environment,
has been treated as noise rather than a valid process in itself. Even in areas such as social
representations which have an integral temporal dimension, little account is given of either
the origins or the development of the representations (Herzlich, 1973; Moscovici, 1976;
Uzzell and Blud, 1993). There are clearly difficulties in accessing the past from a
psychological point of view (Lowenthal, 1985; Uzzell, 1998). Social structures and social
processes change over time, and this in turn has an effect on spatial structures and
processes. If psychological processes are moulded and influenced by their social context,
then changing social structures and regulatory mechanisms will affect those processes with
a consequent effect on the individual, the group, and the environment. While environmental
psychology often hints at the temporal dimension of people-environment relations with the
physical and social environment, the temporal dimension has in general been neglected.
(Altman & Rogoff, 1987; Proshansky, 1987, Werner, Altman & Brown, 1992).
First, the temporal dimension intervenes in different ways in terms of spatial anchoring and
individual well-being. Anchoring is always a process which occurs within a time dimension.
It reflects the individual’s motivations, social status, family situation, and projects for the
future. Well-being has to be set within a time reference, within a time horizon and the life
cycle.
Second, the temporal dimension intervenes as a reference in the individual’s construction of
his or her own identity. Appropriating one’s place of residence is conditioned by the
individual’s residential history. A sense of neighbourliness in the immediate environment
can compensate for mediocre living conditions, but such compensation does not occur if the
person looks back with nostalgia to his/her childhood residence (Lévy-Leboyer and Ratiu,
1993; Ratiu and Lévy-Leboyer, 1993). Furthermore, environmental appropriation revolves
around forming social and interpersonal relationships which depend largely on the duration
of the person’s residence. Those who make emotional investments in their neighbourhood
and develop a sense of well-being tend to be more satisfied with their interpersonal relations
in their neighbourhood. This takes the form of relationships which go beyond simple
politeness (Fleury-Bahi, 1997; 1998). On the other hand, the lack of free time available to
people living in suburbs impacts upon residents’ relationships with neighbours (Moser,
1997).
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 29
Third, how do inter-individual differences, and particularly gender differences, express
themselves in relation to the temporal dimension in terms of spatial investment and
environmental needs? How are these two variables interrelated? What is their impact on
our perceptions, needs, and behaviour? The division of time between leisure and non-
leisure activities (e.g., activities involving imposed time constraints and activities) is
fundamentally different when we compare urban and non-urban settings. Commuting time,
due to the greater distance between home and work, reduces the free time of commuters in
large urban areas in a way which is obvious. This has not been systematically considered
with respect to its impact on the appropriation of space. One might assume that people, who
appropriate their environment and feel at home where they live, will also care more about the
environment in general, and exhibit more frequent ecologically beneficial behaviours as
predicted in the Cities-Identity-Sustainability model (Pol, Guardia et al, 2001, Uzzell, Pol et
al, 2002).
The cognitive and affective evaluation of the environment is contingent upon on temporal,
historical, and cultural factors. Analyses of the perception, evaluation, and representations
of the environment, both built and natural, generally only make implicit reference to the
cultural and temporal dimensions. It has been found, for example, that the cognitive image
of the city of Paris develops and is conditioned not only by the culture of origin and the socio-
spatial familiarity, but also goes through well-defined representational stages before
becoming more or less stable (Ramadier and Moser, 1998).
Increasing population mobility also raises questions of concerning the rhythm of life and its
consequential territorial implications. All places have a life rhythm. For some it may be
short-lived – a period of high intensity use either by day, weak or season. Many leisure
settings fall into this category. Others may be ‘24/7 environments’ such as shopping malls
and airports which are open and used every hour of the day, every day of the year. What
differentiates the rhythm are the different types of groups that occupy the spaces for different
reasons at different times. We know from research on leisure and recreation that what
makes a recreation place are the social meanings ascribed to the recreational setting rather
than the particularities of the activities undertaken (Cheek, Field and Burdge, 1976). An
integral component of this is time. With the development of new technologies, the notion of
proximity takes on new meanings which have not been fully explored by environmental
psychologists. Finally, the temporal dimension resurfaces in the context of the preservation
of the environment and natural resources. One of the conditions for adopting pro-
environmental behaviours is the ability to project oneself into the future and to step outside
one’s own life-cycle and act in the interests of future generations.
Both temporal and cultural dimensions have to be taken into account when addressing
quality of life issues. Well-being depends on the satisfaction of culturally determined needs.
Environmental anchoring and appropriation leading to identity are progressive processes
and are essential for individual and group behaviour in respect of a sustainable
development. The relationship to the environment (at every spatial level – home,
neighbourhood, city, nation, planet) is mediated by the individual’s and group’s sense of
control. Each individual has a personal history and representation of the past and an
anticipatory representation of the future (Doise, 1976) which conditions how he or she
relates to the environment. This means abandoning the atemporal orientation of
environmental psychology to favour of a more dynamic approach. Analyses of pro-
environmental behaviour have demonstrated the importance of a temporal horizon, yet few
research studies explicitly incorporate this dimension. It is only by refocusing analysis on the
person and the social group and their relation with the environment in its spatial, cultural,
and temporal dimensions that the discipline will be able to develop its own meta-theories. It
is in this context that the perspectives of sustainable development and the consequences of
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 30
globalisation can give a new impetus to environmental psychology and help to generate
theories with wider applications.
