Content uploaded by Enric Pol
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Enric Pol on Aug 22, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano
2007,8(1y2), 1-28.
ISSN 1576-6462
©Editorial Resma, 2007
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
1
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II):
From Architectural Psychology to the challenge of
sustainability
Enric Pol
Universitat de Barcelona
Abstract
This is the second of two papers on blueprints for a history of
Environmental Psychology. We have determined four stages: the
First Environmental Psychology, the American Transition,
Architectural Psychology, and Environmental Psychology for
Sustainability. The previous paper dealt with the former two stages.
We located their origins in early twentieth-century in Germany, with
Hellpach and other authors who spoke specifically about
Environmental Psychology. Definitions of boundaries of this stage
are somewhat fuzzy. The period projects themselves until the
1930s, with the migration of a significant number of German
psychologists to the United States. Thus began the “American
Transition”. In this stage, that brings us to the end of the 1950s,
we followed the trace of the discipline during a time when it was
uncommon to speak about the existence of an Environmental
Psychology. However, it was at this time that a large part of the
theoretical foundations of subsequent stages were established.
This paper describes what some authors call the “Second Birth of
Environmental Psychology” (Kruse and Graumann, 1987), and
what we label as the “Age of Architectural Psychology”. In the
description of this period we identify a crisis of relevance and an
epistemological crisis at the end of the 1970s which, in the 1980s,
gives rise to a two-fold shift – both social and green – that results
in the formation of a new Environmental Psychology aimed at
sustainability at the turn of the century.
As a ‘blueprint’, this series of papers does not intend to offer a
comprehensive review of the contributions made to the field, but
rather aims to provide information in order to understand its
strengths and weaknesses, its common ground and contradictions,
and, in short, its construction as a theoretical and applied science.
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
2
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
THE AGE OF ARCHITECTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
Architectural Psychology, as the third stage of Environmental
Psychology, also has fuzzy boundaries just like its predecessors. It began
in the late-1950s and early-1960s, and ended in the late-1980s. A
significant amount of texts on the relationship between behaviour and
environment appeared in this stage. Mainly of them where focused on
built surroundings. Furthermore, it gave rise to an abundance of calls for
meetings or conferences on the subject of Environmental Psychology or
Architectural Psychology. The stage concludes with the consolidation of
what we call the two-fold social and environmental shift of this field –
another fuzzy transition period between 1988 and 1992.
In this era, the evolution of Environmental Psychology was clearly
stimulated by external social and contextual demands originating from
two sources: firstly from architecture, preoccupied with constructing more
practical and comfortable surroundings; and secondly from the shared
concerns of other disciplines faced with the environmental-ecological
issue in which psychology was present in a more nominal than real way.
However, the emphasis on built surroundings distinguished psychology
from what was more commonly understood as “environmental”. This
double trend was clearly reflected in the most emblematic text (although
not the first) of this time: Environmental Psychology, edited by
Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin (1970). The editors took great effort to
outline a broad spectrum of Environmental Psychology, linked to the
rising environmental sciences (as they state in the book's introduction),
including as much the relationship between behaviour and problems with
environmental resources, as the production, uses and effects on the
environment. However, the bulk of the chapters of the book are dedicated
to the built environment, and not specifically from a “green” perspective.
The Environmental Psychology of this period, then, was to be in fact a
psychology restricted to architecture, in a lesser extent to urban
dynamics, and only marginally focused on environmental-ecological
aspects.
The scope of the object, the interdisciplinary nature of the field of
study, the theoretical approach, etc. brought about the coexistence of
different labels: “Architectural Psychology”, as the first name used in both
the United States and in Europe in the ‘60s and ‘70s; “Environmental
Design and Human Behaviour” (Krasner, 1980); “Ecological Psychology”
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
3
(in Barker’s sense, 1953, 1968); “Psychologie de l’espace” in
Francophone area (Moles and Rohmer, 1972), and some other less
significant names. In 1964 Ittelson was to use the generic term
“Environmental Psychology”, for the first time in this era, in a conference
in the United States of America. This same label was also used by David
Canter and Terence Lee in 1973, as the title given to their Masters
degree course at Surrey University in Great Britain. “Environmental
Psychology” and “Architectural Psychology” were to cohabit for some
years yet as generic and almost synonymous terms.
Initial Milestones and the Consolidation of Architectural
Psychology in North America
In the early days of Architectural Psychology in North America, works
on spatial behaviour in psychiatric centres and hospitals took place as
one of the initial demands. The works of Osmond (1957) and Sommer
and Ross (1958) offer an example of this. Also, in 1958, William Ittelson
and Harold Proshansky developed a project at the City University of New
York (CUNY), on factors that had an influence on the design and function
of psychiatric hospitals. This was to be one of the bases of both the
Environmental Psychology academic program at the CUNY (created in
1967) and of the first textbook on the subject (the aforementioned text by
Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin, 1970). Almost at the same time, Roger
Bailey (an architect), Calvin Taylor (a psychologist) and Hardin Branch (a
psychiatrist) started a training programme for architects and
psychologists, and called for an interdisciplinary meeting in Salt Lake City
under the name of “Architectural Psychology and Psychiatry” (Bailey,
Branch and Taylor, 1961). Later the programme was to be run eventually
by Irwin Altman. Also relevant at this time was Lawrence Good’s work in
the Topeka State Hospital Research Fund.
As Bechtel recounted (1997), in December 1956, the American
Institute of Architects, with this broader approach, suggested to the
National Science Foundation to support a meeting to analyse the
relationships between the physical, biological and social sciences with the
aim of getting the maximum use out of environments designed to
accommodate human activities. This conference took place three years
later (1959) in Ann Arbour, Michigan, and was called “Research for
Architecture” thus not mentioning other fields involved (the proceedings
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
4
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
were edited by Magneau, 1959). Finally, the “Conference of the American
Hospital Association on Hospital Planning” in 1964 saw Ittelson using the
title “Environmental Psychology and Architectural Planning” which set the
name of this field in stone.
Also in this time, anthropologist Edward Hall’s The Silent Language
was published in 1959, with great success. The book introduced the
concept of proxemics and personal spaces. This line was continued in
subsequent books that were also of great success: The Hidden
Dimension (1966) and Handbook for Proxemic Research (1974), and
similarly those by other authors, mainly Robert Sommer’s Personal
Space: The behavioural basis of design (1969).
In 1966, the publication of a monographic issue of the Journal of
Social Issues edited by Kates and Wohlwill stood out. In 1968 the first of
the “Environmental Design Research Association’s” (EDRA) annual
meetings took place in North Carolina, and in 1969, EDRA were to create
the first scientific journal on this field under the title “Environment and
Behaviour”.
Putting an end to the change in name, Environmental Psychology in
North America, unlike Europe’s, experienced a period of “tranquillity” and
of regular books and textbooks production during the ‘70s to the late-
‘80s, which in Kuhnian terms we could describe as a period of “normal
science”. The first textbooks by Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin, Bechtel,
Bell and contributors, Hollahan, Stokols and a long list of referential texts
where published during the ‘70s and ‘80s.
It was the age when the main university training programmes were
being created – the majority with the name “Environmental Psychology”.
This is the case with the aforementioned CUNY’s Masters degree – one of
the most influential since its founding in 1967 until the present day,
which was to train and incorporate other names that were to become
important and influential in the discipline and in social policies, such as
Roger Hart (a significant consultant of UNICEF) or, in the more
anthropological field, Setha Low, among other important figures. Other
programmes could be found in the University of Arizona’s Psychology
Department with Robert B. Bechtel and William Ittelson; in the University
of Utah’s Psychology Department in Salt Lake City with Irving Altman; and
there were other less-known programmes. The University of California in
Irvine, Los Angeles, incorporated Environmental Psychology in its program
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
5
on “Social Ecology” with Dan Stokols, Gary W. Evans and others. Also,
subjects on Environmental Psychology were included in many architecture
and psychology establishments with mixed programmes. The University of
California in Berkeley deserves a special mention with the architect
Donald Appleyard, and the psychologist Kenneth H. Craick and its
Environmental Simulation Laboratory.
Initial Milestones of Architectural Psychology in Europe
During the post-war period in Europe, the intense activity of urban
reconstruction combined with the failure of some existing plans already
being carried out brought about an architectural opening in social
sciences. In this context Terence Lee, a disciple of Bartlett, developed his
doctoral dissertation in 1954 on self-sufficient housing and
neighbourhoods (Lee, 1968). In 1957, he was to begin investigating and
publishing on the effects that school refurbishments had on children, as
the closure of small schools in rural areas meant they had a daily journey
to town centres. Terence Lee was to be Great Britain’s pioneer in
Environmental Psychology, although he himself acknowledged at this time
he defined his work as social psychology (Lee, 1984, personal
communication).
