aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning

8/8/2019 Aesthetic Preferences and the Attribution of Meaning

1/8

Aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning:Environmental categorization processes in the

evaluation of urban scenes

Ma- Paz Galindo

Universidad de Sevilla, Spain

Ma- Carmen Hidalgo

Universidad de Malaga, Spain

In the context of research into scenic quality, the purpose of the present paper is to establish categories ofurban landscapes on the basis of users aesthetic judgements. It also explores the role that the restorativecapacity of a placein terms of the attentional restoration theory (ART)together with a set of aesthetic

attributes, may play in more or less valued places in a city. A total of 132 residents from Malaga (Spain) were

chosen, with the city providing the physical framework for environmental reference. A questionnaire designed for

easy self-administration by subjects was used to collect information. Subjects were asked to identify three placesin Malaga that they considered to be most attractive and three that they considered least attractive. Participants

were asked to evaluate both the restorative propertiesin terms of the ARTand the extent to which their first

choice displayed certain environmental characteristics. Participants expressed a clear aesthetic preference for

recreational sites for leisure/walking as well as those closely linked to the citys historical-cultural identity. The

research also identified other categories of visual settings that could be used as a focal point around which to

centre future samples of scenes in a city context. Finally, the results obtained from the characterization of more

and less attractive places, from the variables used in this study, shed light on the dimensions of underlying

meaning that individuals use to categorize their environment and reinforce the idea that environmental aesthetics

seem to play an important role in individuals general well-being.

D ans le cadre de la recherche sur la qualite scenique, le but du present article est detablir des categories depaysages urbains sur la base des jugements esthetiques des utilisateurs. Il explore aussi le role jouepar la capacite de restauration dun lieuselon la Theorie de restauration attentionnelle (ART)conjointementa un ensemble dattributs esthetiques, sur les endroits plus ou moins apprecies dans une ville. Au total, 132

residents de Malaga (Espagne) furent selectionnes, en considerant que cette ville offre un cadre physique

de reference environnemental. Un questionnaire auto-administre fut complete par les participants. Ces derniers

devaient identifier trois lieux a Malaga quils consideraient comme plus attrayants et trois autres quils trouvaient

moins attrayants. Ils devaient egalement evaluer les proprietes de restaurationselon lARTet lampleur avec

laquelle leur premier choix concordait avec certaines caracteristiques environnementales. Les participants ont

exprime une preference claire pour les aires recreatives de loisirs et de marche ainsi que pour les lieux associes a

lidentite historique et culturelle de la ville. La recherche a aussi permis didentifier dautres categories daspects

visuels qui pourraient etre utilisees comme elements a partir desquels seront creees les scenes futures en contexte

urbain. Finalement, les resultats obtenus a partir de la categorisation des endroits plus ou moins attrayants, a

partir des variables utilisees dans cette etude, nous eclairent sur les dimensions des significations sous-jacentes

utilisees par les individus pour categoriser leur environnement. Ceci renforce lidee que les aspects esthetiques

environnementaux joueraient un role important dans le bien-etre general des individus.

En el contexto de los estudios sobre calidad escenica, el presente trabajo se ha disenado con el objetivo dedeterminar categoras de paisajes urbanos a partir de los juicios esteticos de sus usuarios. Adicionalmente,se ha explorado el papel que la capacidad restauradora de un lugaren terminos de la Teor a de la Restauracion

Atencionalas como un conjunto de atributos esteticos pueden desempenar en los lugares mas y menos

valorados de una ciudad. Para ello se selecciono un total de 132 residentes en Malaga (Espana) as como el

contexto fsico de dicha ciudad como marco de referencia ambiental del estudio. Como instrumento de recogida

# 2005 International Union of Psychological Science

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/00207594.html DOI: 10.1080/00207590444000104

Correspondence should be addressed to Ma- Paz Galindo, Departamento de Psicologa Experimental, Facultad de Psicologa,

Universidad de Sevilla, C/Camilo Jose Cela s/n, 41018, Sevilla, , Spain (E-mail: [email protected]).).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 40 (1), 1926


