4.3 Article

Aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning: Environmental categorization processes in the evaluation of urban scenes

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages 19-26

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207590444000104

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the context of research into scenic quality, the purpose of the present paper is to establish categories of urban landscapes on the basis of users' aesthetic judgements. It also explores the role that the restorative capacity of a place-in terms of the attentional restoration theory (ART)-together with a set of aesthetic attributes, may play in more or less valued places in a city. A total of 132 residents from Malaga (Spain) were chosen, with the city providing the physical framework for environmental reference. A questionnaire designed for easy self-administration by subjects was used to collect information. Subjects were asked to identify three places in Malaga that they considered to be most attractive and three that they considered least attractive. Participants were asked to evaluate both the restorative properties-in terms of the ART-and the extent to which their first choice displayed certain environmental characteristics. Participants expressed a clear aesthetic preference for recreational sites for leisure/walking as well as those closely linked to the city's historical-cultural identity. The research also identified other categories of visual settings that could be used as a focal point around which to centre future samples of scenes in a city context. Finally, the results obtained from the characterization of more and less attractive places, from the variables used in this study, shed light on the dimensions of underlying meaning that individuals use to categorize their environment and reinforce the idea that environmental aesthetics seem to play an important role in individuals' general well-being.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available