Kevin Lynch, in his seminal book, The Image of the City (1960), reported that people could mentally map and understand their environments in very predictable ways.  He found that mental maps (maps sketched by a average person from memory) had five common elements:

• paths, streets, sidewalks, trails, and other channels in which people travel;
• edges, perceived boundaries such as walls, buildings, and shorelines;
• districts, relatively large sections of the city distinguished by some identity or character;
• nodes, focal points or intersections;
• landmarks, readily identifiable objects which serve as external reference points.

 

Photo: www.groups.isschool.berkeley.edu

Lynch also coined the term “wayfinding” to be the psychological way we discover how to make our way through environments.  Wayfinding can be promoted by characteristics of the environment including:

1. Visual Access: being able to visually see your destination makes it easier to wayfind to that location.
   1. For example: this hotel on the Walt Disney World property has great visual access via the large dolphin on the top of the hotel providing visual access from multiple places in the Disney Theme Parks.
   2. 
2. Degree of Differentiation: having unique qualities throughout the environment that distinguish one street or building from another makes it easier to wayfind through that environment.
   1. For example:  this neighborhood has hardly any differentiation from one house or street to the next which would impinge on wayfinding to a friend’s house who lives here.
3. Legibility: being able to make sense of the environment and “read” the travel routes that you would go to get to your destination makes it easier to wayfind to that location.
   1. For example: this map of Rome shows that this environment is so complex that it hinders wayfinding because the legibility of the environment is very low.
   2. 

A familiar children’s story told by many authors including Walt Disney, titled “Country Mouse, City Mouse” shows that the main characters in the story have different prefences for the type of environment they would like to live in.  The City Mouse, of course, preferring the hustle and bustle of the city while the Country Mouse preferring a much simpler and quieter life.  This tale illustrates a common concept of Environmental Psychology called environmental preference.  Environmental Psychology research shows that we prefer to live in places that are a) at an optimal level of stimulation and arousal for us, b) provide us both prospect and refuge, and c) allow us to make sense of the environment while simultaneously engaging us.

Optimal Arousal in Environmental Preference

Each of us has a different perspective on how much stimulation we prefer: some of us are thrill seekers who love roller coasters and other high speed adventures, who others are more content with slower paced environments.  Finding a place where we live, work, and play that provides us the “just-right” amount of stimulation will likely be an environment that we prefer.  Oftentimes these environments provide us “affordances” that meet our needs, whether they be a “need for speed” or not!

Which classroom environment seems more of a good fit for your preferred level of stimluation?

 

Photo: www.itssnc.edu                                                 www.kindercraze.com

Prospect-Refuge Theory (Nassar & Fisher, 1992)

Another theory of Environmental Psychology tells us that we prefer environments that have a good deal of both prospect (the ability to see and take in our surroundings) and refuge (places to hide if there is danger).  Evolutionary Psychologists believe that we developed this preference as a mechanism for protection from harm in our home environments — where we can see danger coming from afar and hide from it if necessary.

www.designingthelandscape.files.wordpress/

For example, this environment has great prospect over the lawn and some nice refuge from the elements under the protective awning above.

Kaplans’ Model of Environmental Preference

Rachel and Stephen Kaplan (1982) formed a model to describe how environmental preference is based on a good balance between our ability to make sense of the environment and find our way through it and our engagement with that same environment.  We prefer environments that make good sense to us, that are legible and coherent – but not to the extreme or else they become boring.  The other side of that coin is that we also prefer environments that involve and engage us – want to encourage us to explore by providing good complexity and some mystery – but again, not to the extreme or else they can become scary or overwhelming.

For example: this environment has a path that helps us understand how we would travel through the environment because it is legible.  However, there is also a good bit of complexity with the different foliage colors and textures adding engagement and mystery.  This environment seems to have a good balance of both “making sense” and “involvement” that would lead us to prefer this place.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1982). Humanscape: Environments for People. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ulrich’s Books.

When it comes to space, there are terms such as personal bubble which individuals use to describe their ideal amount of space away from others. Personal space is the portable and invisible boundary which surrounds your body and it never goes away. Your personal space is always with you.

