Annemarie S. Dosen

Evidence for prospect-refuge theory: a meta-analysis of the findings of environmental preference research

BackgroundResearchers in the field of spatial psychology and environmental preference theory have tested a range of claims about the capacity of certain spatial configurations to evoke a positive sense of wellbeing in observers. In parallel, across the landscape, urban, architectural and interior design disciplines, there has been a growing acceptance that a balance of spatial characteristics—including prospect, refuge, mystery and complexity—is desirable in a natural, urban or interior environment. Yet, the evidence that the design disciplines cite for the desirability of these characteristics is often entirely qualitative and only rarely acknowledges the results from the fields of spatial psychology and environmental preference theory.MethodsThe purpose of this paper is to provide a critical overview of the results of quantitative research which has been undertaken into the veracity of prospect-refuge theory and closely associated aspects of environmental preference theory. This meta-analysis not only involves a review of the results, but also their broad classification to develop a more holistic picture of the field, its findings and any gaps. The purpose of this process is not, explicitly at least, to assess the believability or rigour of this past research, but rather to examine and classify the findings, both for and against prospect-refuge theory, in a way that is useful for the design disciplines.ResultsUrban and interior studies supported the significance of prospect, and were more neutral about refuge. Studies related to natural environments provided evidence for the significance of both prospect and refuge, which has been linked to comfort, but also included evidence against and a neutral finding. More specifically for designers, the results for complexity seem to confirm that a degree of complexity in interior space is preferred, but they are unclear about how much or where it should be. The results for mystery are less emphatic with the majority being neutral or contrary.Discussion and ConclusionsThe quantitative evidence for prospect-refuge theory remains inconsistent. It is especially problematic that the results which are most commonly cited in architecture relate to studies of natural environments, not interiors or urban environments. As this paper demonstrates, the results are most valid in specific venues.

Methodological characteristics of research testing prospect–refuge theory: a comparative analysis

Prospect–refuge theory proposes that environments which offer both outlook and enclosure provoke not only feelings of safety but also of spatially derived pleasure. This theory, which was adopted in environmental psychology, led Hildebrand to argue for its relevance to architecture and interior design. Hildebrand added further spatial qualities to this theory – including complexity and order – as key measures of the environmental aesthetics of space. Since that time, prospect–refuge theory has been associated with a growing number of works by renowned architects, but so far there is only limited empirical evidence to substantiate the theory. This paper analyses and compares the methods used in 30 quantitative attempts to examine the validity of prospect–refuge theory. Its purpose is not to review the findings of these studies, but to examine their methodological bases and biases and comment on their relevance for future research in this field.

Lived space and geometric space: comparing people’s perceptions of spatial enclosure and exposure with metric room properties and isovist measures

ABSTRACT Past research in spatial psychology has demonstrated that some environmental properties can positively influence human emotions. While architectural designers have adopted these findings to argue for the positive psychological impact of specific spatial dimensions, there is limited evidence that people can intuitively assess the most basic properties of an interior. Furthermore, the computational–mathematical methods used to examine interior spatio-visual properties have only rarely been compared to human perceptions. Indeed, there is no evidence that two of the most basic spatial feelings – enclosure and exposure – correlate to any of the metric or isovist-based properties of space. In response, this paper presents the results of a study involving 159 participants who assessed 24 perspective views of virtual interiors for feelings of enclosure and exposure. These results are compared with the metric properties and isovist measures of these interiors to examine if human perceptions of a simple space are accurate and possess any direct correlation with isovist measures.