2/8

de informacion se utilizo un cuestionario disenado para ser autoadministrado facilmente por los participantes. La

tarea que se les solicito a estos fue la de identificar los tres lugares de Malaga que les resultaran visualmente mas

atractivos, as como los tres que consideraran mas feos. Asimismo se les pidio, en relacion al lugar identificado en

la primera posicion, que evaluaran tanto sus propiedades restauradorasen terminos de la ARTcomo el grado

en que exhiba determinadas caractersticas ambientales. Los participantes expresaron una clara preferencia

estetica por los lugares recreativos de ocio/paseo, as como aquellos estrechamente vinculados con el desarrollo

historicocultural de la ciudad. Asimismo, se han identificado otras categor as de entornos visuales que pueden

servir como eje en torno al que articular futuros muestreos de escenas en el contexto de la ciudad. Finalmente, losresultados obtenidos a partir de la caracterizacion de los lugares mas y menos atractivosen las variables objeto

de este estudioofrecen luz sobre las dimensiones de significado subyacentes a traves de la que los individuos

categorizan su ambiente y apoyan la consideracion de la importante funcion que la estetica ambiental parece

desempenar en el bienestar general de los individuos.

In the field of research into environmental

aesthetics, preference studies have attempted to

understand the scenic quality of a certain place by

analysing the responses to it given by different

groups of nonexpert participants. These

responses have generally been used as a unit ofanalysis for generating predictive models of visual

quality (psychophysical models) or frameworks for

explaining aesthetic experience (cognitive models).

In research into cognitive models, some studies

have used preference judgements as a unit of

judgement to delimit landscape categories that are

important for users. The results of such studies

show that one of the underlying dimensions of

perceptual differentiation is related to the extent

of human intervention; in other words, the extent

to which the evaluated scene contains buildings

and what the perceived equilibrium is betweenhuman and natural elements. On this point, for

example, a clear distinction in the aesthetic

judgements of several groups of subjects has been

established between natural and urban contexts,

especially when the latter lack natural elements

such as water and vegetation (Herzog, 1985;

Kaplan, 1987; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Peron,

Purcell, Staats, Falchero, & Lamb, 1998; Purcell,

Lamb, Peron, & Falchero, 1994). Similarly, when

the study has included a large variety of scenes,

certain attributes of spatial configuration (such as

the extent of openness and spatial definition, thenormal function and/or use of the place, and the

age of the site and its upkeep) form additional

bases for the perceptive-evaluative categorization

made by nonexpert individuals (for a review of

these studies see Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).

Most studies attempting to delimit landscape

categories have used photographs of natural

scenes that are unfamiliar to participants, having

been selected by researchers using different cri-

teria. This procedure of stimuli selection and

presentation requires the fragmentation of the

molar environment (as represented in subjects

memory systems) and depends on the criteria of

individual experts. Furthermore, very little of the

research mentioned above evaluated urban stimuli,

or the role that familiarity or recognition of

visualized scenes may play in processes of aesthetic

evaluation. The development of evaluation proce-dures aimed at identifying categories of known

and/or familiar places for participants, that meet

their own selection criteria, is an area that has

received little attention and could also provide

important information in terms of optimizing

processes of environmental sampling.

To overcome some of the above-mentioned

limitations, an evaluation procedure was designed

in a previous study to identify urban scene

categories that were known and/or familiar to

nonexpert participants, using selection criteria

established by the subjects themselves (Galindo,1994). A random sample of residents from the city

of Seville was asked to identify three public

landscapes in the city that they found most

attractive in visual terms. The analysis of their

responses allowed us to establish four main

perceptive-evaluative categories for urban scenes

that were important for users: (1) historical-

cultural landscapes, (2) leisure areas, (3) recrea-

tional landscapes, and (4) housing areas. These

categories were configured, however, from the

analysis of a single range of aesthetic preferences

(attractive places) and were not characterizedaccording to any other variable by the subjects

interviewed. Exploring the generality of such a

categorization in other geographical scenes, incor-

porating the analysis of places considered unat-

tractive, is one of the aims of the present study. It

is based on the assumption that identifying more

or less attractive landscapes of one specific

molar setting provides an opportunity not only for

registering its main scenic resources (descriptive

objective), but also for clarifying which implicit

criteria of visual quality are used by nonexpert

individuals (explanatory objective).