Conclusion: Applying Environmental Psychology
Gärling and Hartig (2000) suggest that one of the shortcomings of environmental psychology
is that environmental psychologists have only been able to provide general principles in
response to the specific needs of practitioners. In short, it is suggested that there is an
applications gap. While this may be a valid criticism of science in general, its validity in
relation to environmental psychology should be challenged. If there is a gap, is it because
environmental psychologists have failed to communicate with or convince other scientists
and practitioners of the value of their work? Or is it because environmental psychologists
have not delivered the kind of answers that practitioners such as architects and designers
have required or were expecting or wanted? Perhaps environmental psychologists have
been asking the wrong questions? Or does environmental psychology suffer from a
shortage of data? Some might argue that what we need are better theoretical ways of
understanding the data we have already. It may also be that those who have the task of
drawing upon and implementing the results of environmental psychological and other
behavioural science research become frustrated at the amount of time, financial resources
and effort that go into generating marginal increases in the amount of variance explained in
a set of data. Increasing the amount of variance explained from 33% - 35% is important, but
we really need to be far more imaginative in our theoretical and conceptual approaches in
order to make serious inroads into the 65% of the variance unaccounted for.
Gifford (2000) has argued that we need more challenging and bold theories. Environmental
psychology has an important role to play in providing conceptual guidelines of how to look at
and analyse a given setting with reference to its contextual framework. As we suggested at
the outset, the essence of environmental psychology is the context. Context is all as it is an
inseparable part of the explanation of people’s transactions with the environment. One way
of responding to Gifford’s plea for bolder theories is to extend our understanding of context.
In this last section we have argued that the cultural and temporal dimension of people-
environment relations needs to be incorporated into our analytical framework. There is
every reason to argue that this should be the new thrust in environmental psychology
research because the study of globalisation and sustainable development - two crucial
issues which we have identified in this chapter - with their implications for people-
environment relations will necessitate the incorporation of cross-cultural and temporal
analyses if we are to find solutions to the challenges they pose.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 31
References
Aiello, J.R. (1987). ‘Human spatial behaviour’ in D. Stokols and I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook
of Environmental Psychology (Vol. I, pp. 505-531). New York: John Wiley.
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA.: Brooks/Cole.
Altman, I. and Chemers, M. (1980). Culture and environment. Monterey, Calif:
Brooks/Cole.
Altman, I. and Low, S. M. (1992). Place Attachment. Human Behaviour and Environment:
Advances in Theory and Research (Vol. 12) New York: Plenum.
Altman, I. and Rogoff, B. (1987) World-views in psychology: trait, interactional, organismic
and transactional perspectives, in D. Stokols and I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of
Environmental Psychology (Vol. I, pp. 7-40). New York: John Wiley.
Altman, I. and Vinsel, A.M. (1977) ‘Personal Space: An Analysis of E. T. Hall’s Proxemic
Framework’, In: I. Altman and J.F. Wohlwill, Human Behaviour and Environment.
Volume 2, pp181-259), New York: Plenum.
Appleyard, D. (1970). ‘Styles and methods of structuring a city’. Environment and
Behaviour, 2, 10-117.
Arcury, T.A., and Christianson, E.H. (1990). Environmental worldview in response to
environmental problems: Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environment and
Behavior, 22, 3, 387-407.
Averill, J.R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress.
Psychological Bulletin, 80, 286-303.
Barbey, G. (1976). L'appropriation des espaces du logement : tentative de cadrage
théorique. In P. Korosec-Serfaty (Ed.), Actes de la 3ème Conférence Internationale
de Psychologie de l'Espace Construit. Strasbourg: Université de Strasbourg Press,
pp. 215-218.
Barker, R.G. (1960). Ecology and motivation. In M.R. Jones (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium
on Motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 1-50), Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Barker, R.G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the
environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barker, R.G. (1990). Recollections of the Midwest Psychological Field station. Environment
and Behavior, 22, 503-513.
Barker, R.G. and Wright, H.F. (1951). One boy’s day. New York: Row, Paterson.
Bateson, J.E.G. and Hui, M.K. 1992 The ecological validity of photographic slices and
videotapes in simulating the service setting. Journal of Consumer Research. 19
(Sept). 271 – 281.
Baum, A. Singer, J.E. and Baum, C.S. (1981). Stress and the environment. Journal of
Social Issues, 37, 4-35
Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization, London: Polity Press.
Barnes, R.D. (1981). Perceived freedom and control in the built environment. In J.H.
Harvey (Ed.) Cognition, social behavior and the environment. Hillsdale N.J.:
Erlbaum.
Beck, U. (1999). What is Globalization, London: Polity Press.