The first formal act of this preface in Europe was a symposium held in
1963, called by the Scottish branch of the British Psychological Society.
Marie Jahoda participated in it (Lee, 1984, personal communication),
constituting a link with the period of “First Environmental Psychology”
(aforementioned in the previous paper). What can be considered as the
“definitive” constitution of Architectural Psychology in Europe was to be
the 1969 meeting in Dalandhui, also in Scotland, summoned by the
University of Strathclyde and RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects)
and instigated by Terence Lee and David Canter. One year later, in the
Kingston Polytechnic, the first International Architectural Psychology
Conference (IAPC), predecessor of the current IAPS (International
Association for People-Environment Studies) was held. In this first
conference the Architectural Psychology Newsletter (now the IAPS
Bulletin) was created. Since 1970, the IAPC first and then the IAPS since
1982, have called for international conferences every two or three years,
mostly taking place in Europe. The unsettled history of this time in Europe
is documented in Pol (1988, 1993).
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
6
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
The IAPC identified itself with the label of Architectural Psychology until
1981, but in 1973 Terence Lee and David Canter created the first
academic programme in Europe at the University of Surrey. Following the
trend in the US, they called it a Master in “Environmental Psychology”.
Later, the responsibility of program will be taken by David Uzzell and
recently by Birgitta Gatersleben. In 1981, Canter was also the driving
force behind the Journal of Environmental Psychology, co-edited with
Kennet H. Craik from Berkeley. Thus in Europe the generic terms
“Architectural Psychology” and “Environmental Psychology” co-habited for
a time.
In Sweden, the role of pioneer can be attributed to the architect Sven
Hesselgren. In 1954 he presented his thesis entitled The language of
architecture, which basically concentrated on the perception of
architecture. In 1965 two psychologists, Tony Gärling and Rikart Küller,
joined his investigation team in the Swedish Council Building Research
(Hesselgren, 1984, personal correspondence). In 1967, Carl-Axel Acking,
the Professor of Architecture at Lund University, called for the first
Architectural Psychology Conference which since then has taken place at
regular intervals. After this first conference, in 1968 the “Swedish Society
of Architectural Psychology” was founded, which is now the
“Environmental Psychology Group” of The Swedish Research Council.
The French-speaking world coined its own term: “Psychologie de
l’Espace”. In France’s case we have to return to Paul-Henry Chombart de
Lauwe (1956, 1959). In 1949, he began his work on society, space and
living conditions in the city of Paris. His wife, Marie-José, was in charge of
the psychopathological effects of the environment on maladjusted
children (M.J. Chombart de Lauwe, 1959) – a theme that Sivadon was to
return to in a more general manner in 1965. For their part, Abraham
Moles and his team institutionalised Spatial Psychology in the Social
Psychology Institute of the Louis Pasteur University in Strasbourg (Moles
and Rohmer, 1964, 1972; G.N. Fisher, 1981; Korosec-Serfaty, 1976).
The label “Psychologie de l’Espace” was also used in other Francophone
areas, as is the case of the Louvain-la-Neuve School of Architecture’s
team in Belgium, with Jules Gerard Simon, or that of the Lausanne
Federal Polytechnic in Switzerland, with Giles Barbey. It wasn’t until the
end of the ‘70s that the use of “Psychologie de l’Environnement” was
standardised with Claude Levy-Leboyer’s book (1980), which was
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
7
immediately followed by Jean Morval’s Introduction à la psychologie de
l’environnement (1981).
In Germany, it wasn’t until the ‘70s that an Environmental Psychology
comparable to that already consolidated at an international level
emerged. This is what Kruse and Grauman (1987) called the “second
birth” of Environmental Psychology. Between 1973 and 1975 Kaminski
and the German Psychological Association organised two seminars to
commemorate the 50
th
Anniversary of Hellpach’s Psychologie der Umwelt
that brought about the first reference book of the period,
Umweltpsychologie: Perspektive, Probleme, Praxis edited by Kaminski
(1976). As the editor himself showed, there was no sign of previous texts
from the post-war period. Well into this period, Alexander Mitscherlich’s
psychoanalytic analyses of the problematic urban environment –
Psychoanalysis and urbanism (1963) and Our Inhospitable Cities (1965)
– emerged, which were systematically ignored and even verbally attacked
largely by the area’s experts. From the ‘70s onwards a certain amount of
investigation units and partial training programmes emerged with Gerard
Kaminski in Tubingen, Lenelis Kruse in Heidelberg, Martin Krampen in
Berlin, and Wolker Linneweber at the University of Saarlandes, who also
collaborate with the University of Magdeburg with Urs Fuhrer and Petra
Schweizer-Ries focused on renewal energies. At present, an annual
Environmental Psychology Conference is held in Germany with great
vitality, and the Umwelt Psychologie journal is regularly published.
In Italy, during seventies and eighties, it we have to mention three
groups: in Padua (with Erminelda Peron), in Bologna (with Gianfranco
Secchiaroli) and in Rome (with Mirilia Bonnes of the University of
Sapienza, and Maria Vitoria Giuliani of the CNRS). Equally at this time,
activity from Toomas Niit, Mati Heidmets and Jusi Kruusval was beginning
to emerge in Tallinn, Estonia, even inside the USSR’s area of control.
In Holland, the Eindhoven Polytechnic’s team was beginning to shine
in the field of Architectural Psychology with Joost van Andel, and later with
Jan Teklenburg. Recently Florian Kaiser joined the group, contributing
with his work on environmental attitudes. In Groningen, Charles Vlek y
Linda Steg (2007) stood out with subjects on risk, environmental
management and transport (Steg & Gifford, 2005). In Leiden, Henk
Staats with his studies on preferred landscapes (Hartig & Staats, 2003)
deserves a mention.
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
8
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
In Spain in the 1950s we find some antecedents in authors that,
without being environmental psychologists, were to be the first to give
isolated courses on “Space Psychology” and “Environmental Psychology”
in the ‘70s. This was the case of Miquel Siguán who in 1959 analysed
migrations from rural areas to the cities, focusing on the living conditions
in the marginal neighbourhoods. In this same period were the first works
of José Luis Pinillos. This author took environmental influence from his
training in pre-war Germany (in previous work – Pol, 1993 – we have
considered he one of the “missing links” between the first and second
Environmental Psychology). Of this author, Psychopathology of urban life
(1977) should be given special attention. For their part, from an
architectural stance, Josep Muntañola’s enthusiasm for the discipline,
and his works on the notions of space and city in children (1973) also
merit attention. Finally, Tomás Llorens’s compilation of texts, Toward an
architectural psychology (1973) – which includes texts by Canter,
Stringer, Sommer and Lee – also deserves a mention.
In the 1980s, first compilations (Jiménez Burillo, 1981) and
monographs (Pol, 1981; Hernández, Riba y Remesar, 1983) were already
appearing. From 1979 onwards, Josep Muntañola, Montserrat Morales
and Enric Pol came together to create the Conference on School
Environment: Psychological, Educative and Design Problem (Pol &
Morales, 1980, 1981, 1986; Pol & Morales & Muntañola, 1984). This
same group were to organise the IAPS International Conference in
Barcelona (1982) with the support of Siguán.
At an Spanish level, 1986 was to be an emblematic year with the
“First Conference on Environmental Psychology” being held in Madrid
(Jimenéz Burillo, Aragonés and Corraliza, 1988). From then on, similar
meetings have taken place every two to three years. Also in 1986, the
first textbook by Spanish authors was published (Jiménez Burillo and
Aragonés, 1986) and other reference texts emerged the following year
from authors such as Corraliza (1987) and Fernández Ballestros (1987).
Spain’s Environmental Psychology has from the beginning been largely
linked to Social Psychology, but with a strong presence of methodologies
from a variety of directions (Anguera, Blanco, Guàrdia, Fernández-Dols,
Íñiguez, etc). In Seville in 1988, Ricardo de Castro, the first professional
of Environmental Psychology in public administration, planned the first
conference on contributions from his field to the conservation and
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
9
management of the environment (Castro, Aragonés y Corraliza, 1991). In
2000, Bernardo Hernández of the University of La Laguna – another of
the pioneers from the ‘80s – initiated the publication of the first
Environmental Psychology journal in Spanish: Medio Ambiente y
Comportamiento Humano (MACH).
