Journal of Environmental Psychology (1992) 12, 237-248 0272-4944/92/030237+12508.

00/0
01992 Academic Press Ltd

ENVIRONMENTAL
PSYCHOLOGY
A C O G N I T I V E A N A L Y S I S OF P R E F E R E N C E F O R U R B A N S P A C E S

THOMAS R. HERZOG
Department of Psychology, Grand Valley State University,
Allendale, MI 49401, U.S.A.

Abstract

Preferences for urban spaces were studied as a function of spatial category and nine predictor variables:
spaciousness, refuge, enclosure, coherence, legibility, complexity, mystery, typicality, and age. A non-metric
factor analysis of the preference ratings yielded four categories of urban spaces: Open-Undefined, Well-
Structured, Enclosed Settings, and Blocked Views. These categories are similar to the spatial categories
proposed for natural environments by S. Kaplan (1979, Assessing Amenity Resource Values. USDA Forest
Service General Technical Report RM-68), who stressed openness and spatial definition as bases for
categorization. The Well-Structured category was best liked, with the other categories not very well liked and
about equal in preference. Regression analyses revealed three variables as consistent predictors of preference.
Coherence and complexity were positively related to preference, and age was negatively related. Overall, the
results support the Kaplans' proposal that both spatial and non-spatial factors are important in categorizing
environments and in explaining environmental preferences.

