2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.2 Environmental Psychology
2.1.2.1 Introduction
Environmental Psychology considers the impact or effect that the built and natural environment has on people (Lewin, 1935, Lewin et al., 1936). It is unclear from whom the theory of environmental psychology emanated; however, Kurt Lewin and David Canter are considered as part of the pioneering modern researchers in this field. Canter and Lee (1974) believe that in essence, all psychology falls under environment psychology.
People, let alone any organism, can only truly be understood within their environmental contexts. Unlike other organisms, however, people differ in that they have the capacity to construct and control their environment. This ability is enabled by experience rather than instinct and channelled through the culture of the individual (Canter and Lee, 1974). These environmental contexts may include the physical, political, social and cultural contexts. Azra Arza Churchman (2002) suggests this link between people and environmental contexts infers that changes that occur solely within the individual are insufficient; hence a change in the one should complement a change in the other.
Canter and Lee (1974) have determined that people actively engage with their environment.
This interaction occurs more successfully through the intricate tact developed by people towards an assortment of environmental characteristics.
People have formulated a system of expectations within the relationships they have with their environments, as well as the activities which these environments host. These expectations influence people to alter their behavioural activities in a number of cases to gain a greater level of satisfaction with their engagements with their existing environments. Often, this influences pertinent alterations to these environments (Canter and Lee, 1974). A. Churchman and Altman (1994) believe that change is a requirement that should be instituted in all systems, inclusive of physical environments.
Culture and upbringing are closely related to the blatant differences observed among and within people over time. This diversity can be observed through people's behaviour: their affective and cognitive responses to their environment (Canter and Lee, 1974).
21 | P a g e 2.1.2.2 Environment Stimulates Response
Behaviour is closely linked to the environment in numerous ways. Certain conditions within an environment may stimulate responses, in-turn constraining or shaping the way organisms inhabit an environment. This environment is the setting in which we express our behaviour.
Elements related to another context such as environmental variables not traditionally considered in behavioural studies include physiological responses and biological variables.
These elements, particularly the physiological responses, tend to succeed, parallel or precede behaviour responses (Weiss and Baum, 1987).
Christopher Day and Anita Midbjer (2007) recognise that environment affects more than just peoples' behaviour and their physiological responses; it affects the psychological responses as well – that is – how we think and feel. It influences our habits, values and expectations of normality, and to this end when consciously designed for these outcomes, it may reinforce and foster physical, social and mental development. When the environment is not designed with due consideration, in contrast, it has adverse effects on development, and possibly physiological health. Day and Midbjer (2007) further suggests that it possesses a potent subconscious influence on its inhabitants. Although children are more susceptible to this influence, adults are still affected by it.
Social stresses, safety and security, are considered by Day and Midbjer (2007) to be impacted by physical settings. The environment is seen to have the capacity to provide comfort and reassurance, allowing for people to establish relationships with their habitat and other people with greater ease.
2.1.2.3 Environmental Factors
The environmental factors or 'environmental characteristics' as described by Canter and Lee (1974) are indeed numerous. Appleyard (1969: cited by (Krampen, 1991)), Weiss and Baum
(1987) mention further examples of physical factors of the environment which contribute to the response, namely: temperature, noise, pollution, the intensity of certain uses - crowding, commuting, the design of business and residential areas - uniqueness of physical form and its visibility by commanding location, and the influence of technology and human-made calamities.
22 | P a g e 2.1.2.4 Differences in Spatial Conceptions
Moore (1979: cited by (Brauer, 1974)) opines that it is important to note that peoples' conception of space differs both in quantitative and qualitative terms; one person's castle is another person's cottage, and in the same breath, one person's urban village is another person's slum. Moore suggests that any endeavour to understand human response and behaviour through the lens of environmental cognition and environmental psychology, requires an understanding of how people perceive of their environment, and the meanings they attach.
In the building design process, architects frequently make design decisions based on preconceptions from personal experience to assume typical ways in which people behave.
These decisions affect users' thoughts, actions, and responses toward the finished structure.
However, a typical person does not exist. Peoples environmental preferences and responses greatly vary (Brauer, 1974, Arza Churchman, 2002). Churchman further notes that the architect's goals to relate the environment to aspects of individuals ‘lived space’ and phenomenologically experiences are also hampered by the format in which physical plans are presented. The utilisation of two-dimensional drawings, as opposed to words, proves to limit as all the logic and considerations that helped formulate the final product are difficult to express fully; an argument similarly supported by J. Boys (2011) and Nair et al. (2009).
2.1.2.5 Flexible Environments
It is evident that people's responses and preferences towards built environments differ;
however, such differences are not to be disregarded. It is of great value for individuals to have a connection with the environments they occupy. Flexible solutions are key options to catering for varied environmental preferences, although not all flexible environments are deemed appropriate or executed successfully (Brauer, 1974). A deeper understanding of individual relations to the environment will allow the architect to provide greater levels of satisfactory solutions for a broader range of inherent differences (Brauer, 1974).
23 | P a g e 2.1.2.6 Teaching Environments
Day and Midbjer (2007) suggest that all places and buildings exude lessons, though they may be subtle. Lessons may be deliberate or unintentional. Day and Midbjer make their point with the example of litter: proposing that overflowing rubbish bins unintentionally encourage littering, whilst well-maintained and clearly marked cluster recycling bins encourage waste separation. Lessons related to responsibilities, behaviour expectations, values and self- esteem are considered by the duo to be more deliberate.
In most instances, the notion that environments teach is not considered in the design process.
This may prove to have either unplanned negative or positive outcomes for the inhabitants.
Space may bring inspiration and enrichment to individuals or adversely devalue and demoralise.
These lessons, though subtle, are vital as they contribute to shaping the minds of individuals throughout their lives.
This analysis by Day and Midbjer causes them to be critical of the status quo of our current environments, leading them to pose the following questions:
"[…] what are we teaching [individuals] all the time we're not teaching them? What will their everyday environment teach? […] What do schools, playgrounds, flats and houses say about the value of each individual […]? Do they confirm that [individuals] are respected, loved? If not, why did we build them? And what sort of people do we expect […] to become?" (pg 147)
2.1.3 Place Theory