Environmental Design Research

Volume one selected papers

Wolfgang F. E. Preiser

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781134847020
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

First published in 1973, this two-volume set summarises and structures the contributions by researchers at the Fourth International EDRA Conference, held in April 1973. The first volume focuses on the proceedings of the paper sessions. It summarises and criticises 43 selected paper submissions which communicate contemporary research findings. It also reviews the discussions between authors, panellists and the session participants.

This book will be of interest to students of architecture and design.

ONE THEORETICAL ISSUES IN MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS

Chairman:	Richard A. Chase, John Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Md.
Panelists:	Sidney N. Brower, Dept, of Planning, City of Baltimore, Md. C. F. Graumann, Dept, of Psychology, Univ. of Heidelberg, Germany Sven Hesselgren, Royal Inst, of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden Albert Mehrabian, Dept, of Psychology, U.C.L.A., Los Angeles
Authors:	Alton J. DeLong, “Aspectual and Hierarchical Characteristics of Environmental Codes” Barrie B. Greenbie, “An Ethological Approach to Community Design” Lucille Nahemow and M. Powell Lawton, “Toward an Ecological Theory of Adaptation and Aging” Mayer Spivack, “Archetypal Place” Mete H. Turan, Environmental Stress and Flexibility in the Housing Process”

THEORETICAL ISSUES IN MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS: INTRODUCTION

1.0

Richard Allen Chase, Session Chairman

Associate Professor

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

The Johns Hopkins University

School of Medicine

Baltimore, Maryland 21205

The papers in this section touch on a number of important common themes. They are concerned with ways of conceptualizing those aspects of environment, and those aspects of human behavior that offer greatest promise of illuminating a general systems theory of man-environment relations that will allow prediction and control of the human consequences of physical design. Some of the contributions focus on relevant dimensions of human behavior, such as territoriality, and basic life-support behaviors such as eating, sleeping, defense and reproduction. Others focus more on ways of describing aspects of environmental structure that seem to influence human behavior in important ways, such as flexibility with respect to the amounts of space available and the ways in which the same space may be arranged under changing circumstances. All of the papers contrast adaptive and maladaptive patterns of behavior, and perceive that patterns of relationships between the structure of environments and the structure of human behavior determine whether the human behavioral repertoire grows or diminishes in amount and competence. There is not, as yet, any general agreement about the languages that are most suitable to the description of these patterns of relationships. Each paper offers suggestions in this matter, but the suggestions are quite diverse. The technical languages used by the various authors seem to be more diverse than their underlying concerns and emerging conceptual insights. This is characteristic of the state of conversation in this field at this point in time. As concern continues to shape new concepts, new concepts will begin to shape plans for experiences -- experiences organized and controlled so that they will ultimately constitute experiments. As this evolution proceeds, words and concepts will be increasingly viewed as tools, to be shaped by the consequences of their use. In the meantime, the provocative and diverse statements of our authors constitutes an essential step in the evolution of a new field of enquiry.

The paper by Alton DeLong is concerned with ways of conceptualizing the environment that will facilitate productive exchange of information between social scientists and designers. It is suggested that the environment be conceived of as a system of communication, characterized by objective complexity (etics), perceptual simplicity (emics) and events related to each other in orderly ways over time (tactics). Complexity of environmental structure varies heirarchically. Study of the environment, whether analytically or synthetically oriented, requires specification of the level of complexity (heirarchical characteristics) as well as aspects of the environment the investigator is concerned with (e.g., fine-grained objective events, or economizing generalizations based upon recurrent patterns of user behaviors). In natural environments, all levels of complexity, and all features communicate simultaneously. Our understanding of environments must comprehend all levels of complexity, and all features. To accomplish this objective, conceptual frameworks must be utilized that accommodate analytic and synthetic modes of enquiry in a complementary fashion. The view of environments as systems of communication is thought to satisfy this criterion.

The paper by Barrie Greenbie is organized around interest in “territory” and “territorial behaviors”. Territory is viewed as the space surrounding discrete sets of social activities. Human social behavior is determined by phylogenetically old parts of the brain, subserving the basic sensory, perceptual and emotional capabilities of the organism. In addition, phylogenetically newer parts of the brain allow anticipation, planning, and the abstract, objective processes of analytic intellectual behavior that prediction and planning require. As a result, the human organism organizes space in terms of concepts as well as traditional physical (geographical) design. In primitive societies geographical and conceptual space tend to coincide; customs and spaces are neatly overlapped. In complex societies, the organization of conceptual space and the organization of physical space are not as interdependent. Cultural segregation of physical space is viewed as facilitating social identity and cross-cultural communication and trust.