Becker, F. and Steele, F. (1995). Workplace by Design: Mapping the High-Performance
Workscape, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Becker, F.D. (1981). Workplace: Creating environments in organisations, New York: CBS
Educational as Professional Publishing.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 32
Bell, P.A., Greene, T.C., Fisher, J.D. and Baum, A. (2001) Environmental Psychology, Fort
Worth: Harcourt (Fifth Edition).
Bell, PA, Fisher, JD and Loomis, RJ (1978) Environmental Psychology, Philadelphia:
Saunders.
Bonaiuto, M., Breakwell, G. M. and Cano, I. (1996). Identity processes and environmental
threat: the effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception of beach pollution.
Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 6: 157 -175.
Bonnes, M. and Secchiaroli, G. (1995) Environmental Psychology: A Psycho-Social
Introduction. London: Sage
Bornstein M.H. (1979). The pace of life revisited. International Journal of Psychology,
259, 83-90.
Breakwell, G. M. (1986) Coping with Threatened Identities, London: Methuen.
Brehm, J.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Brown, T.C., Daniel, T.C., Richards, M.T. and King, D.A. 1988. Recreation participation
and the validity of photo-based preference judgements. Journal of Leisure Research.
20 (4). 40-60.
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological
experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press
Bruntland, G.H., (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canter, D. (1977). The Psychology of Place. London: Architectural Press.
Canter, D. and Canter, S. (1971). Close together in Tokyo. Design and Environment, 2,
60-63.
Cheek, N. H., Field, D. and Burdge, R., (1976). Leisure and Recreation Places. Ann
Arbor: Ann Arbor Science.
Clark, C. and Uzzell, DL (forthcoming). ‘The Affordances of the Home, Neighbourhood,
School and Town Centre For Adolescents’, Journal of Environmental Psychology
Cohen, S. and Spacapan, S. (1984). The social psychology of noise. In: D. Jones and
A.J. Chapman (Eds.), Noise and society (p. 221-245). New York: Wiley
Cohen, S., Evans, G.W., Stokols, D. and Krantz, D.S. (1986). Behavior, health and
environment stress. New York: Plenum
Cooper, C. (1972). The house as symbol. Design and Environment, 14, 178-182.
Craik K.H. and Zube E.H. (1976). Perceiving environmental quality: Research applications.
New York: Plenum.
Craik, K.H. (1970). Environmental Psychology. New Directions in Psychology 4. IN K.
Craik (ed.) New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, pp 1-121.
Crawford, M. and Unger, R. (2000) Women and gender: A feminist psychology, New York:
McGraw Hill.
Cunningham, M.R. (1979). Weather, mood, and helping behavior: Quasi experiments with
the sunshine Samaritan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1947-
1956.
Delafons J. (1994). Democracy and design. In B.C. Scheer and W.F.E. Preiser (Eds.),
Design Review, Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, New York: Chapman and Hall,
pp. 13-19.
Devlin, K. and Nasar, J.L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: some preliminary
comparisons of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus
architect judgements of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9: 333-344.
Doise, W. (1976). Groups and Individuals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 33
Donnerstein, E. and Wilson D.W. (1976). Effects of noise and perceived control on
ongoing and subsequent aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 774-781.
Dunlap R.E. (1980). Ecology and the social sciences: An emerging paradigm. American
Behavioral Scientist, 24, 1-149
Dunlap R.E. and van Liere K.D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and
concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 1013-1028.
Dunlap, RE, Van Liere, KD Mertig, AG and Jones, RE, ‘Measuring Endorsement of the New
Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.’ Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56 (Fall,
2000): 425-442.
Dwyer, W.O., Leeming, F.C., Cobern, M.K., Porter, B.E. and Jackson, J.M. (1993). Critical
review of behavioral interventions to preserve the environment: research since 1980.
Environment and Behavior, 25, 275-321
Elliot S.J., Cole, D.C., Krueger, P., Voorberg, N. and Wakefield, S. (1999). ‘The power of
risk perception: Health risk attributed to air pollution in an urban industrial
neighbourhood’. Risk Analysis 19(4): 621- 634.
Evans, G. and Cohen, S. (1987). Environmental stress. in: D. Stokols and I. Altman
(Eds.): Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. I, pp. 571-610). New York:
John Wiley.
Farr, R and Moscovici, S (1984) Social representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Evans, G.W., Lepore, S.J., Shejwal, B.R. and Palsane, M.N. (1998). Chronic residential
crowding and children's well-being: An ecological perspective, Child Development,
Vol.69, No.6, 1514-1523.
Feshbach, S. (1964). The function of aggression and the regulation of aggressive drive.
Psychological Review, 71, 257-272
Festinger L.A., Schachter S. and Back K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups.
New York: Harper and Row.
Fischer, J.D., Bell, P.A. and Baum, A. (1984). Environmental psychology. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston
Fleury-Bahi G. (1997). Histoire, identité résidentielle et attachement au quartier actuel:
étude sur les habitants de la ville de Paris (History, residential identity and
attachement to the neighbourhood environment : study on the inhabitants of Paris).
