环境与行为外文翻译.doc

环境与行为参加者是对校园室外空间感兴趣的人。总共有140名参与者（包括来自各高校的10名成员）被选定。每个样本组包括1名研究生和本科生6人，教职工2人，并从行政人员1名员工。年龄，性别，和居住地的选择需要符合样本人口调查的标准，参与的研究成员完全是自愿的，参与的成员年龄从18到62岁。参加者同样分为男性和女性之间。本研究试图平衡参与者的性别在所有条件相同下研究。它也考虑到过去有经验的重要参与者，包括他们在户外开放空间和灰色空间停留的地方。一份调查问卷被用来收集信息。百分之七十的参与者选择居住在城市地区。一般来说，在乔丹的城市地区具有小的开放空间，只有少量植被植物数量有限。在乔丹生活的65%的城市居民居住在公寓楼，他们没有获得私人的户外空间。百分之三十的人生活在农村地区，他们有自己的户外空间。在乔丹的农村地区的特点是植物多户外空间充足，有大片的私人户外空间，大片农田，私营领域。在这种方式中，样本的参与者提出自己在不同室外空间和植被中的感受。关于户外校园设置记录，研究者设计了一个解决问题的活动。参与者提出了一系列关于他们将访问的室外空间的选择。选择集中在网站描述之间的决定。本研究开发从大学校园实地调查的10个网站的描述。每个描述都包含了一个示意图，对该地区的两个彩色照片，和文字描述的活动和网站的体育文化特征描述。这是最好使用的照片，有人为了引发参与者图片中的空间的响应。以及熟悉图片中的空间，他们甚至称这是他们所知道的真实的地方。作为现场观测的代理人在使用照片时，通常知觉和视觉的环境研究是常见的判断方法。一些研究人员（安德森，zube，&麦康奈尔，1976；Coughlin &德斯坦，1970；zube，1974b）已经证明，人们判断的开放空间：例如，对自然景观有偏好的（例如，球&法尔克，1982；buhyoff，威尔曼，科赫，英国，和赫尔特曼，1983；普罗普斯特和buhyoff，1980），对城市景观有偏好的（例如，彼得森，1967；彼得森和纽曼，1969），和基于城市场景的推论（Craik &阿普尔亚德，1980）。丹尼尔（1976）观察到的有效性和使用性研究。照片是实地观察人对环境感兴趣的能力体现，参与人员提供拍摄室外空间的使用说明。这是建立在1995的夏天，一个为期4周的观察中确定的。在校园空间进行检查中，在 10点到3点这段时间中观察。本研究者负责拍摄参与者在每一个空间中的活动行为。这是写关于人和他们在环境中的行为的有力说服条件。两次拍照和随机写作是为了以免打扰或引起室外空间的用户的行为。内容和照片的质量是很重要的。为了努力做得最好，代表校园室外空间环境性能的照片，约90%的照片，是在水平角度下拍摄的，表明是在人们遇到他们正常的经验与环境中的看法和风景（见，例如，数字4到6和8到12）。如表1所示，该网站的描述提供了设计等特点，与附近的建筑选址的各种组合，土地景观，周边地区的看法，与阳光和阴影。一个配对比较，对10幅照片都可能对贴在硬木板。参与者被要求选择一个网站从每对他们会去和他们的首选就在照片的外表和空间。他们叫那个决定的原因。他们不可能，例如，说他们喜欢的原因却不同。这是可能的，与会者认识到两个地方，一个会议，一个隐私，为每个不同的标准，为了使合乎逻辑的选择，他们被鼓励去与标准一致。与会者还提到的户外校园空间，他们常常访问。所有的参与者被要求列出成分或特性的基本照片中显示出他们喜欢的空间。他们要求“自言自语”到桌面的录音机（后来的转录和表达），所有的思想和情感在决策制定过程中所发生的。受试者参加了五届，历时1小时，每一马克西妈妈。口头报告的录音带（即，协议）提供的信息，记录事件，情感，在决策过程中所经历的参与者。从两个决策活动和一个简短的访谈相结合的形式，这项研究的数据集。在一个活动，参与者的评价和选择的10个站点之间的所有可能的对。这种方法生产数据库的信息（例如，蔓生的鱼灯芯，1988）为这项研究。第二个活动涉及一组层次的选择中，参加者提高ING相似网站描述对。这创造了选择的难度增加，产生了30个小时的磁带记录的数据（例如，蔓生，沃克，meistrell，及还，1989）。最后，28人（占总数的参与者，N = 140，20%）被采访者在会议结束。汇报ING面试包括开放式的问题，侧重于决策战略制定和选择什么因素的影响。每个受访者也被问到他或她多长时间从事表2中四个最参观校园活动空间。每个受访者被要求列出五个活动，他或她最想做的空间，在那里他或她来自到达的空间，和他或她最喜欢的和最少的空间。以下的采访，本研究考察报告10最频繁的开放空间和记录，发现是一个使用的空间，包括位置以建立，校园和/或主要的行人交通道路，绿化相关的物理特征，能舒适座椅，存在阴影，视觉通路，和隐私（参见奥特曼，1973；1973；阿普尔亚德，赫塞尔格伦，公园和节俭，1975；1980；zube，1974b）。数据分析的第一步是将录音带到学员制作户外空间决策，逐字逐句的叙述。这些帐户是由本研究审查的意图”，透过资料发现什么是必要的”（例如，理想的典型）的校园室外空间的元素。记录进行审查，获得实验的总体结构和模式。这些分析是通过将所有的转录成文本的文本数据基地和标记段根据网站，选择对了，和数量的参与者。该数据库允许研究者操纵的转录分析多组或文本的观点，强调了SPE特异模式，揭示人的空间关系维度。例如，参与者之间进行抉择的1号和4号网站网站（见表1）是相同的观点的分析。以这种方式，本研究确定特定地点的基本要素的参与确定裤子。同样地，所有的选择涉及每个参与者一起被放置在相同的观点来确定的基本要素（如土地，吸引花葶）发生在他们的决定。在下一阶段的分析，本研究试图识别参与者的意图走向户外校园空间，通过检查每个描述了他们的决定意义展开。重建的“世界”，每个参与者都在试图揭示户外校园空间的苯丙氨酸现象，它们的含义和解释，以及探讨其行为与实验，每个参与者的选择空间结构的影响。讨论本研究及其对校园的设计和研究结果，提出以下问题：在何种程度上是户外空间的校园设计相关的用途吗？有什么发现？在何种程度上观测结果符合既定的环境行为和环境心理感知的研究结果？在作出有关决定访问的网站，与会者介绍了他们对不同类型的环境中的感觉。最初，他们描述了校园室外空间，他们将继续和他们的决定是比较突然的活动。他们探索，他们曾被提出，影响他们的决定的各种因素进行了较详细的记录反应选择方面给予。所有的参与者都能够表达自己的感情，在室外设置有一个地方的感觉。研究者要求参与者到底是什么吸引他们到特定的地方。一个压倒一切的模式是一个吸引到室外的社会互动和/或景观。在许多情况下，参与者相关的活动，如参加社交活动，坐，民众观察，研究土地存在景观。选择是在活动和风景可以在各个网站的各种理由。每个受访者被问，“你就用三个字来形容牛奶酒吧街？“（在校园中最活跃的地方）。对牛奶酒吧街不同的图像举行，参与者之间的这个问题揭示对策；80%的学生认为这是一个有吸引力的，令人兴奋的，娱乐场所，而只有37.5%的教师和行政人员的认同这个观点。虽然大部分学生（85%）被吸引到拥挤的步行空间的校园，少数（20%）的教师和工作人员喜欢这样的空间。例如，80%的教师和工作人员的人起，位置适当坐的地方沿牛奶酒吧街数量有限（见图2），在商业中心前，随着一些学生想坐在建筑物的台阶和暴露的位置沿人行道的路缘石的人看（见，例如，数字8，10，11，和15的B），阻碍了使用诸如通过空间通过行人的流通。Environment and BehaviorParticipants were recruited by placing notices around campus asking for individuals interested in outdoor space use. A total of 140 participants (including a sample group of 10 participants from each college) were selected. Each sample group included 1 graduate and 6 undergraduate students, 2 faculty members, and 1 employee from the administrative staff Age.gender, and place of residence were the criterion for choosing the sample population, and participation in the study was entirely voluntary. