About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Urban Studies Research
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 767049, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/767049
Research Article

The Influences of Actual and Perceived Familiarity on Environmental Preferences for the Design of a Proposed Urban Square

Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Group, The James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK

Received 8 April 2012; Revised 6 September 2012; Accepted 20 September 2012

Academic Editor: Adrian G. Aguilar

Copyright © 2012 Tony Craig et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. D. M. Pedersen, “Relationship between environmental familiarity and environmental preference,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 47, pp. 739–743, 1978.
  2. R. Kaplan and S. Kaplan, The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1989.
  3. Ç. Imamoglu, “Complexity, liking and familiarity: architecture and non-architecture Turkish students' assessments of traditional and modern house facades,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 5–16, 2000. View at Scopus
  4. J. L. Nasar, The Evaluative Image of the City, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 1998.
  5. A. E. Stamps III, Psychology and the Aesthetics of the Built Environment, Kluwer Academic, Boston, Mass, USA, 2000.
  6. H. Sanoff, Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2000.
  7. J. L. Nasar, “Urban design aesthetics—the evaluative qualities of building exteriors,” Environment and Behaviour, vol. 26, pp. 377–401, 1994.
  8. F. H. Sancar, “Paradigms of postmodernity and implications for planning and design review processes,” Environment and Behavior, vol. 26, pp. 312–337, 1994.
  9. CABE, The Value of Urban Design, Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, London, UK, 2001.
  10. R. B. Zajonc, “Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences,” American Psychologist, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 151–175, 1980. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. J. F. Wohlwill, “Environmental aesthetics: the environment as a source of affect,” in Human Behaviour and Environment—Advances in Theory and Research, I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill, Eds., vol. 1, pp. 37–86, Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA, 1976.
  12. E. Mainardi Peron, M. R. Baroni, R. Job, and P. Salmaso, “Effects of familiarity in recalling interiors and external places,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 255–271, 1990. View at Scopus
  13. D. E. Berlyne, Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps Toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1974.
  14. J. Russell and J. Snodgrass, “Emotion and the environment,” in Handbook of Environmental Psychology, D. Stokols and I. Altman, Eds., pp. 245–281, Wiley Interscience, New York, NY, USA, 1987.
  15. A. T. Purcell, “Environmental perception and affect: a schema discrepancy model,” Environment and Behavior, vol. 18, pp. 3–30, 1986.
  16. A. T. Purcell, E. Peron, and R. Berto, “Why do preferences differ between scene types?” Environment and Behavior, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 93–106, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. D. Wellman and G. J. Buhyoff, “Effects of regional familiarity on landscape preferences,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 105–110, 1980. View at Scopus
  18. P. Anand and M. Holbrook, “Reinterpretation of mere exposure or exposure of mere reinterpretation?” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 17, pp. 242–244, 1990.
  19. M. Bonaiuto, A. Aiello, M. Perugini, M. Bonnes, and A. P. Ercolani, “Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in the urban environment,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 331–352, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. S. Low and I. Altman, “Place attachment—a conceptual enquiry,” in Place Attachment, I. Altman and S. Low, Eds., pp. 1–12, Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA, 1992.
  21. K. L. Henwood and N. F. Pidgeon, “Talk about woods and trees: threat of urbanization, stability, and biodiversity,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 125–147, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. M. Bonaiuto, G. Carrus, H. Martorella, and M. Bonnes, “Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes: the case of natural protected areas,” Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 631–653, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. M. Bonnes, P. Passafaro, and G. Carrus, “The ambivalence of attitudes toward urban green areas: between proenvironmental worldviews and daily residential experience,” Environment and Behavior, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 207–232, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. J. Zeisel, Inquiry by Design. Tools for Environmental-Behaviour Research, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, Calif, USA, 1981.
  25. A. Conniff, T. Craig, R. Laing, S. Scott, and C. R. Galán-Díaz, “Informing the practice of planning: researching future environments using desktop computers,” in Environmental Psychology: From Research to ‘Real World’ Applications, E. Edgerton and O. Romice, Eds., pp. 91–108, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle, UK, 2007.
  26. N. Hanley, R. Ready, S. Colombo, F. Watson, M. Stewart, and E. A. Bergmann, “The impacts of knowledge of the past on preferences for future landscape change,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 1404–1412, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. L. Mealey and P. Theis, “The relationship between mood and preferences among natural landscapes: an evolutionary perspective,” Ethology and Sociobiology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 247–256, 1995. View at Scopus
  28. D. Watson, L. A. Clark, and A. Tellegen, “Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1063–1070, 1988. View at Scopus
  29. C. R. Warren, C. Lumsden, S. O'Dowd, and R. V. Birnie, “'Green on green': public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 853–875, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. S. Low, “Symbolic ties that bind: place attachment in the plaza,” in Place Attachment, I. Altman and S. Low, Eds., pp. 165–185, Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA, 1992.
  31. H. M. Proshansky, A. K. Fabian, and R. Kaminoff, “Place-identity: physical world socialization of the self,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 57–83, 1983. View at Scopus
  32. P. Devine-Wright and Y. Howes, “Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case study,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 271–280, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. B. Hernández, M. Carmen Hidalgo, M. E. Salazar-Laplace, and S. Hess, “Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 310–319, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. S. Tapsuwan, Z. Leviston, and D. Tucker, “Community values and attitudes towards land use on the Gnangara Groundwater System: a sense of place study in Perth, Western Australia,” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 100, no. 1-2, pp. 24–34, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus