Robert 6 Bechtel Unhrersity of Arizona, Tucson

Contributions of ecological psychology to the evaluation of environments

Introduction

Ecological psychology is a conceptual framework for the study of daily human behavior in the natural environment. It was developed by Roger Barker at the Midwest Psychological Field Station, a satellite of the University of Kansas, in the period 1947-1955. Although several texts were published on the theory and methods (Barker and Wright, 1955; Barker, 1968; Barker and Schoggin, 1973; and more recently Wicker, 1979) it was not until the late 1970s (Bechtel, 1977) that the technique was used for evaluating en- vironments. Because the concepts are not widely known, some exe- gesis is required before describing the evaluations themselves.

The core concept of ecological psychology is the behavior set- ting. Behavior settings are the regularly occurring patterns of behavior that can be seen throughout the community. Each has a regularly recurring pattern of behavior that is tied to a physical place and particular time. They are the grocery stores, boy scout meetings, football games and lawyers’ offices that constitute all the daily waking behavior of a community’s residents. When Barker and Wright added up all the behavior settings observed in their community, they were able to account for 95 percent of the waking behavior. Notice that behavior settings are public in nature. Private behavior in homes was not observed although it was assigned as a behavior setting in its own right.

International Review of Applied Psychology (SAGE, London and Beverly Hills), Vol. 31 (1982), 153-167

I54 Roberr B Bechrel

In order to more precisely determine the definition of behavior settings the K-21 Scale was developed. Seven dimensions of possi- ble overlap are measured to determine whether any two patterns of behavior resolve into separate settings or are merged into one. These dimensions are population, leadership, behavior objects, molar action, temporal contiguity and behavior mechanisms. Generally, if the two dimensions overlap more than 50 percent on four or more of the measures, the two patterns are considered one behavior setting (i.e., have a score of less than 21). However, as Bechtel (1977) pointed out, adjacent behavior patterns with K scores of 18-23 seem to have boundary problems that require some psychological effort to overcome.

For a more detailed explanation of these and the following scales mentioned, the reader may want to consult Barker’s 1968 text, Ecological Psychology, Allan Wicker’s Introduction to Ecological Psychology (Brooks/Cole, 1979), or the author’s Enclosing Behavior (Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1977).

A major advantage of behavior settings is the obvious, common sense appearance of them in public. Any layman can spot a girl scout meeting, see its clear beginning and end, its regularity of oc- currence, and its population flow. Laymen can easily be trained to count and observe behavior settings.

Once behavior settings are identified they are measured by a number of scales that have both evaluative connotations of quality and objective measures. These are action patterns, behavior mechanisms, autonomy, penetration levels, pressure and werfare ratings and a general richness index.

Action patterns are listed in Table I . There are eleven action pat- terns which block out the global behavior occurring in a communi- ty. Barker’s (1968) original text had three subscales for each action pattern but because of reliability problems Bechtel (1977, p. 64) reduced the subscales to an assessment of whether the action pat- tern: (1) occurred at all, assigning a zero if it did not; (2) whether it was present but under 50 percent of the total time the population spent in the behavior setting; (3) whether it was prominent, occurr- ing over 50 percent of the total time the population spent in the behavior setting. With only these three rough measures it is possible to create an action patterh profile for a community as a whole, across several communities, or for small groups of behavior settings.

Contributions of ecological psychology 155

TABLE 1 Action patterns

A esthetics

Business

Education

Government

Nutrition Personal appearance

Personal health Professionalism Recreation Religion

Social contact

Any artistic activity; making the environment more beautiful; cleaning up; removing the unsightly The exchange of goods, services or privileges where pay- ment is obligatory Formal educational roles of teacher and pupil. Incidental learning is not counted Law making, law interpretation, law execution. Any form of government, state, local or federal Consuming food or beverages Trying to look good as opposed to just dressing for condi- tions Preserving physical but not mental health Has to do with the payment of wages Behavior that gives immediate gratification Closely tied to a worship service. Also prayers at banquets and ceremonies Having interpersonal relations

Bechtel (1977) found that behavior mechanisms did not discriminate among environments because they were too pervasive in every environment.

