Design review and public preferences: Effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 11-32

  Stamps III, Arthur E ^a   Nasar, Jack L ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001856324     PISSN: 02724944     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1996.0036     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Adler, P., Bundy, M. A., Fletcher, N. A., Shames, T. & Staw, J. (1992). Fire in the Hills: a Collective Remembrance. P. Adler, 2904 Avalon, Berkeley, California, USA.
2. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
3. Blumenson, J. J. (1983). Identifying American architecture: a Pictorial Guide to Styles and Terms 1600-1945. Nashville, Tennessee: American Association for state and local history.
4. Buhyoff, G. J. & Arndt, L. K. (1981). Interval scaling of landscape preference by direct and indirect measurement methods. Landscape Planning 8, 257-267.
5. Chokor, B. C. (1990). Urban landscape and environmental preferences in Ibadan, Nigeria: an exploration. Landscape and Urban Planning 19, 263-280.
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
8. Craik, K. (1973). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 24, 403-422.
9. Cullingworth, J. B. (1993). The Political Culture of Planning: American Land Use Planning in Comparative Perspective. New York: Routledge.
10. Daniel, T. C. & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
11. Davis, K. C. (1971). Discretionary Justice: a Preliminary Inquiry. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
12. Davis, K. C. (1972). Administrative Law Text. St. Paul, Minnesota: West.
13. Devlin, K. & Nasar, J. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of "high" versus "popular" residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology 9, 333-344.
14. Fletcher, B. (1963). A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
15. Gans, H. J. (1974). Popular Culture and High Culture: an Analysis and Evaluation of Taste. New York: Basic Books.
16. Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in Post-Modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2, 3-22.
17. Groat, L. (1984). Public opinions of contextual fit. Architecture November, 72-75.
18. Hindshaw, M. L. (1995). Design review. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 454. Chicago: American Planning Association.
19. Holahan, C. J. (1986). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 37, 381-407.
20. International City Management Association, (1984). Facilitating economic development: local government activities and organization structures. Urban Data Service Report, 16, (11/12). Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association.
21. Jencks, C. (1977). The Language of Post-modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.
22. Jencks, C. (1979). Bizarre Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.
23. Jencks, C. (1980). Late-modern Architecture and Other Essays. New York: Rizzoli.
24. Lai, R. T. (1992). Can the process of architectural design review withstand legal scrutiny? Proceedings of the International Symposium on Design Review. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, October 8-11, 1992. pp. 210-222.
25. Lightner, B. C. (1993a). Survey of design review practices. Planning Advisory Service Memo, January 1993. Chicago: American Planning Association.
26. Lightner, B. C. (1993b). A survey of design review practice in local government. Personal communication, 15 June 1993.
27. Lynes, R. (1980). The Tastemakers: the Shaping of American Public Taste. New York: Dover.
28. Mann, D. A. (1980). Architecture, aesthetics and pluralism: theories of taste as a determinant of architectural standards. Journal of Popular Culture 13, 701-719.
29. Nasar, J. L. (1983). Adult viewer preferences in residential scenes. Environment and Behavior 15, 589-614.
30. Nasar, J. L. (1986). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior 21, 235-257.
31. Nasar, J. L. (1987a). Environmental correlates of affective appraisals of central business district scenes. Landscape and Urban Planning 4,117-130.
32. Nasar, J. L. (1987b). Effects of signscape complexity and coherence on the perceived visual quality of retail scenes. Journal of the American Planning Association 53, 499-510.
33. Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior 21, 235-257.
34. Nasar, J. L. (1990). The evaluative image of the city. Journal of the American Planning Association 56, 41-53.
35. Nasar, J. L. (1993). Evaluating the performance of a design review board. Paper presented at Crossing Boundaries in Practice, October 14-17, Cincinnati, OH.
36. Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior 26, 377-401.
37. Nasar, J. L. & Kang, J. (1989a). Symbolic meanings of building style in small suburban offices. In: G. Hardie, R. Moore, and H. Sanoff (Eds). Changing Paradigms: Proceedings of the Annual Conference, EDRA 20/1989. Edmond, Oklahoma: Environmental Design Research Association, pp. 165-172.
38. Nasar, J. L. & Kang, J. (1989b). A post-jury evaluation: the Ohio State University design competition for a center for the arts. Environment and Behavior 21, 464-484.
39. Poole, S. E. (1987). Architectural appearance review regulations and the first amendment: the good, the bad, and the consensus ugly. The Urban Lawyer 19, 287-344.
40. Purcell, A. T. (1986). Environmental perception and affect: a schema discrepancy model. Environment and Behavior 18, 3-30.
41. Purcell, A. T. (1987). The relationship between buildings and behavior. Building and Environment 22, 215-232.
42. Purcell, A. T. (1995). Experiencing American and Australian high and popular-style houses. Environment and Behavior 27, 771-800.