In Europe, the level of academic institutionalization was very uneven.
As well as Canter and Lee’s Masters degree course at Surrey University,
which began in 1973, many centres with partial programmes, research
groups, Doctorate programmes or basic courses were set up (or
consolidated in Canter and Lee’s case). However, some pioneering
courses were also disappearing, such as that of Spatial Psychology at the
Louis Pasteur University in Strasbourg (due to the death of Abraham
Moles in 1992 and the disbandment of Nicholas Fischer and Perla
Korosec-Serfaty). Other courses were created, such as the “Master in
Environmental Intervention and Management: People and Society” in
Barcelona in 1987 by Pol, Morales and Muntañola, to which Íñiguez also
became a part of, or the “Master en Psychologie Environnementale” of
Paris-5 University, created in the early-‘90s by Gabriel Moser that they are
still running today. At present, other partial programmes or subjects on
Environmental Psychology are established in Italy, Holland, Germany,
Spain, Portugal and so on.
Spreading to other continents
Meanwhile, from the ‘60s but especially during the ‘80s and ‘90s,
Environmental Psychology was reaching other continents. The
Environment-Behaviour Studies course at the University of Sydney,
Australia had already begun in the ‘60s with the appearance of
naturalistic-orientated works and evaluations on environmental impact,
as innovative components (Thorne & Hall, 1987). This is now run by Gary
Moore. In 1980, this group were to promote the creation of the PAPER
association (People and Physical Environment Research) which defines
itself in the Australian and Asian domain. In 1982, MERA (Man-
Environment Research Association) was created and run from the Osaka
Architecture Department in Japan. It combined its own old tradition and
influence from international Environmental Psychology with a certain
emphasis on disasters, crowding and pollution (Hagino, Mochizuki &
Yamamoto, 1987). In the University of South Africa, Johannesburg,
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
10
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
Henning Viljoen, Fred Van Staden, Kate Grieve and Vasi Van Deventer
(1987) published a very comprehensive introduction to Environmental
Psychology for their courses. More recently, in China, EBRA (Environment-
Behaviour Research Association) has appeared which held its First
International Conference at the University of Nanjing in the year 2000.
In Latin America, the first contributions also occurred in the late-‘70s
and early-‘80s. We have to mention Esther Wiesenfield and Euclides
Sánchez (Caracas, Venezuela) who focused on the relationship between
the environment, community, social housing, and participatory processes.
In the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) the pioneer was
Serafín Mercado. In 1984, together with Patricia Ortega, Javier Urbina
and María Montero they created a Master in Environmental Psychology.
Subsequently, already in the ‘90s, it is necessary to mention Bernardo
Jiménez and Rosa López in the Master in Urban Studies at the University
of Guadalajara. Javier Guevara in Puebla, and Gabriela Luna in the
University of Guanajuato worked on public policies and citizen behaviour
in waste management. One of the most famous Mexicans is Víctor Corral-
Verdugo of the Univeristy of Sonora, who was an indisputable point of
reference concerning issues of environmental concern. In Brazil, Jose
Pinheiro created a group in Natal and led the Latin American Network of
Environmental Psychology (REPALA), Hartmut and Isolda Günther lead the
laboratory in University of Brasilia, and there is also a laboratory on the
field in the University of Sao Pablo, with Eda Thassara.
Schedules, perspectives and crisis
The agenda repeatedly established during the ‘60s and ‘70s, whether
by Kates and Wohlwill (1966) in the aforementioned monograph Journal
of Social Issues, or by Proshansky et als.’s reference book (1970), or by
Krasner (1980), to mention but a few, always covered a broad spectrum
(from environmental concern to architectural psychology). But, on the
other hand the vast majority of texts and works ended up referring to
architectural issues even more than to issues of town-planning.
In the initiation and referential works – such as that of Proshansky
and contributors in 1970, but also in subsequent texts like Holahan’s
(1982) or the first editions of Bell, Fisher and Loomis’s textbook of 1978
– there was a significant volume of discursive texts dedicated to the
urban dimension and to the radical transformation that American towns
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
11
at the time were suffering. There was a constant reference to the School
of Chicago and its followers’ legacy and tradition, to symbolic
interactionism, and to Goffman, Koffka, Lewin and Murray; to Sherif,
Festinger, and of course to Lewin, and no end of socially orientated
antecedents that we have mentioned in the first and second stages. On
the other hand, the majority of works at this time appeared in
conferences and journals focusing on evaluating individual reaction to
specific architectural surroundings, whether to value their functional
effectiveness, their acceptance by users or their status as part of life’s
environment (in the case of quality of life and residential satisfaction, for
example). The meaning and symbolic value of space were present in
some macro studies, especially by architects, urban planners and other
social scientists, but they rarely appeared in empiric works from
psychology.
At the end of the ‘70s Proshansky introduced the idea of “Place
Identity”, (after attending the IAPC conference about the “Appropriation of
Space”, organised by Korosec Serfaty in 1976 in Strasbourg), with which
the study of spatial symbolism in modern Environmental Psychology was
consolidated (not created). Even this was criticised for adopting an overly
individualist perspective (Valera, 1993), in spite of the recognition it
received for its contribution to symbolic interaction. The same happened
with previous studies on the design of psychiatric hospitals in spite of
constant references to Goffman. In Irvine’s case, in which environmental
psychology is classified in a more sociological context, we found explicit
references and academic acknowledgements to the School of Chicago’s
Human Ecology and Social Ecology, to Ecological Psychology in the style
of Barker, Wicker, Willems, Shogun, Bechtel etc., as well as that of
Lewin’s Action Research, and to Bertalanffy, Maruyana and other authors
of Systemic Theories.
From what has been outlined up to this point, we can draw some
conclusions: first of all that the Environmental Psychology of this stage is
above all an architectural psychology; secondly the factual definition of
Environmental Psychology (not the intended definition) is above all an
individual psychology. It is formally about incorporating the social
question, but without leave individual models of explanations of
behaviour, especially in empirical works. Although it emerged more like a
social psychology in Europe than in North America, it also excessively
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
12
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
went over the individual models of explain the mainly social behaviours
on which it focused. All this culminated in an epistemological crisis at the
end of the ‘70s, which was not to be resolved until the ‘80s.
Inevitably this contradiction between the programmatic and the
factual, the theoretical and the empirical, led to a certain frustration of
expectations, to a relevancy crisis that could be interpreted as the
“environmental” version of the social psychology crisis in the early-‘70s,
which here was to manifest itself with somewhat a delay. We can follow
its trace in the pages of the Architectural Psychology Newsletter from
1979 until 1984 (see Pol, 1988, 1993). All this led to disillusionment –
and the abandonment of interdisciplinary work with psychologists – for a
significant number of less experimentalist-minded architects, sociologists
and geographers. The architects did not receive the answers they had
hoped for, even though there were some who in plain self-criticism
pondered whether they had asked the right questions. On the whole, all of
this resulted in a certain “disciplinary” confinement of Environmental
Psychology, which on the other hand allowed the opening up of other
issues that had been pushed aside (without forgetting about the
architectural issues), although with less apparent impact among
architects and urban planners.
The Two-fold shift of Environmental Psychology in the 1980s
The crisis of Architectural Psychology was not ‘channelled’ (more than
closed off) until the end of the decade. Various events contributed to this,
which, in our opinion, allowed a glimpse into the discipline’s social and
environmental two-fold shift, during the 1980s.
The “Social Shift” of Environmental Psychology
In 1981 Serge Moscovici and Denise Jodelet summoned some
outstanding authors in Environmental Psychology to a meeting in Paris
under the heading “Towards a Social Psychology of the Environment”
(Jodelet and Stringer, in press). They debated explanatory potencies for
Environmental Psychology that could involve theories such as social
representations and others belonging to social psychology. This meeting
is not well-known and is barely documented, but it has strongly influenced
the future evolution of the discipline.
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
13
A second “indicator” of this shift is that some emblematic authors also
defined themselves as applied social psychologists. This is the case of
Frenchman Gustave-Nicolas Fischer (1981) with his Psychosociologie de
l’espace, or of Proshansky (1981) with his contribution to the Applied
Social Psychology Annual, edited by Bickman.