The paper by Lucille Nahemow and M. Powell Lawton begins with a series of generalizations concerning man-environment relations: 1) man-environment systems are transactional (interdependent) in character, 2) behaving organisms seek homeostasis, 3) behavior change may be initiated by the individual or by changes made in the environment, 4) the competence of an individual may be so poor that an adaptive relationship will be difficult in any environment, and 5) unsatisfactory environments can limit the adaptive behaviors of even the most competent individuals. For each individual, there is a range of environmental stimulation, challenge, and responsivity within which behavior is generally adaptive, and accompanied by a sense of well-being. Exceeding the limits of this range, in either direction, results in subjective discomfort, and objective evidence of maladaptive behavior. Moderately challenging environments support individual competence, whereas inadequately-challenging environments produce extinction behavior, and unduly-challenging environments produce escape behavior. In the case of aging individuals, there is a common tendency to provide an environment that is too simplified and stereotyped, thereby resulting in a reduction of competence, continued personal growth and self-actualization.

The places that support behaviors most important to the survival and continued growth of individual and social life are labeled “archetypal” places in Mayer Spivack’s paper. The total set of behaviors accommodated by archetypal places for human populations is listed as follows: nesting, sleeping, mating, childbirth, nursery, healing, grooming, nourishment, excretion, storing, looking out, playing, locomotion, meeting, working, competing, learning, and worshipping. Healthy individuals make connections between all of the archetypal places necessary for complete expression of their needs and interests. Adaptive cultures provide the necessary number and kind of archetypal places to allow individuals and groups to design and re-design their own networks of places to accommodate the changing spectrum of needs and interests that are shaped by the continuing evolution of the individual and the culture. Omissions of archetypal places result in disordered behavior. The extent to which the needs of individuals and groups are accommodated by available archetypal places provides a measure of environmental adequacy, and thereby, a way of predicting patterns of individual and group behavior.

The paper by Mete Turan is concerned with the structure of the physical environment, and the interaction between individuals and environments. Subjective appraisal of input from the environment as a threat to the adaptive equilibrium of an individual thereby transforms a previously “neutral” component of environmental input into a “load”, and produces a state of “environmental stress”. Environmental stress is accompanied by subjective discomfort, and initiates efforts at coping intended to re-establish a more adaptive equilibrium. If the coping efforts are ineffective, “environmental strain” results as a function of “load” and “stress”, and is manifested by deformation in the structure of man-environment interaction. The more limited the ability of an environment to change as a function of changing conditions (low environmental flexibility), the higher the strain will be from a constant load. An environment that can readily be modified as a function of changing needs of its inhabitants is said to possess high environmental flexibility. Flexibility can be analyzed in terms of the number of ways in which a given space can be utilized as well as the quantity of space available. The ability to change space utilization patterns as well as the amounts of space available for particular uses allows households to adapt to evolutionary shifts in the number and ages of occupants, as well as periodic changes in the social functions that must be accommodated by the family group. Increased environmental flexibility results in increased ability of individuals and groups to cope with environmental stress.

ASPECTUAL AND HIERARCHICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CODES

1.1

Alton J. De Long

School of Architecture & Planning

University of Texas

Austin, Texas 78712

Abstract

The environment is considered as a code. Codes are systems characterized by aspectual integration and hierarchical organization. These properties are discussed and considered as a frame of reference for relating diverse findings acquired through different analytical emphases and as providing a basis by which synthetic and analytic orientations can be seen as complementary.

Introduction

This paper represents an attempt to briefly identify the environment as a system of communication which is hierarchically organized, with each level of hierarchical complexity characterized by an aspectual integration.

The major theorectical issues concerning hierarchically organized and aspectually integrated systems will not be taken up in this paper, as they have been carefully outlined in detail elsewhere (1,2,3,4,5 ). The usefulness as well as the necessity of such an organizational framework will be assumed well understood. The reason is simple: we want to begin probing a type of thinking that will highlight the complementary nature of synthetic and analytic orientations and which will recognize the necessity of each viewpoint. A basic requirement is the development of a way of specifying environmental features such that synthetic and analytic points of view can be simultaneously identified.

The designer who has traditionally coveted his ability to synthesize diffuse data into a crystallized concrete expression is finding it increasingly more difficult to cope with research data relevant to the improvement of his designs. The analytically oriented social scientist, on the other hand, whose job it is to generate relevant data is experiencing considerable difficulty in discovering cogent criteria for timely research. The dilemma seems partially related to the fact that within the context of environmental design, analytic and synthetic orientations are no longer free to determine their own criteria of relevance. They are constraining each other as never before.

The concepts contained in this paper are rooted in a discipline which is as much art as it is science, structural linguistics. As a discipline, linguistics is naturally oriented toward both synthetic and analytic processes because communication, by definition, simultaneously involves encoding and decoding. And the similarities between design and encoding and science and decoding do not seem fortuitous.

Aspectual and Hierarchical Characteristics

Over the past several years, we have elaborated the environment as a code. It is a code very much like language in a variety of ways. The environment constitutes an extended med...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Preface
• Conference Organization
• Table of Contents
• 1. Theoretical Issues In Man-Environment Relations
• 2. Visual Attributes Of Environments
• 3. Human Responses to the Natural and Man-Made Physical Environment
• 4. Environmental Research and Design For Different Age Groups
• 5. Environmental Cognition
• 6. Quantitative Techniques in Environmental Analysis
• 7. Decision Making Tools
• 8. Space Planning Techniques
• 9. Design Languages and Methods:
• Appendix Reviewers of Abstracts and Papers
• Author index
• Subject index