Environmental Psychology - Science topic

My experience is that coming at such individuals with science and well-reasoned arguments isn't likely to get you very far. I would suggest starting by communicating empathy for their position (people are less likely to argue with you when they can see you're sympathetic to their problems). If possible, you might then describe a similar experience (and how it made you feel), as shared experiences help us relate to and trust one another. Rather than lecturing on the science of biodiversity loss, try finding a suitable metaphor or a concrete exemplar that help explains your views; or perhaps ask them why they think killing is an inappropriate response. The point here is not to be direct, and condemning but rather, thoughtful and open about the dilemma those individuals face. These are just a few, admittedly, off-the-cuff ideas. Apologies that I don't have time for more.

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics or behaviors to nonhuman subjects, e.g., organisms or phenomena. It does seem out of place for someone to raise anthropomorphism as an issue in a study of human psychology, which clearly is solely related to human characteristics and behavior. It is also possible that the reviewer misunderstands or misapplies the term anthropomorphism. That is, the reviewer may have meant that your work includes statements that appear to allocate characteristics or behaviors to subjects that are not the actual source or cannot actually present those behaviors or characteristics. For example, since your work was in the field of environmental psychology it is possible that it includes statements that appear to allocate human characteristics or behavior to the environment that actually belong to the human subjects. Anthropomorphism is often cited inappropriately in critiques of scientific papers when the reviewer cannot see another more convenient way to explain why observations/causes/effects seem inappropriately interpreted/assigned by the authors of the work.

Hi,

It is a branch of Psychology. There are books and journals dedicated to it.

Linda Steg BPS textbooks in psychology Environmental Psychology: An Introduction [2 ed.] Wiley-Blackwell 2019

Ghozlane Fleury-Bahi, et al, International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life Handbook of Environmental Psychology and Quality of Life Research [1 ed.] Springer International Publishing 2017

Darlyne Nemeth, Ecopsychology: Advances from the Intersection of Psychology and Environmental Protection [2 vols.] Praeger 2015

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Environmental Psychology - Frontiers

The countries which are independent and prosperous are known as Developed Countries. The countries which are facing the beginning of industrialization are called Developing Countries. Developed Countries have a high per capita income and GDP as compared to Developing Countries.

Walkabity has to have some real numerical basis, otherwise its just wasted words.

Not quite sure what you are seeking. Their is a view that no set of programmatic steps could lead with any guarantee to a work of art, even if executed by a human. Although duchamp might have happily signed what got produced and then call it a work of his art, as a transformation.

Attached some possibilities:

-Attitudes towards COVID-19 in various population subgroups or in general

-Attitudes towards vaccination or vaccines against COVID-19

Más información sobre attached

1st division of alterability: peer / classmate behaviour; teacher behaviour; school response systems - positive recognition and punishment; and attitudinal norms by peer age-group behaviour and modelling at school, community, family and societal levels.

2nd division of alterability: the home and resource-givens - poverty, materialism and culture at home, and how family-members psychologically function in response to life-events, physical-misfortune and death.

3rd division of alterability: intra-psychological and intra-physiological laws and givens - how school-age people socio-psychologically function (pupils, teachers, family members and friends).

Use real time study and measure the actual data.

Place attachment can be the visual interface of a deeper main attachment or memory that have connection with important events in ones life, mostly the positive ones, when a person felt loved, cared, appreciated, successful, important, needed, etc. If somebody is subject to mobility factor these places are scattered and will be difficult to have easy access to it, but if someone is more stabile in space and time, the access to attachments or memories are more facile. It is the same with people that impacted our lives; if we are closer or connected the positive influence still runs in. If we are far, and separated, we miss the person and we ache for the positive flow towards us. Yes, I agree, the globalization process is advancing more culturally, but because of the unbalanced distribution of financial resources, the place attachment is still important as a location. Yes, I also agree that the social attachment have the main impact.

Effects of the globalization can be seen in paralleling to TCK's culture.

I will shameless recommend my own book, Basic and Advanced Focus Groups, from Sage. Each chapter begins with a more basic (introductory) discussion of a key topic, which is followed by an optional presentation of more advanced issues.

Dear Seyedeh Maryam Mojtabavi

I can tell you that your questionnaire depends first of all on your research's objectives, and on indicators based on your hypothesis. If you make a good conceptualization of your hypothesis I guarantee you that you would have a perfect questionnaire about your field study

Greetings

The learning environment is much mote than just the physical characteristics of the classroom. See this paper for a discussion of many factors that are part of the learning environment. The paper is about language learning, but many of the factors apply across the curriculum, I believe.

In addition to the energy, factors such as the space quality and security are the challenges that are significant in high-rise buildings. To this purpose, it is necessary to take into account the setting of the formation of human behavior which are the human needs. In fact, paying attention to human needs will create sustainabile behaviors in people. This process is significant both in architectural design by the architect and at the time of the use of space users.

Achmad Hidir

I request you to please name the paper or attach the link.

Thanks, Richard and Andrew.

Richard - I think time always feels so different looking back than looking forward, but I don't think we ever learn from that experience to do anything but discount the future. I think it is a solid suggestion, however, to anchor scenarios in an event rather than a time: i.e. when sea level rises by X amount, rather than in year Y. This may also get past some of the challenges in setting year Y without wide uncertainty bars.

Has anyone else found the sweet spot, or have clever ways to establish it? In spatial analysis there is a rule that you choose a raster cell size at least half (in each direction) of the smallest thing you want to be able to resolve. Is there a temporal corollary for 'resolving' the future.

