Architectural variation, building height, and the restorative quality of urban residential streetscapes

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Volumn 33, Issue , 2013, Pages 26-36

  Lindal, Pall J ^a   Hartig, Terry ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Attention restoration theory; Complexity; Enclosure; Multiple mediation analysis; Urban densification

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869398401     PISSN: 02724944     EISSN: 15229610     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Alkhresheh, M. M. (2007). Enclosure as a function of height-to-width ratio and scale: Its influence on user's sense of comfort and safety in urban street space (doctoral dissertation). Gainesville, FL: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Florida. Retrieved July 29, 2009 from http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0019676/alkhresheh_m.pdf.
2. Appleton J. The experience of landscape 1996, JohnWiley, NewYork, (Original work published 1975).
3. Attneave F. Physical determinants of the judged complexity of shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1957, 53:221-227.
4. Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986, 51:1173-1182.
5. Chiang C.F., Alomar D., Barrero J. V-Ray for SketchUp.ASGVIS 2008, Retrieved September 24, 2010 from. http://www.filestube.com/6fa35c41a1a33c2903e9,g/VRay-for-Sketchup-Manual.html.
6. Efron B. Better bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1987, 82:171-185.
7. Efron B., Tibshirani R.J. An introduction to the bootstrap 1993, Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton, FL.
8. Epstein R., Kanwisher N. A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature 1998, 392:598-601.
9. Epstein R.A., Ward E.J. How reliable are visual context effects in the parahippocampal place area?. Cerebral Cortex 2010, 20:294-303.
10. Evans G.W., Cohen S. Environmental stress. Handbook of environmental psychology 1987, Vol. 1:571-610. Wiley, New York.
11. Ewing R. Residential street design: Do the British and Australians know something Americans do not?. Transportation Research Record 1994, 1455:42-49.
12. Ewing R., Hardy S. Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design 2009, 14:65-84.
13. Galindo M.P., Hidalgo M.C. Aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning: Environmental categorization processes in the evaluation of urban scenes. International Journal of Psychology 2005, 40:19-26.
14. Gardner D.G., Cummings L.L., Dunham R.B., Pierce J.L. Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Education and Psychological Measurement 1998, 58:898-915.
15. Hartig T. Restorative environments. Encyclopedia of applied psychology 2004, Vol. 3:273-279. Academic Press, San Diego.
16. Hartig T. Three steps to understanding restorative environments as health resources. Open space: People space 2007, 163-179. Taylor & Francis, London. C. Ward Thompson, P. Travlou (Eds.).
17. Hartig T., Evans G.W., Jamner L.D., Davis D.S., Gärling T. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:109-123.
18. Hartig T., Kaiser F.G., Bowler P.A. Further development of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness 1997, (Working Paper No. 5), Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Gävle, Sweden.
19. Hartig T., Korpela K., Evans G.W., Gärling T. A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research 1997, 14:175-194.
20. Hartig T., Mang M., Evans G.W. Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior 1991, 23:3-26.
21. Hartig T., Staats H. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2006, 26:215-226.
22. Heath T., Smith S.G., Lim B. Tall buildings and the urban skyline: The effect of visual complexity on preferences. Environment and Behavior 2000, 32:541-556.
23. Herzog T. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1989, 9:27-43.
24. Herzog T. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1992, 12:237-248.
25. Herzog T.R., Black A.M., Fountaine K.A., Knotts D.J. Reflection and attentional recovery as two distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1997, 17:165-170.
26. Herzog T.R., Kaplan S., Kaplan R. The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment 1982, 5:43-59.
27. Herzog T.R., Maguire C.P., Nebel M.B. Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:159-170.
28. Hidalgo M.C., Berto R., Galindo M.P., Getrevi A. Identifying attractive and unattractive urban places: Categories, restorativeness and aesthetic attributes. MedioAmbiente y ComportamientoHumano 2006, 7:115-133.
29. Holden C. The brain's special places. Science 2000, 287:1587.
30. Imanoglu ç. Complexity, liking and familiarity: Architecture and non-architecture Turkish student's assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2000, 20:5-16.
31. International Code Council International residential code for one- and two-family dwellings 2006 2006, International Code Council, Washington DC.
32. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York.
33. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1995, 15:169-182.
34. Kaplan S., Kaplan R. Cognition and environment - Functioning in an uncertain world 1982, Praeger, New York.
35. Kaplan S., Kaplan R., Wendt J.S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Pscyhophysics 1972, 12:334-356.
36. Korpela K., Hartig T. Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1996, 16:221-233.
37. Nasar J.L., Terzano K. The desirability of views of city skylines after dark. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2010, 30:215-225.
38. Nordh H., Hartig T., Hagerhall C.M., Fry G. Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2009, 8:225-235.
39. Preacher K.J., Hayes A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 2008, 40:879-891.
40. Preacher K.J., Hayes A.F. Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research 2008, 13-54. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. A.F. Hayes, M.D. Slater, L.B. Snyder (Eds.).
41. Rapoport A., Hawkes R. The perception of urban complexity. Journal of the American Planning Association 1970, 36:106-111.
42. Rohrmann B., Bishop I. Subjective responses to computer simulation of urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2002, 22:319-331.
43. Staats H., Hartig T. Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2004, 24:199-211.
44. Staats H., Kieviet A., Hartig T. Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:147-157.
45. Staats H., van Gemerden E., Hartig T. Preference for restorative situations: Interactive effects of attentional state, activity-in-environment and social context. Leisure Sciences 2010, 32:401-417.
46. Stamps A.E. Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1990, 71:907-913.
47. Stamps A.E. A study in scale and character: Contextual effects on environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Management 1994, 42:223-245.
48. Stamps A.E. Physical determinants of preferences for residential façades. Environment and Behavior 1999, 31:723-751.
49. Stamps A.E. Architectural detail, Van der Laan septaves and pixel counts. Design Studies 1999, 20:83-97.
50. Stamps A.E. Entropy, visual diversity, and preference. The Journal of General Psychology 2002, 129:300-320.
51. Stamps A.E. Advances in visual diversity and entropy. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2003, 30:449-463.
52. Stamps A.E. Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2004, 24:1-16.
53. Stamps A.E. Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety and enclosure. Environment and Behavior 2005, 37:587-619.
54. Stamps A.E. Enclosure and safety in urbanscapes. Environment and Behavior 2005, 37:102-133.
55. Stamps A.E. Use of static and dynamic media to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills 2010, 111:355-364.
56. Ulrich R., Simons R.F., Losito B.D., Fiorito E., Miles M.A., Zelson M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1991, 11:201-230.
57. van den Berg A.E., Hartig T., Staats H. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 2007, 63:79-96.
58. van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L., van der Wulp N.Y. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:135-146.
59. van der Laan H. Architectonic space: Fifteen lessons on the disposition of the human habitat 1983, EJ Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.
60. Valtchanov D., Barton K.R., Ellard C. Restorative effects of virtual nature settings. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2010, 13:503-512.
61. Valtchanov D., Ellard C. Physiological and affective responses to immersion in virtual reality: Effects of nature and urban settings. Journal of Cybertherapy & Rehabilitation 2010, 3:359-373.
62. Velarde M.D., Fry G., Tveit M. Health effects of viewing landscapes: Landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2007, 6:199-213.
63. White M., Smith A., Humphryes K., Pahl S., Snelling D., Depledge M. Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2010, 30:482-493.