Psychologie Française, 42, 2, 183-184.
Fleury-Bahi G. (1998). Paris et ses habitants: identité résidentielle et attachement au
quartier (Paris and its inhabitants : residential identity and neighbourhood
attachment). Revue des Etudes Urbaines, 25, 49-71.
Fransella, F. and Bannister, D. (1977). A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique. London:
Academic Press.
Garber J. and Seligman M.E.P. (Eds.) (1981). Human helplessness: Theory and
applications. New York: Academic Press.
Gärling, T and Evans, G.W. (1991) Environmental Cognition and Action, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Garling, T. and Hartig, T. (2000) ‘Environmental Psychology and the Environmental
(Design) Professions’, Newsletter of the International Association of Applied
Psychology, 121, 1, 30-32.
Gärling, T. Böök, A. and Lindberg E. (1986). Spatial orientation and wayfinding in the
designed environment: A conceptual analysis and some suggestions for post-
occupancy evaluation. Journal for Architectural and Planning Research, 3, 55-64.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 34
Gatersleben, B. and Uzzell D. (Forthcoming). Social Dilemmas and Changing Travel
Behaviour: Becoming the Public and Private Citizen. In CL Spash and A Biel (eds).
Social Psychology and Economics in Environmental Research (SPEER).
Gatersleben, B. and Uzzell, D.L. (2000). ‘The risk perception of transport-generated air
pollution’, Journal of the International Association of Traffic and Safety Science, 24,
1, 30-38.
Geller, E.S. (1990). Where have all the flowers gone? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
23, 269-273.
Gergen, K. J. and Gergen, M. M. (1984). Historical Social Psychology, Hillsdale, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Getzels, J.W. (1975) ‘Images of the Classroom and Visions of the Learner’, in T. G. David
and B.D. Wright (Eds) Learning Environments, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Gibson, B. and Werner, C. (1994). Airport waiting areas as behavior settings: The role of
legibility cues in communicating the setting program. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 1049-1060.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Gibson, J.J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Gifford, R. (1997). Environmental psychology: principles and practice. London: Allyn and
Bacon, (Second Edition)
Gifford, R. (1987). The motivation of park users. Victoria B.C.: Optimal environments.
Gifford, R. (2000). ‘Environmental psychology and the frog pond’, IAAP Newsletter, 11, 2,
28-30.
Giuliani, V. (1991). ‘Towards an analysis of mental representations of attachment to the
home’, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 8(2): 133-146.
Giuliani, V. and Feldman, R. (1993). ‘Place attachment in a developmental and cultural
context’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 267 – 274.
Glass D.C., and Singer J.E. (1972). Urban Stress: Experiments on noise and social
stressors. New-York: Academic Press
Godlee, F. and Walker, A. (1992). Health and the environment. British Medical Journal.
London: Tavistock Square.
Groat L (1994) Carbuncles, columns and pyramids, lay and expert evaluations of contextual
design strategies. In: B.C. Scheer and W.F.E. Preiser (Eds.), Design Review,
Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control. New York: Chapman and Hall, pp. 156 -164.
Hall, E.T. (1966) The hidden Dimension, New York: Doubleday.
Hammond, S. (1993). The descriptive analyses of shared representations. In G. Breakwell
and D. Canter (Eds.), Empirical Approaches to Social Representations. (pp. 205-
222). Oxford: Clarendon.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
Hart. R. (1979). Children’s Experience of Place. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.
Heft. H. (1988). Affordances of Children’s Environments: A Functional Approach to
Environmental Description. Children’s Environmental Quarterly, Vol 5 (3), 29-27
Herzlich, C. (1973). Health and Illness: A Social Psychological Analysis. London:
Academic Press.
Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R. and Tomera, A.N. (1986/1987). Analysis and synthesis of
research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Environmental Education, 18, 2, 1-8.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 35
Hogg M. and Abrams, D. (1988) Social identifications. A social psychology of intergroup
relations and group processes. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Holahan, C. J. (1982) Environmental Psychology, New York: Random House.
Horswill, M.S., and McKenna, F.P. (1999). The development, validation and application of a
video-based technique for measuring an everyday risk-taking behaviour: drivers’
speed choice. Journal of Applied Psychology. 84(6) 977-985.
Hubbard, P (1994). Professional vs. lay tastes in design control - an empirical investigation.
Planning Practice and Research, (3): 271-287.
Hubbard, P (1996). Conflicting interpretations of architecture: an empirical investigation.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(2): 75-92.
Hubbard, P. (1994). Professional vs. lay tastes in design control - an empirical
investigation. Planning Practice and Research, 3, 271-287.
Ittelson, W.H. (1973). Environment and cognition. New York: Seminar press.
Ittelson, W.H., Proshansky, H.M., Rivlin, L.G. et Winkel, G.H. (1974). An introduction to
environmental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jain, U. (1993). Cocommitants of population density in India, Journal of Social Psychology,
133, 331 – 336.
