SYNTHESIZING MAJOR PERSPECTIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: A SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL

APPROACH *

Rudolf H. Moos

Professor, Department of' Psychiatry

Director, Social Ecology Laboratory
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
and the
Veterans Administration Hospital
Palo Alto, California 94304

The Need for ~ Broad Perspective

The current upsurge of interest in the human environment is remarkable. Jordan (1)
notes that more books treating man and his environment from a holistic and ecolog-
ical point of view have appeared within the past few years than appeared during
the prior three decades. Within the broader society, this interest is largely due
to technological advances whose "side effects" raise critical issues about the
delicate ecological balance existing on "Spaceship Earth". Major human problems
such as environmental deterioration, water and air pollution, increasing population
and population density, and resource depletion specifically in relation to food,
have aroused grave concern.

New developments in the social and behavioral sciences are reflecting these con-
cerns. Architects and city planners focus on the optimum construction and physical
organization of urban centers and new towns. Human ecologists and geographers
focus on the ways in which human communities adapt and grow in their unique sur-
roundings. Psychologists and sociologists focus on designing environments that
will maximize human growth, effective functioning, and competence.

An integrated perspective regarding the human environment is essential for the

central task of the social, behavioral and biological sciences. This task may be
broadly conceived as furthering man's struggle to create an optimum human environ-
ment. The arrangement of environments is probably the most powerful currently
available technique for influencing behavior. From one point of view, every insti-
tution in our society sets up conditions that it hopes will maximize certain types
of behavior and/or certain directions of personal growth. Families, hospitals,
prisons, business organizations, secondary schools, universities, communes, groups
and, for that matter, entire societies are all engaged in arranging environmental
conditions to maximize certain intended effects. There is, of course, serious dis-
agreement about which effects should be maximized and about which environmental
conditions maximize them.

*Supportedin part by NIMH Grant MH16026, NIAAA Grant AA00498 and Veterans
Administration Research Project MRIS 5817-01.

211
212 / PROBLEMS IN HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH

What are the major ways in which environments and their impacts have been concept-
ualized? In this paper we briefly discuss six major trends which underlie the
recent upsurge of interest in man's surroundings. We then attempt to identify cer-
tain recurrent issues and to synthesize different approaches to man-environment
relations into a social ecological perspective.

The First Trend: The Rise of Advanced Civilizations

-- --- --- -- - - -
Man has lived on earth for at least two million years. But the earliest recorded
civilizations date back only about 6,000 years. What is it that has impelled--or
allowed--man to develop higher civilizations? The British historian Arnold Toynbee
asks this question in his monumental 12 volume STUDY OF HISTORY (2). He first
tries race, and then environment, as explanatory factors. Upon analysis he discards
both factors in favor of a relational theory of man and milieu.

Toynbee identifies the major civilizations of which we have knowledge: the Egyptian
and Minoan ih Europe and the Near East, the Inca and Mayan in the Americas, and so
on. He finds that two civilizations were created by contributions from three dif-
ferent races, nine by contributions from two different races and ten by the contri-
butions of a single race. Both white men and men of color have created the great
civilizations of the past. On this evidence, Toynbee rejects the idea that the
development of great human civilizations depends upon a particular race.

Can the environment explain the genesis of advanced civilizations? Is it the geo-
graphic and/or climatic conditions in which human societies have lived that account
for the fact that great civilizations have emerged in some cases but not in others?
Toynbee rejects the environment as the explanatory factor since he finds that simi-
lar environments have not necessarily given rise to similar human cultures. For
example, the vast grasslands of Europe and Asia have given rise to a nomadic socie-
ty. However, the prairies of North America, the pampas of Argentina and the vast
Australian grasslands have not. Some historians believe that it was in part the
fertile river bed of the Nile valley which gave rise to the Egyptian civilization.
Toynbee points out (but there is some debate about this) that a similar environment
exists in the valleys of the Rio Grade and the Colorado River in the Southwestern
United States. These river valleys did not give rise to great civilizations.

