See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259641257

Psychology and Landscape Design

Article · January 1990

CITATIONS READS

0 2,283

2 authors, including:

David Uzzell
University of Surrey
162 PUBLICATIONS   4,047 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

RESOLVE: Research on Lifestyles, Values and Environment View project

The Psychology of Sustainable Consumption View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Uzzell on 10 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Psychology and Landscape Design

David L. Uzzell and Kate Lewand1

Department of Psychology
University of Surrey
Guildford, Surrey

Environmental psychology is the study of people-environment transactions. In other words,

the relationship between the physical surroundings and the people who create and use them. It
strives to build bridges not only between psychology, sociology, and geography, but also
between the social sciences and the design disciplines such as architecture, landscape
architecture, urban planning, space planning and interior design.

Governments and industry throughout the world are recognising that environmental issues
such as conservation, architectural design, urban planning, pollution, energy conservation,
housing, environmental risk, heritage and tourism developments are of major public concern.
Furthermore, in the last few years we have also witnessed a concern for these matters
especially amongst those individuals and agencies who are responsible for preserving the
natural and built environment; from those who manage the natural environment, such as
landscape architects and designers, and bodies responsible for forestry, national parks and
water; and from those public and private sector organisations responsible for developments
which affect the natural environment, such as local and national government departments, and
the energy and mineral extraction industries. All these groups need to know what people
expect and want from the natural environment, what aspects of the environment fulfil these
expectations and wishes, and how important are these demands.

Over the last twenty years environmental psychologists have made important contributions to
both policy-making and practice in all of these areas. Decision-makers are looking to
environmental psychologists for advice because of their understanding of the relationship
between people and places. An appreciation of the different perspectives, attitudes, values and
behaviour of individuals and groups is now seen as crucial to the successful planning, design,
management and use of the environment.

Can environmental psychology make any contribution to landscape design? After all,
landscape architects spend many years training and subsequently in professional practice in
order to have an acute understanding of many aspects of environmental design. High quality,
aesthetically sensitive and ecologically appropriate might be the starting point for establishing
the criteria which marks out a good, professional landscape architect. But the meaning and
enjoyment of the landscape for the public is influenced by more than these factors. For
example, our appreciation of landscape cannot reasonably be disconnected from the historical
circumstances in which the landscape was created. Furthermore, the nature of the
environment, how we think and feel about it and how we act in and on it are intimately

1
published in ‘The Psychology of Landscape’, Landscape Design, pp 34-35, April 1990.

1
interrelated. There is inevitably an inter-relationship between social and cultural factors and
the physical aspects of the landscape.

Environmental psychology has arguably sought to satisfy two objectives in addressing our
relationship to landscape. Firstly, there has been a concentration on applied and usually
quantitative research which has sought to offer specific advice to landscape practitioners and
policy makers on people's perception, assessment and preferences for particular landscapes.
Secondly, there has been more qualitative research which has attempted to ascertain what
nature and landscape means to us and what value it has for us. A comprehensive review of
the contribution of the theories and methods of psychology to landscape perception and
assessment has recently been undertaken by Uzzell (1990) for the Landscape Research Group.

It was suggested earlier that one contribution of environmental psychology is takes the
perspective that in any environmental transaction attention should focus on the user of the
environment as much as the environment itself. Following this, a research study was
undertaken with the idea that landscape design and evaluation should incorporate both the
physical features inherent in the landscape and the perceptions and meaning of the individuals
who perceive that landscape. The perceptions that the public or clients hold towards a setting
are of importance to planners and designers. For instance, a change in the physical
environment has consequences other than the obvious superficial changes in visual appearance.
The planting of a forest, or the construction of a new road or housing estate involves not only
physical remodelling of the land but potential changes to aesthetic interpretation and
psychological identification. With development on urban reclamation as well as green-field
sites in order to meet public and private-sector needs, the requirement to design and build in a
sensitive and environmentally-friendly way becomes paramount. Planners and designers need
to consider fully the human - environment transactions and the potential psychological impact
of their work on people. In 'specialised' settings, such as, plazas, gardens, therapeutic
environments, this is particularly important. We know from research, for example, that design
can enhance the therapeutic process such as by improving the recovery rate of patients in
hospitals. More research is therefore needed to understand how the psychological
consequences and benefits of landscape design for particular groups of people in particular
environments.