Hi Guys, I hope that this discussion about investigating real behavior instead of self-report will be interesting for you:

I would agree with C. Lewis Kausel C. Lewis Kausel that environmental psychology is broader than urban psychology in that urban psychology focuses mainly on what may be the effect of city life on individuals, whereas environmental psychology can include our interaction with natural settings and built systems such as automobiles, etc. 

An interesting summary of urban psychology and historical aspects is provided in RG at:

One may get a sense about the contrast between between urban and environmental psychology by additionally considering that "auditory warnings", "legibility of signs" and "visual warnings" would typically be considered within environmental psychology.

The psychosocial aspects of work including sometimes increased blood pressure with some job stresses or an increase in heart attacks found among nearby residents with the increased noise near airports could be considered potentially within the overlap. 

To develop open mind ( natural instinct) natural settings play crucial role but social settings are important for adaptive knowledge to survive in the society. If we compare both for human being as social animal social environment is important comparison to natural one.

You might try networking through the American Psychological Association's Division 34, the Society for Environmental ,

Population and Conservation Psychology. Their website is at http://www.apadivisions.org/division-34/index.aspx?_ga=2.61886511.2050222548.1527647658-2130941689.1474319376

Look at the Restorativenss literature, specifically Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1992), Biophila (Kellert and Wilson), Stress reduction theory (Ulrich, 1983). They all refer to attributes of the place that helps post traumatic stress disorder, attention fatigue, and all the issues that a (post-war) veteran may be experiencing. My suggestion is to first understand into cognitive, and social issues and requirement that your specific target group may have, and then look into relevant theories. If you are interested in interior Architecture and perceptions, look into works of Arthur Stamps. Good luck

Dear Hamid,

Hope you find the following papers and their list of references a good source of literature for your investigation:

Good question. Lots of references under my name on here. Landscape and nature rank highly under the factors creating wellness. Do come back with any questions

Muchas gracias estimads César y Dolores!

I do not see meaning in looking for a correlation. What are the precise variables? There are many...With regard to psychological aspects, consider this very comprehensive and authoritative review by Robert Gifford, published in 2007. 

The Consequences of Living in High-Rise Buildings (PDF Download ...

Dear Jimmy,

I'm going to offer some thoughts on why measuring cultural differences in your chosen domains is very difficult. I'll consider spatial confounds first.

Firstly, if we accept that there are individual differences between people's spatial abilities by virtue of the degree of hemispheric lateralisation and that this lateralisation may be influenced profoundly antenatally (for example, by exogenous androgens or estrogens like DES, potentially though environmental contamination or contraceptive practices), then it would be impossible to control for differential effects of the environment between cultures.

Secondly, I was fortunate to attend a guest lecture by Dr Markus Hausmann, associate professor at the Centre for Vision and Visual Cognition in Durham, UK, who explained that the differences in female cognition at different stages of the menstrual cycle measured through neuroimaging are confounds that only become distinct through a small effect size (Cohen's d >0.3 and <0.5) if the participants' cycles are monitored very precisely and experiments are synchronised accordingly. This makes spatial cognitive experiments involving females very effortful and is why many are conducted only with males. It would appear to set a very high barrier for controlling for such effects across cultures where gender may be very relevant.

I could go on, but I think the disappearance of small cultural differences amid many uncontrollable confounding variables is almost inevitable: too small a signal amid too much noise.

Now I'll consider cultural confounds.

Firstly, if we accept that experience shapes cognition, as is evident from language acquisition and the evidence that unfamiliar phonemes cannot be discerned or reproduced after early infancy, then it is impossible to control for the effects of language - namely differences in precise meaning between terms that we use to operationalise experiments, between cultures. Classically, what is "attractiveness"?

Secondly, with specific reference to "individualism versus collectivism", cultural variations in symbiosis and enmeshment will be confounded by variations in attachment style when measured with the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) Adult Attachment Questionnaire, for example. How could the effects of patriarchy on attachment style be controlled for to reveal individualist versus collectivist differences?

Again I could go on, but I think that the small cultural effects would be overwhelmed by the scale of normal individual differences.

Thus, in summary, I think that spatial and cognitive differences across cultures don't lend themselves well to the quantitative analyses implied by the domain. On the other hand, articles like this one on colour perception show that qualitative analyses could reveal striking differences.

Hi, in space applications we usually talk about "spin stabilization" and "three-axis stabilization" of spacecrafts but the term control is more related to the GNC (Guidance, Navigation Control) loop necessary to change the attitude of the satellite.

 Dear Chloe,

The external natural environment and our own bodies are a conglomeration of five gross elements which are Earth, Fire, Water, Air and Ether having the characteristics of smell, taste, sight, touch and sound respectively. It is called Prakriti which is meta physical concept in the Samkhya stream of  Indian philosophy. Hence we are in a state of well being when we recognise our internal elements and be in tune with the natural flow of the elements.

Our build elements i.e. what we built to reside, work and pray if built in line with natural principles contributes to the development of spirituality and well being. Indian thought had put this down as a science of  built environments which is termed as "Vastu Shastra". In brief, it lays down the method of selection of a site, the direction of doors, windows, rooms, the materials to be used and so many other matters all with the objective of maximising benefits from the elements of nature and to benefit the occupants. It will be nice if this could be looked up as a pre-step to the thesis.  

OK! Thanks for your vivid examples, Mr. Pilot! Hope Jimmy can get some inspirations!

There is no simple answer to your question. SD can have several roles beyond simple bias, as measures of social desirability can also reflect personality. For example, Crowne and Marlow refer to SD as need for approval. If you statistically adjust for SD, you aren't necessarily removing a bias, but you might also remove other things as well. So results with SD controlled might be less accurate than results without controlling it.