Kaplan S (1995) ‘The restorative benefits of nature - toward an integrative framework’,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15 (3): 169-182.
Kaplan S. and Kaplan, R. (1989). The visual environment: Public participation in design
and planning. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 59-85.
Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X., and
Ratick, S. (1988). The Social Amplification of Risk: a Conceptual Framework. Risk
Analysis, 8 (2): pp. 177-187.
Kelly, G.A. (1938). A method of diagnosing personality in the psychological clinic.
Psychological Records, 2, 95-111
Kent, S. (1991). Partitioning space: Cross-cultural factors influencing domestic spatial
segmentation. Environment and Behavior, 23, 438-473
Kitchen, R., Blades, M. and Golledge, R.G. (1997) Relations between psychology and
geography, Environment and Behaviour, 29, 554 – 573.
Korosec-Serfaty, P. (Ed.) (1976). Appropriation of Space, Proceedings of IAPS-1976, the
3rd International Architectural Psychology Conference, Louis Pasteur University,
Strasbourg, June 1976,
Korpela, K. (1989). ‘Place identity as a product of environmental self regulation’. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 9, 241-256.
Korte C. and Kerr N. (1975). Responses to altruistic opportunities under urban and rural
conditions. Journal of Social Psychology, 95, 183-184
Korte, C. (1980). Urban non-urban differences in social behavior and social psychological
models of urban impact. Journal of Social Issues, 36, 29-51.
Krupat, E. (1985). People in cities: The urban environment and its effects. Cambridge,
Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
Kyttä. M. (1995). The Affordances of Urban, Small Town and Rural Environments for
Children. Paper presented at the international conference “Building Identities -
gender perspectives on Children and Urban Space”, in Amsterdam, 11-13 April,
1995.
Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity: theory, measurement, and empirical findings.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 285-305.
Langer, E.J. and Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal
responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191-198.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 36
Lazarus, R. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Lechner, F. and Boli, J. (1999) The Globalization Reader, Oxford: Blackwell.
Lee, T. R. (2001). Perceptions, Attitudes and Preferences in Forests and Woodlands,
(Technical Paper n°18). Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
Lee, TR (1968). ‘Urban neighbourhood as socio-spatial schema’, Human Relations, 20, 3,
240-267.
Lévy-Leboyer, C. and Ratiu, E. (1993). The need for space and residential satisfaction.
Architecture et Comportement/Architecture and Behavior, 9, 475-490.
Lévy-Leboyer, C., Bonnes, M., Chase, J., Ferreira-Marques, J., and Pawlik, K. (1996).
Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behaviors: A Five-Countries Comparison.
European Psychologist, 1, 2, 123-129.
Lewin, K. (1951). Formalization and progress in psychology. In: D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field
theory in social science. New York: Harper.
Lewis, J., Baddeley A. D., Bonham K. G., and Lovett, D. (1970) ‘Traffic pollution and
mental efficiency’. Nature, 225: 95-97.
Lindberg, E., Hartig, T., Garvill, J. and Gärling T. (1992). Residential-location preferences
across the lifespan. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 187-198.
Loo, C.M. and Ong, P. (1984). Crowding, perception and attitudes, consequences of
crowding among the Chinese. Environment and Behavior, 16, 55-67
Low, S. M. and Altman, I. (1992) Place attachment, New York: Plenum.
Lowenthal, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McAndrew, T., (1993) Environmental psychology. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.
Merrens, M. (1973). Non-emergency helping behaviour in various sized communities.
Journal of Social Psychology, 90, 327-328.
Mertz, C., Slovic, P., and Purchase, I. (1998). Judgments of chemical risks: Comparisons
among senior managers, toxicologists, and the public. Risk Analysis, 18, 391-404.
Milgram, S. (1977). The experience of living in cities. In: S. Milgram (ed.) The Individual in
a Social World: Essays and experiments, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley, pp 24-41.
Milgram, S. and Jodelet, D. (1976) ‘Psychological maps of Paris’. In: Proshansky, H.M.,
Ittelson, W.H. and Rivlin, L.G. (1974). Environmental Psychology. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston. (pp. 104 – 124).
Moore, E.O. (1982). A prison environment's effect on health care and service demands.
Journal of Environmental Systems, 11, 17-34
Moore, R. (1986) Childhood’s Domain. London: Croom Helm.
Moscovici, S. (1972). Society and theory in social psychology. In J. Israel and H. Tajfel
(eds.), The Context of Social Psychology: A Critical Assessment. (pp. 17-68).
London: Academic Press.
Moscovici, S. (1976) La Psychanalyse: son image et son public (Psychoanalysis : its image
and its public), Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (2nd Edition).
Moscovici, S. (1989). Des représentations collectives aux représentations sociales
(Collective represenations to social representations). In D. Jodelet (Ed.), Les
Représentations sociales, pp. 62-86. Paris: PUF.
Moser, G. (1984) Everyday vandalism: User behavior in malfunctioning public phones. In C.