The Handbook of 1987, edited by Stokols and Altman, also reflected
this shift in a certain way. This voluminous, canonical and fundamental
text, compiled that which was being constructed on environmental
psychology from a fuzzy beginnings (differents, according to the author
and the country that he revised, in the second of its two volumes). In this
handbook there is a recurrent attempt to speak about “socio-
environmental” behaviour and to reach a position in the transactional
paradigm by several authors.
The fourth event, that denote the “social shift” is a conference held in
Lisbon, called “Social and Environmental Psychology in the European
Context”. A select group of only 64 participants from various European
countries, and some North Americans attended – Irving Altman being one
of them, as Stephenson emphasized in his acknowledgements (Canter,
Jesuino, Sockzka and Stephenson, 1988). In the resulting book Canter
gave to his introductory contribution a significant title: Environmental
(social) psychology: an emerging synthesis. This text has had a strong
impact within the field. Canter revised the traditional trites on
Environmental Psychology and argued how they cannot be understood
nor explained beyond their social importance, and he tried to show that in
fact the main referential authors of Environmental Psychology were
already social in their approach, but that at times they were
misunderstood. He restored the tradition of French Social Psychology and
all the topics most characteristic of “social psychology” especially in
Europe: social representation, attributions, action theories, social identity,
socio-cognitivism, etc. This allowed a glimpse into the construction of a
European Environmental Psychology that was more social than the North
American one, this seem to be reaffirmed in the following years. We will
find another example in the textbook of Bonnes and Secchiarioli (1992)
Psicologia Ambientale: Introduzione alla psicología sociale dell’ambiente
(literally ‘Environmental Psychology: An introduction to Social Psychology
of Environment’) – one of the first Italian texts translated into English. The
most recent appearance of Psychologie Sociale de l’Environnement
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
14
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
compiled by Weiss and Marchant (2006) followed the same thread, as did
La psychologie environnementale of Morval (2007) (a European that
settled down in the Francophone Quebec), and the ascription of the
majority of Spanish, Italian or French authors in the field of Social
Psychology.
All of this shows Environmental Psychology’s explicit trend to adopt
Social Psychology’s explanatory parameters and theoretical backgrounds.
This is the “shift” that will be reflected in the thematic evolution and
theoretical approaches of the following years. Its consequences can be
resumed in: a change of approach, an evolution of the object of study and
more methodological flexibility; movement of the object from the most
structural approaches (functionality, cognition, etc.) to the most
experiential and most symbolic (satisfaction, place identity, appropriation
and attachment, etc.). Equally, the “basic” studies seem to lose specific
weight, in order to yield to theoretical proposals mainly based on applied
social research, among others.
The “Environmental Shift”
As we have already mentioned, psychology’s preoccupation with
“environmental concern” is nothing new. We already came across it in the
‘60s with Kates and Wohlwill (1966), in the ‘70s with Everret et al.
(1974), with Cone and Hayes’s well-known text Environmental Problems,
Behavioural Solutions (1980), and with Aragonés’s work on the natural
environment (1985), among others (see Géller, 1987). Some works
focused directly on the conservation of energy in the cases of Pallak,
Cook and Sullivan (1980) or Blas and Aragonés (1986). But it is sporadic,
with neither great visibility nor continuity. From 1987 onwards, but above
all from 1992, the scene
changed in the sense of the volume of works
and publications on the issue, and its approach.
Canter (1992) described an increase in the Surrey student's interest
in ecological issues. Since 1987, in the Barcelona Masters programme
the ecological context at once became a central concern in education and
in the applied works that it developed, marking the direction towards
environmental management, as one of the said programme’s
contributions to the discipline (Pol 2002b, 2003a,b,c). Equally in the
Spanish conferences, the “green” has had a significant presence since
1986. On the other hand, some works in the framework of the MAB
programme (Man and Biosphere) of UNESCO were begun, linking urban
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
15
quality with environmental resources. One example is Rome’s case
(Bonnes, 1987) with the participation of Bonnes (Italy), Jodelet (France),
Kruse (Germany), Stringer (Great Britain), among others.
But what really made the declaration of the “green shift” possible
between the late-‘80s and early-‘90s was the abundance of publications
focused on attitudes and behaviour in relation to environmental
resources and “Environmental Global Change”. The following papers are
referential examples: Levy-Leboyer and Duron, 1991; Stern, 1992;
McAndrew, 1992; Kruse, 1994; Gardner and Stern, 1996; Stern and
Easterling, 1999; Schmuck and Schultz 2002, the evolution of the
contents of both classic and modern handbooks (for example, Bechtel,
1997; Bell et al., 1996; Gifford, 1987, 1997; Aragonés and Amérigo,
1998, 2000; the same second Handbook of Bechtel and Churchman,
2002; or the text compiled by Moser and Weiss, 2003); and the
appearance of monographs in general journals and in the field, such as
Journal of Social Issues, Environment & Behaviour, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, International Journal of Psychology, Annual
Review of Psychology, Revista de Psicología Social Aplicada, Estudios de
Psicología, Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano. To it the
reflection of sustainability in the subjects of the international conferences
must be added. But this places us already well into the fourth and final
stage of our history.
TOWARDS AN ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY FOR
SUSTAINABILITY
The Brundtland Report and the Rio Summit posed the assumption
that in terms of the definitive “visibility” of environmental matters in our
society as a whole, characteristics such as habitat, health, energy
resources and food supply are inseparable from social, individual and
community dynamics. Bechtel (2000) spoke of an environmental
conscience being the “third revolution of thought”, after the Copernican
Revolution and Darwinism. Within this context, it was seen in the nineties,
as never it had before, how environmental management is above all the
management of human and social behavior, which opens for psychology
and environmental psychology a wide spectrum of new theoretical
challenges, but also pragmatic and professional ones as well (Pol and
Vidal, 1996). This idea has been reinforced by expanding environmental
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
16
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
legislation which has not ceased in calling for – at least formally – the
need for the general public’s implication in environmental matters
(Moreno, 1998, Moreno and Pol, 2002) in their daily lives; the implication
of taking decisions which require public oversight; social movements,
environmental conflicts and civilian commitments (Dwyer, Porter,
Leemeing and Oliver, 1997) as a way of overseeing the management of
the responsible bodies involved. This will be one of the most important
challenges for environmental psychology in the present period. As an
example, for Paul C. Stern, (Stern, 1992, Gardner y Stern, 1996), member
of National Research Council’s Committee on Global Change Research in
the USA, the main contribution of psychology in detaining, slowing or
responding to global environmental change is to understand the human
causes of this deterioration and present strategies that have a bearing on
people’s behavior. For Stern, Environmental Psychology must be centered
on learning the proximal causes which not only relate to organizations,
social structures, technology, the means of production and politico-
economic decisions, but above all to the attitudes and values associated
with each of them.
The previous aspiration of environmental psychology to contribute to
the improvement of living surroundings (quality at any price) must be
revised in light of growth limitations. We can no longer ignore, as the
World Watch Institute warns us every year, the fact there are not enough
natural resources in the planet for its entire population to live according
to the current standards in the North/Western world.
Meanwhile, sustainability has become a “new positive social value”
(Pol, 1998, 2002 a,b; Moreno and Pol 1999). Under the umbrella term of
“Sustainable Development”, it seems that the interests of the world’s
leading institutions (i.e., the United Nations), business associations (i.e.,
the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the work of
Fussler and James, 1996) and ecology movements are now converging.
But the average citizen is still more worried about their everyday lives.
Nevertheless, the general public has partly integrated – somewhat
abstractly and not always effectively – the idea that sustainability and
environmental conservation are a key to survival.
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
17
Approaches and challenges
As has been previously mentioned, environmental concern is not a
new object for environmental psychology, but now it has much more
visibility and there are much more initiatives toward the problem than
ever before. Treatment of this issue found from the nineties onwards has
once again been shown to have a variety of opposing perspectives, of
which can be schematized into two basic focal points:
1. Actions directed towards specific citizen behaviors, values and
attitudes through support, penalization, modeling, feedback,
information, publicity, etc... This approach includes early texts such
as Kates and Wohlwill (1966), Pallak, Cook and Sullivan, 1980)
Everett et al. (1974), Géller and collab. (1977, 1980, 1982 and ss), a
significant number of a series of articles and monographs in the
Journal of Social Issues and to a lesser degree in Environment and
Behavior and the Journal of Environmental Psychology, with more
recent suggestions recompiled by Corral-Verdugo (1996, 2001,
2002) and Corral-Verdugo and Pinheiro ( 2004).
