WHEN BUILDINGS DON'T WORK: THE ROLE OF ARCHITECTURE

Journal of Environmental Psychology (1998) 18, 85–94 0272-4944/98/010085+10$30·00/0

 1998 Academic Press

Article No. ps980089

ENVIRONMENTAL

PSYCHOLOGY

Journal of

WHEN BUILDINGS DON’T WORK: THE ROLE OF ARCHITECTURE IN

HUMAN HEALTH

ARY

W. E

VANS AND

ANETTA

ITCHELL

Cornell University, Ithaca, U.S.A.

Abstract

We spend upwards of 90% of our lives within buildings, yet we know much more about the effects of ambient

environmental conditions on human health than we do about how buildings affect our health. This article

employs the heuristic of psychological stress to generate a taxonomy of architectural dimensions that may

affect human health. Specific interior design elements illustrating each of these architectural dimensions are

provided. There is little existing evidence that specific design features directly impact human health. The aim

of this article is to provoke further thinking and research on this possibility.

 1998 Academic Press

Introduction that stress significantly contributes to physical

health is well established (Cohen et al., 1995). Most

research on stress and ill health has focused on per-People spend more than 90% of their lives within

buildings. Yet we know much more about how ambi- sonal variables (e.g. Type A behavior) or social con-

ditions (e.g. social support) (Kiritz & Moos, 1974;ent environmental conditions affect human health

than we know about how the built environment Taylor, Repetti, & Seeman, 1997). With the excep-

tion of ambient environmental stressors such asinfluences health. There is very little direct evi-

dence that characteristics of the built environment noise, traffic, crowding, and air pollution (Evans, in

press; Evans & Cohen, 1987), very little attentioncan affect human health. The aim of this paper is to

provoke additional thinking and research on proper- has been paid to the potential role of the built

environment in human health. In the next sectionties of the built environment that can adversely

affect human health. A heuristic that may provide five architectural dimensions are defined and linked

to stress. For each dimension, ideas are presentedsome insight is the concept of stress (Saegert, 1976;

Zimring, 1982). about specific interior design elements that consti-

tute that particular dimension.Stress occurs when there is an imbalance of

environmental demands and human resources

(Evans & Cohen, 1987). This article develops a pre-

liminary taxonomy of design characteristics that Linking Architectural Dimensions to Stress

have the potential to challenge human adaptive

coping resources. We acknowledge that stress is a Stimulation

dynamic process that depends heavily upon individ-

ual coping resources. However, until we understand Stimulation describes the amount of information in

a setting or object that impinges upon the humanmore about how salient properties of typical, every-

day interiors challenge human coping capacities, user. Intensity, variety, complexity, mystery and

novelty are specific design qualities pertinent toour understanding of environment and human

health will remain incomplete. stimulation. Human beings function optimally with

moderate levels of stimulation. Lack of stimulationBelow we describe five dimensions of the designed

environment that potentially could affect human leads to boredom or, if extreme, sensory depri-

vation. Insufficient stimulation may also deprivehealth by altering stress levels. The proposition

86 G. W. Evans and J. Mitchell McCoy

IGURE

2. Mystery, the promise of further information, invites

the user to explore the scene further. Partially occluded spaces

and views, embedded spaces, and the suggestion of additional

interesting spaces foster mystery.

and orientation of an interior space directly influ-

ence stimulation levels. Adjacencies to sources of

IGURE

1. High levels of complexity created by variety and

stimulation and proximity to circulation paths can

intensity lead to an overabundance of stimulation. The sheer

diversity of elements and size of the space combine to overload

directly affect stimulation levels. Location in space

the senses. The space lacks any strong unifying theme or

and room shape can both affect visual

pattern.

exposure—the extent to which others can see a per-

son in a room (Archea, 1977). The visual and acous-

tic properties of barriers can obviously affect stimu-the human organism of practice in successfully

accommodating environmental challenges. Too lation levels in terms of the degree of shielding they

provide.much stimulation causes distraction and overload

which interfere with cognitive processes that People like small amounts of change but do not

adapt well to large amounts of variation. Thus, fam-demand effort or concentration. Overstimulation

makes it difficult to focus attention and interrupts iliarity and routine will influence reactions to

stimulation levels. Over time we gain coherenceongoing, planned action patterns (Wohlwill, 1974).