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 62. Participants were about equally divided between males and females. This researcher attempted to balance the gender of participants across all conditions within the study. It was also important to consider the past experience of the participants, including their use of outdoor open spaces and place of residence. A questionnaire was used to collect participant information on age, gender, and place of residence before joining the University. Seventy percent (n = 98) of the selected participants lived in urban areas. Generally, urban areas in Jordan are characterized with a limited number of small open spaces containing little vegetation. The majority of 65% of urban dwellers in Jordan live in apartment buildings. They have no access to private outdoor spaces. Thirty percent (n = 42) of the participants lived in rural areas prior to their enrollment at the University. Rural areas in Jordan are characterized by residential units that are often surrounded by private outdoor spaces, stretches of farmland, and privately owned fields. In this way, the sample participants differed in their exposure to outdoor spaces and vegetation. To obtain detailed transcripts concerning outdoor campus settings, this researcher devised a problem-solving activity. Participants made a series of choices concerning outdoor spaces that they would visit. The choices focused on decisions between pairs of site descriptions. This researcher developed a set of 10 site descriptions from a field survey of the University campus. Each description included a sketch map, two color photographs of the area, and text describing the activities and the physical and cultural characteristics of the site. It was preferable to use photographs that included people in order to trigger the responses of participants to the spaces shown in the pictures. Subjects were familiar with the spaces shown in the pictures, and they referred to what they knew about the real places. The use of photographs as surrogates for field observations is common inThe use of photographs as surrogates for field observations is common in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment. Several studies (Anderson, Zube, & MacConnell, 1976; Coughlin & Goldstein, 1970; Zube, 1974b) have demonstrated that people judge open spaces that they have visited in much the same way that they rate surrogate photographs of those settings. Photographic representations of views have been used, for example, in studies of natural landscape preferences (e.g., Balling & Falk, 1982; Buhyoff, Wellman, Koch, Gauthier, & Hultman, 1983; Propst & Buhyoff, 1980), urban landscape preferences (e.g., Peterson, 1967; Peterson & Newmann, 1969), and inferences based on urban scenes (Craik & Appleyard, 1980). Daniel (1976) observed that the validity and generalizability of studies that use photographs as surrogates for field observations depend on the ability of photographs to represent the environmental properties of interest (see also Brower, 1988). Subjects were provided with descriptions of the use of the photographed outdoor spaces. This was determined based on direct observation during a 4-week period in the summer of 1995. Campus spaces were checked at random intervals between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. During each of these checks, this researcher photographed the people