Ecological & Restorative Theory

For class, my classmate Ashley and I partnered up to discuss Ecological and Restorative Theory.  I was happy to present on the topic because I honestly didn’t know much about it.  I’d like to present some of the topics we presented to our class and what I found particularly interesting.

Despite the fact that we are facing increasing environmental problems, we continue to behave in ways that are damaging to our own health and to the planet.  It is argued by many that our disconnection with the natural world may be contributing to our planet’s destruction. Global warming, pollution, species extinction and other environmental problems do not just happen.  Arguments of Global Warming aside, the point is this: human beings release chemicals into the land, air, and water every minute of the day and most of us do it without any thought of possible consequences.

The fact that people do not always behave environmentally does not necessarily mean they are not concerned. Although many people are aware of and care about environmental problems, this just isn’t always reflected in their behavior.  In an effort to understand this discrepancy, psychologists have examined the…

• Motivation,
• Attitudes
• Values
• and Beliefs

…of why some people engage in environmentally responsible behavior and why others do not.

Arguments exist stating that humans possess an innate need to affiliate with other living things. The biophilia hypothesis attempts to explain the human desire to relate to the natural environment. Humans began living in cities, separated from the natural world, relatively late in our history.  It is considered unlikely that we have erased all the learning about nature’s value embedded in our biology.  Evidence of the biophilia hypothesis lies in the popularity of outdoor wilderness activities and our fondness for natural scenery. Despite this evident attraction, there is considerable variability in the extent to which individuals are drawn to nature.

The understanding of our interconnectedness with the earth and sense of inclusion in nature is often referred to as our ecological identity or ecological self.  The easiest way to explain this is that damage to the planet is seen as damage to the self.

The Importance of Nature

Benefits of nature date back centuries and crosses all cultures.  The use of nature as a healing mechanism has only recently been applied to the healthcare environment because healthcare is becoming much more patient centered.  Researchers have discovered that environmental features can play a significant role in health outcomes by:

• Reducing anxiety
• Lowering blood pressure
• Lessening pain
• Shortening hospital stays

Ecological restorative theory is an emerging study, so researchers are searching for sound and credible information that proves gardens as an efficient and cost effective way to improve health outcomes and patient satisfaction.  However, it is believed that nature helps health outcomes by providing restoration from stress.  Stress is typically an outcome itself and can affect other outcomes as well.

Unfortunately, stress is considered a major problem in healthcare.  Patients, visitors and staff can all suffer from stress, sometimes due to the physical environment itself.  Hospitals are usually thought of as uncomfortable and unpleasant, which can add additional stress.  How many of you feel that hospitals are unpleasant?  I’ll admit that I typically find the environment within a hospital uncomfortable and bland aesthetically.  Typically I’m overwhelmed by how dreary and dated the environment feels… and that only makes me want to get out of there as soon as possible!

Sources:

Dancoff, J. (2000) Healthy Seniors: Gardening for Health. Retrieved from <http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1738.50891&gt;

Marcus, C. C., Barnes, M., & Ulrich, R. (1999). Effects of Gardens on Health Outcomes: Theory and Research. In Healing gardens. John Wiley and Sons.

Nisbet, Elizabeth K., John M. Zelenski, and Steven A. Murphy. “The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking Individuals’ Connection With Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior.” Environment and Behavior 41.5 (2008): 715-40. SAGE Publications. Web. <http://online.sagepub.com&gt;.

Zeisel, John. “Treatment Effects of Healing Gardens for Alzheimer’s: A Difficult Thing to Prove.” Edinburgh Garden Paper: 1-6. Print.

Filed under: Environment, Theory, Architecture, biophilia hypothesis, ecological theory, healing gardens, interior design, landscape design, restorative theory

Masculine and Feminine Perspectives

For class, my classmate Heather and I partnered up to discuss Gender Theory & Environments: Masculine and Feminine Perspectives.  I’ve always been interested in gender differences and how they relate to design, so I was thrilled we actually got to present on the topic.  In this blog post, I’d like to present some of the information we covered, particularly what I found to be especially interesting.