20 GALINDO AND HIDALGO


3/8

Regarding the (implicit) standards of scenic

beauty, Nasar proposed (1994, 1997) two types of

variable in the context of urban design: Attributes

of formal aesthetics and attributes of symbolic

aesthetics. Among the former, the authors highlight

openness (and/or spaciousness), mystery,

complexity (both related to visual diversity),

and order (or congruence between the elements

that make up the scene). In relation to the symbolic

aesthetic attributes, Nasar mentions variables of

content such as vegetation, upkeep, style,

and perceived use. Results from a substantial

number of empirical studies have demonstrated the

role that these characteristics play in aesthetic

evaluation responses. Some of the variables men-

tioned by Nasar have also been adopted in various

evolutionist theoretical proposals that have linked

aesthetic evaluation responses to certain scenes with

the important psychological benefits likely to arise

from contact with these scenes (Appleton, 1987;

Kaplan 1987; Ulrich, 1983). In this context, the

Attentional Restoration Theory (ART; Kaplan,

1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) was developed

around the idea that certain settings may reduce

tiredness caused by directed attention, thus

enabling the re-establishment of certain cognitive

abilities. Other research has focused on the

construction of an instrument to measure the

restorative capacity of a specific placein terms

of the ART(Hartig, Korpela, Evans, & Garling,

1997) as well as analysing the role that this capacitymay play in the selection of favourite places

(Korpela & Hartig, 1996; Korpela, Hartig, Kaiser,

& Fuhrer, 2001) or in aesthetic judgements (Peron,

Berto, & Purcell, 2002; Purcell, Peron, & Berto,

2001). Although, in this context, the existence of

relationships between the restorative capacity of

natural surroundings and their aesthetic evaluation

has been documented in some studies, there is very

little actual evidence of the existence of this

association in urban settings.

Within this framework, the overview guiding

the design of this study is establishing categories ofurban places from the perspective of their daily

observers, as well as attempting to identify some of

the important dimensions of meaning that underlie

aesthetic preferences. Based on this overview, we

have drawn up the following specific objectives:

1. Establish categories of more and less valued

urban places and analyse any similarities/differ-

ences existing on the aesthetic value assigned (as

well as their frequency of use).

2. Determine the role that the restorative capacity

of a place (in terms of the ART) may exercise in its

aesthetic evaluation.

3. Characterize the more and less valued places

within the set of aesthetic attributes (sensorial and

semiotic) delimited in Nasars proposal.

4. Explore the relationships between the restora-

tive capacity of a place and the aesthetic attributes

selected in this study.

METHOD

Participants

The sample consisted of 132 university students

(72 women and 59 men, average age 26 years), all

residents of Malaga city. They were selected from

a larger sample of 202 subjects. All participants

complied with the following criteria: (1) they had

been born in Malaga or had been living there for a

minimum of 9 years; (2) they expressed a strong

sense of belonging to the city. This information

was collected from two questions in the ques-

tionnaire described in the following section.

Procedure

A questionnaire was designed to be easily self-

administered by the participants themselves. They

were asked to do the following. First: Think, for

a while, about the city of Malaga itself; its streets,

neighbourhoods, squares and open spaces of any

type (large and small, attractive or unattractive);think about all the places you have been to or

seen. After this, using the procedure followed in

Galindos (1994) study, participants were asked to

identify the three places in the city that were of

greatest visual interest to them (open question),

and state how often (in a question with closed

categories) they went to or passed by those places.

The rest of the questions referred exclusively to the

place that was their first choice; participants were

asked to complete the Spanish version (Hidalgo &

Hernandez, 2001) of the Perceived Restorativeness

Scale (Korpela & Hartig, 1996), and a battery of11 questions related to the (sensorial and semiotic)

aesthetic attributes identified by Nasar (1994,

1997) and those featured in the research by

Galindo (1994). Specifically, participants were

asked for their opinion about the extent to which

their first choice had the following characteristics:

(1) vegetation; (2) visual diversity/richness; (3)

harmony/congruence between its different ele-

ments; (4) openness and/or spaciousness; (5)

luminosity; (6) a historic place or representative

of the city; (7) cleanliness; (8) maintenance/upkeep;

(9) place for leisure activities; (10) meeting place;

AESTHETIC JUDGEMENT OF URBAN SCENES 21


4/8

(11) a novel place. Participants had to assess each

characteristic on a 5-point scale with values

ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). Participants

were also asked to state how often they visited or

walked by their first choice. Once they had

completed the attractive places section, partici-

pants were asked to place themselves on the other

side of the aesthetic spectrum and name, in theiropinion, the three most unattractive places in

the city. These places were assessed with the same

variables as the most attractive places. Finally,

the questionnaire included a battery of questions

related to sample identification data considered

to be variables of interest in the study (gender,

age, length of residence in the city, level of

familiarity with the city, and the extent to which

they identify with the city).