That said, a correlation of -.19 is not very high, and likely it won't have much impact on your results. You can look at results both ways to see if it even matters. If results are different, you won't know why. I'll give you a few sources that discuss control in more detail in a general sense, and one having to do with negative affectivity as opposed to SD, but the issues are the same.

Atinc, G. M., Simmering, M. J., & Kroll, M. J. (2012). Control variable use and reporting in macro and micro management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 57-74.

Atinc, G. M., Simmering, M. J., & Kroll, M. J. (2012). Control variable use and reporting in macro and micro management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 57-74.

Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274-289.

Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2015). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior.

Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 287-305.

Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity should not be controlled in job stress research: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 79-95. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-1379%28200002%2921:1%3C79::AID-JOB964%3E3.0.CO;2-G           

Dear Napoleon Ono Imaah

Thank you so much for your attention.

Can we conclude that architecture could be effective on people's mind even more than other ways(like reading books or high level of social interactions..etc) for improving the culture and perception, because of its visual and attractive features? can architecture be used as the first or one of the most effective approach for improving the way people think؟

Dear Ingo,

I think that an article by Pater Kahn and me, titled WATER, AIR, FIRE, AND EARTH

A Developmental Study in Portugal of Environmental Moral Reasoning, published in ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 34 No. 4, July 2002 405-430 © 2002 Sage Publications, is closely related to your question, and that you can benefit from reading it. You can find and read this article in my publication in Research Gate. 

The distinction we make between anthropocentric reasoning (e.g., "We should not pollute water  because it is good for one's health") and biocentric reasoning (e.g., "We should not pollute water, because it deserves to be respected in itself) may be interesting for you.

More to the point our article points to the 4 elements of nature: water, air, fire and earth. I think that there are very few, if any, researches in Environmental Psychology on the human relations with nature. Such research was done among European citizens.

I hope it can be of help for you.

coucou Yousri !

 en fait je vais retranscrire un débriefing que j'ai réalisé. il s'agit d'un groupe de personnes qui ont vécu un événement commun. je ne sais pas quelle technique utiliser (alceste, n'vivo, etc.) qui me permettrait d'explorer le contenu et  de les publier. j'ai cherché des publi, pas grand chose qui pourrait me servir de modèle. bien à toi.

You can try to approach this problem using the concept of psychological distance. One of the dimensions of psychological distance concept is the spatial distance. May be the perception of the own position in the room or of the objects located there can explain the psychological impact on humans.

Look at the first figure in the paper - isn't it what you are looking for?

Hola Gonzalo, dale una mirada a la página de Taciano L. Milfont.

El ha trabajado extensamente en temas afines a los que tú mencionas. Su link es:

Suerte con tu doctorado!

David

Hi Joseph,

I want to include Place Attatchment in the Phd project I am working on. There is a Spanish group of researchers that have developed a scale to measure Place Attatchment and Place Identification throug a short list of likert items.

I think it could be useful for you. I copy here references of their work.

Good luck.

Hernández, B., Carmen Hidalgo, M., Salazar-Laplace, M. E., & Hess, S. (2007). Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 310–319. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.06.003

Ruiz, C., & Hernández, B. (2014). Emotions and coping strategies during an episode of volcanic activity and their relations to place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 279–287. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.03.008

´The question is comples and has not one answer. I think it depends from the way you define Env. Psych.

1. If you focuses the interaction some aspects of environment (material or social or both) with some aspects of people (as individuos, group, organization or comunity) you can find posibilities of makin modifications in health, education, enjoy, disaster, inssecurity, estress......if you modifies noisy, air polution, bad neigborhood, some specific polutants and so for........... This is an social and material interventión.

2. If you focuses the effect of human decisions or sociocultural practices over the quality of environmental attributes and THE EFFECT OF THAT CONSEQUENCES over human quality of life, the  intervention selects some human characteristic or practice to make control.

3. Generally, if the model works with INTERACTIONS this is tye analisis unit to plan and execute (apply) the modification.

4. Educatión can be another case  of  intervention but include as principal purpose modify values, attitudes, perceptions, knowledges....... and long term tranformation in human behacior.

Good luck in your work and i beg perdon of my English.

It was not the scientists who suffered - it was the crew.

"When the voyage came to an end in 1876, only 144 crew remained on the ship from the original 216 members. Seven people had died, 26 were left in hospitals or were unable to continue the journey, and several had deserted at the various ports of call. After the death of Prof. Thomson in 1882, John Murray became director and edited the Expedition Reports." https://paleonerdish.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/the-challenger-expedition-and-the-beginning-of-oceanography/comment-page-1/

There is an e-book here which may help: "At Sea with the Scientifics"

There is a free preview so you can decide whether to buy it.

I suggest that you search for "The Challenger Expedition" with Google, Google Scholar and Google Books. That is what I did  https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=the+challenger+expedition

Thanks Mykolas, David and Octavio for your suggestions and input.

At the minute the plan is to try and group certain types of individuals based upon these values (using cluster analysis) and then look at the differences between these groups in relation to a number of variables that influence pro-environmental behaviour (Moral norms, community concern, perceived behavioural control and more). I am just not sure whether I should use the mean scores from the questionnaire for each of the values (after centring) for the cluster analysis, or implement the correction suggested by Schwartz to get an individuals value priorities and then (after centring) use this for the analysis.

It appears that if you do not correct the scores you get a cluster that are 'HIGH' on all values and a cluster that are 'LOW' on all values (and two other clusters). Obviously, when you implement the correction for value priorities it becomes impossible for someone to be low or high on ALL values as it is relative to themselves. I can see the argument for both ways to be honest but I am thinking that if in the future these groups were to be used to tailor interventions to increase pro-environmental behaviour it makes sense that the groups are based on what the individuals prioritise (i.e. with a correction) rather than if they happen to be 'low' or 'high' compared to the sample (i.e. without a correction)...