“In the 19th century the private interior space of the middle-class home was increasingly defined as feminine territory, the antithesis of the public, external world of work peopled by men.  Within the domestic arena, however, the key rooms tended to be further grouped to either side of a male-female divide.”

The middle-class culture that came about in Britain and America as a result of urbanization, industrialization, and strong economic growth imagined itself as existing in two complementary, but separate spheres: the public and the private. These spheres were roughly commensurate with binary gender distinctions. The public sphere belonged to men: it was the sphere of business and money-making, of politics and empire building, of industry and struggle. The private sphere, on the other hand, was considered to be a feminine preserve: it was the space of the home and the hearth, of sympathy and nurture, of simple piety and child-rearing.

Within the private home, rooms begin to take on gender identities as well.  For both masculine and feminine, each room-type was minutely codified in terms of its function, contents and décor.

• Masculine Rooms included the hall, library, business, billiard and smoking rooms.  The characteristics of such spaces were serious, substantial, dignified (but not ostentatious) and dark toned.
• Feminine Rooms included the boudoir, music room, morning room and bedroom and were characterized as lighter or colorful, refined, delicate and decorative.

The next generations of women in the modern period were the suffragettes of the first two decades and then the flappers of the twenties. This was a period when women finally saw the political implementation of a number of equal-rights issues, particularly the vote.  The Jazz Age of the twenties followed, a time when women began to rebel against earlier conventions for proper female behavior, a rebellion exemplified in both changing fashions and changing manners (smoking, drinking, sexual experimentation, etc.).

Also of importance at the end of the nineteenth century is the rise of the New Woman as a recognizable type. The “New” Woman saw herself as overturning a number of the stereotypes associated with the “old” Victorian model for femininity: the New Woman is intellectual (as opposed to emotional); quite public (as opposed to private and domestic); active (as opposed to passive); and, in most cases, non-reproductive (as opposed to maternal). She caused a stir not only because she rejected the traditional female role but also because she seemed to appropriate a male one.

Sources:

Allen, Emily and Dino Felluga. “General Introduction to Theories of Gender & Sex.” Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. February 3, 2010. <http://www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/genderandsex/modules/introduction.html&gt;

Kinchin, J. (1996). Interiors: Nineteenth-Century Essays on the ‘Masculine’ and the ‘Feminine’ Room.  In M. Taylor and J. Preston (Eds.) (2006) Intimus: Interior Design Theory Reader.  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons

Filed under: Environment, Environment, feminine, gender, interior design, masculine

Designing Work Place Environments

In class we recently discussed the design of office environments and how they impact us.  “Current office planning concepts have developed over a long period from the time that people first organized themselves into business units.  Thus, observation of historical trends in working practices and workplace environments is a good starting point for developing an appreciation of how social and technological change impacts working patterns.”

I found it really interesting to learn that during the early 1800’s, “There was no distinction between an office building and a domestic building – the first offices were simply rooms in parts of a house, with the rooms designated as places where work was done.  If the business expanded, more of a house was taken over and used as office space and logically, it is possible to conclude that entire houses would sometimes become buildings dedicated to offices rather than dwelling places.”

(Right Click + View Image to enlarge; 1. Bullpen Layout 2. “Office Landscape” 3. Action Office 4. Cube Farm 5. Networking)

From the early 1900’s  to 1950, management thinking lead to Taylor’s scientific theory of office management.  His management principles were based on the concept of a machine the principles of running a complex organization.  Taylor’s principle layout became known as the bullpen layout and made it possible for supervisors to keep a close watch on employees as they worked as they were seated in an open space with zero partitions and were strictly confined to their job.

The second image above is from Wired magazine and depicts the evolution of office spaces and how they reflect changing attitudes toward work.  We’ve gone from being workers cramped together in a completely open environment (while bosses looked on from private offices) to a new class of employee being created “too important for a mere desk but too junior for a window seat. Facilities managers accommodated them in the cheapest way possible, with modular walls. The sea of cubicles was born.”  In the last decade, furniture designers have begun to redesign the cube farms of past “with movable, semi-enclosed pods and connected desks whose shape separates work areas in lieu of dividers.”

