Enclosure is important because of neurological effects and the evolutionary theory of environmental perception and preference. This article reports on a study in which six physical features were found to account for 93% of the variance in judged enclosure for Parisian street scenes: picture format, proportions of views covered by walls, proportions of views covered by ground, average lightness of the scene, depth of view, and number of sides open at the front of the scene. Methodological and substantive implications for the evolutionary theory of environmental perception and preference are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Appleton, J. (1996). The experience of landscape. New York: John Wiley.
2.
Bock, R. D. , & Jones, L. V. (1968). The measurement and prediction of judgment and choice. San Francisco: Holden-Day.
3.
Coeterier, J. F. (1994). Cues for the perception of the size of space in landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 42, 333-347.
4.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Darwin, C. (1993). The autobiography of Charles Darwin. New York: Norton. (Original work published 1887)
6.
de Thezy, M. (1994). Marville Paris. Paris: Editions Hazan.
7.
Gärling, T. (1969a). Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms I: Judgment scales of open and closed space. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 10, 250-256.
8.
Gärling, T. (1969b). Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms II: Judgments of open and closed space by category rating and magnitude estimation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 10, 257-268.
9.
Gärling, T. (1970a). Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 11, 124-131.
10.
Gärling, T. (1970b). Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms IV: The relation of judged depth to judged size of space under different viewing conditions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 11, 133-145.
11.
Hayward, S. C. , & Franklin, S. S. (1974). Perceived openness-enclosure of architectural space. Environment & Behavior, 6(1), 37-52.
12.
Herzog, T. R. (1984). A cognitive analysis of preference for field-and-forest environments. Landscape Research, 9(1), 10-16.
13.
Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 27-43.
14.
Herzog, T. R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 237-248.
15.
Holden, C. (2000). The brain’s special places. Science, 287, 1587-1587.
16.
Jordan, D. P. (1995). Transforming Paris: The life and labors of Baron Haussmann. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Kaplan, R. , & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Kaplan, S. (1979). Assessing amenity resource values. In T. C. Daniel & E. H. Zube (Eds.), Forest Service technical report (Vol. RM-68, pp. 4-13). Fort Collins, CO: United States Departmentof Agriculture.
19.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment & Behavior, 19(1), 3-32.
20.
Rosenthal, R. , & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
21.
Stamps, A. E. (1992). Bootstrap investigation of respondent sample size for environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 220-222.
22.
Thiel, P. , Harrison, E. D., & Alden, R. S. (1986). The perception of spatial enclosure as a function of the position of architectural spaces. Environment & Behavior, 18(2), 227-245.
23.
Valdez, P. , & Mehrabian, A. (1994). Effects of color on emotions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(4), 394-409.