Introduction settings contain a screened or otherwise protected

A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces
The purpose of this study was to investigate the role
of spatial configuration in determining both percep-
tual categories and preference reactions for urban
settings. Specifically, the study focused on whether
certain spatially defined .categories, known to be
salient in natural settings, would also be relevant in
urban environments. The point of departure for the
study was a paper by S. Kaplan (1979) on what
the Kaplans (R. Kaplan & S. Kaplan, 1989) now
prefer to call category-identifying methodologies.
Summarizing several studies involving primarily
natural settings, Kaplan noted t h a t the basis for
environmental categories derived from preference
ratings could be either the content or the spatial
configuration of the settings. He went on to identify
four types of spatially based categories. Open-
Undefined settings are typically flat, open, and lack-
ing in spatial definition. In contrast, Spacious-
Structured settings contain elements (trees, edges,
landmarks, etc.) arranged to facilitate the cognitive
organization of the setting in depth. Enclosed
237
area which could serve as a hiding place. The
influence of Appleton's (1975) concept of refuge is
apparent. Finally, Blocked Views contain visual
obstructions near the observer that prevent visual
access.
Kaplan proposed t h a t the spatial variables of
openness and definition would not only define envi-
ronmental categories but would also affect relative
preferences among the categories. Because of their
evolutionary history, h u m a n s constantly evaluate
settings to prepare for effective action. Settings t h a t
are readily organized spatially aid in this process
and should therefore be preferred. There is an obvi-
ous similarity here to Gibson's (1979) concept of af-
fordance and to ideas discussed earlier by Gregory
(1969) and S. Kaplan (1975). These considerations
lead to the prediction t h a t the Spacious-Structured
category should be relatively high in preference and
both the Open-Undefined and the Blocked-Views
categories should be relatively low. Some enclosed
settings should be preferred, but those t h a t are too
cramped or lacking in spatial definition would not
be preferred. The research reviewed by Kaplan
generally supported these predictions.
238 T.R. Herzog
Ten years later not much had changed. In their
book, R. Kaplan and S. Kaplan (1989) provided es-
sentially the same analysis of spatial configuration
except for the omission of the Enclosed category.
Apparently, in those few instances where enclosure
or refuge has b e e n investigated empirically it has
not worked well as either a basis for categorization
or a preference predictor (Woodcock, 1982; Herzog,
1989).
Because most of the research on the salience of
spatial configurations involved natural settings, the
question in this study was how well the findings
would transfer to urban settings. Participants rated
color slides of urban spaces for preference. The
validity of color slides as surrogates for natural
environments was endorsed in a thorough review of
landscape simulation research (Zube et al., 1987).
The focus of each slide was on the space itself, not
on specific structures. Examples of each of Kaplan's
four spatially defined categories were included in
the sample of settings. In addition, a fifth category
that seemed prevalent in urban environments was
included. This involved corridors, views into or out
from pathways (usually streets or alleys) bordered
by tall buildings or other structures. Subjectively,
such views typically convey a strong sense of linear
perspective and are therefore spatially well defined.
Categories as seen by the participants were deter-
mined empirically via non-metric factor analysis of
the preference ratings. It was thus possible to see
how well the empirically derived categories corre-
sponded to the spatial categories proposed by
Kaplan.
It might seem trivial to have people rate settings
containing certain spatial qualities and then show
that the settings are categorized by those very qual-
ities. However, the exercise is far from trivial for
two reasons. First, there is no guarantee that what
seems salient to the researcher will also seem
salient to raters. Second, for urban settings, there is
good reason to believe that non-spatial variables
may either combine with or even override spatial
variables as bases for categorization. Two non-spa-
tial variables that have repeatedly figured promi-
nently in urban categories have been the presence
of natural elements and the age of structures de-
picted (R. Kaplan & S. Kaplan, 1989). So it is mean-
ingful, both theoretically and practically, to pose the
question of whether people, when given the oppor-
tunity to categorize on the basis of spatial configu-
ration, will do so.
To aid in characterizing categories and in the fur-
ther analysis of preference, the settings were also
rated independently on nine predictor variables.
Three of them may be considered general affor-
dances of settings in the sense described earlier.
Spaciousness, defined as the feeling of spaciousness
or room to wander, permitted an empirical assess-
ment of predictions concerning openness. Refuge,
the extent to which the setting contains possible
hiding places viewed from the outside, corresponds
closely to Appleton's (1975, 1984) use of the term.
Enclosure, the feeling of viewing the environment
from inside a hiding place, was borrowed from
Woodcock (1982) who called it primary refuge.
Thus, both possible senses of refuge, hiding places
viewed from without or within, were assessed. En-
closure, as defined in this study, was disavowed by
Appleton (cited in Woodcock, 1982) as an appropri-
ate definition of refuge. Nonetheless, because the
enclosed settings used in this study were primarily
views from within, it seemed prudent to obtain rat-
ings of enclosure.
Another group of four rated predictors was de-
rived directly from the Kaplan's model of environ-
mental preference. Their model (S. Kaplan & R. Ka-
plan, 1978, 1982; S. Kaplan, 1987; R. Kaplan & S.
Kaplan, 1989) fits within the cognitive paradigm of
Zube et al. (1982), the psychological model of Daniel
and Vining (1983), and the behavioral viewpoint of
Zube (1984). The Kaplans propose that environmen-
tal preference reactions are mediated by two cogni-
tive processes, understanding and exploration. Un-
derstanding refers to comprehending or making
sense of an environment, exploration to having
one's interest aroused and held by an environment
while being attracted toward sources of additional
information. Both processes have survival value,
and thus environments that engage both should be
preferred. Variables promoting understanding in-
clude the degree of order or organization in the im-
mediate setting (coherence) and the apparent ease
of wayfinding in the larger environment that in-
cludes the immediate setting (legibility). Explo-
ration is promoted by the richness or diversity of
the immediate setting (complexity) and by the
promise of new information if one could travel
deeper into the environment (mystery). The effec-
tiveness of mystery and coherence has been demon-
strated many times (R. Kaplan & S. Kaplan, 1989;
R. Kaplan et al., 1989), but the other two variables
have received less consistent empirical support, per-
haps because of difficulties in defining them clearly
to raters.
The last two rated predictors were included
primarily because of demonstrated relevance in the
environmental preference literature. Typicality,
defined as how good an example a setting is of
 P r e f e r e n c e for U r b a n S p a c e s
whatever category it belongs to, was an a t t e m p t to
assess the resemblance of specific settings to envi-
ronmental categories the rater knows well. Presum-
ably such familiarity should aid understanding but
might detract from exploration. As defined here, the
variable was ineffective in Herzog's (1989) study of
urban nature. However, Purcell (1986) found typi-
cality useful in accounting for preferences for the
specific reference category of churches. Under the
name 'identifiability', the sense of familiarity
evoked by a setting has been a generally positive
predictor of preference (Herzog et al., 1982; Herzog,
1984, 1987). The last predictor was the rated age of
the elements in each setting. If age is a non-spatial
basis for category formation in urban environments,
as documented earlier, ratings of age would provide
supportive evidence for such an interpretation. Age
might also be a predictor of preference, independent
of category effects, although it too failed to predict
preference in Herzog's (1989) u r b a n - n a t u r e study.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 326 undergraduate stu-
dents, 195 females and 131 males, at Grand Valley
State University. The students received extra