RESULTS

Most attractive and most unattractive

places in the city: General categorization

and frequency of use

First, all the first choices were recorded and

classified depending on the type or category of

place to which they belonged. As a provisional

instrument, the general system of categories

obtained in Galindos (1994) study was used.

The analysis of the characteristics of the spatial

and functional configuration of the places men-

tioned by the participants yielded a total of five

categories, three of which were the same as in

Galindos (1994) study: cultural-historical

places, recreational places for leisure and/or

walking, and housing areas. However, our

findings suggested that two new categories not

considered in the aforementioned study should be

introduced: panoramic places and industrial

places, while the category places for having fun

was excluded. Table 1 shows the representativeness

of each of the categories established in the list of

the most attractive and unattractive places in the

city (those in the first place), from the percentage

of responses in each category.

The data shown in Table 1 reflect a notable

difference in the percentages of responses asso-

ciated with each of the categories identified

depending on the aesthetic label (attractive-

unattractive). The attractive places weremainly grouped around the following categories:

recreational places (mentioned by 38.75% of

participants), historical-cultural places (men-

tioned by 35.65%), and panoramic places

(mentioned by 21.7%). On the other hand, these

three categories are scarce or even nonexistent in

the unattractive places, with the most numerous

being housing areas (73.17%), mostly working-

class housing estates, followed by industrial

areas (8.13%).

If we consider the specific places that form the

categories themselves, rather than the categories assuch, we find that 28 different places were

mentioned as the most attractive places, while

there were 45 most unattractive places. In aesthetic

terms, the most highly appreciated place in the city

was the Gibralfaro Castle (n526, 19.7%) and,

more specifically, the panoramic view of the city

from the castle, which is why it was placed in the

panoramic places category. In second place (n517,

12.9%) came the Paseo Martimo (the Promenade),

a long esplanade running along the seafront which

we placed in recreational places for leisure/walking.

In third and fourth position came two places

closely related to the citys history (placed in the

category historical-cultural places): the Alcazaba,

an Arab fortress dating from the 11th century

(n515, 11.4%), and the Cathedral, built between

the 16th and 18th centuries (n514, 10.6%). The

rest of the places were mentioned by less than 10%

of the sample, with 13 places being mentioned by

just one participant (0.8% of the sample). As for

the most unattractive places, the most mentioned

was the neighbourhood of La Palmilla (n541,

30.8%), a working-class district with a high crime

TABLE 1

Frequency of most attractive and most unattractive places associated with each established category

Most

attractive places

Most

unattractive places

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Recreational places (for leisure or walking) 50 38.75 7 5.69

Cultural-historical places 46 35.65 9 7.21

Panoramic places 28 21.70 0 0

Housing areas 4 3.10 90 73.17

Industrial places 1 0.70 10 8.13



5/8

rate. The second, mentioned by 10.5% of subjects,

was another working-class area (housing area) with

a high crime rate. The remaining places were

mentioned by less than 10% of participants, with

31 places being cited on just one occasion. Figure 1

shows the frequency with which people visit these

places: 11.5% go to the most attractive place daily

(against 7.8% who go to the most unattractive

place); 18.3% go there once a week (11.6% go to

the most unattractive place); 14.5% go several

times a month (10.9% to the most unattractive);

24.4% go once a month (10.9% to the most

unattractive); 21.4% have not been recently

(17.8% to the most unattractive place); 8.4%

hardly ever go (31% to the most unattractive

place); and 1.5 have never gone to the most

attractive place (10.1% to the most unattractive

place). Therefore, if we look at the percentages of

accumulated answers, 68.4% of the sample go atleast once a month to the most attractive place,

while the majority (58.8%) never, or hardly ever,

go to the places considered least attractive.

