This article suggests that the ranges through which people can see through or move through environments are extremely important.The label corresponding to this theory is permeability theory. Eight hypotheses are generated from permeability theory using two responses (perceived enclosure and perceived spaciousness) and four properties of the physical environment (permeability of boundary, amount of light, horizontal area within a boundary, and boundary depth). Empirical data from 4 experiments, 54 environments, and 130 participants indicate that permeability theory correctly predicted 6 a priori hypotheses and also correctly predicted that the remaining 2 hypotheses would have effect sizes too small to detect. The main determinants of judged enclosure or spaciousness are visual permeability of the boundary, amount of light, and horizontal area. Numerical guidance is provided to assist future research.
Buhyoff, G.J., Hull, R.B., Lien, J.N., & Cordell, H.K. ( 1986). Prediction of scenic quality for southern pine stands . Forest Science, 32, 769-778.
2.
Cohen, J. ( 1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
3.
Darwin, C. ( 1859). The origin of species (1991ed.). Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
4.
Doeller, C., & Burgess, N. ( 2008). Distinct error-correcting and incidental learning of location relative to landmarks and boundaries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 105, 5909-5914.
5.
Doeller, C., King, J.A., & Burgess, N. ( 2008). Parallel striatal and hippocampal systems for landmarks and boundaries in spatial memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 105, 5915-5920.
6.
Duval, C.L., Charles, K.E., & Veitch, J.A. ( 2002). Open-plan density and environmental satisfaction. Retrieved 27 October, 2005, from http://irc.cnrc.gc.ca/ircpubs
7.
Epstein, R., & Kanwisher, N. ( 1998). A cortical representation of the local visual environment . Nature, 392, 598-601.
8.
Franz, G., von der Heyde, M., & Bülthoff, H. (2003). An empirical approach to the experience of architectural space in VR. Retrieved 23 December, 2004, from http://www.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/publications/pdfs/pdf2232.pdf
9.
Gärling, T. ( 1970a). Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms III: A relation between judged depth and size of space. 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.
Hancock, H.K. ( 1973). Recreation preference: Its relation to user behavior . Journal of Forestry, 71, 336-337.
12.
Hayward, S.C., & Franklin, S.S. (1974). Perceived openness-enclosure of architectural space. Environment and Behavior, 6, 37-52.
13.
Hediger, H. ( 1950). Wild animals in captivity: An outline of the biology of zoological gardens (G. Sircom, Trans. 1964 ed.). New York: Dover.
14.
Hediger, H. ( 1955). The psychology and behaviour of animals in zoos and circuses (G. Sircom, Trans. 1968 ed.). New York: Dover.
15.
Inui, M., & Miyata, T. ( 1973). Spaciousness in interiors. Lighting Research and Technology, 5, 103-111.
16.
Kaufman, J. E., & Christensen, J. F. (Eds.). (1984). IES lighting handbook . New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
17.
Martyniuk, O., Flynn, J.E., Spencer, T.J., & Hendrick, C. ( 1973). Effect of environmental lighting on impression and behavior . In R. Küller (Ed.), Architectural Psychology (pp. 51-63). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
18.
Ruddell, E.J., Gramann, J.H., Rudis, V.A., & Westphal, J.M. (1989). The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behavior, 21, 393-412.
19.
Rudis, V.A., Gramann, J.H., Ruddell, E.J., & Westphal, J.M. (1988). Forest inventory and management-based visual preference models of Southern pine stands. Forest Science , 34, 846-863.
20.
Sadalla, E.K., & Oxley, D. ( 1976). The perception of room size: The rectangularity illusion . Environment and Behavior, 16, 291-306.
21.
Stamps, A.E. ( 2002). Research on enclosure. Paper presented at EDRA 33, Philadelphia, PA.
22.
Stamps, A.E. ( 2003). Permeability and environmental enclosure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 1305-1310.
23.
Stamps, A.E. ( 2005a). Elongation and enclosure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101, 303-308.
24.
Stamps, A.E. ( 2005b). Enclosure and safety in urbanscapes. Environment and Behavior, 37, 102-133.
25.
Stamps, A.E. ( 2005c). Isovists, enclosure, and permeability theory. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32, 735-762.
26.
Stamps, A.E. ( 2005d). Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety and enclosure. Environnment and Behavior, 37, 587-619.
27.
Stamps, A.E. ( 2006). Surface location and enclosure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102, 517-528.
28.
Stamps, A.E. ( 2007). Evaluating spaciousness in static and dynamic media. Design Studies, 28, 535-557.
29.
Stamps, A.E. ( 2009). On shape and spaciousness. Environment and Behavior, 41, 526-548.
30.
Stamps, A.E., & Krishnan, V.V. (2004). Perceived enclosure of space, angle above observer, and distance to boundary. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 1187-1192.
31.
Stamps, A.E., & Krishnan, V.V. (2006). Spaciousness and boundary roughness. Environment and Behavior, 38, 841-872.
32.
Stamps, A.E., & Smith, S.G. ( 2002). Environmental enclosure in urban areas. Environment and Behavior, 34, 781-794.
33.
Thiel, P., Harrison, E.D., & Alden, R.S. ( 1986). The perception of spatial enclosure as a function of the position of architectural spaces. Environment and Behavior , 18, 227-245.