Lévy-Leboyer (Ed.); Vandalism (pp. 167-174). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Moser, G. (1988) Urban stress and helping behavior: effects of environmental overload and
noise on behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8, 287-298.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 37
Moser, G. (1992). Les stress urbains (urban stress). Paris: A. Colin.
Moser, G. (1997). L'univers relationnel des citadins: Modalités d'ajustement aux contraintes
urbaines (Citizens’ relationships : ways of adjusting to urban constraints).
Psychologie Française, 42, 2.
Moser, G. (forthcoming). Environmental Psychology for the new millennium : Towards an
integration of cultural and temporal dynamics. In: UNESCO (Ed.), The Ecyclopedia
of Life Support Systems. Oxford: Eolls Publishers.
Moser, G. and Lévy-Leboyer, C. (1985). Inadequate environment and situation control.
Environment and Behavior, 17, 4, 520-533.
Moser, G. and Corroyer, D. (2001). Politeness in an urban environment: Is city life still
synonymous with civility ? Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 611-625.
Moser, G. and Lidvan, P. (1992). Environnement et sentiment d'insécurité In: Y. Bernard
and M. Segaud (eds.), La ville inquiète. (pp. 53-66) Paris: Editions de l'Espace
Européen.
Moser, G. and Matheau, A. (forthcoming). Promoting selective littering: the effect of the
feeling of personal responsibility and the awareness of consequences. In: A.
Kantas, Th Velli, & A. Hantzi (Eds.), Societally significant applications of
psychological knowledge. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.
Moser, G., Ratiu, E. and de Vanssay, B. (forthcoming). Représentations sociales et
pratiques : Un modèle des rapports à l’eau dans différents contextes sociétaux. In:
C. Garnier (Ed.), Représentations sociales: constructions nouvelles. Montréal:
UQàM
Moser, G., Ratiu, E. and Fleury-Bahi, G. (2002). Appropriation and interpersonal
relationships: from dwelling to city through the neighborhood, Environment &
Behaviour, 34(1), 122-136.
Nasar J.L. (1979). The evaluative image of the city. In: A.D. Seidel and S. Danford (Eds.),
Environmental design: Research, theory, and application. Proceedings of the 10th
Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Washington,
DC: EDRA, pp. 38-45
Nasar J.L. (1981). Visual preferences of elderly public housing residents: Residential street
scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1: 303-313.
Nasar J.L. (1983). Adult viewers’ preferences in residential scenes. Environment and
Behavior, 15(5), pp. 589-614.
Nasar J.L. (1984). Cognition in relation to downtown street-scenes: A comparison between
Japan and the United States. In D. Duerk and D. Campbell (Eds.), EDRA 15
Proceedings: The Challenge of Diversity. Washington, DC: Environmental Design
Research Association., pp. 122-128.
Nasar J.L. (1993). Connotative meanings of house styles. In: G. Arias (ed.), The Meaning
and Use of Housing: Ethnoscapes (vol.7). Avebury: Gower, pp 143-167.
Nasar, J.L. and Hong, X. (1999). Visual preferences in urban signscapes. Environment
and Behavior. 31(5) 671-691.
Nasar, J.L. and Min, M.S. (1984). Modifiers of perceived spaciousness and crowding: A
cross-cultural study. American Psychological Association: Toronto, Canada.
Newell, P.B. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of privacy definitions and functions : a
systems approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 357-371
Newcomb, T.M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Noack, P. and Silbereisen, R.K. (1988). Adolescent development and choice of leisure
settings’, Children’s Environmental Quarterly, 5, 25-33.
Nord, M., Luloff, A., and Bridger, J. (1998). The association of forest recreation with
environmentalism. Environment and Behavior, 30, 235-246.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 38
Petts, J. (1995) Waste management strategy development: A case study of community
involvement and consensus building in Hampshire, Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 38, 4, 519 - 536
Platt J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28, 641-651.
Pol E, Guardia J, Valera S, Wiesenfeld, E and Uzzell, D (2001). Cohesión e identificación
en la construcción de la identidad social: la relación entre ciudad, identidad y
sostenibilidad (Social cohesion and identification in the construction of social
identity). Revista Universidad de Guadalajara: Dossier, 19, 40-48.
Proshansky H.M. (1987). The field of environmental psychology: securing the future. In D.
Stokols and I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New-York:
Wiley, Vol.2, pp. 1467-1488.
Proshansky H.M. (1990). ‘The pursuit of understanding: An intellectual history’, in I.Altman
and K. Christensen (eds.) Environment and Behaviour Studies: Emergence of
Intellectual Traditions, New Your: Plenum, pp 9-30.
Proshansky, (1976) City and self identity. Annual Meeting of APA, Washington, Sept. 1971
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K. and Kaminoff, R. (1983) ‘Place identity: Physical world
socialisation of the self’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57 – 83.
Proshansky, H.M., Ittelson, W.H., et Rivlin, L.G. (1970). Environmental Psychology: Man
and his physical setting. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Purcell, A., and Nasar, J.L. (1992). Experiencing other peoples houses: a model of
similarities and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 12, 199-211.