Levels of stimulation are influenced by properties with a setting but lose our sense of involvement and

interest since the challenges of exploration and dis-of interior settings such as intensity, complexity,

and novelty of stimulus characteristics. Loud noise, covery diminish (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982). People

need enough complexity and mystery to providebright light, unusual or strong smells, and bright

colors, particularly at the red end of the spectrum, challenging opportunities so that meaningful prob-

lem solving can happen. Complexity refers to theall appear to increase stimulation (Berlyne, 1971;

Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Crowding and inap- degree of variety and diversity in a setting. Mystery

indicates the promise of further information withpropriately close interpersonal distances increase

stimulation (Aiello, 1987; Baum & Paulus, 1987). continued exploration. Partial vistas, spaces that

are not fully comprehensible without exploration,Extremes of stimulus intensity and very complex or

incoherent patterns of stimulation are potentially and building layout configurations that portend but

not restrict what is ahead contribute to mystery.stress-inducing. A typical example of such an

environment is shown in Figure 1. Too much complexity or mystery makes interiors

confusing and unanalyzable; too little renders pre-Exposure to visual and acoustic stimulation is

strongly influenced by layout, circulation systems, diction trivial (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982). This is

illustrated in Figure 2.and the individual’s location in space. The shape

87When Buildings Don’t Work: The Role of Architecture in Human Health

Coherence

Coherence refers to the clarity or comprehensibility

of building elements and form. Ambiguity, disor-

ganization, and disorientation are major impedi-

ments to coherence. Purposive actions require leg-

ible interiors. Coherence enables users to make

reasonable deductions about the identity, meaning

and location of objects and spaces inside of build-

ings. Coherence is inversely related to complexity

and directly related to the clarity of thematic or

underlying patterns of stimulation. Multiple, repeti-

tive features, underlying expression of rules, and

thematic continuity, all contribute positively to

coherence (Lynch, 1960; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982).

Stress can occur when changes or disruptions in

physical surroundings make prediction difficult.

Incoherence can also arise from disorganization

where it is difficult to discern the underlying form

or pattern of spaces. Incoherence is also caused by

mixed or ambiguous cues about prescripted

behaviors in a setting (e.g. what behaviors are

appropriate). Barriers that are nonsynchronous

with behavior setting functional boundaries elevate

incoherence plus increase the potential for misfit

IGURE

3. This space is incoherent for several reasons: too much

between organizational objectives and design

information in the signage; the space is homogeneous; it is hard

to formulate a mental map of the overall plan or configuration of

(Bechtel, 1976). Conflicting information from adjac-

the space; comprehending one’s location in the building is

ent design elements or abrupt shifts in size, color,

difficult.

texture, or stimulation levels can heighten stress.

Highly ambiguous spaces may cause stress because

people cannot make sense out of them—their mean- Affordances

ing, function, or even their basic form and compo-

sition are hard to discern. This is shown in Figure 3. We utilize interior spaces according to our under-

standing of the functions that they provide us. WeLegibility, the ease with which one can compre-

hend the spatial configuration of an interior space, also rely on information systems to provide feed-

back about building or equipment performance.is a critical component of building coherence. Legi-

bility in interiors is enhanced by regular geometric When we are unable to readily discern the func-

tional properties of a space or incorrectly gaugebuilding shapes (Weisman, 1982), distinctive

interior markings (Evans, 1980) and views of the building or technological function, misaffordances

occur (Heft, 1997). An example of misaffordance isexternal environment (Ga

rling et al., 1986). Good

signage and other navigational aids contribute to shown in Figure 4.

Ambiguities or misinformation about the func-building legibility, although their ability to compen-

sate for a disorienting space is limited (Passini, tional meaning of interior elements can occur for

several reasons. Rapid changes in visual access pro-1984; Zimring & Gross, 1991).