course credit for participation. Twenty-four sessions
of from five to 22 participants were run.
Stimuli
The settings consisted of 70 color slides of urban
environments containing examples of the five
categories of spaces discussed in the introduction:
open, undefined (n = 8); spacious, well structured
(n = 19); enclosed (n = 11); blocked views (n = 9);
and corridors (n = 23). In the author's judgement,
goodness of fit of the settings to the indicated
categories ranged from very high to marginal.
Undoubtedly, informed observers could reasonably
disagree on some of the a priori category place-
ments. Although n a t u r a l and built structures were
typically plentiful in the settings, the focal point of
the scene for compositional purposes was on the
space it contained. None of the settings contained
people since they have been found to be powerful
distractors (Herzog et al., 1976). Age of structures,
known to be a salient factor in urban preference
caegories (Herzog et al., 1976, 1982; Herzog, 1989)
ranged from very old to very new. All settings were
from the cities of Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo,
Michigan, and their suburbs
239
Procedure
Participants rated each of the 70 settings on one of
ten variables. All ratings used a five-point scale
ranging from 1 = 'not at all' to 5 = 'a great deal'.
There were nine predictor variables. Spaciousness
was defined as 'the feeling of spaciousness or depth
the scene conveys, how much room there is to wan-
der into it. To what extent does the structure of the
scene suggest t h a t one would have to go a long way
to reach its farthest point'? Refuge involved 'fea-
tures t h a t you could use to hide yourself. In other
words, to w h a t extent does the scene contain possi-
ble hiding places t h a t you are viewing from the out-
side'? By contrast, enclosure involved 'viewing the
environment from inside a hiding place ... a feeling
of being 'inside looking out' ... a strong feeling of
being enclosed in a hiding place'. Coherence was
'how well the scene 'hangs together'. How easy is it
to organize and structure the scene'? Legibility was
'how easy it would be to find your way around in the
environment depicted ... to figure out where you are
at any given moment or to find your way back to
any given point in the environment'. Complexity
was 'how much is going on in the scene, how much
there is to look at', how much 'the scene contains a
lot of elements of different kinds'. Mystery was pre-
sent when a setting 'promises more to be seen if you
could walk deeper into it'. Typicality referred to the
'extent the scene seems to be a representative exam-
ple of its class. How good an example is the scene of
whatever category it belongs to'? Age was 'how old
the elements in the scene seem to be'. The criterion
variable was preference, defined as 'how much you
like the scene, for whatever reason'.
Sessions proceeded as follows. First, five sample
slides were rated to help participants get used to
the task and the rating scale. Then participants
rated 80 slides, presented in two sets of 40 each,
with a brief intermission between sets. In both sets,
the first three and the last two slides were consid-
ered filler slides. Their purpose was to absorb any
beginning- or end-of-set effects that might have af-
fected the ratings. Both sample slides and filler
slides were chosen from the two largest a priori spa-
tial categories, spacious-structured and corridors,
because there were excess slides available in those
categories but not in the other categories. The re-
maining 70 slides from both sets yielded the data
for analysis. These 70 slides were presented in three
different orders, with each order used for 8 of
the 24 sessions. Each order of slide presentation
was used in one-third of the sessions in which each
variable was rated. One of the orders of slide
240 T.R. H e r z o g
presentation was generated randomly. The second
presentation order was the reverse of the first order,
and the third presentation order was devised by
interchanging the halves of the first order.
Eighteen of the sessions were devoted to the pre-
dictor variables. In such sessions, three predictor
variables were rated simultaneously, with each par-
ticipant rating for only one variable and approxi-
mately one-third of the group rating each variable.
Participants were aware of the other two variables
being rated during these sessions. For each order of
slide presentation, three sets of three predictors
were chosen randomly without replacement from
the pool of nine predictor variables, with the excep-
tion t h a t refuge and enclosure were not allowed
within the same set of three predictor variables.
Each such set of three predictors was used in two
sessions with its assigned order of slide presenta-
tion. Six sessions were devoted exclusively to the
criterion variable, preference. Each order of slide
presentation was used in two of these sessions.
Viewing time was 15 s per slide in all sessions.
Final sample sizes were 105 for preference, 26 for
refuge, 25 each for spaciousness, enclosure, coher-
ence, complexity, and mystery, 24 for typicality, and
23 each for legibility and age. The larger sample for
preference was necessary for the factor analysis de-
scribed below.
Results
Reliability of measurement
To evaluate reliability of measurement for each
variable, final samples were divided into half sam-
ples, and m e a n ratings for each setting were com-
puted based on each h a l f sample. The two sets of 70
mean-per-setting scores were intercorrelated for
each variable. The resultant correlations were cor-
rected by the Spearman-Brown formula to yield
split-half reliability coefficients for each variable.
The reliability coefficients ranged from 0.79 for typi-
cality to 0.98 for preference, spaciousness, and age.
The average value was 0.90. Thus, reliability of
measurement seems adequate.
Environmental categories
To discover the categories embodied in the partici-
pants' preference reactions, the preference ratings
were analyzed by non-metric factor analysis,
specifically the Guttman-Lingoes Smallest Space
Analysis III (SSA-III) (Lingoes, 1972). SSA-III is a
non-metric version of principal-axes factor analysis.
It uses squared multiple correlations in the diago-
nal of the input correlation matrix and a varimax
rotation of the final solution. The procedure finds a
solution of the user-specified dimensionality t h a t
best fits the rank order of the original correlation
matrix rather than the more stringent linear trans-
formation of the original correlations required by
metric factor analysis. Proponents of non-metric
analysis argue t h a t more stable solutions in fewer
dimensions can be found. The input matrix for this
study contained correlations ranging from -0-29 to
0.69, and 86 of them (or 4%) were negative. For
descriptive purposes, dimensional composition was
determined by including all settings with a factor
loading greater t h a n ] 0-501 on one dimension and
no loading greater t h a n ]0-451 on any other dimen-
sion. With this criterion, for each dimension con-
taining enough settings to provide a basis for inter-
pretation, all factor loadings for included settings
had the same sign. Hence, such dimensions may be
treated as clusters or categories of similar settings.
Solutions in five to 11 dimensions were examined,
and all yielded four interpretable dimensions. The
first four dimensions of the 11-dimensional solution
are described here. That solution yielded commu-
nalities ranging from 0.45 to 0.77.
The first two dimensions or categories each
contained the same number of settings (13) but
contrasted sharply in both spatial and non-spatial
characteristics. Specifically, the first category
tended toward large, open, unstructured spaces in
the foreground and older structures in the back-
ground. In contrast, the second category featured
smaller spaces t h a t were well structured in depth
and populated by more contemporary structures.
The two categories were named Open-Undefined
(Figure 1) and Well-Structured (Figure 2), respec-
tively, although clearly age was also a factor in dis-
tinguishing them. The last two categories were also
distinguishable both spatially and with respect to
age. The third category (nine settings) consisted
primarily of views from within enclosed surround-
ings and hence was named Enclosed Settings
(Figure 3). Because the enclosing surround involved
an alley in several instances, the structures tended
to appear noticeably older. The final category (seven
settings) contained of a variety of blocked views, but
the majority of them were not blocked by an ob-
struction in the immediate foreground. Typically,
one could see some distance into the setting and
was then confronted by a noticeable obstruction,
greatly reducing further visual access. An example
would be a view down an alley with the wall of a
 P r e f e r e n c e for U r b a n S p a c e s 241