Again, any thoughts/opinions are welcome, they are really appreciated.

Hi Shailaja,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: I have no relevant skill in the areas you're mentioning. I think you should add different tags to your topic in order to get specialists in your area to be able to check your question. Your current tags are: "Frameworks", "Place", "Spatial Data", "Spatial Analysis", "Home". I would advise adding "Phenomenology" and "Architecture".

If you do search Research Gate with those last two tags I've suggested you'll get to topics such as this:

I'm suggesting this because your questions will be forward to other researchers based on the tags you give. I'm a developer and researcher in spatial mathematics and that's why your question has appeared to me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That said I do not know of any central "place" where you can get exactly what you are looking for. My recommendation would be for you to search for journals and the conferences in your target areas:

If you do want to do "Spatial Analysis" on your phenomenological data (testimony based) than you'll probably need to consider some kind of bias correction since this type of data is usually noisy.

There are some methodologies I've used in the past to "correct" the bias of one spatial data set with high uncertainty by using the statistical distribution of another adequate spatial data set with low uncertainty.

It actually end up being a small scientific package freely available here:

If you need more leverage in that regard just comment here and I'll try to help.

Thank you Aamir for answering my question, I appreciate the effort you have put into providing a long list of references.

I was however, seeking information specifically about research that has been conducted with work teams ... as this is the area of my research as a PhD student

I'm sorry, I should have explained this more when I put up this question, I have now added more explanation to my question.

I am well advanced in my research and also a trained de Bono instructor. Since 2000 I have trained, mentored and coached 2000+ people in de Bono's thinking tools so I am very sceptical about how people interpret his tools ... for example Paul Sloane's 'lateral thinking puzzles' should not be confused with Lateral Thinking, as Edward de Bono has said on many occasions - there is a very big difference between being a 'lateral thinker' and using 'lateral thinking'. 

Thank you for your quick response.

Regards Ali 

Hello Bryce,

Are you really aiming to quantify or come up with a set of design principles that induce 'Home' feelings or exploring how much different design styles impact these feelings? There are any number of routes you can take. Maybe you should explore those some more. 

I am in the fag end of my architectural PhD on "Spatiality of Feeling at Home" in a domestic context. I too had ideas similar to yours when I started off my work. The route I took was phenomenological, in addition to spatial/architectural analysis to come up with spatial elements and relationships which are seen to typify the experience of 'feeling at home' within the cases I studied. So I may be forgiven for thinking that your topic is more suited for a qualitative approach.

This book may give you some ideas for quantification though. Designing Better Buildings: Quality and Value in the Built Environment By Sebastian Macmillan

All the best.

Shailaja

Dear colleague,

In addition to what other colleagues have suggested here, with respect to measuring the hedonic/emotional dimension of working there may be some value in considering whether individuals experience the search for or presence of a "calling" to their work, and this does not necessarily mean calling as a religious vocation.  Individuals with a calling tend to feel emotionally engaged in their work; thus calling may provide an indirect measure of emotional satisfaction for your research.  The work of Bryan Dik and Ryan Duffy is quite informative in this regard:

Dik, Bryan J., Eldridge, Brandy M., Steger, Michael F., & Duffy, Ryan D. (2012). Development and validation of the Calling and Vocation Questionnaire (CVQ) and Brief Calling Scale (BCS). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 242-263. doi: 10.1177/1069072711434410

<strong>The difference between communication and interaction is that of response,reply and reciprocity too. In communication,the receiver may or may not respond,whereas in interaction,there is requirement of a response for it to be an 'inter'-action.</strong>

<p>Please find an excerpt from some reference material I had and some attached.</p>

<p><em>Social Interaction is when two or more players have two-way communication between each other, i.e., the other players can respond to the individual player's communication.</em></p>

<p><em>Social interaction emerges from social processes</em></p>

<p><em>Social Interaction in Everyday Life </em></p>

<p><em>A. Social Structure: Guides human behavior rather than rigidly determining it </em></p>

<p><em>1. A collective reality that exists apart from individuals, constructing the </em></p>

<p><em>context in which people interact. </em></p>

<p><em>2. Social System: An arrangement of relationships existing apart from the specific people involved.</em></p>

<p><em> Social Interaction: the process by which people act and react in relation to </em></p>

<p><em>others </em></p>

<p><em>1. Acts people perform toward each other and the responses they give in </em></p>

<p><em>return. </em></p>

<p><em>2. Personal Agency: The Ability to have an effect on one's own environment </em></p>

<p><em>3. Interaction process: Ways in which partners agree on their goals, </em></p>

<p><em>negotiate behavior, and distribute resources </em></p>

<p><em>4. Social interaction includes a large number of behaviors, so many that in </em></p>

<p><em>sociology interaction is usually divided into five categories</em></p>

<p><em>5. Types of Social Interaction </em></p>

<p><em>a. Exchange: The process in which people transfer goods, services, and </em></p>

<p><em>other items with each other. </em></p>

<p><em>• Exchange is a social process whereby social behavior is exchanged </em></p>

<p><em>for some type of reward for equal or greater value. </em></p>

<p><em>b. Competition: Process by which two or more people/groups attempt to </em></p>

<p><em>obtain the same goal </em></p>

<p><em>• Scarce resources are unequally distributed. </em></p>

<p><em>• This concept is very familiar and important to Americans </em></p>

<p><em>considering the idea of competition is built in to our economy and </em></p>

<p><em>society </em></p>

<p><em>• Yet, the jury is still out whether this competition produces the </em></p>