Aufonomy is a measure of where the important decisions are made as to who enters a behavior setting, who the leaders are in a behavior setting, what the program is and whether fees or prices are charged. Ratings go from 1 to 9 with 9 as the highest level of autonomy. If all four decisions are made at the local community level the autonomy rating is 9. If these decisions are made at the national level, the rating is 1. Intermediate scores are given for state and local governments. Barker’s original scoring procedure stop- ped at level 9 for community level decisions. This was later extend- ed to 12 to account for within behavior setting decisions by Bechtel (1977). Autonomy was found to be high in Barker’s Midwest rural community (8-9), compared to larger communities (4-7) (Bechtel, Achelpohl, Binding, 1970).

Penerration levels are a central concept of behavior settings. All members of any behavior setting are assigned to one of six levels. A level 6 is a person who is a non-substitutable leader, such that, witirout him (or her) the behavior setting could not function. Ex-

156 Robert B Bechtel

amples are a one-man radio station, certain esoteric classes at a university and many one-man (or woman) stores or offices. A 5 level is given to most top leaders because they usually have available substitutes. A president has a vice president, teachers have substitutes. Level 4 are the functionary offices which are not top leaders but perform some necessary role such as secretary, treasurer, sergeant a t arms, etc. Level 3 are the bona fide members, level 2 are an audience, and level 1 are onlookers who, although present, contribute little else but their presence.

Penetration levels are important measures because they can be used to measure the amount of leadership roles available in any behavior setting or an entire community. The upper three levels (6-4) are called performers and the lower three (3-1) are called non- performers. A performer-popularion ratio describes how many leadership roles are available per person to a given population. For example, in Bechtel and Ledbetter (1976) it was discovered that remote air force stations had higher performer-population ratios (.65) than a larger, more central army base (.31). Thus, chances to obtain leadership positions were more than twice as good at the remote bases.

Welfare and pressure ratings deal with measuring to what degree particular behavior settings are set up for the benefit of certain groups such as children (welfare) or have rules to encourage or ex- clude them (pressure).

Most of these measures are combined by adding action patterns, behavior mechanisms and penetration levels, multiplying these by a coded occupancy time score and dividing by 100 to obtain a general richness index. In effect, this ratio describes the amount of ex- posure possible to the mix of behavior and leadership opportunities in a community (or behavior setting). A less rich environment has fewer kinds of behavior, less leadership opportunities and fewer different kinds of populations. Collecting the behavior setting in- formation is called doing a behavior setring survey. Originally (Barker, 1968), i t would take a full year to collect all the behavior settings in an environment by observing and continuing each one as it took place. Needless to say, this involved a large expenditure of effort and time. A second year was necessary for analysis and write-up.

More recently, Bechtel (1977) has reduced the behavior setting survey to a few weeks with minimum personnel by using a question- naire. Sample questions are listed in Appendix I . The questionnaire

Contributions of ecological psychologv 157

requires skillful jogging of the respondent’s memory for the past year’s behavior. This is often helped by the presence of other fami- ly members. Also, asking different people about the same behavior settings tends to confirm at least a consensus of these past events if not a reliable estimate. Independent data such as newspapers, reports, etc. are also collected to confirm answers. Community residents can be sampled at random rather than interviewing each one. While some behavior settings may be missed, enough data is obtained for a purposeful evaluation of community life.

Some questions can be raised as to how this method compares with other methods. For example, Chapin’s (1974) and Michelson and Reed’s (1975) use of time budgets might at first seem to present similar data. However, as Michelson and Reed (1975) point out, the time budget has the limitation of being a slice in time. It does not provide annual or long term data. Even if time budgets were taken on an annual basis, they would still lack the various ecological scales such as the action patterns, general richness, etc.

Questionnaire approaches such as Moos’ (1 974) atmosphere scales or adjective checklists (Kasmar, 1970) or Canter and Rees’ (1982) facet approach provide attitudinal and value aspects which are lacking in ecological methods. Behavior setting data do not include how setting occupants think of or evaluate their en- vironments, only how they act in them. Thus, if any information on values or attitudes is desired, other methods, such as ordinary questionnaires, must be used. And, of course, this is frequently done. Barker and Gump (1964) used questionnaires to ask students how they felt about their school extra-curricular behavior settings and Bechtel and Ledbetter (1976) collected data on how the residents of cold regions felt about their environments. It is pro- bably the rule that a behavior setting survey is accompanied by rele- vant questions of value and attitudes.

