This paper addresses the importance to planning of understanding human perceptions and responses to environmental change. Supporting literature is discussed within the context of a conceptual model of the process of perceiving and responding to change. A plan for urban expansion in Tucson, Arizona, is presented as an example to illustrate the model and to provide a point of focus for the related literature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Appleyard, D.1979. Introduction to The conservation of European cities, ed. D. Appleyard. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
2.
Barker, M. L.1976. Planning for environmental indices: Observer appraisals of air quality. In Perceiving environmental quality, eds. K. H. Craik and E. H. Zube. New York: Plenum Press.
3.
Baum, A.
, R. Fleming, and L. M. Davidson. 1983. Natural disaster and technological catastrophe. Environment and Behavior15, 3: 333-354.
4.
Blumler, J. G.
, and E. Katz, eds. 1974. The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage Publications.
5.
Bowonder, B.1983. Environmental management conflicts in developing countries: An analysis. Environmental Management7, 3: 211-222.
6.
Brown, M. H. 1976. Perception of change in a residential setting. M.L.A. thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
7.
Bultena, G.
, E. Holberg, P. Nowak, et al.1981. Land-use planning in Iowa: A study of urbanites attitudes. Sociology Report 149. Ames, Ia.: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Iowa State University.
8.
Canan, P.
, and M. Hennessy. 1982. Community values as the context for interpreting social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review3: 351-354.
9.
Cantril, H.
, H. Gaudet, and H. Herzog. 1966. The invasion from Mars. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
10.
Citizen Response. 1982a. Private communication to Pima County Board of Supervisors or Planning Department, Arizona.
11.
Citizen Response. 1982b. Private communication to Pima County Board of Supervisors or Planning Department, Arizona.
12.
Citizen Response. 1982c. Private communication to Pima County Board of Supervisors or Planning Department, Arizona.
13.
Coles, R.1970. Uprooted children. Pittsburg: University Press.
14.
Craik, K. H.
, and E. H. Zube. 1976. Perceiving environmental quality. New York: Plenum Press.
15.
Cybriwsky, R. A.1978. Social aspects of neighbor-hood change. Annals of the Association of American Geographers68: 17-33.
16.
Dworkin, J.1981. Identifying public preferences for water conservation measures. In Proceedings of Applied Geography Conferences, Vol. 4, eds. J. W. Frazier and B. J. Epstein. Binghamton: State University of New York.
17.
Florestano, P. S.
, and P. A. Rathbun. 1981. Public opinion and interest group positions on Chesapeake Bay issues: Implications for resource management. Coastal Zone Management Journal9: 19-39.
18.
Freudenberg, W. R.
1979a. Adjustment problems of women in an energy boomtown. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
19.
Gerrity, E. 1981. Perception of environmental change: An exploratory approach. Master's thesis. University of Arizona, Tucson.
20.
Gibson, S. D. S. 1981. Sense of place-defense of place. A case study of the Toronto Island. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Geography, University of Toronto.
21.
Gottdiener, M.
, and M. Neiman. 1981. Characteristics of support for local growth control. Urban Affairs17: 55-73.
22.
Hecht, M.1975. The decline of the grass lawn tradition in Tucson. Landscape19, 3: 6-11.
23.
Heathcote, R. L.1980. Perception of desertification. Tokyo: The United Nations University.
24.
Henig, J. R.1981. Neighborhood response to gentrification. Urban Affairs17: 343-358.
25.
Ittelson, W. H.1973. Environmental perception and contemporary perceptual theory. In Environment and cognition, ed. W. H. Ittelson. New York: Seminar Press.
26.
Kellert, S. R.1979. Public attitudes toward critical wildlife and natural habitat issues. New Haven, Ct.: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
27.
Larson, J. F.1980. A review of the state of the art in mass media disaster reporting. In Disasters and the mass media, ed. National Research Council, Committee on Disasters and the Mass Media. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
28.
Lawton, M. P.
1979. Environmental change: The older person as initiator and responder. Paper presented at the West Virginia University Conference on Aging, May 23-26.
29.
Lowenthal, D.1979. Age and artifact: Dilemmas of appreciation. In The interpretation of ordinary land-scapes, ed. O. W. Meinig. New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
Lynch, K.1972. What time is this place?Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
31.
Marris, P.1982. Community planning and conceptions of change. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
32.
Maurer, R. C.
, and J. A. Christenson. 1982. Growth and nongrowth orientations of urban, suburban, and rural mayors: Reflections on the city as a growth machine. Social Science Quarterly63: 350-358.
33.
McCarthy, D. P.
, and S. Saegert. 1979. Residential density, social overload, and social withdrawal. In Residential crowding and density, eds. J. R. Aiello and A. Baum. New York: Plenum Press.
34.