<p><em>assumed results of the “best rising to the top” </em></p>

<p><em>c. Cooperation: The process in which people work together to achieved </em></p>

<p><em>shared goals </em></p>

<p><em>• Usually this involves the giving up of individual goals for group </em></p>

<p><em>goals </em></p>

<p><em>d. Conflict: The process by which people attempt to physically or </em></p>

<p><em>socially conquer each other. </em></p>

<p><em>• Although war is the most obvious example of this, this is done </em></p>

<p><em>most often in social situations (ex. politics, threats, etc.) </em></p>

<p><em>e. Coercion: Process by which people compel other people to do </em></p>

<p><em>something against their will – based ultimately on force. </em></p>

<p><em>• The state usually handles this through official means (police, army, </em></p>

<p><em>etc.) but individuals use it in social situations as well (parents, </em></p>

<p><em>friends, lovers – sex) </em></p>

<p><em>f. No one type of interaction describes social reality – it involves a mix </em></p>

<p><em>and match of different ones.</em></p>

Hello Dila, there is evicence for a recognition impairment for opposite sex faces:

Wright, D. B., & Sladden, B. (2003). An own gender bias and the importance of hair in face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 114(1), 101-114.

An overview over theories including the role of similarity you can find in Sporer (2001). Sporer focuses on the other race recognition deficit but some of the principles are transferable to gender perception as well.

Sporer, S. L. (2001). Recognizing faces of other ethnic groups - An integration of theories. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 7(1), 36-97.

In the same line of research Hugenberg et al (2010) argue, that categorization and motivation to indivduate between invividuals affect own and other group perception. Put simply, once a person is categorized as belonging to an other group as once own, motivation to discriminate between out-group invividuals decreases and were perceived as more similar.

Hugenberg, K., Young, S. G., Bernstein, M. J., & Sacco, D. F. (2010). The Categorization-Individuation Model: An integrative account of the other-race recognition deficit. Psychological Review, 117(4), 1168-1187.

Hope the papers might help you.

Greets, Geza

Dear Shailaja,

in my opinion, there are two scientific sources for your special interest:

1. The emotion "feeling at home" can bei conceptualized as a part of environmental psychology and "psychology of housing" (and the related emotion "feeling at home") can be regarded as a part of environmental psychology. So have a look at:

L. Steg, A.E. van den Berg (2012): Environmental Psychology: An Introduction (There are many hints in several chapters; see particularly chapter 10, 11 and 16). Link:

[I couldn't find a scientific source for "psychology of housing". Perhaps you find literature in the scientific field "architecture", because the "feeling at home" is there also discussed.]

2. Abraham Maslow discussed "feeling at home" as an existential basic need. He developed a theory of needs. See:

Abraham H. Maslow: Hierarchy of Needs: A Theory of Human Motivation. Link:

Hope there are valuable hints for you!

Kind regards, Detlef

As you are looking for any clues:

You might want to consider if risk taking propensities apply to all environmental risks, or, to sub-sets, etc.

For example, some decisions might not be processed in terms of risk per se, and some might not be processed in terms of risk to the environment.

Examples:

A person might change their car's oil, and decide to dump it into the nearby storm sewer at his curb rather than store it for later recycling.  Was doing that potentially based on their propensity for taking risks that could harm the environment, or, on their propensity to take risks regarding getting caught polluting?  Etc.  (Short term/own actions/risk/benefit issues/variables regarding political leanings, etc)

A person might vote to preserve green areas and not to allow development in an area.  Is that potentially because they have a propensity to not take risks with the environment?  Is a vote not to preserve the land, and to allow development potentially due to a propensity to take risks towards the environment?  Are the votes more aligned with their political leanings than an actual risk taking propensity? (Long term/other's actions, etc.)

Are the propensities above truly tied to risk taking disposition, or, to simple pro/con environmental biases?  You may need to establish that their actual conceptualization is actually processed in terms of environmental risks.

IE: IS THERE a risk based PROCESS that applies to environmental risks, that can BE modeled...and which would not simply be an overlay of political/socioeconomic factors, etc.

THAT might be the primary issue to resolve, teasing out a disposition that is not in line with those other factors, and which can be unique to the environment...or, at least potentially, to a sub-set of environmental issues.  Finding sub-sets with usable data may be job #1.

Does that help?

There are a lot of researches on this topic.

I would suggest to start checking the work of the main authors in the field: Stephen and Rachel Kaplan, Hartig, Staats, Roger Ulrich, Korpela

Have a nice work!

Hi Gonzalo

See the book (specially pg. 267):

Risk and Uncertainty in Dam Safety by Desmond A. N. D. Hartford, ‎Gregory B. Baecher - 2004 

Regards,

Vanessa

Dear Sarah,

here is a scale for children:

Children's Environmental Attitudes and Knowledge Scale (CHEAKS),

Yes indeed Ariel....thanx

Susan.... interesting split....so we have here two groups of variables...first physical (either modifiable or not) such as windows, furniture, paint color, space size, etc.... and another group of subjective variables which addresses user's perception of how the physical features render the space livable from user's point of view....the correlation between these two group results in the latent variable that Ariel describes i.e. "livability".

An example you might look at are the alleyways of Melbourne, Australia which were old freight alleys and service docks that were converted to thriving Cafe and restaurant corridors. The Highline park in New York is a very successful conversion of an old feeder railway that directly serviced warehouses on the west side, all of which were defunct for years, and which is now an elevated urban park. In general urban freight facilities such as wharves and docks and railway stations have often been successfully reused. The Musée d'Orsay in Paris was an abandoned railway station (and where Orson Welles filmed his film 'the Trial' when it was still that) before becoming a very successful musuem that integrates many of the railway station architectural elements. 