Characterization of the most attractive

and most unattractive places on the

Perceived Restorativeness Scale

The citys most attractive places obtain high

average scores on the Perceived Restorativeness

Scale (PRS), always over 6, in contrast to the

unattractive places whose values range from 1 to 3on the scale (see Table 2). To check whether such

differences were statistically significant, the aver-

age scores obtained were contrasted using the T-

test analytical procedure for related samples. All

the differences were statistically significant. The

two types of scene differed both in general

restorativeness (129)526.42, and in fascination

(128)524.59, compatibility (128)519.79, being

away (128)518.05, coherence (129)517.87, and

extent (128)517.81 (p, .0001 in all cases).

Characterization of most attractive

and most unattractive places

according to the sensorial and

semiotic aesthetic attributes

In order to meet the third objective, we calculated

the average scores obtained by the attractive and

unattractive places (the first choices) for each of

the aesthetic attributes analysed. In addition, to

check that the resulting differences were statisti-cally significant, the T-test for related samples was

used. As with the Restorativeness Scale, places in

the city considered the most attractive obtained

the highest scores in all the variables considered

(see Figure 2). The analyses carried out showed

that the differences were statistically significant in

all cases (p, .0001): novel place (128)512.42,

facilities for leisure activities (125)510.57,

Figure 1. Frequency of use of most attractive and most unattractive places.

TABLE 2

Characterization of most attractive and most unattractive

places on the Perceived Restorativeness Scale

Subscales (PRS)

Most attractive

place

Most unattractive

place

M SD M SD

Being away 6.53 1.99 2.31 1.76Fascination 6.73 1.68 1.67 1.74

Coherence 6.80 1.67 2.89 2.05

Compatibility 6.32 2.02 2.00 1.68

Extent 7.00 1.73 3.56 1.81

General restorat. 6.66 1.45 2.35 1.16

PRS: Perceived Restorativeness Scale. Values fall on a scale

from 0 to 10 where lower values indicate, for example, lower

being away. Difference scores for the two types of places

were statistically significant in all the subscales (p, .0001).



6/8

presence of vegetation (129)511.03, meeting place

(128)59.97, cleanliness (129)517.22, upkeep/

maintenance (128)517.18, harmony or congruence

of scenic elements (128)519.34, visual diversity or

richness (129)525.86, luminosity (128)59.52, his-

toric or emblematic place (128)519.12, openness

and spaciousness (128)512.71.

Relationship between the Perceived

Restorativeness Scale and the aesthetic

attributes

A correlation analysis was performed between the

aesthetic attributes and the scores on the Perceived

Restorativeness Scale. The results are shown in

Table 3. Of the different attributes evaluated, five

correlate significantly (p, .01) with restorative

capacity: harmony, openness, luminosity, suitabil-

ity for leisure, and meeting place. Of these, the last

two, along with openness, also present significant

correlations with the five subscales, although in

some cases at a lower level (p, .05) of significance

(with the exception of the correlation between

harmony and fascination, which is not significant).

On the other hand, it is worth pointing out that in

our study the presence of vegetation, a character-

istic closely related to the restorative capacity of a

place, does not present a significant correlation

with the total scale or with any of the factors.

Neither does the level of upkeep/maintenance, a

variable closely associated with a preference for

urban spaces, present a significant correlation with

the PRS. The three remaining attributesdiversity,

cleanliness, and historical characteristicspresent

correlation values that, although low, are in some

cases significant at a reliability level of .05.

DISCUSSION

The analysis of the characteristics of the most

attractive and most unattractive places in the city

Figure 2. Average scores in the aesthetic attributes of the most attractive and unattractive places.

TABLE 3Correlations between the aesthetic attributes and the Perceived Restorativeness Scale

Being away Fascination Coherence Compatib. Extent General restorat.

Vegetation .08 .14 .21 .07 .11 .14

Visual richness .10 .15 .14 .00 .17* .13

Congruence .26** .15 .26** .18* .26** .27**

Openness .30** .23** .27** .28** .38** .36**

Luminosity .19* .15 .16 .30** .17* .26**

Historical place 2.12 .02 2.07 2.20* .06 2.09

Cleanliness .05 .11 .20* .05 .19* .13

Maintenance 2.13 .07 2.01 2.04 .00 2.04

Facilities for leisure .20* .30** .18* .46** .19* .35**

Meeting place .30** .21* .28** .43** .22** .37**

*p,.05 (bilateral); **p,.01 (bilateral).