Toynbee suggests that the histories of individuals, of communities and of entire

civilizations fall into successive stages. In each stage some groups of people are
confronted by a specific challenge which imposes an ordeal. Different individuals
react in different ways to these common ordeals. The majority succumb. Some just
barely manage to survive. Some, however, discover a response to the challenge which
not only allows them to cope with the ordeal of the moment but which puts them in a
favorable position for undergoing the next ordeal. Other people follow these leaders
into the next stage of civilization. Toynbee proposes the basic idea of challenge
and response as a mechanism stimulating the evolutionary process. The role of the
"external factor", i. e., the environment, is to supply the "inner creative factor"
with an adequately challenging stimulus sifficient to evoke a creative response.
The challenge of the environment is a necessary condition for man to grow and to
develop higher civilizations. It is the stimulus of the battle which allows people
to prove their potential.
 SYNTHESIZING MAJOR PERSPECTIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT / 213

:-he Second Trend: Evolution and Human Ecology

~uman ecology developed mainly out of Charles Darwin's evolutionary perspective.

:he two essential elements in Darwinian theory are variation in the reproduction
and inheritance of living organisms and natural selection, or the survival of the
fittest. One factor is internal and one is external. The inner factor, variation,
is conceptualized as positive and creative. It produces the variations which are
needed for man's progress. The external factor, natural selection, is conceptual-
ized as negative and destructive. It eliminates the harmful, the less fit, the less
useful variations. It leaves the beneficial, the more fit or the more useful vari-
ations to develop and multiply. Living organisms exist in the "web of life" in
which they "struggle for existence" in relation to the environment. This process
fits and adapts the individual to the particular character of its environment. Thus
the environment has a limiting or constraining impact on the organism.

The sociologists of the "Chicago school" of the 1920's and 30's coined the term
human ecology. They applied the theoretical schemes of plant and animal ecology to
the study of human communities. They believed that competition was the basic pro-
cess in human relationships. This largely involved a struggle for space. But sur-
vival of the group demands that competition be tempered and some degree of mutual
cooperation practiced. Men thus form interdependent or "symbiotic" relationships.
Robert Park (3) viewed human society as organized on two levels: the biotic (bio-
logical) and the cultural. The struggle for existence results in the organization
of the biotic level of society and determines the spatial distribution of people.
The cultural level of society, on the other hand, is based on communication and con-
sensus among people. The biotic level of human organization was initially thought
to be the proper concern of human ecology. Cultural factors were not included in
the first ecological investigations.

Some authors saw human ecology not as a branch of sociology, but rather as a general
perspective useful for the scientific study of social life. Human ecology is dis-
tinguished from plant and animal ecology specifically by the unique characteristics
of man and the human community. Unlike plants and animals, human beings can con-
struct their own environment. They are not necessarily attached to the immediate
environment in which they are placed by nature. Men also have an elaborate techno-
logy and culture. They are regulated by conscious controls, by rules, norms, laws
and formal organizations. At the minimum, these factors introduce complications in
the study of human ecology which are not present in the plant and animal worlds.

Thus human ecology was slowly reconceptualized as a social and cultural science.
According to Hawley (4) the unique aspect of human ecology is the study of communal
adaptation. Adaptation to the conditions of the physical environment is facilitated
by adaptation to (and cooperation with) other living beings. Human beings confront
the environment as a "human aggregate" and make cooperative efforts at adaptation.
It is this communal adaptation which is the distinctive subject matter of ecology.
Human ecology is concerned with studying aggregate populations of human beings
rather than with studying individuals. The distinctive hypothesis of human ecology
is that the human community is an essential adaptive mechanism in man's relation
to the environment.
214 / PROBLEMS IN HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH

The Third Trend: Environmental Determinants of Health and Disease

The notion that the physical and social environment influence health and disease
has a long and varied history. For example, the apparent influence of various
occupations on health was already noted in Greek and Roman times. The notion that
various diseases and plagues occur more frequently in densely settled cities,
partly through the "corruption of the air" (climate) and through rapid population
growth was prevalent in the Middle Ages.