Many of us have worked in an office environment at one time or another during our lives. Naturally our needs within these spaces vary, but researchers have narrowed down some essential factors:

• Territory – we’re territorial beings.  We personalize our spaces with photographs, lamps, etc. We like knowing that we are going to sit in the same spot everyday and find our things there. It’s comforting to us.
• Privacy – either real or perceived – is essential in the office environment.  The right amount of privacy can increase worker productivity (due to limited distractions) and a sense of security as well.
• Community – the majority of us crave privacy and the office setting is no exception.  However, we don’t want so much privacy that we feel isolated from other employees.

As designers we should keep these needs in mind as space plan offices that are functional, effective, productive and flexible working areas that optimize the use of the space within the constraints of the buildings and the offices.

Sources:

Designing for Human Behavior http://designingforhumanbehavior.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/office-space/

Wired Article http://www.wired.com/print/culture/design/magazine/17-04/pl_design

Filed under: Environment, corporate environment, interior design, office, office space planning

Personal Thoughts on Home and Identity

(This makes me smile.)

I’ve really enjoyed reading individual perspectives and the different theories about home and identity.  For years I’ve been a fervent believer that my home is an extension of who I am as a person.  Many of you may agree that your home is a place where you feel a sense of identity and ownership, be it the entire dwelling or certain spaces within, and this is something that I’ve often felt I needed in life.  My idea of home and identity hasn’t changed much over the years, but I am beginning to notice a slight shift in ideals.  My best example of this is my lay-off in late 2008.  I was laid off from my full-time design position and, six months later, forced to pack my belongings and move back into my parent’s home in Augusta, GA, some 2.5 hours away, for lack of funds and options.  This was the first time I’d been under their roof since 2004 and it was quite the transition. Though, admittedly, not the end of the world.

Despite being back in the room where I had lived for over a decade growing up, I didn’t feel any ownership whatsoever.  I was in the same room, but it had changed a lot since I lived there.  At the same time, I felt like I had no right to change my environment to feel more like “me” because it wasn’t my home.  I kept up this attitude for a few months – until finally caving and replacing my mother’s framed photographs with some of my art.   I made a few small alterations beyond that, but still couldn’t get the place to feel like home for me.  Perhaps this is because, deep down, I knew it was only temporary.  Perhaps it’s also because many of my belongings remained packed away in boxes in the garage because there was no where to put them. I was using a dresser that didn’t belong to me, a nightstand that I gave away years ago, and sleeping on a bed that also wasn’t mine.  The main piece of furniture that I owned in the room was my desk.  Still, I had privacy and, if I really wanted to, I could change my surroundings.  My mother would have understood completely.

Today, I’m in a similar situation.  I was accepted into SCAD-Atlanta a mere 3.5 weeks before the quarter started and failed to find a home of my own in time.   Sometimes things happen a lot faster than you want them to! Once again, I am residing somewhere temporarily.  This time, however, I don’t even have my own room…  I now have limited privacy, absolutely zero control over the appearance of my environment, and even less of my belongings with me.  Still, I have my desk and computer.

In some ways I have to agree with Barry S. Fogel who writes in his “Psychological Aspects of Staying at Home” that there are specific benefits of home, including: independence, privacy, and control over physical features of the home environment.  When I made my move back to my parent’s home, I also felt that I had lost my benefits related to Atlanta – including my social network of friends, access to interior design events and certain communities that just didn’t exist in Augusta, Ga.  Now that I have returned to Atlanta, I’ve regained those benefits, but lost some essential basics of privacy and control.

At the same time, however, through this experience I can also feel my perspective shifting.  I like the essay “Home: Territory and Identity” by J. Macgregor Wise, particularly the statement: “Home is not an originary place from which identity arises.  It is not the place we ‘come from;’  it is a place we are.  Home and territory: territory and identity.”  It’s been almost a year since I’ve seen all of my belongings.  I often forget what’s really packed away in those boxes.  I wonder if, when I finally have a place of my own again and am unpacking my boxes, if I will still feel a connection to my possessions or not. Or, will I not feel a connection to my new home until my belongings are unpacked and with me?