FIGURE1. Scenefrom the Open-Undefinedcategory. (a)

building extending partially or completely across

the end of the alley. Sometimes the obstructing
surface appeared to seal off the end of the view (a
true cul-de-sac), but just as often it was clear that
the obstruction did not seal off the end of the view
although further visual access was severely limited.
Ages of structures varied. This category was named
B l o c k e d V i e w s (Figure 4), but clearly this is not
meant to imply foreground blocking.
Because of differences in the nature of the empiri-
cal categories, described above, and those postu-
lated a priori, and because one of the postulated
categories (corridors) did not appear in the empiri-
cal set, the correspondence between the postulated
placement of specific settings into categories and
(b)
their actual placement was not very good. Table 1
contains the frequency distribution of settings in FIGURE3. Scenes from the Enclosed-Settingscategory.
each empirical category as a function of postulated
categories. F u r t h e r discussion of this lack of corre-
spondence appears in the Discussion section.

FIGURE2. Scenefrom the Well-Structuredcategory. FIGURE4. Scenefromthe BlockedViews category.

242 T. R. H e r z o g

TABLE 1
Frequency distribution of settings in each empirical category as a function of postulated categories

Postulated categories Empirical categories

Open-Undefined Well-Structured Enclosed Settings Blocked Views

Open-Undefined 3 0 0 0
Spacious-Structured 8 4 0 0
Enclosed 0 4 2 1
Blocked Views 1 2 0 1
Corridors 1 3 7 5
Totals 13 13 9 7

One way to c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e empirical categories Table 2 contains m e a n s a n d s t a n d a r d deviations for

is to e x a m i n e differences across categories in the
m e a n r a t i n g s on predictor variables. For this pur-
pose, two t y p e s of scores were c o m p u t e d as raw d a t a
for analysis. T h e first, a category score, was simply
the m e a n r a t i n g for all settings comprising a cate-
gory. Thus, for each r a t i n g variable, e v e r y partici-
p a n t h a d a category score for each of the environ-
m e n t a l categories r e s u l t i n g from the n o n - m e t r i c
factor analysis. T h e second type of score was a
setting score, t h e m e a n for each setting based on all
p a r t i c i p a n t s who r a t e d each variable. Thus, for each
r a t i n g variable, e v e r y setting h a d a setting score.
all nine predictor variables as a function of environ-
m e n t a l category. Results for both category a n d
setting scores are included. T h e m e a n s are the s a m e
for e i t h e r type of score.
Two a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e were carried out for
each predictor variable. The first used c a t e g o r y
scores as the d e p e n d e n t variable, a n d the second
used setting scores. The first analysis allows conclu-
sions to be generalized to the p o p u l a t i o n of partici-
pants, the second analysis to the population of set-
tings. F o r both analyses, the i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e
was e n v i r o n m e n t a l category. Only effects w i t h

TABLE2
Means and standard deviations (in parentheses, for category scores, left, and setting scores, right) as a function of
environmental category for each rated variable

Variable Environmental categories

Open-Undefined Well-Structured Enclosed Settings Blocked Views

Spaciousness 3-65a 2.675 2.445 2.095

(0.60, 0.68) (0.50, 1.01) (0.72, 0.69) (0.61, 0-43)
Refuge 2.99 a 2.46 a 2.50 a 1.665
(0-83, 0.78) (0.54, 0.41) (0.53, 0.65) (0.44, 0.25)
Enclosure 1.90a 2.50ab 3.71 c 3.325c
(0.62, 0.40) (0.38, 0.81) (0.43, 1.02) (0.77, 0.64)
Coherence 3.01~ 3.655 2"64a 2"62a
(0.51, 0"29) (0.60, 0.39) (0"64, 0.42) (0.68, 0.34)
Legibility 3.29a 3.48a 2.815 3"05a5
(0.63, 0-28) (0.59, 0.42) (0.82, 0.39) (1.00, 0.31)
Complexity 3"28a 2"79ab 2.375c 1.68c
(0.58, 0.87) (0.60, 0.64) (0.50, 0.79) (0.33, 0.34)
Mystery 2-53 a 3.425 3.805 3.665
(0-79, 0.38) (0.54, 0.38) (0.67, 0.53) (0.68, 0-26)
Typicality 3.42 a 2.99a5 2.745 2.665
(0"45, 0"37) (0"80, 0"29) (0"76, 0"83) (0.78, 0"50)
Age 3.66 a 1.485 4.14 a 3.09 c
(0.38, 0-50) (0.21, 0.40) (0.34, 0.51) (0-38, 0.60)
Preference 1.98~ 3.36 b 1.68a 1.62~
(0-62, 0.33) (0.67, 0-38) (0.68, 0.48) (0.57, 0.22)

Note. For each rating variable, means not having a common subscript differ significantly at p < 0.05 in Tukey-B tests
for both category and setting scores.
 P r e f e r e n c e for U r b a n S p a c e s 243

