量化城市环境:从前景-避难理论的角度看审美偏好

IF 6.1 1区 心理学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Journal of Environmental Psychology Pub Date : 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102344
Gaby N. Akcelik , Kyoung Whan Choe , Monica D. Rosenberg , Kathryn E. Schertz , Kimberly L. Meidenbauer , Tianxin Zhang , Nakwon Rim , Riley Tucker , Emily Talen , Marc G. Berman
{"title":"量化城市环境:从前景-避难理论的角度看审美偏好","authors":"Gaby N. Akcelik ,&nbsp;Kyoung Whan Choe ,&nbsp;Monica D. Rosenberg ,&nbsp;Kathryn E. Schertz ,&nbsp;Kimberly L. Meidenbauer ,&nbsp;Tianxin Zhang ,&nbsp;Nakwon Rim ,&nbsp;Riley Tucker ,&nbsp;Emily Talen ,&nbsp;Marc G. Berman","doi":"10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Prospect-refuge theory suggests that people prefer environments that offer both prospect, the ability to scan for resources, and refuge, a safe place to hide. Urban planners, architects and researchers alike have had a tendency to use prospect-refuge theory research on natural scenes to inform on the design of urban environments. Despite the large body of prospect-refuge theory research, the degree to which prospect and refuge impact preference in urban environments remain unclear. Here, we aim to first evaluate the relationship between prospect, refuge and preference for urban scene images. Secondly, we aim to evaluate the contributions of visual features and streetscape quality ratings to subjective ratings of prospect and refuge in order to create proxy values of prospect and refuge. Finally, we aim to understand how the proxy values impact preference for urban scenes, and if the proxy values created replicate the relationship between subjective measures of prospect, refuge and preference. First, we used participant ratings of prospect and refuge to predict participants' preference for 552 images of urban street scenes. Higher ratings of both prospect and refuge predicted greater image preference. We next used principal components analysis to summarize these images' low- and high-level visual features as well as participant ratings of streetscape qualities, such as walkability and disorder. Visual feature and streetscape quality principal components predicted prospect and refuge ratings in this first image set, providing “proxy measures' for prospect and refuge. In an independent set of 1119 images from Talen et al. (2022) for which prospect and refuge ratings were not available, we asked whether these proxies for prospect and refuge predicted preference. Findings replicated the effect that more refuge in an image predicts more preference. However, the proxy measure of prospect did not predict preference. In summary, our results show that refuge ratings do relate to preferences in urban environments, which extends prospect-refuge theory to more urban environments. Future work is needed to understand if prospect has different implications in more urban environments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48439,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying urban environments: Aesthetic preference through the lens of prospect-refuge theory\",\"authors\":\"Gaby N. Akcelik ,&nbsp;Kyoung Whan Choe ,&nbsp;Monica D. Rosenberg ,&nbsp;Kathryn E. Schertz ,&nbsp;Kimberly L. Meidenbauer ,&nbsp;Tianxin Zhang ,&nbsp;Nakwon Rim ,&nbsp;Riley Tucker ,&nbsp;Emily Talen ,&nbsp;Marc G. Berman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102344\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Prospect-refuge theory suggests that people prefer environments that offer both prospect, the ability to scan for resources, and refuge, a safe place to hide. Urban planners, architects and researchers alike have had a tendency to use prospect-refuge theory research on natural scenes to inform on the design of urban environments. Despite the large body of prospect-refuge theory research, the degree to which prospect and refuge impact preference in urban environments remain unclear. Here, we aim to first evaluate the relationship between prospect, refuge and preference for urban scene images. Secondly, we aim to evaluate the contributions of visual features and streetscape quality ratings to subjective ratings of prospect and refuge in order to create proxy values of prospect and refuge. Finally, we aim to understand how the proxy values impact preference for urban scenes, and if the proxy values created replicate the relationship between subjective measures of prospect, refuge and preference. First, we used participant ratings of prospect and refuge to predict participants' preference for 552 images of urban street scenes. Higher ratings of both prospect and refuge predicted greater image preference. We next used principal components analysis to summarize these images' low- and high-level visual features as well as participant ratings of streetscape qualities, such as walkability and disorder. Visual feature and streetscape quality principal components predicted prospect and refuge ratings in this first image set, providing “proxy measures' for prospect and refuge. In an independent set of 1119 images from Talen et al. (2022) for which prospect and refuge ratings were not available, we asked whether these proxies for prospect and refuge predicted preference. Findings replicated the effect that more refuge in an image predicts more preference. However, the proxy measure of prospect did not predict preference. In summary, our results show that refuge ratings do relate to preferences in urban environments, which extends prospect-refuge theory to more urban environments. Future work is needed to understand if prospect has different implications in more urban environments.