and their activities in each space. This was supported by writing notes about the people and their behavior. Both picture-taking and note-writing were done briefly and unobtrusively so as not to disturb or change the behavior of the outdoor space users. Notes from repeated observations of a space were synchronized to provide a single account of typical use. A substantial portion of the information that was provided to participants concerning the physical characteristics and landscape of outdoor areas was based on photographs of the environment (cf. Collier, 1967; Davis & Ayers, 1975). The content and quality of the photographs was important. Every effort was made to take photographs that best represented environmental properties of the campus outdoor spaces. The majority of photographs, about 90%, were taken at eye level to show the views and landscapes that people encountered during their normal experiences with the environment (see, e.g., Figures 4 through 6 and 8 through 12). As shown in Table 1, the site descriptions offered various combinations of design characteristics such as location in relation to nearby buildings, landscape, views of surrounding areas, and sun and shade. For a paired comparison, all possible pairs of the photographs of the 10 sites were pasted on hard boards. The participants were asked to select one site from each pair that they would visit and which they preferred with respect to physical appearance and space in the photographs. They were asked to give reasons for that choice. They could not, for example, say that they liked both but for different reasons. It was possible that participants recognized two kinds of places, one for meeting and one for privacy, with different criteria for each, and in order to make logical choices they were encouraged to go with one consistent set of criteria. Participants were also asked to mention which outdoor campus spaces they visited often. All participants were asked to list components or characteristics of the spaces shown in the photographs that they liked. They were instructed to “think aloud” into a desktop tape recorder (for later transcription), expressing all thoughts and feelings that occurred during the decisionmaking process. Subjects attended five sessions, which each lasted a maximum of 1 hour. Tape recordings of the verbal reports (i.e., protocols) provided a record of the information, contingencies, feelings, and perceptions that the participants experienced during the decision-making process. Transcripts from two decision-making activities and a brief interview were combined to form the data set for this study. In one activity, participants evaluated and made choices between all possible pairs of the 10 site descriptions. This method produced the database information (e.g., Vining & Fishwick, 1988) for this study. The second activity involved a set of hierarchical choices in which participants were given pairs of site descriptions of increasing similarity. This created increased levels of choice difficulty and yielded 30 hours of tape-recorded data (e.g., Vining, Walker, Meistrell, & Fishwick, 1989). Finally, 28 participants (20% of the total participants, n = 140) were interviewed by this researcher at the completion of the sessions. The debriefing interview consisted of open-ended questions focusing on decisionmaking strategy and what factors influenced choices. Each interviewee was also asked how often he or she engaged in the activities listed in Table 2 at each of the four spaces