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

Abstract

Background: Researchers 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. Methods:The 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. Results:Urban 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 Conclusions:The 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.

Buildings, Beauty, and the Brain: A Neuroscience of Architectural Experience

“…Salingaros suggested that buildings stripped of visual complexity, like prisons, deny the information-seeking visual system access to meaningful information (Salingaros, 2003). Empirical findings tentatively support this view, suggesting that people generally prefer at least a moderate level of visual complexity when viewing both art and architectural interiors (Dosen & Ostwald, 2016;Leder et al, 2004;Frith & Nias, 1974). As Berlyne postulated many years ago, preferences tend to follow an inverted U-shaped curve in relation to complexity (Güçlütürk, Jacobs, & van Lier, 2016;Imamoglu, 2000;Berlyne, 1970Berlyne, , 1971.…”

“…The frequent patches of trees scattered throughout the savannah ( Joye, 2007) likely offered early hominids places to hide from predators and survey the plains in search of resources, mates, and prey (Appleton, 1975). A review by Dosen and Ostwald indicates that both prospect (a clear view of the environment) and refuge (safe places to hide) predict visual preferences for natural settings and that these preferences also extend to built environments (Dosen & Ostwald, 2016). People often prefer architectural interiors and urban spaces that are more open and visually connected to their surroundings compared with enclosed environments (Dosen & Ostwald, 2016).…”

“…A review by Dosen and Ostwald indicates that both prospect (a clear view of the environment) and refuge (safe places to hide) predict visual preferences for natural settings and that these preferences also extend to built environments (Dosen & Ostwald, 2016). People often prefer architectural interiors and urban spaces that are more open and visually connected to their surroundings compared with enclosed environments (Dosen & Ostwald, 2016). In an fMRI study of architectural interiors, we found that participants judged open rooms as more beautiful than enclosed rooms ( Vartanian et al, 2015).…”

From Savannas to Settlements: Exploring Cognitive Foundations for the Design of Urban Spaces

“…This assessment guided early humans or human ancestors to perceive and recognize landscape features as they traversed savannas that could be hazards, places of safety as well as resources, friends, foes, potential mates (Appleton, 1996; Hildebrand, 1999). In support of this theory, behavioral studies have generally demonstrated a human preference for prospect and refuge in both exterior and interior environments, as analyzed by Dosen and Ostwald (2013, 2016), which may be supported by specific sensorimotor networks in the brain (Di Dio et al, 2016). Moreover, prospect-refuge theory posits that prospect and refuge are mutually interdependent and much of what is so tacitly attractive about Frank Lloyd Wright’s house designs is said to be their affordance of both prospect and refuge (Hildebrand, 1999).…”

Quantifying Urban Surroundings Using Deep Learning Techniques: A New Proposal

“…The effect of visible sky and green cover has been studied explicitly in preference-based studies as it had been a prime constituent of assessment of the variables such as prospect and refuge [59]. The feelings of safety and pleasure are derived from surroundings providing a sense of enclosure and views [60]. Studies such as [13] have created tools to analyse the sky-green ratios for cities, which help urban planners to explore urban areas with interactive visual analysis.…”