Some functions of personal space include:

• Avoiding overstimulation
• Avoiding stress
• Avoiding behavior constraint
• Non-verbal communication
• Boundary regulation
• Intimacy-equilibrium model
• Protection from harm

How close is too close? Well, according to Hall’s Spatial Zones, there are levels of appropriate space depending on the relationship between individuals. There are four levels: public space, social space, personal space, and intimate space. The closer the relationship, the less of a distance is allowed between individuals.

Other factors such as attraction and type of interaction, positive or negative, impact the distance between individuals. Gender, age, and personality traits also play a role in the optimal distance of personal space. When it comes to physical reasons for personal space, individuals require a larger personal space when there is no easy escape route. This is a protective mechanism

When it comes to physical reasons for personal space, individuals require a larger personal space when there is no easy escape route. This is a protective mechanism. When personal space is invaded it results in arousal. When the invasion is unwanted, it results in a flight or fight response.

Watch this video to see people’s reactions to someone “invading” their personal space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgJ24hknbHs%20

Affordances are one of the theories of perception in Environmental Psychology. According to Gibson, affordances are how we perceive environments as ways to afford us our needs.

There are things in the environment which allow us to meet our needs. These needs can be anything from the shade, food, parking, safe walking, sitting, activities, etc. When an environment meets almost all of an individual’s needs, it is an ecological niche. This would be the environment which is most optimal for that individual.

According to Mariela Alfonzo’s 2005 study, individuals base their decision to walk on environmental factors and how those factors fit their desired affordances. The hierarchy of needs for walking begins with feasibility, accessibility, safety, comfort, and finally pleasurability. Like in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, if the first need is not met, then an individual does not proceed to the next level.

If an environment does not provide or afford, the necessary items then individuals are less likely to interact with the environment. It is important when designing spaces to consider a variety of affordances so the environment can appeal to a variety of optimal levels of affordances.

Watch this video on affordances to learn more!

 

Alfonzo, M.A. (2005). To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs. Environment and Behavior, 37, 808-836. DOI: 10.1177/0013916504274016

Spending time in nature has a large amount of benefits for you. Studies have shown that spending time in nature can provide individuals with renewal cognitive, psychological, and physiological resources. Many people in the world spend a lot of their time inside, either working or relaxing. However, this can lead to increased stress and irritability, while concentration can decrease. This, of course, if not the best way to work and be productive. When we spend time outside, nature can naturally restore us by holding our attention in an effortless way.

Nature can also decrease our stress levels. One study done shows that when individuals were put into stressful situations, and afterwards asked to either walk in the city or walk in nature for 30 minutes. Before they left, participants had their blood pressure and cortical levels measured. Participants who walked in nature for 30 minutes had lower cortical levels and lower blood pressure, which us that their stress had decreased. However, participants who were asked to walk in the city for 30 minutes had no decrease in their blood pressure or cortical levels.

So, when you are feeling stressed, take a walk outside and enjoy the nature surrounding you! If you can’t, research also shows that just looking at nature is restorative! In the meantime, gaze at these beautiful photos of nature and take a deep breath.

In 1908, Psychologists Robert M. Yerkes and John Dodson created the Yerkes-Dodson Law of Arousal. This law states that in order to see peak performance, one must be feeling a moderate degree of arousal, but not too much. If an individual experiences too much stress or arousal, they can become exhausted or too anxious, which could lead to poor performance. If an individual has absolutely no arousal, or motivation to do well, their performance may also be poor.

We can compare this law to the children’s book, Goldilocks and the Three Bears. For example, Goldilocks tries each bowl of porridge. As the story goes, one bowl was too hot (high arousal), the other was too cold (low arousal), and the next was just right (moderate arousal). Though this is not a perfect comparison, it does show us that optimal performance can be achieved through a moderate amount of arousal.

Arousal also be explained through stimulation. More specifically, overstimulation and under stimulation. Cohen’s Model of Overstimulation explains that an individual has a limited capacity to take in stimuli (i.e. our surroundings). Zubeck’s explanation of under stimulation can also have a negative impact on us. For example, people can experience sensory deprivation when they are in environments that have nothing to produce stimuli (i.e a desert). We adapt to both of these situations in different ways. When you feel overstimulated, you tend to use tunnel vision, and only look where you need to. This can cause exhaustion. When you feel under stimulated, you may experience hallucinations.

For more information or more examples, check out these links below!

• Yerkes-Dodson Law
• Introduction Video