Given extensive research on wayfinding at the duced by movement across a sharp vertical or hori-

zontal barrier can cause marked disorientation.urban scale showing this, it is likely that distinc-

tive, interior landmarks located at decision nodes Corners, entryways, and stairs are sometimes

designed so that little is discernable about impend-and at major path termini and origins would facili-

tate coherence in buildings (Appleyard, 1976; Carp- ing space until one has crossed the barrier. Many

accidents in buildings are attributable to this misaf-man et al., 1986; Evans, 1980). Similarly, circu-

lation patterns aligned with building facades, fordance (Archea, 1985).

An ill affordance may also occur when ambiguousconnected at right angles, and providing visual cues

about progression toward goal points, ought to be or conflicting information is present. A typical

example of such a misaffordance is a single stepmore legible (Evans, 1980).

88 G. W. Evans and J. Mitchell McCoy

IGURE

4. These doors illustrate a misaffordance because it is not clear how to utilize the doors. On which side and in what direction

should one operate the doors?

down from one identical surface to another. The Control

ledge of the step is indistinguishable from the lower

surface, obscuring any cues for a change in depth. Control is defined herein as mastery or the ability

to either alter the physical environment or regulateSeveral optical illusions function by pitting compet-

ing cues for distance and or size against one exposure to one’s surroundings. Physical con-

straints, flexibility, responsiveness, privacy, spatialanother.

Ambiguity can also be caused by vague or missing syntax, defensible space, and certain symbolic

elements are key design concepts salient to control.cues for use or too many competing cues. When a

building user cannot see what or how something in Physical constraints that reduce choice or

behavioral options can produce or exacerbate stressthe space functions or when confronted with cues

about purpose or use which are vague or in conflict, (Glass & Singer, 1972; Evans & Cohen, 1987). Pro-

longed experiences with uncontrollable environ-human reactions are likely to encompass frus-

tration, annoyance, and, on occasion, even hostility mental conditions have also been associated with

learned helplessness (Cohen et al., 1986). Helpless-or helplessness (Norman, 1989). Design features

that provide little or no feedback about the conse- ness, in turn, is clearly related to psychological dis-

tress and may be associated with physical diseasequences of their use can also evoke negative reac-

tions. Confusion about use can also arise when the (Peterson et al., 1993). Insufficient spatial

resources, inflexible spatial arrangements, and lackuser and designer’s respective mental models do not

coincide. For example a ‘You Are Here’ indicator in of climatic or lighting controls, all threaten individ-

ual needs to effectively interact with interior spacea directional system that is not in the same Eucli-

dean orientation as the user is very difficult for (Hedge, 1991; Sherrod & Cohen, 1979).

Spatial resources include both density and vol-most people to utilize (Levine, 1982). Programming

one’s VCR is perhaps the contemporary archetype ume. In addition to amount of available space, vis-

ual exposure, structural depth, openness of the per-for a nearly insurmountable user-designer gap in

understanding an intended use. imeter, brightness, and extent of view have all been

89When Buildings Don’t Work: The Role of Architecture in Human Health

to be a major factor in the development of helpless-

ness, particularly among children (Cohen et al.,

1986).

Privacy, or the ability to regulate social inter-

action, is a major contributor to a sense of control in

interior settings (Altman, 1975). Perhaps the cen-

tral design element influencing privacy is spatial

hierarchy. The provision of spaces ranging from

places that provide solitude and intimacy, through

small group meetings, to those that foster contact

with the public, constitute the major components of

spatial hierarchy within buildings (Alexander,

1972; Greenbie, 1981; Zimring, 1982). Size, location,

and degree of stimulus isolation of interiors, influ-

ence the effectiveness of buildings to provide priv-

acy. The scheme of the dormitory in Figure 5 is a

good example of a design providing privacy.

The extent to which spaces are interconnected via

doorways and passages influences social regulation

capabilities of spaces. The visual or acoustical per-

meability of barriers affects social interaction

potential (Zeisel, 1981). Depth refers to the number

of spaces one must pass through to get from one

point in a structure to another (Hillier & Hanson,

1984). Deeper spaces afford more privacy and

enhance ability to regulate social interaction. They

also affect visual access and visual exposure

(Archea, 1977).