most visited on campus. Each interviewee was also asked to list five activities that he or she would most like to do in the space, where he or she came from to arrive at the space, and what he or she liked most and least about the space. Following the interviews, this researcher inspected the reported 10 most frequented open spaces and recorded the physical features that were noticed to be related to ones use of the space including location with respect to buildings on campus and/or major pedestrian traffic ways, landscaping, comfortable seating, presence of shade, visual access ,and privacy (cf. Altman, 1973; Appleyard, 1973; Hesselgren, 1975; Parks & Thrift, 1980; Zube, 1974b). The first step of the data analysis was to transcribe the tape recordings into verbatim descriptive accounts of participants making outdoor space decisions. These accounts were reviewed by this researcher with the intention of “seeing through the particulars to discover what were essential” (e.g., ideal typical) elements of the campus outdoor spaces. The transcripts were then reviewed to derive the general experimental structures and patterns. These analyses were facilitated by transferring all of the transcripts into a text database and labeling segments of the text according to the sites, choice pairs, and number of participants. The database allowed this researcher to manipulate the transcripts to analyze numerous sets or views of the text, highlighting specific patterns, and revealed dimensions of the person-space relationship. For example, participants making the choice between Site No. 1 and Site No. 4 (see Table 1) were analyzed within the same view. In this way, this researcher ascertained the essential elements of specific sites as identified by the participants. Similarly, all choices involving each participant were placed together in the same view to identify the essential elements (e.g., attraction to landscape) that occurred throughout their decisions. In the next phase of analysis, this researcher attempted to recognize the participants intention toward outdoor campus spaces by examining how each described and gave meaning to their unfolding decisions. Reconstructing the “world” of each participant was done in an attempt to disclose the phenomenon of outdoor campus spaces, their meanings and interpretations, as well as to explore the underlying behavioral and experimental structures of spaces that influenced each participants choice.To discuss the results of this study and their implications for campus design and research, the following questions were posed: To what extent were the uses of outdoor spaces related to the campus design? What did the findings reveal? To what extent do the observations and findings conform with findings of established research in environmental-behavior and environmental perception? In making decisions concerning which site to visit, the participants described their feeling toward different types of environments. Initially, they described the campus outdoor spaces in terms of activities that they would pursue and their decisions were relatively abrupt. They probed aspects of recreation choices that they had previously taken for granted by outlining the various factors that influenced their decisions in detail. All of the participants were able to articulate their feelings and had a sense of place in the outdoor settings. This researcher asked participants exactly what attracted them to specific places. An overriding pattern was an attraction to outdoo