2. Actions concerning structural dimensions which may help facilitate
sustainable behaviors. An example might be actions concerning
social cohesion that promote tendencies toward sustainability as a
character value different from the collective it belongs to or how
citizens identify it, thus prioritizing social influence strategies. This
includes texts on sociological fields in globalization such as Castells
(1996), Bauman (1998) or Sassen (2006), the monograph
Environment & Behavior on the City-Identity-Sustainability Project
(Pol, 2002b), with its basis in social identity and shared values
according to Tajfel, Turner and other theories on identity developed
from environmental psychology from previous periods (Place Identity
by Proshansky, 1978 a,b ; Proshansky, Fabian and Kaminof, 1983,
Lalli, 1988, 1992; Rutherford, 1990; Valera 1993), the appropriation
of space and the attachment to place (Proshansky, 1978a; Korosec-
Serfaty, 1978; Low and Altman, 1992; Pol, 1987/1996; Hidalgo and
Hernández, 1996) and certain approaches of community psychology
in Latin America such as Montero (1994) and Wiesenfeld (1994).
But as Stern and Oskamp (1987) have suggested, we believe we know
a lot about people’s behavior but little about how to manage it. A large
number of these contributions might be useful if we knew how fit them
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
18
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
appropriately into environmental management strategies. Environmental
strategies have already been seen in the book by Proshansky et al.
(1970). But the author of that chapter, Serge Boutourline, likened it to the
administration of architectonic spaces. In the Handbook of 1987,
environmental management is written in an adjective form, rather than a
substantive one, in the chapters by Pitt and Zube (1987) on the
Management of Natural Environments, and in that of Stern and Oskamp
(1987) concerning Managing Scarce Environmental Resources. One of
the facts that Stern and Oskamp highlight is that psychology has been
limited to energy efficiency in residential environments, the basis of
people’s individual behavior, and the reduction and collaboration in
selective collection of household waste, more from a perspective of the
individual behavior of citizens, rather than the institutional management.
Furthermore, many texts are largely programmatic, while few are truly
oriented toward management itself.
One would have to wait until the nineties to find substantive
contributions in this area. We see Levy-Leboyer and Duron (1991) and
Kruse (1994) accepting the challenge and the actions need to face “global
change”; McKenzie-Mohr and Oskamp (1995) provide an exhaustive
summary of environmental problems needed to be affronted; Oskamp
(1995), Gardner and Stern (1996), McKenzie-Mohr (1994), Winter
(1996), offer solutions in the tradition of “classic” environmental
psychology; Castro, Aragonés and Corraliza (1991) offer intervention
programs to conserve the environment; Corraliza, Navarro and Valero
(2002) apply the principles of Environmental Psychology to conservation and
the satisfaction of nature reserves. Since 1988, environmental
management has been one of the axes in the systematic development of
programs for Environmental Management and Intervention: People and
Society, in Barcelona. Pol and Vidal (1996) define areas and develop roles
for psychologists in the professional field of environment management;
Moreno and Pol (1999, 2002) propose a frame of reference for the
theories on social and environmental psychology; along these lines is the
Handbook by Bechtel and Churchman from 2002 which includes a
systematic chapter devoted to environmental management, as do some
reference books in other languages (Moser and Weiss, 2003; Nency &
Bonnes, 2003; Pinheiro, 2003).
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
19
Despite the growing amount of literature on the subject, the
assessment done by Stokols (1995, 1997) is still valid; this is one of the
least developed fields of environmental psychology. Environmental
management remains a challenge for environmental psychology, which is
still taking shape in the beginnings of the 21st century. But as in all
intervention areas, maximum precaution must be taken so as not to
promise more than is possible and resort to into simple and reductionist
cause-analysis (as warned by Oskamp 1995 and Miller, 1991) which,
apart from distorting reality, brings the frustration and disillusionment
which has occurred in so many stages of psychology, social psychology and
environmental psychology.
Names, labels and disciplinary identities
One of the “traditional” problems of environmental psychology, revived
in this latest period in attempts to face the environmental concern and
sustainability, is that of labels. The question is: What label can
unequivocally and comprehensively refer to the ecological matter, and in
turn to the technological surroundings, the buit environment and
ecological movements? In fact, the label Environmental Psychology
already broadly covers the most commonplace semantics with
“environmental”. Within the field, the semantic content of this label comes
pre-loaded through its reference to architecture, as we have seen earlier.
This has caused a trend to emerge to qualify the term “environmental” with
more adjectives or the field is simply taught under other names.
Therefore the perspective of sustainability and Global Change has been
found in every slogan of the IAPS conferences since the 90’s. On the other
hand, in all the American conferences of the EDRA, this terminology only
appears in three of them. Nevertheless, new “green” movements have
emerged in the US within psychology itself. For example, in 2005, the
Society for Human Ecology held a monographic conference on
Conservative Psychology in Salt Lake City. This term had already been used
in a monograph on the subject in the journal Research in Human Ecology
published by Gene Myers and Carol Saunders in 2003. Among its articles
include one by Schultz and Zeleny, in the circle of Oskamp and frequent
contributors to the Journal of Social Issues. Similarly, in 2002 this same
Peter Schultz from California, along with Peter Schmuk from Germany,
complied a book titled Psychology for a Sustainable Development, with
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
20
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
texts by authors from a broad geographical background, as well as several
well-known authors such as Oskamp and Bandura, among others.
Another “logical” name might be Ecological Psychology, but this has
been “occupied” by the Barker theory and its followers. On the other
hand, in Germany it was agreed at the meeting of 1974 (as mentioned
previously) to start the trend of using the term Environmental to refer to
the first environmental psychology created by Hellpach and his followers,
and the adjective ecological for contemporary psychology (Kaminski,
1976).
Less fortunate or insufficiently comprehensive labels have also been
created, such as the study of Responsible Ecological Behavior (p.e. in
Grob, 1990; Suárez, 1998/2000); Pro-environmental behavior in Corral-
Verdugo (2001); Environmental Concern (p.e. in Bechtel, 1997) is a
rather widely used term; psychology and Global Change, used by Kruse
(1994), Levy-Leboyer and Duron (1991), Stern (1992), Heath and Gifford
(2006). In an old work we ourselves have used the name ‘Green
Environment Psychology (Pol, 1993), without being much convinced of it.
This discussion may seem somewhat banal, but it has importance for
the identity of the discipline in this period. Not having clearly defined
labels creates taxonomic difficulties and problems, such as locating
works in the referred approach, when they are actually rather abundant.
Furthermore, the establishment of new labels is usually followed by the
creation of new disciplinary “territories” and “identities”.
One observation which can be made is that not a small number of
well-known author in the “pro-ecological” field rarely use the label (or
identify themselves as) of environmental psychologists: seldom do they
define themselves as social psychologists either. More often than not
they simply see themselves as psychologists or applied psychologists.
This not only weakens the social force but also the theoretical power of
environmental psychology. This is further aggravated by the fact this idea
is rarely considered or discussed openly.
In our opinion, the label Environmental Psychology must continue
being used publicly, although internally we need more qualifying
adjectives. “Environmental Psychology” is its most comprehensive name
and one that society can best understand without the need for too much
explanation. Perhaps internally the label Architectural Psychology should
be retained (one that should never have been abandoned) to refer to a
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
21
part of Environmental Psychology. On the other hand, the adjective
ecological results too ideologically loaded and too biased towards a
segment of the object of the “environment”.
In addition, if we adopt the German argument of preserving the
adjective “environmental” for the psychology of Hellpach, it would be
coherent to maintain the environmental term for the current “green”
psychology. The concept of “geopsychology” and the concept of Umwelt in
Hellpach and current environmental psychology thought are much closer
than architectural psychology was, or certain radical “conservationisms”
where.
The new challenge for today’s environmental psychology is not in
abandoning areas incorporated in previous stages, but in knowing how to
include new reference parameters, whether they may be ecological, social
or economical, and to reflect on and analyze this reality. In fact, in this
latest stage, the built environment does not disappear – nor should it –
as an object of study, but rather it incorporates – and it should
incorporate even more – the values of sustainability as “another”
parameter, however fundamental, to improve the quality of our
surroundings.