Sources:

Fogel, Barry S. (1992, Spring) Psychological Aspects of Staying at Home. Generations 16(2), 15-19.

Wise, J.M. (2000). Home: Territory and Identity. In M. Taylor and J. Preston (Eds) (2006) Intimus: Interior Design Theory Reader. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

[Image: Bob’s Your Uncle]

Filed under: Environment, Home, Indentity, interior design, Territory

Proxemics, Personal Space and Territory

[To Enlarge Image: Right Click + View Image]

Proxemics

I’ve always found the study of proxemics rather interesting.  The idea that body spacing and posture acting as unintentional reactions to sensory fluctuations or shifts is intriguing from a design standpoint. According to Edward T. Hall, the man who coined the term “proxemics,” social distance between people is reliably correlated with physical distance, as are intimate and personal distance, according to the following delineations:

• Intimate distance for embracing, touching or whispering ranges anywhere between 6 to 18 inches or even closer.

• Personal distance for interactions among good friends or family memebers ranges anywhere from 1.5 feet to 4 feet.

• Social distance for interactions among acquaintances ranges anywhere from 4 to 12 feet.

• Public distance used for public speaking ranges anywhere from 12 to 25 feet.

However, it’s important to note that different cultures maintain different standards of personal space. Comfortable personal distances depend not only on culture, but also the social situation, gender, and individual preference.  Realizing and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large (“stand-offish”) or too small (intrusive).

Personal Space

Personal Space should not be confused with personalization, which is the marking of places.  Personal space changes depending on culture, upbringing, relationship to the individual and expectations.  Essentially, we have an invisible boundary that allows us to be comfortable because intruders may not enter.  Oftentimes this invisible boundary is perceived to be similar to an aura, but it’s not necessarily spherical in shape, nor does it extend equally in all directions. (Which makes perfect sense when you think about it.)

Territory

Human beings are territorial animals and like to protect and control their space. Have you ever felt angry when you re-entered a room and found “your” seat taken by someone else? Have you felt offended when a relative or friend entered your room without knocking or when you discovered them pawing through your cabinets? The territories we stake a claim to  give us a sense of permanence and control. When that territory is invaded without permission, feelings of loss and anger are typically the result. People value their privacy and personal territory.  I don’t know about you, but if I were to find someone going through my desk, I’d freak out.  Depending on the situation, I may be angry, frustrated, or even hurt that my privacy was invaded.  Also, I do get annoyed when some takes “my seat” when I only left for a few minutes to throw something away or use the restroom.

The 4 Basic Characteristics of Territory include:

1. The ownership or of rights to a place
2. Personalization – the marking of an area; through photographs or objects
3. The right to defend against intrusion
4. The service of several functions ranging from the meeting of physiological needs

For us, territorial control is important because it fulfills several basic human needs: identity, stimulation, security, and provides a frame of reference.

– – – – – – – – –

Also, on a side note, with all this talk about proxemics I have “Don’t Stand So Close To Me” by The Police stuck in my head!

Sources:

Lang, J. (1987). Privacy, Territoriality and Personal Space – Proxemic Thoery.  Creating Architectural Theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in design.  New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 145-156.

Wikipedia

[Image: Wikipedia]

Filed under: Environment, Theory, defensible space, interior design, privacy, territoriality

Evironmental Perception and Cognition: Cognitive Maps

Until this class I hadn’t put much thought on the subject of Cognitive Mapping, but now I realize how interesting it really is.  According to Jon Lang in Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behavior, “people’s spatial behavior depends partially on the images they have of the structure of the environment.”  Lang goes on to say that cognitive maps are a method we use to construct and accumulate spatial knowledge, allowing the “mind’s eye” to visualize images.  This is extremely useful in recall and the learning of information.