Thank you for the clarification. Another idea: Instead of repeating the whole study you could simply run an experiment using the picture-assignment task along with a well-validated aggression measure (e.g., the Buss & Perry [1992] questionnaire) to hopefully demonstrate that they are both correlated (as an indication of convergent validity). 

I've attached a link to a general overview related to the extensive work done by Gary Evans and his colleagues. Other authors to check out on the relationship between household chaos and child outcomes are Coldwell et al (2006), Deater-Deckard (2005), and Hanscombe et al (2011). Regarding the effects of the home's location and noise as related to children's outcomes, there's work out of the UK by Stansfeld & Matheson (2003) on general noise, and Clark, Head & Stansfeld (2013) specific to schools near airports. Good luck with your work.

Dear Manfred

To my knowledge the foreground of a landscape that does not exceed ten meters allows the perception of detail elements or components of this aFront -plan. Beyond this distance and jusu'à a hundred meters is the intermediate level of the landscape, the elements or components of the intermediate plane are perceived by their shape. Against by the elements or components which is in the background that is between 100 to 1000 meters are collected by their volume.

Best regards

FADEL

I would ask about the issue of crime more generally first in your research setting. If you are using in-depth interviews then this should open the conversation up to more how they feel about crime in the area, et cetera. 

Perhaps this article would be of help.

You can look at the recent dissertation by Xiaolu Zhou (2014), from the University of Illinois, who looked at how urban form was related to modes of active transportation. If you can't find it easily, email me off line and I'll send a copy to you (wcsulliv@illinois.edu). Xiaolu is now an Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Southern Georgia.

I am not sure if there is such a thing as "sustainable design techniques" mainly because what "sustainable design" is, is not clear yet. It can mean many things, such as: reduced CO2 footprint, less energy usage, created out of recyclable materials, self-supporting, and so on. Your reference to studies on visitor and occupant behaviour is interesting (I would like to see that) and can give you clues for museum design: what parameters did they study and how did they measure it? Can you map these parameters on museum properties? In the cases where parameters fit, figure out whether the performance criteria for the parameters are the same for museums. The concept of museum is very broad: what kind of exhibits does it take (paintings, sculptures, historical, science, technology...) Does the museum also have an archive or restauration function? Does it have a permanent exhibition or only temporary?

The NEP is the most widely applied scale of environmental attitudes in the world. Its wide use is self-sustaining, because now there are so many studies that have examined its variability across different countries, socio-economic status, etc. that it can be adjusted and applied in most every setting. I have used the NEP in a study of farmers and farming practices, and while I do think the scale provides a simple measure of environmental attitudes, I would emphasize that it is a truly simple measure, and that from my experience, in which we conducted much more in depth interviews with all participants, it seems that the use of these simple scales glosses over much of the variability that actually exists in the environmental attitudes. Because people score themselves, their only benchmark to score themselves against is....themselves. Therefore the scoring system is fundamentally skewed for each individual, and when you look more in depth and with more data and judge each individual from a single (however subjective) perspective you find that the actual beliefs about the environment are much more complex and variable.

All that said...the NEP scale is a decent proxy for a general understanding of the variability of environmental attitudes within a study population.

Regarding Shepherdʻs Sustainable Development Scale I have read the book but havenʻt applied the scale, but in general I would agree with Asmat, and echo that sustainability is a concept, and that concept is subjective. Therefore each population will have a different concept of what sustainability is, and therefore needs to be measured differently. I work extensively with indigenous communities, and how we envision sustainability and what the end goals of sustainability are differ very substantially from what Shepherd defines the measurements as. Your students in the study likewise may have different opinions of what sustainability is, and to apply a standard scale to measure their adherence is, in my opinion, putting the cart before the horse.

"Is it not high time we focus on what makes us human, correct our consumptive behavior and leave nature to take care of climate change?"

The either-or construction of your question creates a false dichotomy. We don't have to choose to focus on climate change OR human behavior--we can do both! Indeed, even if NSF and other grant funding institutions switched their priorities entirely today, that's not going turn a biochemist into a psychologist, sociologist, or behavioral economist. Moreover, one might characterize the climate-related problems we are experiencing as simply manifestations of overconsumption--human behavior. Perhaps a better way to phrase this question is: should research funding priorities change to focus more on understanding, predicting, and ultimately changing human behavior? That's a question I could answer with a wholehearted "yes"!

Hi Erik

These are all big questions.

You ask "And what theories underlie such societal changes?"

There is a huge literature on the environmental Kuznets curve that seems to be one large scale generalization. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve

Another theory of general interest is the "forest transition". See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_transition.

There has been quite a lot of research over the last decade to clarify how wealth (change or local variation) relates to dependence on, benefits from, and impact on, natural resources. The PEN work of CIFOR would be a good place to track some of that down. see http://www.cifor.org/pen

Key of course is "our" ability to modify and influence the process and outcomes.

The resilience alliance also has a lot of good stuff on "transformation and change". See http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/e__s_special_feature

What I think is really fascinating is the cultural differences and how these are manifested. Some parts of the world are much more tolerant and respectful of wild nature than others (parts of India and Thailand, parts of Ethiopia etc being positive). Valuing and nurturing such tolerance is something that those of us with conservation aims need to spend a lot more energy on ...

Some of the best work in fisheries in recent years has been to reintroduce more traditional controls and safeguards. See e.g. Johannes, R. E. 2002. The renaissance of community-based marine resource management in Oceania. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:317–340.

This requires a much more local and less uniform approach ... but I think the really big question is whether increased democracy (a good thing) will also be good for the environment! It depends ...