In short, this period of Environmental Psychology can be seen as the
progressive recovery of a holistic perspective and the interdisciplinary
construction of knowledge. Its object will be people-as-social-beings-in-
their-environment with the goal of changing people’s and society’s
behavior to improve the environment, improving the socio-physical
environment to facilitate responsible ecological behavior and social
wellbeing , and contributing to the advance towards sustainability as a
new positive social value. The challenge is to make environmental
psychology truly environmental (and therefore including the built
environment as well as the “natural” environment), one that shares the
objectives of the previously mentioned stages, but with a different
perspective according to what has been set by the environmental
paradigm of the sciences. But we fear that this is a project which is still
under construction.
To conclude
With these two articles, we have set out to trace the sometimes
explicit, other times implicit outlines of environmental psychology found
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
22
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
throughout the history of psychology. This has allowed us to establish four
periods with diffuse boundaries, but with sufficient contrasting
characteristics to differentiate them. Our intention has not been to
construct a “logical” a posteriori story (which in historiography is referred
to as ‘presentism’), but to provide some footnotes to understand better
the evolution of the discipline and some of its contradictions, which
necessarily – or better said, fortunately – will continue, evidencing its
richness and vitality.
References
Aragonés, J.I. (1985) La calidad ambiental:
la conservación del entorno. In F. Morales,
A. Blanco, C. Huici, J.M. Fernández Dols
(eds) Psicología social aplicada. Bilbao,
Desclée de Brouwer.
Aragonés, J. I. y Amérigo, M. (Coords.)
(2000). Psicología Ambiental. Madrid:
Pirámide (2nd ed.; First edition in 1998).
Aragonés, J.I. & Corraliza, J.A. (Coords.)
(1988) Comportamiento y Medio
Ambiente. La Psicología Ambiental en
España. Madrid: Comunidad de Madrid.
Bailey, R.; Branch, H. & Taylor, C. (1961).
Architectural psychology and psychiatry: An
exploratory national research conference.
Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The
human consequences. Oxford: Blackwell
Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psychology:
Concepts and methods for studying the
environment of human behavior. Stanford:
Stanford University Press (1st ed. in
1953).
Bechtel, R. B. (1997). Environment and
behavior: An introduction. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bechtel, R.B. (2000) The Third Revolution in
Thinking and Its Impact on Psychology.
Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento
Humano, I (1), 1-7
Bechtel, R. B. y Churchman, A. (Eds.)
(2002). Handbook of environmental
psychology. New York: Wiley.
Bell, P. A.; Fisher, J. D. & Loomis R. J.
(1978). Environmental psychology. W. B.
Saunders: Harcourt (2nd edition).
Bell, P. A.; Greene, T. C.; Fisher, J. D. &
Baum, A. (1996). Environmental
psychology. Fort Wort: Harcourt (4th ed.,
5th ed. 2001)
Blas, F. A. & Aragonés, J.I.. (1986) Conducta
Ecológica responsable: La conservación de
la energía. En F. Jimenez-Burillo y J.I.
Aragonés (eds) Introducción a la Psicología
Ambiental. Madrid. Alianza (303-331)
Bonnes, M. & Secchiaroli, G. (1992).
Psicologia Ambientale: Introduzione alla
psicología sociale dell’ambiente. Roma: La
Nuova Italia Scientifica.
Bonnes, M. & Secchiaroli, G. (1995)
Environmental Psychology: A psychosocial
introduction. London: Sage.
Bonnes, M (Ed.) (1987). Urban ecology applied
to the city of Rome.Programme MAB 11.
(http://unesdoc.unesco.org, 31 Agust 2007)
Canter, D. (1992) Psicologia ambiental:
Futbol, assassins, foc, facetes i professió.
Entrevista a David Canter (Interview done by
E. Pol) In Psicologia: Text I Context, 5, juny
1992 (14-15)
Canter, D. (1988). Environmental (social)
psychology: An emerging synthesis. En D.
Canter, J. C. Jesuino, L. Soczka & G. M.
Stephenson (Eds), Environmental Social
Pychology (pp. 1-18). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
23
Canter, D.; Jesuino, J.C.; Soczka, L. &
Stephenson, G.M. (Eds.) (1988),
Environmental Social Pychology.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Castells, M. (1996). The power of identity.
The information age: Economy, society
and culture,Vol. 3. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
(Trad. Madrid, Alianza, 1997).
Castro, R.; Aragonés, J.I. & Corraliza, J.A.
(1991). La conservación del entorno.
Sevilla: Agencia del Medio Ambiente, Junta
de Andalucía.
Chombart De Lauwe, M. J. (1959).
Psichopathologie sociale de l'enfant
inadapté. Paris: Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique.
Chombart De Lauwe, P. H. (1956). La vie
quotidienne des familles ouvrières. Paris:
CNRS.
Chombart De Lauwe, P. H. (1959). Famille
et habitation. Paris: CNRS.
Cone, J.D. & Hayes, S.C. (1980)
Environmental problems, Behavioral
Solutions. Monterrey: Brooks Cole
Corral-Verdugo, V. (1996). A Structural Model
of Reuse and Recycling in Mexico.
Environment and Behavior, 28,
5, 665-696.
Corral, V. (1997) Environmental Psychology
in Latin America: Effort in critical situation.
Environment & Behavior, 29, 163-168.
Corral-Verdugo, V. (2001) Comportanmiento
proambiental.Santa Cruz de Tenerife. Ed.
Resma
Corral-Verdugo, V. (2002) Conductas
productoras del Ambiente. Teoría,
Investigación y Estrategias de Intervención.
Sonora, México: Conacyt-Universidad de
Sonora.
Corral-Verdugo, V. (2006) Psicologia Ambiental
Interamericana. Medio Ambiente y
Comportamiento Humano. 7 (1) p1-5.
Corral-Verdugo, V. & Pinheiro, J.Q. (2004)
Aproximaciones al estudio de la conducta
sustentable. Medio Ambiente y
Comportamiento Humano 5 (1-2) p1-26.
Corraliza, J. A. (1987). La experiencia del
ambiente. Madrid: Tecnos.
Corraliza, J.A., García Navarro, J. & Valero, E.
(2002) Los parques naturales en España:
conservación y disfrute. Madrid: Fundación
Alonso Martín Escudero-Mundi-Prensa.
Dwyer, W.O., Porter, B., Leemeing, F.C. &
Oliver, D.P. (1997) Environmental Social
Psychology. In S.W. Sadava & D.R.
McCreary (Eds.), Applied Social
Psychology. (228-247) Upper Sadle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Everett, P.B.; Hayward, S.C. y Meyer, A.W.
(1974). The effects of a token
reinforcement procedure on bus ridership.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 1-9.
Fernández-Ballesteros, R. (Ed.) (1987). El
ambiente. Un análisis psicológico. Madrid:
Pirámide.
Fisher, G.N. (1981). La psychosociologie de
l’espace. Paris: PUF
Fussler, C. & James, P. (1996). Driving Eco-
Innovation. London: Pearson Professional
Limited / Financial Times Management.
Gardner, P. C. & Stern, G. T. (1996).
Environmental problems and human
behavior. Boston: Alin and Bacon.(2nd
edition 2002, Boston, MA: Pearson)
Géller, E.S. (1987). Environmental
psychology and applied behavior analysis:
From strange bedfellows to a productive
mariage. In D. Stokols & I. Altman,
Handbookof Environmental Psychology
(pp. 361-388). New York: Wiley
Géller, E.S.; Brasted, W. & Mann, M. (1980).
Waste receptacle design as intervention
for litter control. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 13, 669-675.
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
24
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
Géller, E.S.; Winett, R. A. & Everett, P. B.
(1982). Preserving the environment: New
strategies for behavior change. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Géller, E.S.; Witmer, J. F. y Tuso, M. A.
(1977). Environmental intervention for
litter control. Journnal of Applied
Psychology, 8, 417-439.
Gifford, R. (1997). Environmental
Psychology. Principles and Practice.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon (2ª ed.; 1ª ed. en
1987).
Grob, A. (1990). Meinungen im
umwelthereich und umweltgerechtes
Verhalten. Ein psuchologisches
ursachenntzmodell. University of Berna.
Unpublished Doctoral Disertation, quoted
by Suárez, 2000.
Hall, E.T. (1959) The Silent Language.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday
Hall, E.T. (1974). Handbook for proxemic
research. Washington : Society for the
Anthropology of Visual Communication
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension
(1966) Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hartig, T. & Staats, H. (2003). Guest editors’
introduction: Restorative Environments.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23,
103-107.
Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2006) Free-market
ideology and environmental degradation:
The case on believe in global climate
change. Environment ans Behavior, 38,
48-71.