The functional distance between spaces also influ-

ences social interaction potential (Festinger et al.,

1950). The directness of doorway openings and the

intersection of circulation paths influence social

IGURE

5. Privacy in this dormitory is well supported by a

interchange. Focal points provide socialization and

spatial hierarchy. Spaces for solitude or intimacy, small groups,

and for larger social gatherings are all accommodated and well

small group interaction opportunities. Well-

defined.

designed focal points include activity generators,

are centrally located, function as neutral territories,

and provide prospective visual access (Bechtel,

1976; Becker, 1990), as shown in Figure 6.shown to moderate the effects of crowding on

human behavior (Evans, 1979). Flexibility can be Furniture arrangements can directly affect social

interaction potential (Sommer, 1969). Sociopetalprovided by degree of perimeter openness, moveable

partitions, and semi fixed furniture (Sommer, furniture arrangements encourage interaction by

moveable components, provision of comfortable1969).

Another interior design element influencing con- interpersonal distances, ease of eye contact, and

physical comfort during conversation. Sociofugaltrol is responsiveness. Responsiveness refers to the

clarity and speed of feedback one receives when act- furniture arrangements that are inflexible and that

orient people in space so that eye contact is difficulting upon a setting or object (Wachs, 1989;

Wohlwill & Heft, 1987). Particularly important to or interpersonal distances that are inappropriately

close or far have the opposite effect, discouragingresponsiveness is differential feedback. Distinct

actions in a responsive environment produce unique social interaction.

There are also major symbolic elements of controlfeedback about the consequences of each act. In

addition to differential feedback, responsiveness is in design. Large size, sterility, uniformity of

materials and furnishings, and restrictions on per-also sensitive to the latency between actions and

feedback. The longer the delay, the poorer the sonalization options, all contribute to the insti-

tutional quality of buildings. An important qualityresponsiveness. Unresponsive environments appear

90 G. W. Evans and J. Mitchell McCoy

IGURE

6. Focal points facilitate social interaction. In this office building, the focal point is located centrally, near several major

circulation paths, and can be viewed prospectively, prior to making a behavioral commitment to the space. The focal point is neutral

territory, has a pro-social furnishing arrangement, and provides coffee and food which attract and hold interest for prospective users.

of institutionalization may be a sense of power- afford more opportunities for control than the indi-

vidual desires or has the competency to utilize.lessness among users (Rivlin & Wolfe, 1985).

Jurisdiction over space is enhanced by actual or Lawton (1989), in particular, has emphasized the

importance of matching individual competenciessymbolic ownership. Good surveillance opportunit-

ies, clearly delineated and visibly marked bound- with design resources. Among the elderly some indi-

viduals with limited capabilities require morearies, semi-public spaces that provide community

meeting space, and smaller, subunits of large living restricted environmental opportunities, which the

general public would find oppressive.complexes can all enhance feelings of territoriality

(Newman, 1972; Kaminoff & Proshansky, 1982;

Taylor, 1988). Territoriality enables regulated use

Restorativeand occupancy of space. It also enhances the

expression of personal or group identity (Brown,

1987; Taylor, 1988). Restorative qualities define the potential of design

elements to function therapeutically, reducingAlthough our analysis has focused primarily on

interior elements that reduce control, settings can cognitive fatigue and other sources of stress.

91When Buildings Don’t Work: The Role of Architecture in Human Health

IGURE

7. Stimulus shelters provide opportunities for solitude and a chance to get away from overstimulating situations or routines

of work and daily life. Such spaces may buffer stress by providing a temporary respite; a time out from prolonged or high levels of

environmental demands or stressors.

Restorative elements of design represent a theoreti- example, Figure 7) may offset some of the stressful

impacts of high levels of stimulation. Having acally distinct category. Rather than directly produc-

ing stress, restorative elements provide resources space to retreat to, for example, appears to buffer

some of the negative impacts of residential crowd-that can attenuate stress. Thus design can function

as a coping resource that can help building occu- ing and noise (Wachs & Gruen, 1982).