Ramadier, T. and Moser, G. (1998). Social legibility, the cognitive map and urban
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 3, 307-319.
Rapoport, A. (1969). House Form and Culture, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall
Rapoport, R. N. (1997). Families, children and the quest for a global ethic, Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Ratiu, E. and Lévy-Leboyer, C. (1993). Besoin d'espace et satisfaction résidentielle (The
need for space and residential satisfaction). In M. Segaud (Ed.), Evolution des
modes de vie et architecture du logement. Recherches, Vol. 42, Paris: Cité-Projets,
Plan Construction et Architecture, pp. 59-70
Robinson, G. M. (1997). Community-based planning: Canada’s Atlantic coastal action
program (ACAP), The Geographical Journal, 163, 1, 25 - 37
Rosengren W R and DeVault S (1970). The Sociology of Time and Space in an Obstetrical
Hospital. In: H. Proshansky, W. Ittelson and L. Rivlin (eds.) Environmental
Psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp 439-453.
Rosenthal, N.E, Sack, D.A., Gillen, J.C., Levy, A.J., Goodwin, F.K., Davenport, Y., Mueller,
P.S., Newssome, D.A. and Wehr, T.A. (1984). Seasonal affective Disorder : A
description of the syndrome and preliminary finings with light therapy, Archives of
General Psychiatry, 41, 72 – 80.
Rouquette, M.L. and Rateau, P. (1998). Introduction à l'étude des représentations
sociales. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble
Russell, J.A. and Lanius, U.F. (1984). Adaptation level and the affective appraisal of
environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 119 – 135.
Saegert, S. and Winkel, G. (1990). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 441 – 477.
Scheer, B.C and Preiser, W.F.E. (1994). Design Review, Challenging Urban Aesthetic
Control, New York: Chapman and Hall.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 39
Schultz, R. (1976). Effects of control and predictability on the physical and psychological
well-being of the institutionalised aged. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 33, 563-573.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco: Freeman.
Sherrod D. R. and Dowes, R. (1974). Environmental determinants of altruism: The effects
of stimulus overload and perceived control on helping, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 10, 14-27.
Simmel, G. (1957). The metropolis and mental life. In K.H. Wolff (Ed. and Transl.), The
sociology of Georges Simmel. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Sommer, R. (1969) Personal Space, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Spencer, C. and Woolley, H. (2000). Children and the city: a summary of recent
environmental psychology research. Child: Care, Health and Development, 26 (3),
181-197.
Srivastava, P. and Mandal, M.K. (1990) ‘Proximal facings to spatial affect expressions in
schizophrenia, Comprehensive Psychiatry, 31, 119 – 124.
Staats H, Gatersleben B. and Hartig T. (1997). Change in mood as a function of
environmental design: Arousal and pleasure on a simulated forest hike. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 17 (4): 283-300.
Staats H, Hartig T. and Kieviets, A. (2000). Restorative effects of outdoor environments.
International Journal of Psychology, 35 (3-4): 126-126.
Stamps, A. (2000). Psychology and the Aesthetics of the Built Environment. Boston:
Kluwer.
Stamps, A.E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: a meta-analysis.
Perceptual and Motor Skills. 71. 907-913
Stokols, D (1987) ‘Conceptual strategies of environmental psychology’, in Stokols, D. and
Altman, I. (1987). Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol.I, pp 41-70). New
York: John Wiley.
Stokols, D. (1978). A typology of crowding experiences. In A. Baum and Y. Epstein
(Eds.), Human response to crowding. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum, pp 219-255.
Stokols, D. and Altman, I. (1987). Handbook of environmental psychology. New York:
John Wiley
Stokols, D. and Shumaker, S. (1981). People in place: a transactional view of settings. In:
J. Harvey (ed.) Cognition, Social Behaviour and the Environment, Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum (pp. 441 – 488).
Suedfeld, P. (1998). ‘What can abnormal environments tell us about normal people? Polar
stations as natural psychology laboratories. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
Vol. 18(1): 95-102
Suedfeld, P. and Steel, G.D. (2000). The environmental psychology of capsule habitats,
Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 227-253.)
Sundstrom, E. (1978). Crowding as a sequential process: Review of research of the effects
of population density on humans. In A. Baum and Y.M. Epstein (Eds.) Human
response to crowding (pp. 31-116). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Sundstrom, E. (1987) ‘Work environments: offices and factories’ in D. Stokols and I.
Altman, Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. II, pp 733-782). New York:
John Wiley.
Sundstrom, E., Town, J.P., Rice, R.W., Osborn, D.P., and Brill, M. (1994). Office noise,
satisfaction and performance. Environment and Behavior, 26, 195-222.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Identity and Inter-group Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 40
Thompson, S. C. and Stoutemyer, K. (1991). Water use as a commons dilemma: The
effects of education that focuses on long-term consequences and individual action.
Environment and Behavior, 23, 3, 314-333.