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48439,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424001178\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424001178","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前景-避难所理论认为,人们更喜欢既能提供前景(扫描资源的能力)又能提供避难所(安全的藏身之处)的环境。城市规划者、建筑师和研究人员都倾向于利用自然场景的前景-避难所理论研究来为城市环境设计提供参考。尽管有大量的前景-避难所理论研究,但前景和避难所对城市环境偏好的影响程度仍不清楚。在此,我们旨在首先评估城市场景图像的前景、避难所和偏好之间的关系。其次,我们旨在评估视觉特征和街景质量评级对前景和避难所主观评级的贡献,从而创建前景和避难所的替代值。最后,我们旨在了解替代值对城市场景偏好的影响,以及所创建的替代值是否复制了前景、避难所和偏好主观测量之间的关系。首先,我们使用参与者对前景和避难所的评分来预测参与者对 552 幅城市街景图像的偏好。对前景和避难所的评分越高,则对图像的偏好程度越高。接下来,我们使用主成分分析法总结了这些图像的低层次和高层次视觉特征,以及参与者对街道景观质量的评分,如可步行性和无序性。在第一组图像中,视觉特征和街景质量主成分预测了前景和避难所评级,为前景和避难所提供了 "替代测量"。在 Talen 等人(2022 年)的 1119 张独立图片集中,我们询问了这些前景和避难所的替代指标是否能预测偏好。研究结果证实,图像中的避难所越多,预测的偏好就越多。然而,前景的替代指标并不能预测偏好。总之,我们的研究结果表明,避难所评级确实与城市环境中的偏好有关,这将前景-避难所理论扩展到了更多的城市环境中。我们还需要在未来开展工作,以了解在更多的城市环境中,前景是否会产生不同的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Quantifying urban environments: Aesthetic preference through the lens of prospect-refuge theory

Prospect-refuge theory suggests that people prefer environments that offer both prospect, the ability to scan for resources, and refuge, a safe place to hide. Urban planners, architects and researchers alike have had a tendency to use prospect-refuge theory research on natural scenes to inform on the design of urban environments. Despite the large body of prospect-refuge theory research, the degree to which prospect and refuge impact preference in urban environments remain unclear. Here, we aim to first evaluate the relationship between prospect, refuge and preference for urban scene images. Secondly, we aim to evaluate the contributions of visual features and streetscape quality ratings to subjective ratings of prospect and refuge in order to create proxy values of prospect and refuge. Finally, we aim to understand how the proxy values impact preference for urban scenes, and if the proxy values created replicate the relationship between subjective measures of prospect, refuge and preference. First, we used participant ratings of prospect and refuge to predict participants' preference for 552 images of urban street scenes. Higher ratings of both prospect and refuge predicted greater image preference. We next used principal components analysis to summarize these images' low- and high-level visual features as well as participant ratings of streetscape qualities, such as walkability and disorder. Visual feature and streetscape quality principal components predicted prospect and refuge ratings in this first image set, providing “proxy measures' for prospect and refuge. In an independent set of 1119 images from Talen et al. (2022) for which prospect and refuge ratings were not available, we asked whether these proxies for prospect and refuge predicted preference. Findings replicated the effect that more refuge in an image predicts more preference. However, the proxy measure of prospect did not predict preference. In summary, our results show that refuge ratings do relate to preferences in urban environments, which extends prospect-refuge theory to more urban environments. Future work is needed to understand if prospect has different implications in more urban environments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
8.70%
发文量
140
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Psychology is the premier journal in the field, serving individuals in a wide range of disciplines who have an interest in the scientific study of the transactions and interrelationships between people and their surroundings (including built, social, natural and virtual environments, the use and abuse of nature and natural resources, and sustainability-related behavior). The journal publishes internationally contributed empirical studies and reviews of research on these topics that advance new insights. As an important forum for the field, the journal publishes some of the most influential papers in the discipline that reflect the scientific development of environmental psychology. Contributions on theoretical, methodological, and practical aspects of all human-environment interactions are welcome, along with innovative or interdisciplinary approaches that have a psychological emphasis. Research areas include: •Psychological and behavioral aspects of people and nature •Cognitive mapping, spatial cognition and wayfinding •Ecological consequences of human actions •Theories of place, place attachment, and place identity •Environmental risks and hazards: perception, behavior, and management •Perception and evaluation of buildings and natural landscapes •Effects of physical and natural settings on human cognition and health •Theories of proenvironmental behavior, norms, attitudes, and personality •Psychology of sustainability and climate change •Psychological aspects of resource management and crises •Social use of space: crowding, privacy, territoriality, personal space •Design of, and experiences related to, the physical aspects of workplaces, schools, residences, public buildings and public space
期刊最新文献
When do individuals take action to protect the environment?——Exploring the mediating effects of negative impacts of environmental risk Adverse relations between substandard housing and self-regulation are accentuated for children with difficult temperament Caring about one's legacy relates to constructive coping with climate change Chaotic or crowded? The role of physical household environment in children's learning during the COVID-19 pandemic Is greenspace in the eye of the beholder? Exploring perceived and objective greenspace exposure effects on mental health
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1