Hernández-Hernández, F.; Riba, C. &
Remesar, A. (1985). En torno al entorno.
Barcelona: Leartes.
Hesselgren, S. (1954), Srkitecturens
Uttryckmedd. Estokolm: Almkvist och
wiksell. (The Language of Architecture.
Lund: Studentlitteratur
Hesselgren, S. (1984) Recorded personal
Interview by E. Pol. Berlin, July 1984
Hagino, G., Mochizuki, M. & Yamamoto, T.
(1987) Environmental Psychology in Japan.
In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of
Environmental Psychology. (1155-1170).
NY: Wiley & Sons
Hidalgo, M. C. y Hernández, B. (1996).
Ambitos de análisis del apego al lugar. In
Libro de Comunicaciones del V Congreso
de Psicología Ambiental. Monografies
Psico-Socio-Ambientals (Vol. 10, pp. 261-
262). Barcelona: P.U.B.
Holahan, C. J. (1982). Environmental
psychology. Nueva York: Random House
IAPS (1982) Proceedings of 7th IAPS
Conference, Barcelona. Edited by E.Pol, J.
Muntañola, M. Morales & M. Siguan
(1984) Man-Environment. Qualitative
Aspects. Barcelona: Publicacions
Universitat de Barcelona
Jiménez Burillo, F. (Ed.) (1981) Psicología y
Medio Ambiente. Madrid: CEOTMA.
Jiménez Burillo, F. & Aragonés, J. I. (Eds.)
(1986).
Introducción a la psicología
ambiental. Madrid: Alianza.
Jodelet, D. & Stringer, P. (Eds.) (in press)
Towards a Social Psychology of
Environment. London: Cambridge University
Press. (This book is announced and quoted
in much papers as ‘in press’ but it’s
impossible to truve, also in the catalogue of
publisher. It seems that never has been
published)
Kaminski, G. (Ed.) (1976). Umweltpsychologie:
Perspektive, Probleme, Praxis. Stuttgart:
Ernst Klett Verlag (Spanish edition
Psicología ambiental. Buenos Aires:
Troquel, 1979)
Kates R. W. y Wohlwill, J. (Eds.) (1966).
Man's response to the phisical
environment. Journal of Social Issues, 22
(monographical issue)
Korosec-Serfaty, P. (Ed.) (1978). Appropriation
of space. Proceedings of the Strasbourg
Conference - 3 IAPC, Estrasburg, 1976.
Louvain-la-Neuve: Ciaco.
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
25
Krasner, L. (1980). Environmental design and
human behavior. A psychology of the
individual in society. New York: Pergamon
Press.
Kruse, L. (1994). Psychology and global
environmental change. In B. Hernández, J.
Martínez-Torvisco y E. Suárez (Comps.),
Psicología ambiental y responsabilidad
ecológica (pp. 62-190). Las Palmas de Gran
Canaria: Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran
Canaria.
Kruse, L. y Graumann, C. (1987).
Environmental psychology in Germany. En
D. Stokols y I. Altman, Handbook of
environmental psychology (pp. 1195-
1226). New York: Wiley.
Lalli, M. (1988). Urban identity. In Canter, D.
et. al. (ed.) Environmental Social
Psycholgy. NATO ASI Series, Behavioural
and Social Sciences, the Netherlands.
Lalli, M. (1992). Urban related identity:
Theory, measurement, and empirical
findings. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 285-303.
Lee, T. (1954). A study of urbain
neighbourhood. Cambridge University.
Doctoral Disertation.
Lee, T. (1957).. On the relation between the
school journey and social emotional
adjustement in rural infant children British
Journal of Educational Psychology. 27,
101-114.
Lee, T. (1968). Urbain neighbourhood as a
socio-spatial schema. Human Relations.
21, 241-267.
Lee, T. (1984). Personal recorded interview.
Guilford. February, 1984.
Lévy-Leboyer, C. (1980). Psychologie et
Environnement. Paris: PUF.
Lévy-Leboyer, C. y Duron, Y. (1991). Global
Change: New Challenges for Psychology.
Internacional Journal of Psychology 26, (5),
575-583.
Llorens, T. (1973). Hacia una psicología de
la arquitectura. Barcelona: COACB-La Gaya
Ciencia.
Low, S. y Altman, I. (1992). Place
attachment: A conceptual Inquiry. En I.
Altman, y S. Low, Place attachment, Nueva
York: Plenum.
Magenau, E. (Ed.) (1959). Research for
architecture: Proceedings of the AEA-NSF
Conference. March, 10-12.(Ann Arbor, MI).
Washington, DC: NSF.
McAndrew, F.T. (1992). Environmental
Psychology. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
1993.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (1994). Psychological
determinants of energy efficiency
investments: Analysis and
recommendations. Burnaby: British
Columbia Hydro.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. y Oskamp, S. (1995).
Psychology and sustainability: An
introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 51,
(4), 1-14.
Milgram, S. & Jodelet, D. (1976).
Psychological maps of Paris. En H.M.
Proshansky, W.H. Ittelson y L.G. Rivlin
(Eds.), Environmental psychology: People
and their physical settings (pp. 104-124).
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Miller, R.B. (1991). Social science and the
challenge of global environmental change.
International Social Science Journal, 43,
609-617.
Mitscherlich, A. (1963). Psychanàlyse et
urbanisme. Paris: Gallimard.
Mitscherlich, A. (1969). La inhospitalidad de
nuestras ciudades. Madrid: Alianza Editorial
(First German edition, 1965).
Moles, A. & Rohmer, E. (1964). Psychologie
de l’espace. Paris: Casterman (reedición
1972)
Montero, M. (1994). Construcción y crítica
de la psicología social. Barcelona:
Anthropos.
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
26
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
Moreno, E. (1998) Impactos Social e
Impacto Ambiental (Social and
Environmental Impact). University of
Barcelona. Doctoral Disertation.
Moreno, E. & Pol, E. (1999). Nociones
psicosociales para la intervención y la
gestión ambiental. Monografies Socio /
Ambientals, 14. Barcelona: P.U.B.
Moreno, E. & Pol, E. (2002). Metodologies per
a la detecció dels impactes sobre el medi
social i humà en l’avaluació de l’impacte
ambiental. Documents dels Quaderns de
medi ambient, 8. Barcelona: Departament de
Medi Ambient de la Generalitat de Catalunya.
Morval, J. (1981) Introduction à la
psychologie de l’environnement. Bruxelles:
Mardaga.
Morval, J. (2007). La psychologie
environnementale. Montreal, Qu: Presses
de l’Université de Montreal.
Moser, G. y Weiss, K. (2003). Espaces de
vie. Paris: Armand Colin.
Muntañola, J. (1973). La Arquitectura como
Lugar. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili.
Myers, G. & Saunders, C. (Eds.) (2003)
Conservative Psychology. Monografical issue.
Research in Human Ecology. Vol 10, nº 2
Nency, A.M & Bonnes, M (Eds.) (2003).
Profili di ricerca e intervento psicologico-
sociale della gestione ambientale. Roma:
FrancoAngeli
Niit, T., Heidmets, M. & Kruusval, J (1987).
Environmental Psychology in the Societ
UNion. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.)
Handbook of Environmental Psychology.
(1311-1336). NY: Wiley & Sons
Oskamp, S. (1995). Applying Social
Psychology to Avoid Ecological Disaster.
Journal of Social Issues, 51, (4), 217-239.
Osmond, H. (1957). Function as the basis of
psychiatric ward design. Mental Hospitals,
8, 23-30 (Taken from H.M. Proshansky,
W.H. Ittelson, & L.G. Rivlin (Eds.),
Psicología ambiental. El hombre y su
entorno físico, México: Trillas, 1978).
Pallak, M. S.; Cook, D. A. & Sullivan, J. J.
(1980). Commitmen and energy
conservation. En L. Bikman, Applied Social
Psychology Annual (Vol. I, pp. 235-254).
Londres: Sage.
Pinillos, J. L. (1977). Psicopatología de la
vida urbana. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
Pinheiro, J.Q. (Ed.) (2003) Monographic
issue on Environmental Psychology
Estudos de Psicologia, 8 (2).
Pitt, D. G. & Zube, E. H. (1987). Management
of natural environments. En D. Stokols & I.
Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1009-1042). New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Pol, E. (1981). Psicología del medio
ambiente. BARCELONA: OIKOS-TAU.