p < 0-05 in both category- and setting-score analyses
were considered statistically significant. The analy-
ses of variance for the category effect yielded
significant differences at p < 0.01 for each predictor
variable and both types of scores. In addition, for
setting scores a multivariate analysis of Variance
was performed on all nine predictor variables as a
set. The multivariate test statistics provide further
protection against Type I errors. Such an analysis
was not possible for category scores. The multi-
variate test of the category effect yielded significant
results at p < 0.001 for all multivariate test statis-
tics (Pillai, Hotelling, Wilks).
The nature of the category effect for each predic-
tor variable was explored further by means of the
Tukey-B test for pairwise multiple comparisons
(Wike, 1971), with Kramer's (1956) modification for
unequal sample sizes where appropriate. The pat-
tern of significant (p < 0.05) pairwise differences for
both category and setting scores is summarized in
Table 2. As might be expected, the Open-Undefined
category was highest in spaciousness and lowest in
mystery. For both rating variables, the other three
categories did not differ from each other. Also as
might be expected, the Well-Structured category
was seen as high in spatial organization. It was
highest in coherence, with the other three cate-
gories not differing from each other. As for legibil-
ity, both the Well-Structured and Open-Undefined
categories were higher than the Enclosed-Settings
category, but they failed to differ from each other.
Not surprisingly, the Enclosed-Settings category
was higher in enclosure t h a n all other categories ex-
cept, curiously, the Blocked-Views category. The
latter category was higher in enclosure t h a n the
Open-Undefined category. The Blocked-Views cate-
gory was lowest in refuge, with the other three cate-
gories not differing from each other. Of the remain-
ing variables, the sharpest category differences oc-
curred for age. The Enclosed-Settings and Open-
Undefined categories were highest in age (denoting
older structures) and did not differ from each other.
The Well-Structured category was lowest in age,
with the Blocked-Views category at an intermediate
level. On complexity, the Open-Undefined and Well-
Structured categories did not differ and were each
higher t h a n the Blocked-Views category. The Open-
Undefined category was also higher than the En-
closed-Settings category. Finally, the Open-
Undefined category was higher in typicality than all
but the Well-Structured category, and no other
pairs of categories differed significantly.
The prediction of preference
Categories. The last two rows of Table 2 contain
preference means and standard deviations, for both
category and setting scores, as a function of envi-
ronmental category. Analyses of variance yielded a
significant effect of categories (p < 0.01) for both
types of scores. Tukey-B tests of the category effect
revealed t h a t the Well-Structured category was
higher in preference than the other categories,
which did not differ from each other.
Predictor variables. Table 3 presents intercorrela-
tions among the rated variables based on setting
scores for all 70 settings. The majority of the predic-
tor variables were significantly correlated with pref-
erence, but 25 of the 36 intercorrelations among
predictor variables were also significant. To under-
stand how the variables of the study worked to-
gether, multiple regression analyses, which take
correlations among predictors into account, were
performed on the setting scores with preference as
the criterion variable. The first analysis included all
70 settings, and the nine rated predictor variables

TABLE3
Intercorrelations among the rating variables for setting scores
Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(1) Preference 0.14 0.01 -0.28 0-81 0.52 0.24 0.07 0.11 -0.76
(2) Spaciousness 0.48 -0.44 0.31 0.42 0.72 -0.49 0-56 0.22
(3) Refuge -0.24 0.05 -0-10 0.74 -0.28 0.42 0.19
(4) Enclosure -0.32 -0.50 -0.43 0.53 -0.36 0-19
(5) Coherence 0.52 0.26 -0.09 0.41 -0.56
(6) Legibility 0.20 -0.37 0.28 0.32
(7) Complexity -0.43 0.51 0.13
(8) Mystery -0.43 -0.13
(9) Typicality 0-20
(10) Age

Note. For Irl > 0-23,p < 0.05; for Irl > 0.30,p < 0.01.
244 T.R. Herzog

TABLE4
Multiple regression results for preference setting scores: regression weights (B), partial correlations (r), and squared
multiple correlations (R-Sq)
All settings Category settings
(n -- 70) (n = 42)
Predictor B r B r B r

Spaciousness -0.08 -0.15 -0-06 -0.14 -0.00 -0.01

Refuge -0.03 -0-04 -0.09 -0.16 -0.09 -0.16
Enclosure 0.03 0.09 0-08 0.23 0.06 0.18
Coherence 0.67 0.59** 0.63 0.65** 0.46 0.53**
Legibility 0.36 0.39** 0.20 0.26 0.19 0.26
Complexity 0.31 0.45** 0-52 0.64** 0.41 0.55**
Mystery 0.21 0.35** 0.12 0.24 0-17 0.30
Typicality -0.12 -0.17 -0.34 -0-48** -0.30 0.45*
Age -0.29 -0.56** -0.34 -0.72** -0.24 -0.41"
Categories -- 0.47
R-Sq 0-87** 0.93** 0.95**

* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

served as predictors. The second analysis included
only the 42 settings in the environmental categories
t h a t emerged from the non-metric factor analysis.
The nine rated predictors were entered first as
a block of variables followed by a set of d u m m y
vectors representing the effect of environmental cat-
egories. The third analysis was identical to the sec-
ond except t h a t it included only the significant rated
predictors from the second analysis. The results of
the first two regression analyses are presented in
Table 4.
In the analysis of all 70 settings (left third of
Table 4), the nine rated predictors accounted for
87% of the preference variance, with significant con-
tributions from coherence, legibility, complexity,
mystery, and age. Settings high in the first four
variables but low in age (i.e. contemporary struc-
tures) were most preferred. In the analysis of the 42
category settings, summarized in the rest of the
table, two points are noteworthy. First, when only
the rated predictors were entered into the analysis
(middle third of Table 4), the pattern of significant
preditors shifted somewhat. Legibility and mystery,
although still positively related to preference, were
no longer significant predictors. In contrast, the
magnitude of the negative relationship between
typicality and preference increased to the point t h a t
typicality became a significant predictor. Second,
when environmental categories were added to the
analysis (right third of Table 4), there was a slight
(2%) but not quite significant (p = 0.065) improve-
ment in prediction, and the same four rated predic-
tors were significant. The final regression analysis,
not shown in Table 4, was identical to the analysis
just described except t h a t it included only the four
significant rated predictors. The purpose was to
see if an increase in power from the elimination of
ineffective predictors would yield a significant effect
for environmental categories when they were added
in the second step of the analysis. The answer was
yes. The partial correlation for categories rose to
0.52 (p -- 0.012).
Discussion
Environmental categories
A central question motivating this study was
whether the spatial categories proposed by S.
Kaplan (1979) for natural environments could also
be found in urban environments. More generally,
would the spatial dimensions of openness and
definition figure prominently in the categorization
of urban spaces? The answer to both questions ap-
pears to be yes. The empirically derived preference
categories of this study were sufficiently similar to
Kaplan's t h a t it was possible to borrow his category
names without doing violence to his category de-
scriptions. On the whole it is clear t h a t openness
and spatial definition can be as salient in urban set-
tings as they are in natural settings. Of course,
finding t h a t spatial features are noticed when
spaces are depicted does not answer the question of
whether such features typically have an impact on
people's perceptions of urban settings. However, the
results agree with those of Lynch and Rivkin (1959)
in suggesting t h a t an affirmative answer to t h a t
 P r e f e r e n c e for U r b a n S p a c e s
question is plausible. The extent of such impact
remains an open but researchable question.
Some discrepancies between the categories of this
study and the spatial categories originally proposed
by S. Kaplan (1979) are instructive. For example,
although Kaplan's well-structured category for nat-
ural environments was also described as spacious,
the Well-Structured category of this study was nei-
ther high nor low in rated spaciousness (mean =
2.67). It is clear from the Kaplans' more recent dis-
cussion of these issues (R. Kaplan & S. Kaplan,
1989) that structure or spatial definition is possible
at all levels of openness except for the limiting case
of blocked foreground views. Thus, the discrepancy
m a y simply reflect a reality concerning urban envi-
ronments: Structure tends to occur or be noticed at
intermediate levels of openness.
A more intriguing discrepancy concerns the
Blocked-Views category. The Kaplans' discussion of
this category (S. Kaplan, 1979; R. Kaplan & S.
Kaplan, 1989) and their photographic examples em-
phasize foreground obstructions. However, in this
study most of the blocked-view settings contained
an obstruction in the middle distance. Denial of
visual access m a y be such an important concern in
urban settings that it becomes the focal point for
categorization even when it occurs in the middle
distance. If so, the psychodynamics behind such a
concern would provide a fruitful direction for fur-
ther research. An intriguing alternative is that
viewers failed to distinguish between true cul-de-
sacs (sealed-off end points) and false ones. Instead
they interpreted both configurations as true cul-de-
sacs, potential traps, and therefore highly salient
spaces. The low refuge rating of the Blocked-Views
category is consistent with this interpretation.
Future research will be necessary to determine
whether viewers typically distinguish between true
and false cul-de-sacs.
Two apparent anomalies in the present categories
involve a lack of category differences in predictor
variables where they might have been expected.
First, the Well-Structured and Open-Undefined cat-
egories were equal in legibility. Because legibility is
supposed to tap wayfinding potential as reflected in
three-dimensional spatial structure, the Well-Struc-
tured category should have been rated higher in leg-
ibility. Either the concept or its definition may be
at fault. In discussing its poor record in recent
environmental-preference research, the Kaplans (R.
Kaplan & S. Kaplan, 1989) noted that legibility
needs further development. Coherence, the other
predictor variable involving spatial organization,
not only has the better research track record but
245
also showed the expected difference between the
Well-Structured and Open-Undefined categories in
this study.
The second anomaly involves the equality of the
Enclosed-Settings and Blocked-Views categories
with respect to rated enclosure. This may have been
a matter of statistical power because the categories
did differ in the more powerful analysis of category
scores but not in the analysis of setting scores.
What really needs explaining is the high enclosure
rating of the Blocked-Views category. In fact, many
of the blocked-view settings do convey a feeling of
enclosure in the sense of being surrounded in an
enclosed space. The view is into an enclosed space
from a vantage point near but inside the entrance
(e.g. the mouth of an alley). In contrast, the typical
view in the Enclosed-Settings category is oriented
toward the outside from a vantage point within the
enclosed space. Although the definition given to
raters stressed the latter type of view, it is possible
that they m a y have been responding to the sense of
being inside an enclosed area, which is about equal
in either type of view.
Although the categories can be interpreted
in terms of spatial factors, it is clear that non-
spatial factors are also involved. In particular,