7/8

identified in the study has allowed us to establish

the existence of five broad aesthetic categories of

urban scenes: (1) recreational places for leisure/

walking, (2) historical/cultural places, (3) places

with panoramic views, (4) housing areas, and (5)

industrial areas. The first three categories men-

tioned form 96% of the visually most attractive

places; the last two groupings form the majority ofthe settings considered most unattractive. Three

categories (historical-cultural places, recreational

places, and housing areas) agree with the char-

acterization made in Galindos (1994) study, which

was used as a provisional instrument in this study.

In our opinion, this suggests that the function and

historical value (cultural representativity) of a

particular scenein other words, its social leg-

ibility, to use Stokols and Shumakers (1981)

termseem to constitute two important dimen-

sions providing the basis for the establishment of

aesthetic categories that are important in urbancontexts. Although the function of a scene has

been an important selection criterion in urban

landscape preference studies that have incorpo-

rated photographic stimuli, the historical-cultural

dimension has been rather neglected. The impor-

tance that this dimension acquires when evalua-

tion procedures are developed that facilitate its

appearance seems to confirm the need for its

inclusion in contextualized analyses in scenes that

are familiar to and/or known by subjects.

The groupings labelled places with panoramic

views and industrial areas provide two cate-

gories not included in Galindos (1994) previous

study. The first category groups together 21.7% of

the scenes identified as the most attractive and

includes the place that was named in first position

by the greatest number of subjects, the Gibralfaro

Castle. This place presents a set of physical

characteristics that help explain its high scenic

evaluation. It is an Arab fortress dating from the

14th century, which was built into the side of a

mountain that was originally beyond the city

walls. The site was chosen for its strategic position,

overlooking the city and the sea beyond. Due to

growth and expansion it has now become part of

the city, although certain planning laws have

limited urban development in its immediate

surroundings. It has therefore managed to pre-

serve a significant amount of the surrounding

vegetation and is an important transit point

between the city and nature. The visual config-

uration characteristics of this place tie in directly

with Appletons (1975) prospect-refuge theory,

according to which the qualities of the setting that

make it aesthetically preferred allow one to see

without being seen (refuge) and provide a wide

viewing area (prospect). The settings that possess

these characteristicsin other words, that allow

the individual to observe the scene from a safe

viewing point and with a wide perspective (open

places)will also be the aesthetically preferred

settings. The last of the categories, the industrial

areas, represents the second most frequently

selected unattractive places, which, together withthe role this variable has in studies of environ-

mental preference, confirms it as a category to be

taken into account in future urban landscape

samples.

The differences found between this study and

Galindos (1994) may be due to the different

characteristics of the geographical settings evalu-

ated. The city of Seville lacks public places that

could be clearly identified as panoramic places,

and in Malaga the places for having fun, a

category in the Seville study that does not appear

in this one, are spread throughout the city and notconcentrated in one geographical area. The

industrial areas category is one that appeared

in the responses to the most unattractive areas, a

quality that was not evaluated in the first study. In

any case, the categories that have emerged in the

present study should be confirmed in other

geographical settings and using other nonexplora-

tory procedures; an aim that we consider to be of

great importance for research in this field.

Another of the goals of the present study was to

explore the role that the restorative capacity of a

place, in terms of the Attentional Restoration

Theory, may play in its aesthetic evaluation. To do

this, subjects evaluated two places (the ones

considered most attractive and most unattractive)

using the Spanish version (Hidalgo & Hernandez,

2001) of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale

(Korpela & Hartig, 1996). The results obtained

show that the restorative capacity of a place seems

to be a characteristic dimension of those places

considered to be attractive. These places obtained

a high score both on the general scale (average

6.66) and on the five subscales, with values ranging

from 6.32 in the compatibility factor and 7.00 in

the extent factor (see Table 2). These results

support those obtained by Korpela and Hartig

(1996) and Korpela et al. (2001), in which they

analysed the differences in restorative capacity

between favourite places and hostile/disagreeable

places. In the latter study, the greatest differences

between the two types of place were recorded in

the subscales of evasion and compatibility.