McCombs, M. E.
, and P. L. Shaw. 1976. Structuring the "unseen environment."Journal of Communication26, 2: 18-22.
35.
Mead, T. D.
, and W. J. McCoy. 1982. Citizen defined priorities in urban growth: A case study. Urban Analysis7: 17-34.
36.
Merlin, M. D.
1979. Human perception of the Hawaiian endangered species: A preliminary report on a three-year random survey. In Proceedings: Second Conference in Natural Sciences, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, ed. C. W. Smith, pp. 208-216. Honolulu: Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii at Manao.
37.
Michelson, W.1970. Man and his urban environment: A sociological approach. Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley.
38.
Milgram, S.1970. The experience of living in cities. Science167: 1461-1468.
39.
O'Banion, K.1981. Public reaction to the risks of energy technology. Environmental Management5: 329-333.
40.
Petrich, C. H.1982. Assessing aesthetic impacts in siting a nuclear power plant: The case of Greene County, New York. Environmental Impact Assessment Review3: 311-332.
41.
Pima Association of Governments
. 1978. Analysis of public values concerning water quality issues. Report for PAG-208 Water Quality Planning Process, Task 1035. Tucson, Arizona.
42.
Pirie, M.1978. Trial and error and the idea of progress. LaSalle, II.: Open Court.
43.
Proshansky, H. M.
, A. K. Fabian, and R. Kaminoff. 1983. Place-identity; physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology3: 57-83.
44.
Rowles, G. D.1979. The last new home: Facilitating the older person's adjustment to institutional space. In Location and environment of elderly population, ed. S. M. Golant. Washington, D.C.: V. H. Winston and Sons.
45.
Rowles, G. D.1983. Place and personal identity in old age: Observations from Appalachia. Journal of Environmental Psychology3: 299-313.
46.
Rowntree, L.1981. Creating a sense of place: The evolution of historic preservation of Salzburg, Austria. Journal of Urban History8: 61-76.
47.
Saarinen, T. F.
, and H. J. McPherson. 1981. Public perception surveys and social indicators: A San Diego example. In The environment: Chinese and American views, eds. J. A. Ma and A. G. Noble. New York: Methuen.
48.
Saarinen, T. F.1983. Public perception of the desert in Tucson, Arizona. Department of Geography and Regional Development Discussion Paper 81-6, University of Arizona.
49.
Schramm, W.
, and L. Lerner, eds. 1976. Communication and change. Honolulu, Hi.: The University Press of Hawaii.
50.
Seamon, D.1979. A geography of the lifeworld: Movement, rest, and encounter. New York: St. Martin's Press.
51.
Sell, J. L.
, J. G. Taylor, and E. H. Zube. 1984. Toward a theoretical framework for landscape perception. In Environmental perception and behavior: An inventory and prospect, eds. T. F. Saarinen, D. Seamon, and J. L. Sell. Research Paper No. 209, University of Chicago, Department of Geography.
52.
Sell, J. L.
, and E. H. Zube. Forthcoming. Perception of and response to environmental change. Journal of Architectural Planning and Research.
53.
Sood, R.1982. Communicating for improved hazard awareness. In Perspectives on increasing hazard awareness, ed. T. F. Saarinen. Boulder, Co.: University of Colorado.
54.
Stea, D.
n.d. Cultural adjustment to new patterns of settlement among the New Zealand Maori. Los Angeles, Ca.: School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of California.
55.
Thompson, J. G.
, and A. L. Blevins. 1983. Attitudes toward energy development in the Northern Great Plains. Rural Sociology48: 148-158.
56.
Toffler, A.1980. The third wave. New York: Morrow.
57.
Wadley, D.
, and M. Ballock. 1980. Satisfaction and positive resettlement: Evidence from Yallourn, Latrobe Valley, Australia. Journal of the American Planning Association46: 64-75.
58.
Wapner, S.
1983. The experience of environmental change in relation to action. Paper presented at the Joint Mexico/United States Research Work-shop on the Social Implications of Environmental Problems and Environmental Implications of Social Problems. Rio Rico, Arizona, March 9-11.
59.
Weinstein, N. D.1976. Human evaluations of environmental noise. In Perceiving environmental quality, eds. K. H. Craik and E. H. Zube. New York: Plenum Press.
60.
Winkel, G. H.1981. The perception of neighbor-hood change. In Cognition, social behavior, and the environment, ed. J. H. Harvey. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
61.
Wolpert, J.
, A. Mumphrey, and J. Seley. 1972. Metropolitan neighborhoods: Participation and conflict over change. Resource Paper No. 16. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, Commission on College Geography.
62.
Zube, E. H.
, J. L. Sell, and J. G. Taylor. 1982. Landscape perceptions: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning9, 1: 1-33.