Thorne, R., Hall, R. and Munro-Clark, M. (1982). Attitudes towards detached houses,
terraces, and apartments: Some current pressures towards less preferred but more
accessible alternatives. In: P. Bart, A. Cheng and G. Francescato (Eds.).
Knowledge for design: Proceedings of the 13th EDRA Conference. (pp. 435-438)
Washington DC: EDRA - Environmental Design Research Association.
Tolman E.C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55, 189-208
Ulrich, R.S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science,
224, 420-421
Uzzell, D.L. (1998). ‘Interpreting Our Heritage: A Theoretical Interpretation’ in D.L. Uzzell
and R. Ballantyne (Eds.) Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental
Interpretation: Problems and Prospects, London: The Stationery Office. 11-25.
Uzzell, D.L. and Blud, L. (1993). ‘Vikings! Children’s Social Representations of History’ in
G. Breakwell and D. Canter (Eds.) Empirical Approaches to Social Representations,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 110 - 133.
Uzzell, D;L. and Jones, E. (2000). The Development of a Process-Based Methodology for
Assessing the Visual Impact of Buildings. Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research, vol. 17, no 4. pp. 330-343.
Uzzell, D.L. (1999). ‘Education for Environmental Action in the Community: New Roles and
Relationships’ Cambridge Journal of Education, 29, 3, 397 – 413
Uzzell, D.L. (1995). ‘Creating Place Identity Through Heritage Interpretation’ International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 1, 4, 219-228.
Uzzell, D.L. (2000a). ‘Environmental Psychology and the Environmental (Design)
Professions - a Comment on Gärling and Hartig’, Newsletter of the International
Association of Applied Psychology, 121, 1, 32-34.
Uzzell, D.L. (2000b). The Psycho-Spatial Dimension to Global Environmental Problems,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 3, 307- 318.
Uzzell, D.L. and Leach, R. (2001). Engineering Quiet Lanes in the Surrey Hills AONB:
Predicting Drivers’ Speed, Report to Surrey County Council, Guildford: University of
Surrey.
Uzzell, D.L., Pol, E and Badenes, D. (2002). ‘Place identification, social cohesion and
environmental sustainability’, Environment and Behaviour, 34(1) 26-53.
Van Lange, P.A.M., Van Vugt, M., Meertens and R.M., Ruiter, R.A. (1998). A social
dilemma analysis of commuting preferences: the roles of social value orientations
and trust. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(9): pp. 796-820.
Veitch, R. and Arkkelin, D. (1995). Environmental Psychology: An Interdisciplinary
Perspective, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Vlek C., Skolnik M. and Gatersleben B. (1998). Sustainable development and quality of
life: expected effects of prospective changes in economic and environmental
conditions. Zeitschrift für experimentelle Psychologie, 45, 4, 319-333.
Vlek, Ch., Hendrickx, L. and Steg, L. (1993). A social dilemmas analysis of motorised-
transport problems and six general strategies for social behaviour change. In:
ECMT, Transport policy and global warming Paris: European Conference of Ministers
of Transport (ECMT) pp. 209-225.
Weiss, K, Suedfeld, P, Steel, GD, Tanaka,-M. (2000). ‘Psychological adjustment during
three Japanese Antarctic research expeditions’. Environment and Behavior. Vol
32(1): 142-156
GABRIEL MOSER AND DAVID UZZELL: ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 41
Werner C.M., Altman, I. and Brown B.B. (1992). A transactional approach to interpersonal
relations: physical environment, social context and temporal qualities. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 297-323.
Wicker A.W. and Kirkmeyer, S. (1976). From church to laboratory to national park: A
program of research on excess and insufficient populations in behavior settings. In:
S. Wapner, S.B. Cohen, and B. Kaplan (Eds.), Experiencing the environment. New
York: Plenum, pp 157-185.
Wicker, A. W. (1979). An Introduction to Ecological Psychology, Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Wicker, A.W. (1987). Behavior settings reconsidered: Temporal stages, resources, internal
dynamics, context. In D. Stokols and I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of environmental
psychology (Vol. II, pp. 613-653). New York: Wiley.
Wineman, J.D. (1986). Behavioural issues in Office Design, New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Wohlwill, J.F. (1974). Human response to levels of environmental stimulation. Human
Ecology, 2, 127-147.
Wohlwill, J.F. and Heft, H. (1987) ‘The Physical Environment and Development of the Child’
in D. Stokols and I. Altman Handbook of Environmental Psychology: Volume I, New
York: Wiley, 281-328.
Woolley, H., Spencer, C.P., Dunn, J. and Rowley, G. (1999). The child as citizen:
experiences of British town and city centres. Journal of Urban Design. 4: 255-282.
Zillmann, D. (1978). Hostility and aggression. Hillsdale N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Zimbardo P.G. (1969). The human choices: Individuation, reason, and order versus
deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W.J. Arnold and D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 237-307.
Zlutnick S. and Altman, I. (1972). Crowding and human behavior. In J.F. Wohlwill and
D.H. Carson (Eds.), Environment and the social sciences (pp. 44-60). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