the categories contrasted strongly in the rated age
of the elements depicted, with the Enclosed-
Settings and Open-Undefined categories at the
aged end of the continuum and the Well-Structured
category at the contemporary end. Because age
has repeatedly figured in the categorization of
urban settings in past research (e.g. Herzog et al.,
1976, 1982; Herzog, 1989) it would have been
surprising if it had not played a role in this study.
In a sense, the mix of spatial and non-spatial factors
involved in categorizing the urban spaces of this
study represents an ideal outcome. The phrase
'urban space' denotes both content (urban) and
configuration (space).
The fate of the proposed corridor category should
be noted. Corridors were included because the
author had the intuition that they seemed prevalent
in urban settings, but no corridor category emerged
from the analysis of the preference ratings. Instead,
the corridor settings were perceived in terms of
openness and spatial definition, which led to their
distribution across empirical categories as sum-
marized in Table 1. The theory-based categories
were confirmed; the intuitive category was not. So
much for intuition.
Most of the points just made may be invoked to
account for the lack of correspondence between
postulated and actual category placement of specific
246 T.R. Herzog
settings, as summarized in Table 1. For example,
if postulated corridor placements are considered
correct' p l a c e m e n t s in Table 1 (add the frequency
in the Corridors row to t h e frequency of t h e
'correct' row within each column), t h e n t h e
expected category is the modal category for all
b u t the Open-Undefined category. The m a i n
problem w i t h the Open-Undefined category is
t h a t several of t h e settings classified as spacious-
s t r u c t u r e d by t h e a u t h o r were seen i n s t e a d as
open-undefined b y the preference raters. Inspec-
tion reveals t h a t t h e v a s t majority of those
settings f e a t u r e a relatively large open a r e a in
the foreground even t h o u g h some spatial struc-
t u r i n g is also present. A p p a r e n t l y the open a r e a
w a s more salient to t h e r a t e r s t h a n t h e cues for
spatial definition. The result is t h a t the empirical
Open-Undefined category contains i n s t a n c e s in
which o p e n n e s s d o m i n a t e s s t r u c t u r a l cues, a n d
the p o s t u l a t e d s p a c i o u s - s t r u c t u r e d category h a s
to be reconceptualized as W e l l - S t r u c t u r e d b u t not
necessarily spacious.
The prediction of preference
Categories. The categories differed in preference,
with the Well-Structured category most preferred
and the other three categories less preferred and
roughly equal to each other. Apparently the cate-
gories predicted preference independently of the
rated predictors although their independent contri-
bution was marginal. The effect of categories was
significant only when non-significant rated predic-
tors were dropped from the regression analysis. The
small additional effect of categories may be a matter
of interactions among the rated predictors or it m a y
involve some variable(s) not included in the study.
An intriguing candidate is visual penetration,
defined by Ruddell et al. (1989, p. 395) as 'the extent
to which a line of sight extends uninterrupted into
or through a landscape scene'. They showed that
visual penetration was a potent predictor of scenic
beauty estimates in near-forest settings. Blocked
views clearly lower visual penetration by limiting
visual access. Woodcock (1982) suggested that
enclosure, in the sense of looking out from a hiding
place through a constricted opening (his primary
refuge), may do much the same thing. Although
Ruddell et al. did not discuss large unstructured
open areas with relatively impenetrable borders in
the background, such configurations presumably
would be judged low in visual penetration and in
preference. What has just been described are the
three lower-preference categories of this study:
Blocked Views, Enclosed Settings, and Open-
Undefined. The Well-Structured settings, by con-
trast, tend to have higher visual access and are cor-
respondingly higher in preference. Thus, visual
penetration or access m a y be worth pursuing as a
predictor variable in future studies of preferences
for urban spaces.
Predictor variables. Preference differences across
categories are largely accounted for by corresponding
differences in predictor variables. The most notable
parallels involve coherence and age. The Tukey-B
tests on category means yielded identical results
for preference and coherence. The category effect
for age was very nearly the inverse of that for
preference, the sole discrepancy being the inter-
mediate age mean for Blocked Views.
A broader view of the role of the predictor
variables reveals a pattern unlike that in earlier
studies of preference involving regression analyses
(Herzog, 1985, 1987, 1989). Specifically, the effec-
tive predictors were different for the entire set of
70 settings than for the 42 category settings (left
two-thirds of Table 4). This must mean that the
28 uncategorized settings, considered as a fifth
'category' (the 'remainder' category), differ some-
what from the regular categories in the relative
effectiveness of the predictors or in the location of
the entire category in the predictor-preference space
or both. In any event, the rated predictors can b e
divided into three groups: ineffective predictors (not
effective in either analysis), inconsistent predictors
(effective in one analysis but not the other), and
consistent predictors (effective in both analyses).
The changes that produced the inconsistent group
of predictors were fairly modest. The most dramatic
was the rise in the partial correlation for typicality
from - 0 . 1 7 in the full analysis to - 0 . 4 8 in the
analysis of category settings.
The ineffective predictors were the three affor-
dances: spaciousness, refuge, and enclosure. As a
preference predictor, spaciousness has an incon-
sistent track record (R. Kaplan & S. Kaplan, 1989).
Its successes have tended to occur in studies of
natural environments, its failures in studies of urban
environments, a point perhaps worth pursuing in
future research. Enclosure, as primary refuge, was
a negative predictor of preference for hardwood-
forest settings in Woodcock's (1982) study. Refuge
has proved ineffective in two studies (Woodcock,
1982; Herzog, 1989) besides this one. Although
inconsistent or ineffective as preference predictors,
affordances clearly play a role defining preference
categories, as noted earlier.
 P r e f e r e n c e for U r b a n Spaces
The inconsistent predictors were legibility,
mystery, and typicality. As currently defined,
legibility tends to be strongly correlated with coher-
ence (Table 3) and to be dominated by coherence in
the prediction of preference (Table 4). The same
pattern occurred in Herzog (1989). Thus, legibility
needs either or both of the following: (a) a definition
that will distinguish it empirically from coherence,
or (b) a measurement procedure that will tap into
the conceptual distinctions between the two con-