The fields of public health and psychosomatic medicine grew out of these notions.
They were based on the idea that social, economic and other environmental conditions
have an important impact on health and disease. The final link that brought the
field of public health into being was "that the steps taken to promote health and
to combat disease must be social as well as medical". (5) The notion was that pub-
lic health would help care for society by alleviating environmental conditions
which adversely affected health.

The psychosomatic perspective classically asserts that the emotional experience of

an individual can affect his bodily functions, his health status and the onset,
course and treatment of his disease. This formulation immediately links to the
individual's environment, since emotional experiences are aroused by thecharacteris-
tics of the social environment in which one lives. Recent studies have sho~~ that
just about every physiological system in the body may be affected by psychological
and social environmental stimuli. To put it another way, our reactions to the
situations we encounter in our daily lives affect our internal bodily processes
in important ways. This is supported by the frequent clinical observation that dis-
eases may get better or worse depending on the life situation of the patient. (6)

Sargent (7) has suggested that health is not a characteristic of man per se. Man
and environment constitute a system. Health is a process of man-environment inter-
action within a specific ecological context. In this view, health is defined in
terms of the adaptive capacity of man in relation to environmental circumstances.
When adaptation succeeds, man can be considered healthy. When adaptation fails, he
is ill. Health is thus the "ability of the organism to function effectively within
a given environment ..• since the environment keeps changing, good health is a process
of continuous adaptation to the myriad of microbes, irritants, pressures and pro-
blems which daily challenge man." (8)

The Fourth Trend: The Rise of Modern Organizations

The classical school of organizational theory grew out of the analysis of govern-
ment bureaucracies in Europe. This model emphasizes the formal organizational
chart and the proper and formal chain of command depicted on such a chart. The
chart indicates a division of labor and implies that each worker efficiently per-
forms a specialized task. Communication takes place through the upwards hierarchy
so that the apex of the structure, the president or board of directors, can control,
direct and unify the tasks towards some goal. Workers throughout the hierarchy are
assumed to be motivated primarily by material rewards, which therefore are to be
manipulated so as to correspond closely to workers' output. Such a reward
structure was expected to provide the maximum motivation to productivity. Thus the
 SYNTHESIZING MAJOR PERSPECTIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT / 215

environmental factors of formal organizational structure and adequate incentives

(pay) were thought to be directly linked to worker productivity. (9)

This model was plagued by evidence that informal social networks grow up in organi-
zations and that these networks are important communication channels, bypassing and
deliberately avoiding the formal chain of command. The consequences of these in-
formal communication channels clearly have an impact on the control and direction
of the organization. Thus the human relations school grew up in reaction to the
classical model. This model emphasized communication among workers, participative
decision-making and democratic leadership. In this view, informal communication
and the informal social environment were more directly related to worker product-
ivity than were formal communication networks, physical conditions of workers or
exact monetary incentives. (10)

Many people have begun to think about the pervasiveness of bureaucratic organi-
zations and the importance of understanding their impact on workers and society.
For example, workers at the lower end of an organizational hierarchy may suffer
from poorer mental health, less job satisfaction, less self-esteem and security,
and develop more dependency and passivity than those at higher levels of the organi-
zation. In addition, evidence suggests that a leadership style based on trust and
participation is more effective than an authoritarian style.

The Fifth Trend: Experimental Psychology and Personality Theory

The idea that environmental factors affect man's behavior, attitudes and moods is a
recurrent one in experimental psychology and personality theory. Henry Murray (11)
developed a complex personality theory which included both the familiar concept of
individual needs (e.g., achievement, affiliation, autonomy) and the less familiar
concept of environmental press. The concept. of need represents the significant
internal or personal determinants of behavior. The concept of press represents the
significant external or environmental determinants of behavior. Murray was one of
the first psychologists to construct a systematic conceptualization of environmental
forces which might affect individual behavior. His basic contribution, the notion
of environmental press, led to the development of techniques to measure the social
climates of environments.