Another area where the behavior setting suruey does not collect data is in the resident or visitor’s experience of the environment. Thus, Thiel’s (1970) experience notation is an attempt to record the series of experiences a person has upon being exposed to an en- vironment, while the behavior setting survey assumes these ex- periences are already a consensus among occupants. Obviously if the experiences are desired as a part of evaluation, they must be asked separately.

A further lack of behavior setting surveys is that they do not directly measure the quality of the physical environment.

158 Robert B Bechtel

Therefore, those evaluation measures enumerated in Zube (1980) which aim at physical environmental qualities such as air, water and sound are not picked up in a behavior setting survey. Again, these are questionnaire approaches which can easily be added to the behavior setting survey questionnaire. It should be added, however, that overt behavior often expresses environmental quality better than physical measures, for example, when people do nor swim in a pond because of pollution.

Finally, a problem arises in the statistical analysis of behavior setting data. One posture is to assume each behavior setting is like a single individual and treat the data accordingly. Yet data really come from within each behavior setting and behavior settings are related to each other in as-yet-unknown ways so that data from separate settings may not be independent and thus violate statistical test assumptions. So far, users of ecological methods have ignored this implication.

It would seem, then, that for a total evaluation of any environ- ment that includes values, attitudes, behavior and physical environ- ment qualities, the behavior setting survey provides a more com- prehensive view of overt global behavior than any other method, but must be supplemented by questionnaire items for non- behavioral data. The behavior setting survey is strongest when used to measure the daily normative behavior in an existing environment and weakest at measuring values, attitudes and physical environ- ment attributes.

Examples of behavior setting survey evaluations

I . The Midwest studies

In many ways the series of studies done by Barker and his col- leagues constitutes the first comprehensive evaluation of daily com- munity life in a total environment. These studies were first reported in the 1955 text by Barker and Wright, by Barker’s 1968 text and by Barker and Schoggin (1973). Aside from being the first com- prehensive evaluations of community life, they provided the first data base for undermanning theory.

Barker first reported undermanning theory at the Nebraska Sym- posium on Motivation (1960). Briefly stated, undermanning

Conrributions of ecological psychology 159

theory attempts to explain why smaller communities and organiza- tions have more behavior settings per resident and exhibit more in- volvement than larger communities. For example, a community with only 715 residents had 1.2 times as many behavior settings as a community with 1,300. In a test on undermanning theory in schools, Barker and Gump (1964) compared students’ positions in small schools with those in larger schools and found students in small schools had more positions of importance and held central positions in a greater variety of school activities than students in larger schools. Also, students in small schools had greater com- petency experiences than students in large schools. These were related to extra-curricular activities in the schools. Baird (1969) did a national survey in order to test undermanning’s effects in six areas of curriculum and found small schools reported higher ac- complishments in four out of the six areas.

Undermanning data point to a pernicious relationship between community and organization size and participation. As size in- creases, participation motivation on the part of the individual and relative capacity on the part of the organization decrease. From these original studies undemanning theory became one of the theoretical assumptions behind most work done with behavior set- ting surveys.

2. Arrowhead

In 1970, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contracted with the Environmental Research and Develop- ment Foundation (ERDF) to design exterior improvements to a large (population 1,716) public housing project in Cleveland, Ohio, code named Arrowhead. The contract specified that the exterior improvements had to be based on behavioral science data. A behavior setting survey was conducted by interviews and observa- tions and became the basis for the more than forty recommenda- tions.

Details of this study are given in the ERDF report to HUD in Dumouchel (1971) and in Bechtel (1977). The basic findings led to the discovery of a new concept in ecological psychology, the behavioral focalpoint. A behavioral focal point is a behavior set- ting which is the most accessible for the longest time to the largest number of separate elements of the population. It is a place where

160 Robert B Bechtel

the greatest number of residents can meet face to face. In order for the people of a given geographical area to form a community, it is assumed that some place must serve as a behavioral focal point. Otherwise, without any place to meet together on a regular basis, only unusual events would bring the community together, and it would be difficult to form relationships and gain a familiarity with faces.