cepts. The inconsistency of mystery may stem from
several factors. The first is the low nature content of
the settings in this study. Mystery has clearly been
the most effective of the Kaplans' predictors for
natural settings (R. Kaplan & S. Kaplan, 1989), but
its effectiveness in primarily urban settings is less
well established. Second, two of the categories in
this study (Enclosed Settings and Blocked Views)
were high in mystery but low in preference (Table
2). Such categories will dilute otherwise positive
relationships between mystery and preference in a
regression analysis including only category settings.
Third, safety concerns may override mystery in
determining preference reactions for settings such
as urban alleys (Herzog & Smith, 1988). It is not
clear why typicality was an effective predictor only
in the analysis of category settings. What is more
important i s that typicality was negatively related
to preference. As noted in the introduction, typicality
was ineffective in Herzog's (1989) urban-nature
study, but ratings of 'sense of familiarity' have
generally been positive related to preference. Thus,
typicality, as defined in this study, probably is not
getting at the same thing as familiarity. It seems
prudent to withhold judgement on typicality as a
predictor of preference.
The consistent predictors were coherence, com-
plexity, and age. Coherence and complexity impli-
cate both of the Kaplan's cognitive processes,
understanding and exploration, as significant in the
prediction of preferences for urban spaces. In
general, it seems that the most preferred urban
spaces are well organized and yet contain enough
diversity to hold one's attention. Coherence has
established a track record second only to mystery as
an effective predictor of preference (R. Kaplan &
S. Kaplan, 1989). This study suggests that in urban
environments largely devoid of natural elements
coherence may well be the more important predic-
tor. Finally, the negative relationship between age
and preference in this s t u d y contrasts with the
ineffectiveness of age as a preference predictor
in Herzog's (1989) s t u d y of u r b a n n a t u r e .
Thus, although age may be associated with lower
247
preference, it need not be. Frewald (1989) found
that well-maintained older buildings were generally
more preferred than modern buildings, and this was
particularly true for older buildings with visually
rich and highly articulated facades. Clearly, age
interacts with design features and factors like
perceived maintenance or cleanliness in affecting
preference. Further exploration of the complex
relationship between age and preference should
provide a fruitful agenda for future research.
References
Appleton, J. (1975). The Experience of Landscape. London: John
Wiley.
Appleton, J. (1984). Prospect and refuge re-visited. Landscape
Journal, 3, 91-103.
Daniel, T. C. & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the as-
sessment of landscape quality. In 1. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill,
Eds., Behavior and the Natural Environment (pp. 39-83). New
York, NY: Plenum.
Frewald, D. B. (1989). Preferences for older buildings: a psycho-
logical approach to architectural design. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Percep-
tion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gregory, R. L. (1969). On how little information controls so much
behavior. In C. H. Waddington, Ed., Towards a Theoretical
Biology, 2 Sketches Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
pp. 236-247.
Herzog, T. R. (1984). A cognitive analysis of preference for field-
and-forest environments. Landscape Research, 9, 10-16.
Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for water-
scapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 225-241.
Herzog, T. R. (1987). A cognitive analysis of preference for
natural environments: mountains, canyons, deserts. Land-
scape Journal, 6, 140-152.
Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban-
nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 27-43.
Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1976). The prediction of
preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behav-
ior, 8, 627-645.
Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1982). The prediction
of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and
Environment: Behavioral and Social Issues, 5, 43-59.
Herzog, T. R. & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery, and
environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20,
320-344.
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A
Psychological Perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental
preference: a comparison of four domains of predictors.
Environment and Behavior, 21,509-530.
Kaplan, S. (1975). An informal model for the prediction of
preference. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush & J. G. Fabos, Eds.,
Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources.
Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, pp. 92-101.
Kaplan, S. (1979). Concerning the power of content-identifying
methodologies. In T. C. Daniel & E. H. Zube, Eds., Assessing
amenity resource values, pp. 4-13. USDA Forest Service
General Technical Report RM-68.
248 T.R. Herzog
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental
preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and
Behavior, 19, 3-32.
Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (Eds.). (1978). Humanscape: En-
vironments for People. Belmont, CA: Duxbnry (Division of
Wadsworth) (Ann Arbor, MI: Ulrichs).
Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment:
Functioning in an Uncertain World. New York, NY: Praeger.
Kramer, C. Y. (1956). Extension of multiple range tests to group
means with unequal numbers of replications. Biometrics, 12,
307-310.
Lingoes, J. L. (1972). A general survey of the Guttman-Lingoes
nonmetric program series. In R. N. Shepard, A. K. Romney &
S. B. Nerlove, Eds., Multidimensional Scaling. New York, NY:
Seminar Press, vol. 1, pp. 52-68.
Lynch, K. & Rivkin, M. (1959). A walk around the block. Land-
scape, 8, 14-24.
Purcell, A. T. (1986). Environmental perception and affect: a
schema discrepancy model. Environment and Behavior, 18,
3-30.
Ruddell, E. J., Gramann, J. H., Rudis, V. A. & Westphal, J. M.
(1989). The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-
view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behavior,
21,383-412.
Wike, E. L. (1971). Data Analysis. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
Woodcock, D. M. (1982). A functionalist approach to environmental
preference. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Zube, E. H. (1984). Themes in landscape assessment theory.
Landscape Journal, 3, 104--110.
Zube, E. H., Sell, J. C. & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception:
research, application, and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.
Zube, E. H., Simcox, D. E. & Law, C. S. (1987). Perceptual land-
scape simulations: history and prospect. Landscape Journal, 6,
62-80.
Manuscript received 10 September 1991
Revised manuscript received 31 March 1992