Roger Barker's work on ecological psychology developed out of the intellectual

tradition fostered by Kurt Lewin and Egon Brunswick. Barker developed a theory
which included elements of Brunswick's emphasis on the ecological setting of be-
havior and elements of Lewin's emphasis on the psychological environment. Lewin
felt that it was impossible to make predictions about behavior directly from know-
ledge about the non-psychological environment, i.e., the preperceptual or ecological
environment. It was for this reason that he developed a system of purely psycho-
logical constructs. However, it is obvious that events which occur in the ecolo-
gical environment have an important impact on individual behavior. But Lewin had
no adequate conceptual bridge to link these two fields, i.e., psychology and eco-
logy. As Barker puts it, "who can doubt that changes in our environment ranging
from new levels of radiation to increased numbers of people, to new kinds of medi-
cines and new kinds of social organizations, schools and governments are inexorably
changing our behavior, and that our new behavior is in turn altering our environ-
ment". (12)
216 / PROBLEMS IN HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH

There is another method of analyzing the environment which is an outgrowth of the

development of classical conditioning. Pavlov showed that environmental stimuli
could acquire specific meaning through their association with a primary reward,
e.g., food. A hungry dog will salivate on seeing and smelling food. This is a
"natural" response which develops out of the animal's continuous interaction with
his environment. A hungry dog will not "naturally" salivate when it hears the
sound of a bell. Pavlov found that if a bell sounded either just before or during
the presentation of food, a dog would learn to salivate when the bell sounded even
in the absence of food. This very simple experiment provided a mechanism by which
environmental stimuli could "acquire" new meaning. A thoroughgoing environmental-
ism developed in American psychology on the basis of this principle. If a dog can
be conditioned to salivate to the sound of a bell, why cannot a human child be con-
ditioned to become fearful, or dominant or aggressive?

It was out of this intellectual tradition that B. F. Skinner developed his theory
of operant conditioning. From Skinner's perspective, people vary their behavior
according to the rewards they receive after making an appropriate response. This
positive reinforcement may take the form of attention, approval, submission, and
so on. Behavior may also be altered through negative reinforcers, e.g., disappro-
val, contempt, ridicule and insult. People vary their behavior primarily because
the reinforcement consequences for particular behaviors vary. For example, if
aggressive behavior is rewarded in school but punished at home, then it is likely
that a child will be aggressive in school but not at home.

The Sixth Trend: Architecture and Environmental Psychology

Concern with the effects of architectural artifacts on human behavior grew out of
the philosophy of functionalism. Functionalism is the central tenet of modern or
20th century architecture. In reaction to the gingerbread, cornices and other or-
nate frills plastered onto the exterior of buildings in the 19th century, the mod-
ern school stated that "form follows function." Architects were to concentrate on
building efficient functional offices, factories and so forth.

One of the most famous early exponents of this philosophy was Walter Gropius. (13)
His distinctive office and public buildings have been copied by many designers.
The epitome of the functionalist design used by Gropius is the rectangular office
building, supported by a central core of reinforced concrete and surrounded on the
exterior by an expanse of glass. In addition to designing many such buildings,
Gropius founded a school for architects called the Bauhaus. The Bauhaus emphasized
the essential unity between engineers, scientists and architects.

Another well-known exponent of functionalism was Le Corbusier, who coined the

phrase, "form follows function." Unfortunately, some of Le Corbusier's estheti-
cally dramatic designs for houses were completely unworkable from a housekeeping
point of view. The problem was that in order for form to be adequately united
with function the architect had to know all of the functions of a building, all of
the activities to be performed in it. Also, he had to know the physical spaces and
devices which would optimize performance of these functions. Architects in practice
found that it was impossible to anticipate all of the activities to be performed in
the physical space. Even for those activities which were anticipated they did not
 SYNTHESIZING MAJOR PERSPECTIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT / 217

understand the behavioral consequences of designs, furniture arrangements

and other environmental conditions. Thus they could not design the optimum physical
space for the anticipated activities and fucntions.

The beginning of a solution to this problem was to make certain that the design
allowed for performance of anticipated activities. The proper approach was to draw
up a comprehensive list of the activities anticipated in the designed space and then
to create a design which allowed those activities. (14) The search for optimum
functional design could follow from these beginnings, with the aid of social sci-
entists in understanding the behavioral and psychological effects of designs.