Focused or voluntary attention can create mentalpants alter the balance between environmental

demands and personal resources. Restorative fatigue. Restoration entails the replenishment of

cognitive capacity and is fostered by several types ofdesign elements include retreat, fascination, and

exposure to nature. Certain types of settings such design characteristics. Involuntary attention or fas-

cination facilitates recovery from mental fatigueas religious sanctuaries, hospitals and other thera-

peutic facilities are explicitly designed with restora- (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Fascination can be cre-

ated by design elements such as window views,tive intent. Such settings may uplift the human spi-

rit and promote healing. burning fireplaces, and various displays (e.g. aquar-

ium, moving water) (Coss, 1973). Direct contactDesign may offer opportunities to combat stress

by providing rest, recovery, or contemplation. with natural elements as well as views of nature

provide restoration (Hartig & Evans, 1993;Reflective activities in particular demand a mini-

mum of distraction and some degree of isolation. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1993), as shown in

Figure 8.Privacy nooks and stimulus shelters (see, for

92 G. W. Evans and J. Mitchell McCoy

Summary and Conclusions

Building design has the potential to cause stress

and eventually affect human health. At present we

know very little about the potential role of interior

design elements in human health. Stress which

occurs when environmental demands exceed coping

resources may be a useful heuristic to conceptualize

design elements potentially relevant to human

health.

Stimulation, coherence, affordance, control, and

restoration are a preliminary set of environmental

dimensions inter-related to stress. Each of these

dimensions, in turn, consists of explicit interior

design elements (see Table 1). Better understanding

of these dimensions coupled with greater knowledge

of their underlying physical properties may enable

IGURE

8. Restoration is supported by design elements that

designers to more consciously create healthy

draw our attention effortlessly. Mental fatigue is reduced by

environments. Theoretically, scientists have largely

views of nature as well as other design elements that foster

ignored the potential role of the designed environ-

involuntary attention or curiosity. Fascination helps replenish

mental reserves depleted by sustained concentration or efforts to

ment to contribute to human health.

pay attention.

A major weakness of our taxonomy is the lack of

empirical evidence linking the design elements we

have identified to human health. At present the

knowledge base is simply not there. In addition this

taxonomy was derived with the heuristic of psycho-

logical stress. However, stress is only one of several

ABLE

Interior design elements that may influence stress

Stimulation Affordances

intensity ambiguity

complexity sudden perceptual changes

mystery perceptual cue conflict

novelty feedback

noise

light Control

odor crowding

color boundaries

crowding climatic & light controls

visual exposure spatial hierarchy

proximity to circulation territoriality

adjacencies symbolism

flexibility

Coherence responsiveness

legibility privacy

organization depth

thematic structure interconnectedness

predictability functional distances

landmark focal point

signage sociofugal furniture

pathway configuration arrangement

distinctiveness

floorplan complexity Restorative

circulation alignment minimal distraction

exterior vistas stimulus shelter

fascination

solitude

93When Buildings Don’t Work: The Role of Architecture in Human Health

to the conduct of systematic inquiry. In J. Wineman,

underlying processes to explain how or why the

R. Barnes & C. Zimring, Eds, The Costs of not Know-

built environment might affect human health.

ing. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference

Other equally viable pathways warranting con-

of the Environmental Design Research Association.

sideration include negative emotions such as anxi-

Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research

Association, pp 305–310.

ety or depression (Taylor et al., 1997) or health pro-

Baum, A. & Paulus, P. B. (1987). Crowding. In D. Stok-

motion activities such as safety compliance or

ols & I. Altman, Eds, Handbook of Environmental

lifestyle alterations (e.g. exercise, smoking

Psychology. New York: Wiley, pp 534–570.

cessation) (Stokols, 1992).

Bechtel, R. (1976). Enclosing Behavior. Stroudsburg, PA:

The principal aim of this article has been to pro-

Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

voke further thinking and research on character-

Becker, F. (1990) The Total Workplace. New York: van

Nostrand Reinhold.

istics of the built environment that can influence

Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New

human health. We currently know much more

York: Appleton, Century Crofts.

about the role of ambient environmental quality in

Brown, B. (1987). Territoriality. In D. Stokes & I Altran

human health than we do about the role of the built

(Eds.), The Handbook of Environmental Psychology,

environment in people’s health. This state of affairs

pp. 505–532. New York: Wiley.