Yes! As I know there`s a study about this nominally studies about relationships with children and adolescents in this matter, and also there`s a book about social theory and global environment who talks about this. But if you go to Google Academics you´ll find more few studies about environment and culture in rainforest.

I hope this help you!

Social identity model

Researchers Martijn van Zomeren, Tom Postmes, and Russell Spears conducted a meta-analysis of over 180 studies of collective action, in an attempt to integrate three dominant socio-psychological perspectives explaining antecedent conditions to this phenomenon – injustice, efficacy, and identity.[3] In their resultant 2008 review article, an integrative Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA) was proposed which accounts for interrelationships among the three predictors as well as their predictive capacities for collective action.[3] An important assumption of this approach is that people tend to respond to subjective states of disadvantage, which may or may not flow from objective physical and social reality.

Perceived injustice

Examining collective action through perceived injustice was initially guided by relative deprivation theory (RDT). RDT focuses on a subjective state of unjust disadvantage, proposing that engaging in fraternal (group-based) social comparisons with others may result in feelings of relative deprivation that foster collective action. Group-based emotions resulting from perceived injustice, such as anger, are thought to motivate collective action in an attempt to rectify the state of unfair deprivation.[3] Meta-analysis results confirm that effects of injustice causally predict collective action, highlighting the theoretical importance of this variable.[3]

Perceived efficacy

Moving beyond RDT, scholars suggested that in addition to a sense of injustice, people must also have the objective, structural resources necessary to mobilize change through social protest. An important psychological development saw this research instead directed towards subjective expectations and beliefs that unified effort (collective action) is a viable option for achieving group-based goals – this is referred to as perceived collective efficacy. Empirically, collective efficacy is shown to causally affect collective action among a number of populations across varied contexts.[3]

Social identity

Social Identity Theory (SIT) suggests that people strive to achieve and maintain positive social identities associated with their group memberships.[4] Where a group membership is disadvantaged (for example, low status), SIT implicates three variables in the evocation of collective action to improve conditions for the group – permeability of group boundaries,[2] legitimacy of the intergroup structures, and the stability of these relationships. For example, when disadvantaged groups perceive intergroup status relationships as illegitimate and unstable, collective action is predicted to occur, in an attempt to change status structures for the betterment of the disadvantaged group.

Meta-analysis results also confirm that social identity causally predicts collective action across a number of diverse contexts. Additionally, the integrated SIMCA affords another important role to social identity – that of a psychological bridge forming the collective base from which both collective efficacy and group injustice may be conceived.

Model refinement

While there is sound empirical support for the causal importance of SIMCA’s key theoretical variables on collective action,[3] more recent literature has addressed the issue of reverse causation, finding support for a related, yet distinct, encapsulation model of social identity in collective action (EMSICA).[5] This model suggests that perceived group efficacy and perceived injustice provide the basis from which social identity emerges, highlighting an alternative causal pathway to collective action. Recent research has sought to integrate SIMCA with intergroup contact theory (see Cakal, Hewstone, Schwär, & Heath[6]) and others have extended SIMCA through bridging morality research with the collective action literature (see van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears[7] for a review).

In sociology

As an explanation of social movements, an inquiry into collective action involves examining those factors that cause the setting of standards of social integration, as well as those factors which lead to standards of deviance and conflict. An explanation of a collective action in sociology will involve the explanation of those things which are similar or dissimilar to collective actions at different times and in different places. Theories of collective action emphasise how group behavior can, in some sense, be linked to social institutions.

In political science and economics

The economic theory of collective action is concerned with the provision of public goods (and other collective consumption) through the collaboration of two or more individuals, and the impact of externalities on group behavior. It is more commonly referred to as Public Choice. Mancur Olson's 1965 book The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, is an important early analysis of the problems of public good cost.

Besides economics, the theory has found many applications in political science, sociology, communication, anthropology and environmentalism.

Collective action problem

The term "collective action problem" describes the situation in which multiple individuals would all benefit from a certain action, but has an associated cost making it implausible that any one individual can or will undertake and solve it alone. The rational choice is then to undertake this as a collective action the cost of which is shared. An allegorical metaphor often used to describe the problem is "belling the cat."[8]

Exploitation of the great by the small

Mancur Olson made the highly controversial claim that individual rational choice leads to situations where individuals with more resources will carry a higher burden in the provision of the public good than poorer ones.[9] Poorer individuals will usually have little choice but to opt for the free rider strategy, i.e. they will attempt to benefit from the public good without contributing to its provision. This may also encourage the under-production (inefficient production) of the public good.

Institutional design

While public goods are often provided by governments, this is not always the case. Various institutional designs have been studied with the aim of reducing the collaborative failure. The best design for a given situation depends on the production costs, the utility function, and the collaborative effects, amongst other things. Here are only some examples:

Joint products

A joint-product model analyzes the collaborative effect of joining a private good to a public good. For example, a tax deduction (private good) can be tied to a donation to a charity (public good).

It can be shown that the provision of the public good increases when tied to the private good, as long as the private good is provided by a monopoly (otherwise the private good would be provided by competitors without the link to the public good).

Clubs

Some institutional design, e.g. intellectual property rights, can introduce an exclusion mechanism and turn a pure public good into an impure public good artificially.

If the costs of the exclusion mechanism are not higher than the gain from the collaboration, clubs can emerge. James M. Buchanan showed in his seminal paper that clubs can be an efficient alternative to government interventions.[10]

A nation can be seen as a club whose members are its citizens. Government would then be the manager of this club.

Federated structure

In some cases, theory shows that collaboration emerges spontaneously in smaller groups rather than in large ones (see e.g. Dunbar's number). This explains why labor unions or charities often have a federated structure.

Jan Gehl and Birgitte Svarre, "How to study Public Life", Island Press, 2013, will give an overview of different techniques and best practices to study walking patterns in public spaces.