In Arrowhead the residents had no effective behavioral focal point and thus it was a fragmented community. While residents of particular buildings knew one another, they were strangers to residents of other buildings. This did not permit recognition of who were strangers and residents and led to the myth that the project was constantly being invaded by outsiders. Perhaps the greatest single finding of Arrowhead, however, was that the population was in a state of dependency upon the housing authority (Bechtel, 1972). The architecture, the plan of the project, the lack of a behavioral focal point, the management policies which were deriv- ed from federal policy, all resulted in fostering a psychological dependency on authority. The most telling data were the low autonomy levels and the lack of available leadership roles in the behavior settings. More than forty recommendations were made directed at reducing the dependency and encouraging an in- dependence among the residents.

Whether it was a direct result of the recommendations being car- ried out or not cannot be determined, but the residents banded together in a new election of the resident council and the younger people put in office then sued the housing authority. While this created a management problem, it was a first sign of psychological health and independence. Arrowhead was visited several years after the project ended and there were visible signs of change among residents, but as yet no effective post-change evaluation has been funded.

3. Cold regions studies

In a long term effort to develop construction guidelines for cold regions environments, Bechtel and Ledbetter (1976) began a series of studies evaluating various cold region environments in Alaska. This program, called the Cold Regions Habitability Study, was sponsored by the Cold Regions Research and Engineering

Conrriburions of ecological psychology 161

Laboratory of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Environments studied included AC&W (Air Craft Control and Warning Stations of the US Air Force), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sta- tions, and US Army military installations. Seven locations were measured by the behavior setting survey. These studies revealed that the military bases were viewed as a temporary assignment by residents and therefore they did not become as committed as civilians to becoming involved in the communities where they lived. Behavioral focal points were critical to the smaller locations and a close-to-ideal focal point was discovered at Cape Lisbourne, an AC&W station on the northwest coast of Alaska. The findings from these studies resulted in an Architectural Programming Guide for cold regions (Ledbetter, 1978) and many details of designing properly for human behavior in cold regions.

As an extension of these studies Nanisivik, a Canadian mining community, was evaluated. Nanisivik was designed around a cen- tral dome intended as a focal point but its original design was com- promised by adding later additions and services which changed traffic patterns and did not permit the behavioral focal point to operate at optimal level (Bechtel and Ledbetter, 1980).

4. Shay Gap

Shay Gap, an Australian mining community, was placed in a pro- tective site, surrounded by hills on three sides. Its supermarket, post office, bank, snackbar, and boutique were placed in one building that turned out to be a successful focal point. The behavior setting survey (Bechtel, Ledbetter and Cummings, 1980) demonstrated the high quality of life in the community.

5. Iranian studies

Iranian housing was evaluated for the former ministry of housing of the Imperial government and recommendations made for designs that would suit the life styles of Iranians at various stages of assimilation into urban culture. Visiting patterns and extended family ties were important considerations in apartment designs (Tadjer, Cohen, Shefferman and Bigelson, 1975). This was the first time behavior settings were used inside the house and the most

162 Roberr B Bechrel

outstanding discovery was that family visiting was the single most important form of recreation for the Iranians studied.

6. Saudi Arabian studies

In an effort to evaluate present (1975) housing for ARAMCO employees, it was discovered that single employees had dispropor- tionately less space than families and this prevented them to some extent from deveioping the kind of social life desired. Families that travel abroad such as those in mining camps require larger spaces for storage of trunks and memorabilia collected in travels (Bechtel, 1975).

7. Pine Point

In an extremely abbreviated behavior setting survey (four days) an evaluation was made of single worker quarters at Pine Point, NWT, a Canadian mining community. Behavioral aspects un- covered permitted the successful redesign of new quarters for the single men and their relocation to a site more integrated within the community (Goering and Bechtel, 1979).

Conclusions

In his review of environmental psychology, Craik (1973) said that it would be hard to overestimate the influence of ecological psychology. That influence remains. In a survey of fourteen recent texts on environmental design research, Barker received the greatest number of citations (601) even though none of his own texts were included in the survey. As discovered and developed by Barker (1968) and his cdleagues (Wicker, 1979; Barker and Schog- gin, 1973; Bechtel, 1977) the techniques of ecological psychology have become one of the most comprehensive methods for evaluating environments.