Pol, E. (1987/1996). La apropiación del
espacio. Kenote at University of Barcelona in
1987. Published by Familia y Sociedad, 1,
233-249 (1994). (Remprint in 1996 in E. Pol
& L. Íñiguez (Eds.), Cognición, Representación,
y Apropiación del Espacio. Monografíes
Psico/Socio/Ambientals. Barcelona: P.U.B.).
Pol, E. (1988). La Psicología Ambiental en
Europa. Análisis sociohistórico. Barcelona:
Anthropos.
Pol, E. (1993). Environmental Psychology in
Europe.From Architectural Psychology to
Green Environmental Psychology. London:
Avebury
Pol, E. (1998) Sostenibilitat, valors socials i
comportament humà. Estratègies i
contradiccions". In: R. Folch; T. Franquesa; R.
Díez Hochleitner; R. Margalef [et al.].
Desenvolupament sostenible. Els llindars en
la construcció de les relacions humanes i el
medi ambient. Lleida: Publicacions
Universitat de Lleida, 1999 (Col.l.
Pensaments; núm. 7).
Pol, E. (2002a). The theoretical background
to the city-identity-sustainability (CIS)
network. Environment and Behavior, 34,
(1), 8-25.
Enric Pol
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
27
Pol, E. (2002b). Environmental
Management: A perspective from
Environmental Psychology. In R. Bechtel &
A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of
Environmental Psychology (pp. 55-84).
New York: Wiley.
Pol, E. (2003 a) De l’Intervention a la
Gestion Environnementale. Methodologies
et Instruments pour une Psychologie du
Developement Durable. In G. Moser & K
Weiss (Eds.) Espaces de vie. Aspects de la
relation homme-environnement. (305-
329). Paris : Armand Colin
Pol, E. (2003 b) La gestione ambientale
come nuovo costrutto per la psicologia
ambientale: Possibilità e opportunità. In
A.M. Nenci (Ed.). Profili di ricerca e
intervento psicologico-sociale della
gestione ambientale (19-32). Roma:
FrancoAngeli
Pol, E. (2003 c) A gestao ambiental, novo
desafio para a Psicologia do
desenvolvimento sustentável. Estudos de
Psicologia, 8 (2) , 235-243. (Published by
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do
Norte).
Pol, E. & Morales, M. (Eds.) (1980) L"entorn
escolar: problemàtica psicològica,
educativa i de disseny. Barcelona: ICE
Universitat de Barcelona.
Pol, E. & Morales, M. (Eds.) (1981) Imatge de
l'escola, interacció ambiental, vers una
nova normativa. Barcelona: ICE Universitat
de Barcelona.
Pol, E.; & Morales, M (1986) El entorno
escolar desde la psicología ambiental. In
F. Jiménez y J.I. Aragonés (Comp.).
Introducción a la Psicología Ambiental
(284-332). Madrid: Alianza
Pol, E.; Morales, M. & Muntañola, J. (Eds.)
(1984) Vers un millor entorn escolar /
Towards a better school environment /
Hacia un mejor entorno escolar.
Barcelona: ICE de la Universitat de
Barcelona.
Pol, E. & Moreno, E. (1998). Gestión
Ambiental en la empresa y en la
Administración Pública: Aportaciones desde
la Psicología. In J.I.Aragonés y M.Amerigo,
Psicología Ambiental. (pp. 375-399).
Madrid: Pirámide. (2ond edition 2000).
Pol, E. & Vidal, T. (Comps.) (1996). Perfiles
sociales en la intervención ambiental. Una
perspectiva profesional. Monografias
Psico/Socio/Ambientales, Nº 1. Barcelona:
P.U.B.
Proshansky, H. M. (1978a). Appropiation et
non-appropiation (Mis-appropiation) de
l'espace. En Korosec-Serfaty, P. (Ed.),
L'Appropiation de l'espace (pp. 34-75).
Louvain la Neuve: CIACO
Proshansky, H. M. (1978b). The city and the
self-identity. Environment and Behavior,
10, (2), 147-169.
Proshansky, H. (1981). Uses and abuses of
theory in applied research. In L. Bickman
(Ed.), Applied Social Psychology Annual
(Vol. 2). Beverly Hills (Ca.): Sage.
Proshansky, H. M.; Fabian, A.K. & Kaminoff,
R. (1983). Place identity: Physical world
socialization of the self. Journal of
Environmental Psycholgy, 3, 57-83.
Proshansky, H. M.; Ittelson, W. H. y Rivlin, L.
G. (Eds.) (1970). Environmental
Psychology: People and their physical
settings. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston
Proshansky, H. M.; Ittelson, W. H. y Rivlin, L.
G. (Eds.) (1978). Psicología Ambiental: El
hombre y su entorno físico. México: Trillas.
Rutherford, J. (Ed.) (1990). Identity:
Community, culture, difference.
London:
Lawrence and Wishart.
Sassen, S. (2006). Una sociología de la
globalización. Madrid: Katz
Schmuck, P & Schultz, P. W (Eds.) (2002).
Psychology of sustainable development.
Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Blueprints for a History of Environmental Psychology (II)
28
M
edio Ambient. Comport. Hum.,200
7
Siguán, M. (1959). Del campo al suburbio.
Madrid: CSIC. Premio Nacional de
Literatura.
Sivadon, P. (1965) L’espace vecu:
incidences thérapeutiques. L’Evolution
Psychiatrique, 30, 477-499
Sommer, R. (1969) Personal Space: The
behavioral basis of design. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sommer, R. y Ross, H. (1958). Social
interaction on a geriatrics ward.
International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 4,
128-133.
Steg, L., & Gifford, R. (2005). Sustainable
Transport and Quality of Life. Journal of
Transport Geography, 13 (1), 59-69.
Stern, P. C. (1992). Pychological dimensions
of global environment change. Annual
Review of Psychology, 43, 269-302.
Stern, P. C. & Easterling, W. E. (1999). Human
dimensions of climate variability. New
Jersey: National Academic Press and World
Scientific Publishing.
Stern, P. C. & Oskamp, S. (1987). Managing
scarce environmental resources. En D.
Stokols e I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of
environmental psychology (Vol. 2,
pp.1043-1088). New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Stokols, D. (1995). The paradox of
environmental psychology. American
Psychologist, 50, 821-837.
Stokols, D. (1997). Directions of
environmental psychology in the twenty-
first century. In S. Wapner, J. Demick, T.
Yamamoto y T. Takahashi (Eds.),
Handbook of Japan-United States
environment - behavior research. Toward
a transactional Approach. Nueva York:
Plenum Press.
Stokols, D. & Altman, I. (Eds.) (1987).
Handbook of environmental psychology.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Stringer, P. & Kremer, A. (1987)
Environmental Psychology in the
Netherlands. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.)
Handbook of Environmental Psychology.
(1227-1242). NY: Wiley & Sons.
Suárez, E. (2000). Problemas ambientales y
soluciones conductuales. In J. I. Aragonés
y M. Amérigo (Coords.), Psicología
Ambiental (pp. 331-356). Madrid:
Pirámide (2nd ed.; 1st ed. in 1998).
Thorn, R. & Hall, R. (1987) Environmental
Psychology in Australia. In D. Stokols & I.
Altman (Eds.) Handbook of Environmental
Psychology. (1137-1154). NY: Wiley & Sons.
Valera, S. (1993). El símbolisme en la ciutat.
Funcions de l'espai simbólic urbà.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Universitat de Barcelona. (The symbolism
of the city. Function of the urban
symbolical space)
Valera, S. (1997). Estudio de la relación
entre el espacio simbólico urbano y los
procesos de identidad social (Study of the
relationship between urban symbolic
space and social identity processes).
Revista de Psicología Social, 12, (1), 17-
30.
Viljoen, H., Van Staden, F., Grieve, K. y Van
Deventer, V. (1987) Environmental
Psychology: An Introduction.
Johannesburg: Lexicon Publ.
Vlek, C., & Steg, L. (2007). Human behavior
and environmental sustainability:
Problems, driving forces and research
topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63 (1), 1-
19.
Weiss, K. & Marchand, D. (2006).
Psychologie sociale de l’environnement.
Rennes : PUR.
Wiesenfeld, E. (1994). La Psicología Ambiental
en el contexto de la comunidad: Hacia una
Psicología Ambiental Comunitaria. Psicología
Contemporánea, 1, (2), 40-49.
Winter, D. (1996). Ecological psychology:
Healing the split between planet and self.
New York: Harper Collins.