Carpran, J., Grant, M. & Simmons, D. (1986). Design

is puzzling when we consider how much more we

That Cares. Chicago: American Hospital Publishing.

are exposed to interior environments than we are

Cohen, S., Evans, G. W., Stokols, D. & Krantz, D. S.

exposed to exterior, ambient environments. In

(1986). Behavior, health, and Environmental Stress.

addition to the obvious practical value of articulat-

New York: Plenum.

ing a taxonomy of interior design elements relevant

Cohen, S., Kessler, R. C. & Gordon, L. (1995). Measuring

Stress. New York: Oxford.

to health (Archea & Connell, 1986), how we define

Coss, R. C. (1973). The cut-off hypothesis: its relevance to

and then measure a set of physical properties of the

the design of public places. Man–Environment Sys-

built environment relevant to health, turns out to

tems 3, 417–440.

be a major theoretical challenge (Lawton, in press).

Evans, G. W. (1997). Environmental stress and health. In

A. Baum, T. Revenson & J. E. Singer, Eds, Handbook

of Health Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum (in

press).

Notes

Evans, G. W. (1979). Design implications of spatial

research. In A. Aiello & A. Baum, Eds, Residential

Correspondence and reprint requests and should be

Crowding and Design New York: Plenum,

addressed to Gary Evans, Department of Design and

pp. 197–216.

Environmental Analysis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

Evans, G. W. (1980). Environmental cognition. Psycho-

14853-4401, U.S.A.

logical Bulletin 88, 259–287.

This article is based in part on the Taacquard Patillo and

Evans, G. W. & Cohen, S. (1987). Environmental stress.

Wilson Centennial Lecture, Human Ecology, University

In D. Stokols & I. Altman, Eds, Handbook of Environ-

of Texas, Austin. We thank Jan Jennings, Powell Lawton,

mental Psychology. New York: Wiley, pp. 571–610.

and Steve Verderber for critical feedback on earlier drafts

Festinger, L., Schacter, S. & Back, K. (1950). Social

of this paper.

Pressures in Informal Groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

rling, T., Book, A. &, Lindberg, E. (1986). Spatial

orientation and wayfinding in the designed environ-

References

ment: a conceptual analysis and some suggestions for

postoccupancy evaluation. Journal of Architectural

Aiello, J. (1987). Human spatial behavior. In D. Stokols &

and Planning Research 3, 55–64.

I. Altman, Eds, Handbook of Environmental Psy-

Glass, D. C. & Singer, J. E. (1972). Urban Stress. New

chology. New York: Wiley, pp 385–504.

York: Academic Press.

Alexander, C. (1972). The city as a mechanism for sus-

Greenbie, B. (1981). Spaces. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-

taining human contact. In R. Gutman, Ed., People and

versity Press.

Buildings, NY: Basic, pp 406–434.

Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. New York:

Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior.

Doubleday.

Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.

Hartig, T. & Evans, G. W. (1993). Psychological foun-

Appleyard, D. (1976). Planning a Pluralistic City. Cam-

dations of nature experience. In T. Ga

rling & R. Gol-

bridge, MA: MIT Press.

ledge, Eds, Behavior and Environment: Geographic

Archea, J. (1977). The place of architectural factors in

and Psychological Approaches. Amsterdam, The

behavioral theories of privacy. Journal of Social

Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 427–457.

Issues 33, 116–137.

Hedge, A. (1991). Design innovation in office environ-

Archea, J. (1985). Environmental factors associated with

ments. In W. Preiser, J. Visher & E. White, Eds,

stair accidents by the elderly. Clinics in Geriatric

Design Intervention. New York: van Nostrand Rein-

Medicine 1, 555–569.

hold, pp. 301–322.

