This experiment was designed to investigate the relationship between the fundamental visual, spatial properties of existing complex streetscapes and aesthetic judgments. Participants performed aesthetic judgments over 35 photographs of typical spatial situations taken along the Meißner Straße in Radebeul, Germany. In a modified Q-Sort procedure, the participants assigned the pictures to five categories, including 1 (beautiful) and 5 (not beautiful). Vegetation, Stylistic Uniformity, Homogeneity of Scale, and Symmetry were identified as primary components of aesthetic judgment by using principal component analysis. Stimuli, photographically edited according to these factors, were then tested using the same Q-Sort procedure, which confirmed these determinants. These results are intended to help the development of the theoretical understanding of the link between the influence of selected spatial properties and the aesthetic judgment of the visual quality of urban spaces.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderC. (2002) The luminous ground: An essay on the art of building and the nature of the universe. Vol. 12. Berkeley, Ca: Center of Environmental Structure Series.
2.
AltmanI.ZubeE. H. (1989) Public places and spaces: Human behavior and environment. Vol. 10. New York: Plenum.
3.
AppleyardD. (1981) Liveable streets, protected neighborhoods. Berkeley, CA: Univer of California Press.
4.
BerlyneD. E. (1971) Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
5.
BerlyneD. E. (1972) Ends and means of experimental aesthetics. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 26, 303ndash;325.
6.
BrownG.GiffordR. (2001) Architects predict lay evaluations of large contemporary buildings: Whose conceptual preferences?Journal for Environmental Psychology, 21, 93ndash;99.
7.
BrunsD. F. W.SchmidtJ. A. (1997) City edges in Germany: Quality growth and urban design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 36, 347ndash;356.
8.
CackowskiJ. M.NasarJ. L. (2003) The restorative effects of roadside vegetation: Implications for automobile driver anger and frustration. Environment and Behavior, 35, 736ndash;751.
9.
CarpF.ZawadskyR.ShokrinH. (1976) Dimensions of urban quality. Environment and Behavior, 4, 3ndash;32.
10.
CohenJ. (1987) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (Rev. ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
CraikK. H. (1983) The psychology of the large scale environment. In FeimerN. R.GellerE. S. (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives. New York: Praeger. Pp. 67–105.
12.
CullenG. (1961) Townscape. New York: Reinhold.
13.
FechnerG. T. (1876) Vorschule der Aesthetik [Experimental aesthetics; “pre-school” of aesthetics]. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
GiffordR.NgC. F. (1982) The relative contribution of visual and auditory cues to environmental perception. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 275ndash;284.
16.
GroatL. (1979) Does post-modernism communicate?Progressive Architecture, 12, 84ndash;87.
17.
GroatL. (1984) Public opinions of contextual fit. Architecture, 23, 72ndash;75.
18.
HeftH.NasarJ. L. (2000) Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment and Behavior, 23, 301ndash;322.
19.
HershbergerR. G.CassR. (1988) Predicting user responses to buildings. In NasarJ. L. (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and application. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 195–211.
20.
HorayangkuraV. (1978) Semantic dimensional structures: A methodological approach. Environment and Behavior, 10, 555ndash;584.
21.
JacobsA. B. (1993) Great streets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
JacobsJ. (1961) The life and death of great American cities. New York: Random House.
23.
JacobsenT. (2004) Individual and group modeling of aesthetic judgment strategies. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 41ndash;56.
24.
JacobsenT. (2006) Bridging the arts and sciences: A framework for the psychology of aesthetics. Leonardo, 39, 155ndash;162.
25.
JacobsenT.BuchtaK.KöhlerM.SchrögerE. (2004) The primacy of beauty in judging the aesthetics of objects. Psychological Reports, 94, 1253ndash;1260.
26.
KaplanS.KaplanR. (1978) Humanscape: Environments for people. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
27.
KaplanS.KaplanR. (1982) Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.
28.
KingS.MerindaC.LatimerB.FerrariD. (1989) Co-design: A process of design participation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
29.
KuoF. E.SullivanW. C. (2001) Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?Environment and Behavior, 33, 343ndash;367.
30.
LynchK. (1960) The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
LynchK. (1981) A theory of good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
MartindaleC. (1988) Aesthetics, psychobiology, and cognition. In FarleyF. H.NeperudR. W. (Eds.), The foundations of aesthetics, art and art education. New York: Praeger.
33.
NasarJ. L. (1980) The influence of familiarity on responses to visual qualities of neighborhoods. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 635ndash;642.
34.
NasarJ. L. (1983) Adult viewer preferences in residential scenes. Environment and Behavior, 15, 589ndash;614.
35.
NasarJ. L. (1988) Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and applications. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press.
36.
NasarJ. L. (1998) The evaluative image of the city. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
NasarJ. L.HongX. (1999) Visual preferences in urban signscapes. Environment and Behavior, 31, 671ndash;691.
38.
OostendorpA.BerlyneD. E. (1978) Dimensions in the perception of architecture: Identification and interpretation of dimensions of similarity. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 19, 73ndash;82.
39.
SitteC. (1965) City planning to artistic principles. New York: Random House.
40.
StampsA. E.III. (1990) Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perception and Motor Skills, 71, 907ndash;913.
41.
StampsA. E.III. (1994) A study in scale and character: Contextual effects on environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Management, 42, 225ndash;245.
42.
StampsA. E.III. (2000) Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. New York: Plenum.
43.
StübbenH. J. (1890) Der Städtebau. Darmstadt: Bergsträsser.
44.
TrancikR. (1986) Finding lost space: Theories of urban design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
45.
WardL. M.RussellJ. A. (1981) The psychological representation of molar physical environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 121ndash;152.
46.
WeberR. (1995) On the aesthetics of architecture: A psychological approach to the structure and the order of perceived architectural space. Aldershot, Eng.: Avebury.
47.
WilsonM. A. (1996) The socialization of architectural preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 33ndash;44.