Landscape architects make evaluative design and aesthetic judgments which are intended to
represent the public's views. However, if the visual components inherent in a landscape are
the only resources used for inventory, evaluation and manipulation, and if these are based on
the decisions of a select group of individuals, problems will arise if there are significant
differences between professional and non-professional perceptions, evaluations and priorities.
One consequence of such differences could be the creation of design solutions which are
incompatible with the needs and wishes of the client or public, leading to a dislike of the
environment, disenchantment, resentment and even abuse.

Our study sought to find out whether there exists 'a coherence in opinion' which separates
professionals from non-professionals. It was hypothesised that an 'assumed knowledge' leads
landscape architects to conceptualise landscapes in ways similar to other members of the
profession, but different from those who have not undergone landscape training.

Our theoretical basis for assuming landscape architects have different attitudes and opinions
with respect to the environment than non-professionals, is illustrated by Canter's (1977)

2
concept of 'environmental role'. He argues that the role of design professionals inevitably
involves a different transaction with the environment than that experienced by non-
professionals. This may result, for example, in landscape architects having different
perceptions, attitudes and experiences with respect to the environment.

Further support is found in Salaman's (1974) idea of 'occupational communities'. Salaman

argues that trainee professionals are socialised into the beliefs and values of the profession. It
is almost a requirement of becoming a professional that one develops self-image of what it is
to be, say landscape architect, and internalises the values, beliefs and occupational culture of
the profession in order to gain access to the occupational community. The community
becomes the primary reference group: values held by the members are derived from the
group's values. Client or public value judgments are not as highly regarded as the professional
peers. This establishes a distinct way of perceiving the landscape, which might distance
professionals from the everyday world they come to influence.

These are characteristics of most if not all occupational communities, especially in the
professions - architects, doctors, psychologists. Indeed, Salaman took the architectural
profession as one of his case studies. This would strongly suggest that the public's views of
public spaces and similar settings should be taken into account in the design and decision-
making process.

Canter also suggests that an individual's perception of a place comprises three constituents: i)
the actual physical components or parameters of the place, ii) the use of or the activities which
occur in the setting and iii) the individual's thoughts, meanings and understanding of the
environmental setting.

If landscapes have meanings and these derive from their significance to people, then an
exploration of the public's conceptualizations of landscapes is essential. Understanding the
meaning and significance of place will furnish the landscape designer with prescriptive
guidelines as to what a place needs to provide in order to make it a success.

A study was designed to find out whether landscape professionals conceptualise and classify
landscapes differently from the public as a result of their professional training. The study
assumed that landscapes are valued by individuals not just for their visual properties but also
for what they represent. Clamp (1981) remarks that when respondents were encouraged to
talk about 'landscape' and 'countryside' in their own words, it was found both with and without
the use of photographs 'landscapes were discussed as real places ..... there were no references
to visual patterning'. A view was seen as 'representing a real place, with paths for walking,
and fields for camping'.

In addition to objective physical criteria, landscapes are perceived in terms of subjective

psychological attributes. This means that images, meanings, emotional responses and aesthetic
judgments should also be considered. The research aimed to establish the nature of these
subjective and objective environmental evaluations and whether they are evident and similar
for both landscape professionals and non-professionals.

Eighteen landscape architects, with varying degrees of professional experience, and twenty
non-professionals were involved in the study. Each individual was given twenty-six word-
cards with labels such as moorland, forests, and agricultural land. Photographs of particular

3
landscapes were not chosen for the study as it was considered that they would be too
directive. However, photographs have been used in many studies of this sort: there are
advantages and disadvantages with any method. Individuals were asked to place the cards into
groups of their own choice. There were no restrictions on the number or type of groups
produced. Individuals were, however, asked to provide names for the groups they formed.

An analysis was then carried out on the two data sets using multidimensional scaling
techniques and content analysis. For this latter analysis the labels for each classification were
then placed into categories dependent on whether they referred to physical characteristics,
human actions on the landscape or whether they were cognitive in nature, as derived from
Canter's three components of place.