They cite Peter Bosselmann's study on four minutes walks on p. 117, where he compares how long it feels to walk a 350 m route in different urban structures all over the world - compared to a walk in Venice. See Peter Bosselmann, Representation of Places, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998

I wrote a short piece that compares a few different theories-of-change. I tried to highlight what interventions promote durable behavior change.

I've also attached some slides I use in reviewing some of the common models of behavior change. The last slide compares a few models and shows that they may be using the same constructs but with slightly different names. (A version of the "toothbrush problem." No one want to use someone else's toothbrush).

The reason I suggested making contact with David Canter was that he was probably the most enthusiastic advocate and user of facet theory in environmental psychology. However, that was in the 1980s and 1990s. I am not so sure that it is used much now. David might know

There are two articles which can help you:

Goldenhar, L. M. & ConneIl, C. M. (1991-1992). Effects of education and feedback interventions on recycling knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Journal of Environmental Systems 21, 321-333.

Staats, H., Harland, P., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2004). ffecting Durable Change A Team Approach to Improve Environmental Behavior in the Household. Environment and Behavior 36(3), 341-367

Look for Mark Van Vugt studies like for example Van Vugt & Samuelson (1999) The impact of personal metering in the management of a natural resource crisis: a social dilemmas analysis. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 25(6), 731-745.

You can also shearch about this topics in eh journal of environmental psychology? In the past years there was a lot on research on these topics and usage, recycling, new use of space, etc. A majority on research in this field are now on global changes, global warming and how t change behavior or promote community actions.

Gosh Ms. Schubert you have bitten off quite a large chunk of knowledge!

Here is a partial listing of things you might look at. There appear to be innumerable correlates of sustainability, perhaps this will provide a starting place (you are likely to know most of these already !) :

Bamberg, S. Effect of implementation intentions on the actual performance of new environmentally friendly behaviors-Results of two field experiments. J. Environ. Psychol. 2002, 22, 399–411.

Bechtel, R.; Corral-Verdugo, V. Happiness and sustainable behavior. In Psychological Approaches to Sustainability; Corral-Verdugo, V., Frías-Armenta, M., García-Cadena, C., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 433–450.

Brown, K.W.; Kasser, T. Are Psychological and Ecological Well-being Compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Soc. Indic. Res.2005, 3, 49–68.

Corral-Verdugo, V.; Frías-Armenta, M.; García-Cadena, C. Introduction to the psychological dimensions of sustainability. In, Psychological Approaches to Sustainability; Corral-Verdugo, V., Frías-Armenta, M., García-Cadena, C., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 3–18.

Corral-Verdugo, V.; Bonnes, M.; Tapia, C.; Fraijo, B.; Frías, M.; Carrus, G. Correlates of pro-sustainability orientation: The Affinity Towards Diversity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 34–43.

Corral-Verdugo, V.; García-Cadena, C.; Castro, L.; Viramontes, I.; Limones, R. Equity and sustainable lifestyles. In Psychological Approaches to Sustainability; Corral-Verdugo, V., Frías-Armenta, M., García-Cadena, C., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 185–204.

De Young, R. Some psychological aspects of a reduced consumption lifestyle: The role of intrinsic satisfaction and competence motivation. Environ. Behav. 1996, 28, 358–409.

Eisenberg, N.; Losoya, S.; Spinrad, T. Affect and prosocial responding. In Handbook of Affective Sciences; Davidson, R., Scherer, K., Goldsmith, H., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 787–803.

Gärling, T.; Fujii, S.; Gärling, A.; Jakobsson, C. Moderating effects of social value orientation on determinants of proenvironmental behavior intention. J. Environ. Psychol.2003, 23, 1–9.

Gatersleben, B.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 335–362.

Geller, E.S. The challenge of increasing pro-environment behavior. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology; Bechtel, R., Churchman, A., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 525–540.

Hsu, S.J. The effects of an environmental education program on responsible environmental behavior and associated environmental literacy variables in Taiwanese college students. J. Environ. Educ. 2004, 35, 37–48.

Iwata, O. Coping style and three psychological measures associated with environmentally responsible behavior. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2002, 30, 661–669.

Joireman, J.A.; Lasane, T.P.; Bennett, J.; Richards, D.; Solaimani, S. Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behaviour. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol.2001, 40, 133–155.

Joreiman, J.A.; van Lange, P.A.; van Vugt, M. Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 187–206.

Kaiser, F. A general measure of ecological behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.1998, 28, 195–220.

Kasser, T.; Ryan, R.M. Further examining the American dream: differential correlates of extrinsic and intrinsic goals. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 1996, 22, 280–287.

Lyubomirsky, S.; Lepper, S. A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Soc. Indic. Res. 1999, 46,137–155.

Moser, G.; Ratiu, E.; de Vanssay, B. Relationships to water use and management in the light of sustainable development. IHDP Update 2004, 4, 13–15.

Nixon, H.; Saphores, J.; Ogunseitan, O.; Shapiro, A. Understanding preferences for recycling electronic waste in California. Environ. Behav. 2009, 41, 101–124. Sustainability 2013, 5 723

Pimentel, D.; Pimentel, M. Global environmental resources versus world population growth. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 59, 195–198.

Schultz, P.W. The structure of environmental concern. Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 327–339.

Tapia-Fonllem, C.; Corral-Verdugo, V., Fraijo-Sing, B.; Duron-Ramos, M.F. Assessing Sustainable Behavior and its Correlates: a Measure of Pro-Ecological, Frugal, Altruistic and Equitable Actions. Sustainability. 2013, 5(2), 711-723.