A second tradition of concern with the effects of architecture grew from psychiatry.
In the 19th century, Thomas Kirkbride (15) found existing mental hospitals depress-
ing in appearance. He was concerned that this would adversely affect patients dir-
ectly, and indirectly through their visitors who would also be affected by the de-
pressing buildings. This concern led Kirkbride to design a better mental hospital.
His design has been extensively copied in the nation's state mental hospitals. Con-
cern with psychiatric architecture and its behavioral effects has become much more
apparent in the last two decades. (16)

A third strand of interest in architectural effects on behavior has grown out of

the urban renewal-public housing movement. Crime and physical and mental illnesses
in the slums of industrial cities contributed to the growth of a massive public
housing program. Rehousing thousands of families in clean, sanitary, modern and
frequently high-rise facilities cleaned up the slum neighborhoods, making downtown
a more viable residential area, and providing adequate space and working plumbing
to thousands of families.

Yet problems of disease and crime were not alleviated by this program. By the mid-
dle of the 20th century it was becoming clear that many of the continuing diffi-
culties were directly due to the poor design of the new public housing projects,
particularly the massive high rise structures. Schorr (17) traces the development
of this awareness of the inadequacies of high rise projects and the links between
the architecture. the crowded living conditions and the behavioral and social con-
sequences. Social scientists became increasingly interested in the consequences
of the design of physical spaces when they were called on to evaluate the effects
of public housing programs and the sources of the failure of these programs.

A Synthesis of Perspectives: A Social Ecological Approach

\
We have briefly discussed six broad trends which underlie current interest in the
environment. We are currently attempting to draw concepts from these six trends
and to integrate them from a particular perspective, "a social ecological approach".
There are several points of special emphasis which distinguish this social eco-
logical approach from the trends discussed above. (18)

1) An attempt is made to understand the impact of the environment from the per-
spective of the individual. In human ecology the unit of study is the entire com-
munity, which is seen as an adaptation to nature. In Toynbee's perspective the
unit of study is an entire civilization. In a social ecological approach the basic
218 / PROBLEMS IN HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH

unit of study is the individual. It is finally the individual who reacts to the
weather, who must adapt to the physical layout of the city, who must cope with the
bureaucratic structure of large organizations, who is influenced by the reward
structure of his social environment, and so forth.

For example, we talk of the unlimited capacity of man to change and control his
environment. But is this actually the case? The answer depends on the particular
perspective one takes. Certainly man can build and tear down cities. But you and
I cannot change the physical environment of New York City or of San Francisco. We
must essentially accept these cities and their environments for what they are. In
this very basic sense each individual must adapt to the currently existing environ-
ment. From the perspective of a large society much of the environment can be con-
trolled and changed. But from the perspective of a single individual there are
only small "bits and pieces" of the environment which are under personal control.
(19)

2) A social ecological approach attempts to synthesize the study of the physical

and social environment. Its concern is with the basic unity of the milieu. The
impact of one aspect of the physical environment depends on other aspects of the
physical environment. Heat affects people more under crowded conditions, and smog
always seems more irritating when it is hot. The impact of one dimension of the
social environment depends on other aspects of the social environment. Employee
absenteeism and sickness are usually hIgher in larger work groups, but this may not
occur under conditions of high cohesiveness and autonomy. Further, the impact of
the physical environment (e.g., nois~ depends on aspects of the social environment
(e.g., whether or not the noise is relevant to necessary task performance). And
the impact of the social environment (e.g., authority and status) depends on
characteristics of the physical environment (e.g., the arrangement and spacing of
furniture in an office). Physical and social environments are inextricably related
and must be studied together.

3) A social ecological approach emphasizes individual adaptation, adjustment and

coping. How does the individual handle environmental stress? How do people cope
with the changing human condition? This concern with human adaptation leads to
concern with the mechanisms by which the environment acts on man. How does the
environment exert its impact? There are five different yet related conceptions of
how the environment works in the major trends discussed above. These conceptions
vary on a "positive-negative" dimension, i. e., they vary from seeing the environ-
ment as essentially negative and stressful to seeing it as basically stimulating
and challenging.