Through cognitive mapping, we acquire, code, store, recall and decode information about our physical environment.  The images so formed include elements obtained from direct experience, from what one has heard about a place, and from imagined information.  They included impressions about the structure or appearance of a place, its relative location, its use, and its values.

Just as we are all different people, we each structure the environment differently.   For instance, some people perceive themselves as the center of the universe, some people give directions with reference to the cardinal points of the compass and some may orient themselves with reference to their home territories (much like the picture above).

For example, when people draw the city as they remember it, they’ll piece together how they perceive space. Particularly when thinking about urban planning, and what makes a good landmark, edge, or paths, these kinds of maps can be really interesting. Think for a moment: what are the landmarks in your life? When you give directions, what do you remember?Do you think the distance from Midtown Altanta to Buckhead is really far, or really close? Maybe certain areas on your “mental map” are larger than other because you spend so much time there and you are more familiar with it.

Source: Lang, Jon (1987) Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behavior. In Jon Lang, ed. Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. p135-144.

[Image: Children’s Views of Tukwila]

Filed under: Environment, Theory, cognitive map, cognitive mapping, spatial behavior

Streamlining: The Aesthetics of Waste

The article “Streamlining: The Aesthetics of Waste” by Ellen Lupton and J. Abbott Miller was, at first, something I hadn’t quite expected to read about in an Interior Design class.  Simply put, the discussion of bodily waste and how it relates to the design of objects just wasn’t working for me.   After reading it, I failed to make a connection with the information.  However, during our class discussions, something finally clicked and I felt that I actually understood the premise of this article.  I’d like to share my “findings” here with you today.

I could understand Lupton’s and Miller’s discussion on streamlining of design during the 1930’s.  As I understood it, we were abandoning the intricate decorations of the Victorian era in favor of less intricate designs. To qoute Lupton and Miller:

“The plush fabrics, carved moldings and intricate decorations of Victorian domestic objects were rejected as dangerous breeding grounds for germs and dust, giving way to non-porous materials, flush surfaces and rounded edges.  This ‘process of elimination’ found its most extreme expression in the streamline styling of the 1930’s, which borrowed the conical ‘teardrop’ from aerodynamics and applied it to countless immobile objects”

Lupton and Miller further suggest that this new aesthetic parallels with our obsessions with bodily consumption and economic consumption:

“Streamlining was born of modern America’s intensive focus on waste: on the one hand, its fascination with new products and regimes for managing the intimate processes of biological consumption,  from food preparation to this disposal of human waste, and on the other hand, its euphoric celebration of planned obsolescence and an economy dependent on a cycle of continually discarded and replenished merchandise.”

The modernization of the bathroom and kitchen occurred around this time as well – and an aesthetic of obsessive cleanliness truly becomes apparent in the non-porous materials used for walls, floors, and surfaces.  It’s important to note that prior to all of this, the bathroom did not exist as an architectural space and was formerly relegated to the cellar or exiled to the outhouse.  Now the bathroom commands some of those most expensive and technologically advanced features of the modern dwelling.  With the kitchen and bathroom becoming such integral parts of home, they served to reinforce our consumer culture’s positive valuation of waste by shifting our cooking, bathing, and defecating activities from places once “invisible” to dominance in the home.

All of this now makes sense to me and I actually find this article to be rather fascinating!

Also, I thought I’d share with you the little “flow chart” that I created during our class discussion, which helped me collect my thoughts and make sense of the article (to enlarge the image, Right Click + View Image):

Source: Lupton, E. and Miller, J.A. (1992). Streamlining: The Aesthetics of Waste. In M. Taylor and J. Preston (Eds.) (2006) Intimus: Interior Design Theory Reader.  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Filed under: Environment, interior design

Personal Experience

Initially when we were told to share and describe a personal experience with the class, I drew blanks.  After some thinking I jotted down 2 places:

1. MacCracken’s – my favorite pub off Marietta Square
2. Cool Beans – my favorite coffeehouse, also off Marietta Square

As luck would have it, I actually visited Cool Beans with my friend on Saturday.  While I was there, I took the time to think about my physical, cognitive, and emotional experience of the space.  Through my physical experience of it, I know what this place looks like through and through.  I am familiar with the artwork for sale on the walls – as much of it has never been sold during the 5 years I’ve walked through its doors!  The artwork has been added to, some have left, but it mostly remains unchanged.  Where I walk in, order, and pick up my drink is second-nature to me now.  The condiment counter has never moved and when it’s missing napkins or straws, I know where to find them or who to ask for more. I also know to always bring headphones with me as it can get rather noisy inside and in the winter, always have a coat on hand!