However, the results of our researchgiven the

objective of characterizing the main scenic

resources of a cityshow that the main differences

between attractive and unattractive places seem to



8/8

lie in the characteristics grouped in the fascination

subscale. This subscale includes aspects related to

the quantity of information available in the

evaluated place and is closely related to the

psychological exploration process considered to

be one of the basic cognitive requirements linked

to environmental aesthetics in Attentional Resto-

ration Theory (see, for example, Kaplan & Kaplan,1989). In short, the results mentioned support the

suggestions of recent studies (Peron et al., 2002;

Purcell et al., 2001) that the restorative capacity

of a specific place may constitute one of the

implicit scenic quality criteria used by subjects in

their aesthetic judgements.

Furthermore, the scores that the attractive and

unattractive places obtained regarding the aes-

thetic attributes included in this study demonstrate

their suitability in the study of aesthetic prefer-

ences, and therefore suggest that these attributes,

together with restorative capacity, constituteimportant criteria for determining scenic quality.

The relation that could be established between

both types of criteria raises a theoretical and

empirical issue that could be dealt with in future

studies. The results of the correlation analyses

between the score obtained in the PRS and these

attributesdeveloped in an exploratory manner in

this worksuggest that restorative places tend to

be open, luminous, and coherent, and are places

for leisure and for meeting people. It is, however,

surprising that the presence of vegetation, a

characteristic closely related to the restorative

capacity of a place in other research, did not have

a significant relationship with the factors on the

Perceived Restorativeness Scale. Given the

exploratory nature of these analyses, it may be

premature to venture an explanation. The possi-

bility does exist, however, that other aesthetic

attributes, such as those mentioned here, might

have a greater influence on the evaluation of a

place as a restorative setting. Future research

along these lines will clarify this hypothesis.

REFERENCES

Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape.London: John Wiley.

Appleton, J. (1987). Landscape as prospect and refuge.In J. A. Jackle (Ed.), The visual elements of landscape(pp.3974). Amherst, MA: The University ofMassachusetts Press.

Galindo, M. P. (1994). Evaluacion de la preferenciaambiental de paisajes urbanos. Hacia un modelo

psicosocial de caracter integrador (in Spanish).Unpublished doctoral thesis, Universidad deSevilla.

Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Garling, T.(1997). A measure of restorative quality in environ-ments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research,14, 175194.

Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference

for waterscapes. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 5, 225241.

Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Si te sientesbien te recuperaras mejor: La evaluacion de loslugares restauradores In C. San Juan, B. Rodrguez,& A. Vergara (Eds.), Monografas Socioambientales:VII Congreso de Psicologa Ambiental. HumanHabitatsXXI (in Spanish). Barcelona: PublicationsUniversitat de Barcelona.

Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect and cognition:Environmental preferences from an evolutionaryperspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 332.

Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature:Toward an integrative framework. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 15, 169182.Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1989). The experience ofnature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Korpela, M. K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorativequalities of favourite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221233.

Korpela, M. K., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer, U.(2001). Restorative experience and self-regulation infavorite places. Environment and Behavior, 3,572589.

Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics. Theevaluative qualities of building exteriors.Environment and Behavior, 26, 377401.

Nasar, J. L. (1997). New developments in aesthetics forurban design. In G. T. Moore & R. W. Marans(Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design,Vol. 4 (pp. 149193). New York: Plenum Press.

Peron, E., Berto, R., & Purcell, A. T. (2002).Restorativeness, preference and the perceived natur-alness of places. Medio Ambiente y ComportamientoHumano, 3(1), 1934.

Peron, E., Purcell, A. T., Staats, H. J., Falchero, S., &Lamb, R. J. (1998). Models for outdoor scenes: Someexperimental evidence. Environment and Behavior, 33,261305.

Purcell, A. T., Lamb, R. J., Peron, E., & Falchero, S.(1994). Preference or preferences for landscape?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 195209.

Purcell, A. T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why dopreferences differ between scene types? Environmentand Behavior, 33, 93106.

Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places:A transactional view of settings. In J. H. Harvey(Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response tonatural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill(Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment(pp. 85125). New York: Plenum Press.


aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning

Documents