Environments may be seen as actively stressful. A stressful or "bad" environment

may cause illness and/or premature death (the disease model). It may stunt physi-
cal and personal growth (maternal deprivation). Or it may "cause" pathological
reactions such as crime and mental illness. In this conception, the environment
is active and may have very strong impact. Too much responsibility and pressure
may facilitate a heart attack. High population density may result in stress which
in turn facilitates pathology.

The environment may be seen as a limiting, resisting, or inhibiting force, i.e., it

 SYNTHESIZING MAJOR PERSPECTIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT / 219

delimits what is likley to occur. One cannot sit down in a room without chairs.
One cannot easily write when there are no writing spaces. Friendly behavior is in-
hibited in a hostile environment and hostility is inhibited in a friendly environ-
ment. This notion of the environment basically derives from evolution and human
ecology. In this view, the environment limits and constrains what man can do.

The environment may select certain living organisms or people by favoring certain
characteristics. This notion comes directly from Charles Darwin's idea of natural
selection. The environment "selects" or favors stronger or more dominant animals
since these animals have reproductive superiority and thus leave more progeny.
This is exactly what happens in "Social Darwinism." The social environment selects
or favors certain people (or civilizations) because their characteristics (e.g.,
assertiveness or aggressiveness) give them specific adaptive advantage.

The environment may be seen as a "releaser" of man's capacities. The environment

supports or allows behavior to occur. The environment offers opportunities for
action. The provision of a chair allows one to sit, and the provision of a table
to write. This notion is often carried one step further in the idea that environ-
mental stimuli may "elicit" a particular behavior. An interesting picture or
"conversation piece" elicits personal interaction. A cohesive social enVirOTIrlent
elicits friendly and supportive behavior.

Finally, the environment may be seen as an active and positive force. It may im-
pose demands, but these demands stimulate and challenge the individual. It facili-
tates personal and social growth. This, of course, is Toynbee's view of the role
of the environment in the development of civilizations. It is the human relations
perspective on personal development in bureaucratic organizations. It is the
"stimulus enrichment" perspective which argues that an environment full of novelty
and variety actively enhances growth. A social ecological approach attempts to
conceptualize the mechanisms to more fully understand the ways in which the
environment "acts" on man.

4) There is a practical applied orientation to a social ecological approach.

Individuals who are aging and/or who have serious crippling illnesses often care-
fully delimit and restrict the envirolUllents they enter. This implies a withdrawal
and limitation of growth. How can we organize environments in which these indi-
viduals can maximize their functioning and personal growth?

Further, people seek information to help them select "congruent" and satisfying
environments. People actively seek information about environments to enhance the
probability that these environments will be satisfactory for them. Students acti-
vely select universities; employees actively select work organizations. A social
ecological approach seeks to help individuals by providing more accurate and com-
plete information about existing environments and environmental choices. The
approach also seeks to utilize this information to enhance constructive change.

5) A social ecological approach has an explicit value orientation. This approach

is not simply an approach for science. It is also a humanistic approach by which
to benefit mankind. A social ecological approach is dedicated to increasing the
220 / PROBLEMS IN HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH

amount of control individuals have over their environments. It is dedicated to the

question of how environmental planners can plan environments and still avoid acting
as agents of social control. It is dedicated to increasing individual freedom of
choice in selecting environments.

We conceive of social ecology as the multidisciplinary study of the impacts that

physical and social environments have on human beings. Its primary concern is with
the enhancement of ' human environments to enhance human'life. It is linked to trad-
itional concerns of human ecology in its emphasis on the measurement of objective
physical characteristics of environments and in its emphasis on the short-term
evolutionary and adaptive consequences of these environments. It differs from the
traditional concerns of human ecology in that its unit of study is the individual
rather than the human aggregate or community.

Social ecology is linked to traditional concerns of the behavioral sciences, parti-

cularly psychology and sociology, in its emphasis on the importance of the social
environment, and in its explicit consideration of environmental impacts on psycho-
logical variables such as self-esteem and personal development. It is distinct
from traditional concerns in the behavioral sciences in its explicit emphasis on
the physical environment in interaction with the social environment.