The labels which comprised 'physical characteristics' included groups labelled trees, water and
uplands. Human action on the landscape included recreation, production and development.
Finally cognitive responses (thoughts, feelings and attitudes) included responses as diverse as
images of 'Constable country' or the English countryside, emotions like exciting or boring, and
personal associations. A more pragmatic and prescriptive use of this method might be to elicit
only groupings referring to conceptualizations, images, meanings or emotions of one
'specialised' setting such as a plaza, garden, recreation area or therapeutic environment.

Overall, two major dimensions of landscape perception were identified for both populations.
Firstly, a division between natural and human influenced landscapes. Secondly, a distinction
between landscapes comprising land and water. These are found in terms of a distinction
between water and non-water natural or human-influenced settings.

But more significantly in terms of the earlier discussion, the results showed both a quantitative
and qualitative difference in response between landscape architects and non-professionals.
Landscape professionals displayed fewer groups that were subjective in nature than the non-
professionals. This means that the landscape architects produced fewer cognitive
classifications comprising images and emotions. These categories were in greater evidence for
the non-professional population. This latter group was also characterised by a higher
proportion of responses involving aesthetic judgments and other subjective associations not
evident in the professional grouping.

The professionals principally classified landscapes according to the use of the land such as
recreational use, development and production, or in terms of its physical characteristics -
water, land, other descriptions and vegetation levels. The landscape architects displayed more
complicated and detailed groupings in these two physically based components, physical
attributes and land use, than the non professionals. However, such groups were evident for the
non professionals but not as frequently nor as complicated.

Presumably, this is a direct product of landscape architects' training and occupational 'world-
view' which emphasises the objective, physical qualities of the landscape and de-emphasises a
cognitive and affective response.

The lack of consideration of the wealth and richness of meanings inherent in different
landscapes suggests that professionals may not be considering fully the transactions which
inevitably take place between the environment and the individual. The environment comprises
both an objective and subjective domain. This suggests that in addition to the physical

4
 evaluation of a landscape, landscape architects should be more cognisant and sensitive to its
subjective properties for the public. Indeed, the repertoire of evaluation procedures used by
landscape architects to assess landscape quality should be more holistic and representative the
full range of human response to place.

The emphasis placed on the cognitive dimension by non-professionals suggests the need to
consider the images, meanings and associations individuals place on a setting. A conceptual
framework - comprising physical setting, activities and cognitions - has been recommended to
suggest how one might investigate the needs and requirements of the users so that landscapes
and places can be planned and designed to provide stimulating and fulfilling settings for human
activity.

This has to be tempered with a note of caution. If one attempts to design the environment in
order to achieve particular psychological or environmental goals then one would be falling
prey to the accusation of architectural or environmental determinism. Such a view runs
counter to the transactionalist perspective advocated here. Advocates of the determinist
position argue that architecture determines our use of buildings and spaces, illustrated by
Winston Churchill's comment on the rebuilding of the House of Commons: 'we shape our
buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us'. While this has an appealing ring to it,
research findings are more ambiguous. There is little research evidence of the direct effects of
design on behaviour. Although architectural determinism as an ethos is strong within the
design professions, the evidence suggests that we cannot necessarily design for certain
attitudes or behaviours, at least in the simplistic sense typically assumed.

Even if it were possible to design the environment to influence attitudes and behaviour, to
extend our capacities and to enhance our aesthetic responses, this might be achieved only for
some of the people some of the time - not all of the people all of the time. Furthermore,
actions in and responses to the environment are likely to be affected by gender, personality,
social background, ethnicity and a multitude of other factors.

References

Canter, D. (1977) The Psychology of Place, New York: St. Martin's Press.

Clamp, P. (1981) 'The landscape evaluation controversy', Landscape Research, 6, 2, pp 13-

15.

Salaman, G. (1974) Community and Occupation: An exploration of work/leisure

relationships, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Uzzell, D. L. (1990) People, Nature and Landscape: An Environmental Psychological

Perspective, Monograph, Landscape Research Group.

5
View publication stats