Admittedly, I struggle to pinpoint my cognitive experience at Cool Beans.  I recognize that it is a place of business, a coffeehouse, located 30 minutes away from where I live now.  I could easily visit the 10+ Starbucks that I pass along the way, but I know that the two are completely different.  I enjoy Starbucks, but it’s not Cool Beans – I will visit Cool Beans just to partake in relaxed, fun atmosphere.

Thirdly, my emotional experience of Cool Beans is a nice one.  It’s a place that I visit and feel connected to.  I know a lot of the customers and employees by name and many will stop and chat with me.  I know tiny stories about them and they of me – I feel a great sense of community, and at times, a sense of ownership.  I feel happy, comfortable, and accepted while I am there.

[Image taken by me]

Filed under: Environment, personal

Affordances

Affordances can be defined as a quality of an object, or an environment, that allows an individual to perform an action that wasn’t in the initial design.  For example, stairs can be used for more than ascending or descending.  In fact, they can be used for seating if need be.  Countless times  I have stopped on a flight of stairs to put my shoes on… Or when I am outside, I often sit on stairs to enjoy my lunch or read a book.  It’s important to note that not all affordances are perceived by people and not all perceived affordances are used.

[Image: stock.xchng]

Filed under: Environment, Theory, affordances, interior design

Environment-Behavior Studies

As interior designers our goal is to clarify our understanding of the relationship between people and the built environment by reviewing existing ideas.  I personally believe that we are naturally more sensitive to the environment (either because we were born that way or trained to be this way) and we, overall, believe that the environment can have an impact on a user’s experience and behavior.

I feel that Lang explains this very well:

“One has to understand the nature of human motivations because they tell us something about the focus of a person’s attention at a particular time. Maslow’s model of a hierarchy of human motivations is a useful one, for we have self-consciously or unselfconsciously shaped the world to better meet our physiological needs, our needs for safety, belonging, esteem, and actualization, and finally our cognitive and aesthetic needs.”

“Our attitudes are related to our motivations. What we like and dislike, what we believe to be good or bad, important or unimportant-these attitudes are related to the various socialization processes and experiences we have had and thus to the influence of others. We, in turn, try to influence others. Our personalities and our social and cultural backgrounds are all indicators, not perfect predictors, of attitudes toward people and toward characteristics of the built environment. Similarly, what we perceive to be the rewards and costs of participating in a particular setting affect our attitudes to the setting -to the people in it, to their behavior, and to the milieu.Some settings are highly stressful, but the financial and psychological rewards for being there are high and so we accept the stress. Other settings are highly unpleasant and the rewards for being there are low and the costs high. If there is an alternative, people are likely to attempt to get out of the situation. Sometimes, for those trapped by poverty or authoritarianpolitical powers, there is no alternative. There are also situations where the rewards are high and the costs very low for being there. We cannot expect to always be in such situations.”

Different factors can influence a user’s desire to act in an environment in particular ways.  For example, let’s say that we are designing an “environmentally friendly” office.  Naturally, we would want to design a space that highlights the positive emotions associated with activities like recycling, riding your bike to work or using public transportation when trying to promote pro-environmental behavior.  On the other hand, we must realize that negative emotions (anticipating that a particular activity will not be pleasant) may hinder the likelihood of our desired behavior (using public transportation).

Source: Lang, Jon. The Built Environment and Human Behaviors. Creating Architectural Theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in design, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 100-108

[Image: The Causemopolitan]

Filed under: Environment, Theory, environment-behavior, interior design