Archea, J. & Connell, B. R. (1986). Architecture as an

instrument of public health: mandating practice prior Heft, H. (1997). The relevance of Gibson’s ecological

94 G. W. Evans and J. Mitchell McCoy

approach to perception for environment–behavior Aging and Milieux: Environmental Perspectives on

Growing Old. New York: Academic Press, pp. 63–82.studies. In G. T. Moore & R. W. Marans, Eds,

Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Rivlin, L. & Wolfe, M. (1985). Institutional Settings in

Children’s Lives. New York: Wiley.Vol. 4. New York: Plenum, pp. 72–108.

Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. (1984). Social Logic of Space. Saegert, S. (1976). Stress-inducing and stress-reducing

qualities of environment. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H.London: Cambridge University Press.

Kaminoff, R. & Proshansky, H. M. (1982). Stress as a Ittelson & L. Rivlin, Eds, Environmental Psychology,

2nd Edn. New York: Holt, pp. 218–223.consequence of the urban physical environment. In L.

Goldberger & S. Breznitz, Eds, Handbook of Stress. Sherrod, D. & Cohen, S. (1979). Density, personal control,

and design. In J. Aiello & A. Baum, Eds, ResidentialNew York: Free, pp. 380–409.

Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environ- Crowding and Design. New York: Plenum,

pp. 217–228.ment. New York: Praeger.

Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989) The Experience of Nature. Sommer, R. (1969). Personal Space. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.New York: Cambridge.

Kiritz, S. & Moos, R. H. (1974). Physiological effects of Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy

environments: toward a social ecology of health pro-social environments. Psychosomatic Medicine 36,

96–114. motion. American Psychologist 47, 6–22.

Taylor, R. B. (1988). Human Territorial Functioning. NewLawton, M. P. (1989). Behavior relevant ecological fac-

tors. In K. W. Schaie & C. Schooler, Eds, Social Struc- York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, S. E., Repetti, R. & Seeman, T. (1997). Healthture and Aging. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 57–78.

Lawton, M. P. (in press). Prologue to an environmental psychology: what is an unhealthy environment and

how does it get under the skin? Annual Review of Psy-classification. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. Wachs, Eds,

Assessment of the Environment Across the Lifespan. chology 48, 411–447.

Wachs, T. D. (1989). The nature of the physical micro-Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,

(in press). environment: An expanded classification system. Mer-

rill Palmer Quarterly 35, 399–419.Levine, M. (1982). You-are-here maps: Psychological con-

siderations. Environment and Behavior 14, 221–237. Wachs, T. D., & Gruen, G. (1982). Early Experience and

Human Development. New York: Plenum Press.Lynch, K. (1960). Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press. Weisman, G. (1981). Evaluating architectural legibility.

Environment and Behavior 13, 189–204.Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J. (1974). An Approach to

Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Wohlwill, J. F. (1974). Human response to levels of

environmental stimulation. Human Ecology 2,Press.

Moore, G. T. (1991). Life-span development issues in 127–147.

Wohlwill, J. F. & Heft, H. (1987). The physical environ-environmental assessment, cognition, and action:

Applications to environmental policy, planning, and ment and the development of the child. In D. Stok-

ols & I. Altman, Eds, Handbook of Environmentaldesign. In T. Ga

rling & G. W. Evans, Eds, Environ-

ment, Cognition, and Action. New York: Oxford, Psychology. New York: Wiley, pp. 281–328.

Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by Design. New York:pp. 309–331.

Newman, O. (1973). Defensible space. New York: Millan. Cambridge..

Zimring, C. (1982). The built environment as a source ofNorman, D. (1989). The Psychology of Everyday Things.

New York; Basic. psychological stress: impacts of buildings and cities on

satisfaction and behavior. In G. W. Evans, Ed.,Passini, R. (1984). Wayfinding in Architecture. New York:

van Nostrand Reinhold. Environmental Stress. New York: Cambridge,

pp. 151–178.Peterson, C., Maier, S. & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993).

Learned Helplessness. New York: Oxford University Zimring, C. & Gross, M. (1991). Searching for the

environment in environmental cognition. In T. Ga

r-Press.

Regnier, V. (1983). Urban neighborhood cognition: ling & G. W. Evans, Eds, Environment, Cognition,

and Action. New York: Oxford University Press,Relationships between functional and symbolic com-

munity elements. In G. D. Rowles & R. J. Ohta, Eds, pp. 78–95.