Social ecology is linked to traditional concerns in psychiatry, medictne and epi-

demiology in its focus on the identification of dysfunctional or pathological
reactions (e.g., illness, accidents, suicide, crime) and their relationships to
environmental variables. It is distinct from traditional concerns in these areas
in its focus on the adaptive and growth-enhancing influence of environmental
variables.

Thus a social ecological approach relates to ongoing areas of concern in existing

fields of inquiry. It is the range and interconnection of environmental variables
generally studied in isolation which gives this approach a diverse, robust and
socially relevant focus. A social ecological approach provides a di~tinctive
"point of entry" by which human environments and their impacts on human functioning
may be studied. (20)(21)
 SYNTHESIZING MAJOR PERSPECTIVES ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT / 221

References

(1) Jordan, P. "A Real Predicament," SCIENCE, 175, pages 977-978, 1972.

(2) Toynbee, A. THE STUDY OF HISTORY, Vol. 5, pages 1-12, Oxford University Press,
New York, 1962.

(3) Park, R. "Human Ecology," in G. Theodorson (Ed.) STUDIES IN HUMAN ECOLOGY,

Row Peterson & Co., Evanston, Ill., 1961.

(4) Hawley, A. HUMAN ECOLOGY, Ronald Press, New York, 1950.

(5) Rosen, G. "The Evolution of Social Medicine," in H. Freeman, S. Levine and

L. Reeder (Eds.), HANDBOOK OF MEDICAL SOCIOLOGY, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963 (page 36, for quote).

(6) Insel, P. and Moos, R. HEALTH AND THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT, D.C.Heath, Lexing-
ton, Mass., 1974.

(7) Sargent, F. "Man-environment: Problems for Public Health," AMERICAN JOURNAL

OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 62, pages 628-633, 1972.

(8) Dubos, R. and Pines, M. HEALTH AND DISEASE, Life Science Library, Chicago,
Ill.,1965.

(9) Perrow, C. COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS: A CRITICAL ESSAY, Scott Foresmann & Co.,
Glenview, Ill., 1972.

(10) Etzioni, A. MODERN ORGANIZATIONS, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
1964.

(11) Murray, H. EXPLORATIONS IN PERSONALITY, Oxford University Press, New York,

1938.

(12) Barker, R. "On the Nature of the Environment," JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ISSUES,
19, pages 17-38, 1963 (quote on page 19).

(13) Gropius, W. BAUHAUS 1919-1928, Branford, Boston, Mass., 1969.

(14) Lipman, A. "The Architectural Belief System and Social Behavior," BRITISH
JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 20, pages 190-204, 1969.

(15) Kirkbride, T. ON THE CONSTRUCTION, ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS OF

HOSPITALS FOR THE INSANE, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1880.

(16) Good, L., Siegel, S. and Bay, A. THERAPY BY DESIGN, Charles Thomas, Spring-
field, Ill., 1965.
222 / PROBLEMS IN HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH

(17) Schorr, A. SLUMS AND SOCIAL INSECURITY: AN APPRAISAL OF THE EFFECTIVENESS

OF HOUSING POLICIES IN HELPING TO ELIMINATE POVERTY IN THE UNITED STATES,
Social Security Administration, Division of Research and Statistics, Research
Report #1, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. US Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1963.

(18) Moos, R. and Inse1, P. (Eds.) ISSUES IN SOCIAL ECOLOGY: HUMAN MILIEUS,
National Press (Mayfield Publishing Co.), Palo Alto, Calif., 1974.

(19) Michelson, W. MAN AND HIS URBAN ENVIRONMENT: A SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACH,

Addison Wesley, Redding, Mass., 1970.

(20) Moos, R. EVALUATING TREATMENT ENVIRONMENTS: A SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL APPROACH,

Wi1ey-Interscience, New York, 1974.

(21) Moos, R. EVALUATING CORRECTIONAL AND COMMUNITY SETTINGS, Wi1ey-Interscience,

New York, 1975.