This research looked at the role of sign obtrusiveness and complexity in the perception and evaluation of urban signscapes. It obtained independent scores for features of 19 signscapes. One group of 30 persons judged physical features of 19 color photographs of retail sign scenes. One opportunity sample of 56 persons sorted the scenes into groups and then scored the groups for preference. A random cluster sample of 50 persons sorted the scenes for preference and rated each scene on several evaluative scales. From the two Q-sorts, the authors derived similarity scores between scenes and used them in a nonmetric multidimensional scaling analysis to find the dimensions of perception. Sign obtrusiveness related to Dimensions 1 and 2, and sign complexity related at a marginally significant level to Dimension 4. The study also looked at the relation of these two variables to preference. It found preference associated with reductions in sign obtrusiveness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
2.
Canter, D. (1969). An intergroup comparison of connotative dimensions in architecture. Environment and Behavior, 1, 37-48.
3.
Carr, S. (1971). City lights and signs: A pilot study (Boston Redevelopment Authority). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Collins, J. B. (1969). Some verbal dimensions of architectural space perception. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
5.
Ertel, S. (1973). Exploratory choice and verbal judgment. In D. E. Berlyne & K. B. Madsen (Eds.), Pleasure, reward and preference (pp. 115-132). San Diego, CA: Academic Press
6.
Ewald, G. W. Jr. , & Mandelker, D. R. (1977). Street graphics: A concept and a system. McLean, VA: Landscape Architecture Foundation.
7.
Fenton, D. M. (1985). Dimensions of meaning in the perception of natural settings and their relationship to aesthetic response. Australian Journal of Psychology, 37, 325-339.
8.
Franklin County Zoning Resolution. (1996). Adopted at July 2nd by Franklin County (Ohio Commissioners.
9.
Geller, D. , Cook, J. M., O’Connor, M. A., & Low, S. K. (1982). Perceptions of urban scenes by small town and urban residents: A multidimensional scaling analysis. In P. Bart, A. Chen, & G. Francescato (Eds.), Knowledge for design. Proceedings of the 13th International Environmental Design Research Association Conference (pp. 128-141). College Park, MD: Environmental Design Research Association.
10.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1246.
11.
Hershberger, R. G. (1969). A study of meaning and architecture. In H. Sanoff & S. Cohn (Eds.), EDRA 1: Proceedings of the first annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference (pp. 86-100). Raleigh: North Carolina State University.
12.
Herzog, T. R. , Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1976). The prediction of preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior, 8, 627-645.
13.
Hochberg, J. (1966). Representative sampling and the purposes of research: Pictures of the world and the world of pictures. In K. Hammond (Ed.), The psychology of Egon Brunswik (pp. 361-381). New York.
14.
Horayangkura, Y. (1978). Semantic dimensional structures: A methodological approach. Environment and Behavior, 10, 555-583.
15.
Kaplan, S. (1975). An informal model for the prediction of preference. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, & J. C. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources (pp. 92-101). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
16.
Kaplan, S. , & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Coping in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.
17.
Kaplan, R. , & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-27.
19.
Küller, R. (1975). A semantic model for describing perceived environment (Document No. 12). Stockholm: National Swedish Institute for Building Research.
20.
Lowenthal, D. , & Riel, M. (1972). The nature of perceived and imagined environments. Environment and Behavior, 4, 189-207.
21.
Lucas, R. (1966). The contribution of environment research to wilderness policy decisions. Journal of Social Issues, 22, 116-126.
22.
Michelson, W. R. (1976). Man and his urban environment: A sociological approach (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
23.
Nasar, J. L. (1987a). Effects of signscape complexity and coherence on the perceived visual quality of retail scenes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53, 499-509.
24.
Nasar, J. L. (1987b). Physical correlates of perceived quality in lakeshore development. Leisure Sciences, 9, 259-279.
25.
Nasar, J. L. (1988). Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and application (pp. 275-289). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26, 377-401.
27.
Nasar, J. L. (1997). The evaluative image of the city. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Oostendorp, A. , & Berlyne, D. E. (1978). Dimensions in the perception of architecture: Identification and interpretation of dimensions of similarity. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 19, 73-82.
29.
Russell, J. A. , & Snodgrass, J. (1989). Emotion and environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 245-280). New York: John Wiley.
30.
Shafer, E. L., Jr. (1969). Perception of natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 1, 71-82.
31.
Stamps, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71,907-913.
32.
Stamps, A. E. (1997). Meta-analysis in environmental research. In M. S. Amiel & J. C. Vischer (Eds.), Space design and management for place making: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Edmond, OK: Environmental Design Research Association.
33.
Takane, Y. , Young, F., & De Leeuw, J. (1976). Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: an alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 3-27.
34.
Tunnard, C. , & Pushkarev, B. (1981). Man-made America: Chaos or control?New York: Harmony.
35.
Winkel, G. , Malek, R., & Thiel, P. (1970). A study of human responses to selected roadside environments. In H. Sanoff & S. Cohn (Eds.), EDRA 1: Proceedings of the first annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference (pp. 224-240). Raleigh: North Carolina State University.
36.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment (Vol. 1, pp. 37-86). New York: Plenum.
37.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1979). What belongs where: Research on fittingness of man-made structures into natural settings. In T. C. Daniel & E. H. Zube (Eds.), Assessing amenity resource values (General technical report No. RM-68, pp. 48-53). Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
38.
Wohlwill, J. F. , & Harris, G. (1980). Responses to congruity or contrast for man-made features in natural-recreation settings. Leisure Sciences, 3, 349-365.