43. Purcell, A. T. & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Experiencing other people's houses: A model of similarity and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12,199-211.
44. Rodriguez, G. E. (1995). Architects, non-architects and the image of the detached single-family house: evaluation and preferences. Poster paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Environmental Design Research Association, Boston, March 1-5, 1995.
45. Saegert, S. & Winkel, G. H. (1990). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 41, 441-477.
46. Sanders, W. & Getzels, J. (1987). The planning commission: its composition and function, 1987. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 400. Chicago: American Planning Association.
47. Scheer, B. C. & Preiser, W. (1994). Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control. New York: Chapman and Hall.
48. Schiffman, I. (1989). Alternate Techniques for Managing Growth. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Governmental Studies.
49. Schroeder, H. W. (1984). Environmental perception rating scales: a case for simple methods of analysis. Environment and Behavior 16, 573-598.
50. Smardon, R. C. & Karp, J. P. (1993). The Legal Landscape: Guidelines for Regulating Environmental and Aesthetic Quality. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
51. Solnit, A. (1987). The Job of the Planning Commissioner. Chicago: American Planning Association.
52. Stamps, A. E. (1991a). Comparing preferences of neighbors and a neighborhood design review board. Environment and Behavior 23, 616-629.
53. Stamps, A. E. (1991b). Public preferences for high rise buildings: stylistic and demographic effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills 72, 839-844.
54. Stamps, A. E. (1992a). Pre- and post-construction environmental evaluations. Perceptual and Motor Skills 75, 481-482.
55. Stamps, A. E. (1992b). Bootstrap investigation of respondent sample size of environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills 72, 220-222.
56. Stamps, A. E. (1993). Public preferences for residences: precede and code minimum, and avant-garde architectural styles. Perceptual and Motor Skills 77, 99-103.
57. Stamps, A. E. (1994a). A study in scale and character: contextual effects on environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Management 42, 223-245.
58. Stamps, A. E. (19940). Formal and nonformal stimulus factors in environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills 79, 3-9.
59. Stamps, A. E. (1994c). All buildings great and small: design review from high rise to houses. Environment and Behavior 26, 402-420.
60. Stamps, A. E. (1995a). Stimulus and respondent factors in environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills 80, 668-670.
61. Stamps, A. E. (1995b). Beauty is in. . .? Twenty-sixth Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, Proceedings. In: J. L. Nasar, P. Grannis, and K. Hanyu, (Eds). Edmond, Oklahoma: Environmental Design Research Association, pp. 48-53.
62. Stamps, A. E. (1996a). Significant visual impact: is it or isn't it? Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Design and Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning, Spa, Belgium, August 18-21 1996. Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Urban Planning Group, Faculty of Architecture, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
63. Stamps, A. E. (1996b). Effect sizes as a lingua franca of environmental aesthetics. In: J. L. Nasar & B. B. Brown, (Eds.) (1996). Public and Private Places: EDRA 27. Edmond, Oklahoma: Environmental Design Research Association, pp. 151-162.
64. Stamps, A. E. (1996c). Some streets of San Francisco: preference effects of trees, cars, wires, and buildings. Planning and Design: Environmental and Planning b, (in press).
65. Stamps, A. E. (1996d). People and places: variance components of environmental preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills 82, 323-334.
66. Stamps, A. E. & Miller, S. D. (1993). Advocacy membership, design guidelines and predicting preferences for residential infill designs. Environment and Behavior 25, 367-409.
67. Stokols, D. (1978). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 29, 253-295.
68. Stokols, D. & Altman, I. (1987). Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: Wiley.
69. Sundstrom, E., Bell, P. A., Busby, P. L. & Asmus, C. (1996). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 47,485-512.
70. Whiffen, M. (1969). American Architecture Since 17890: a Guide to the Styles. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71. Wilson, M. A. & Canter, D. V. (1990). The development of central concepts during professional education: An example of a multivariate model of the concept of architectural style. Applied Psychology: An International Review 39, 431-455.
72. Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R. & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
73. Ziegler, E. H. (1986). Aesthetic controls and derivative human values: the emerging rational basis for regulation. In J. B. Gailey (Ed.). 1986 Zoning and Planning Law Handbook. New York: Clark Boardman. pp. 239-252.
74. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G. & Anderson, T. W. (1976). Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the Northeast. In: Zube, E. H., Brush, R. O. & Fabos, J. G. (Eds). Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources. Stroudsberg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. pp. 151-167.
75. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
76. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
77. Zuckerman, M. & Neeb, M. (1980). Demographic influences in sensation seeking and expressions of sensation seeking in religion, smoking, and driving habits. Personality and Individual Differences 1,197-206.