As the above examples show, the behavior setting survey in its abbreviated form has been used to evaluate a number of diverse en- vironments, even cross culturally, and has been able to provide design criteria for housing and community design by describing

Conrribution.7 of ecological psychology 163

how the quality of life can be improved. The accumulation of behavior setting data permits wider comparisons each time a new community is surveyed and sharpens the use of the survey as a diagnostic instrument.

In concluding any exposition of ecological methods it needs to be emphasized that ‘evaluation’ using the behavior setting survey covers a much broader front than almost any other method. Most of the methods used in evaluating social programs such as those dealt with in Guttentag and Struening’s Evaluation Handbook (1975) are techniques derived from laboratory investigations of field methods for social change. Essentially, they are aimed at specific hypotheses or fairly precise program goal testing. Certain- ly, the behavior setting survey can be used in the same way. Yet it almost never is.

The reason is that the behavior setting survey is a comprehensive description of all the global behavior patterns in a community or organization. The principal aim is to collect data that could encom- pass not only those hypotheses researchers can think of to test but to try to collect data on those that were missed as well. Such a view- point is contrary to the more precise thinking of the single hypothesis testing research that has characterized the bulk of psychology and sociology. Perhaps ecological psychology will only come into its own when more multivariate methods (Canter, Kenny and Rees, 1980) become accepted as a truer portrayal of social life. More important, perhaps, is that the ecological methods are aimed at the kinds of questions architects, planners, managers and engineers ask about environments. These are multi-varied and multi-hypotheses kinds of questions that require casting for a broader net in data collecting. These kinds of questions are not easily answered by singie-hypothesis testing kinds of methods. And even the behavior setting survey questionnaire requires supplemen- tary questions about attitudes, values and qualities of the environ- ment to become a truly comprehensive instrument. What course can be seen for ecological methods in the future? Schoggin and Schoggin (1980) see a gradual coming together of various methods in evaluation research. As they put it in a quote from Willie Nelson, ‘ . . .Let’s settle down and steal each other’s song.’

CertainIy, this has begun with a reduction of the behavior setting survey to questionnaire form and the inclusion of value questions. As interesting, however, is the zxtension of ecological methods into the realm of individual studies. I t has often been said that

164 Robert B Bechtel

ecological psychology ignores the individual. Yet as early as 1961 Barker and Barker (1961) used the concept of behavioral range to measure the life-styles of the elderly. The behavioral range is the list of all the behavior settings an individual enters during the course of a year. This list can be collected and analysed in the same way a behavior setting survey is done. The action patterns, behavior mechanisms, autonomy, general richness index and other measures can be calculated and evaluated in a profile to encompass the life style of the individual. These quantitative and qualitative aspects of life style can then be used as a basis for evaluating or targeting change in the individual’s daily behavior. Bechtel (1979) supplied behavioral range data for several mental patients for use in therapy. It provided a data base which evaluated the person’s life style in non-technical terms and became the basis of the therapy contract for change. A current proposal seeks to examine whether there are pathological and healthy life styles.

So it would seem that ecological psychology is finding new fields of application, expanding its theoretical base and merging with other methods as the mainstream of environmental psychology, that interdisciplinary discipline, seeks greater effectiveness in evaluating environments.

References

Bairb, L. (1969) ‘Big School, Small School: A Critical Examination of the

Barker, R. (1960) Ecology and Mofivafion. Nebraska symposium on motivation.

Barker, R. ( 1 968) Ecological Psychology. Stanford University Press. Barker, R. and Barker, L. (1961) ‘The Psychological Ecology of Old People in

Midwest, Kansas and Yoredale, Yorkshire’, Journal oJ Gerontology, 17,

Barker, R. and Gump, P. (1964) Big School, Small School. Stanford University

Barker. R. and Schoggin, P. (1973) Qualities of Community Life. Jossey-Bass. Barker, R . and Wright, H . (1955) Midwest and Its Children. Archon Books.

Hypothesis’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 253-260.

Marshall R . Jones (ed.), 1-48.

144- 149.

Press.

Contributions of ecological psychology 165

Bechtel, R. (1972) ‘Dependency: An Unintended Result of Public Housing Policies’. Paper delivered at the conference on Housing and Mental Health, School o f Ar- chitecture, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. 27 March.

Bechtel, R. (1977) Enclosing Behavior. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. Bechtel, R. (1978) Profile of Housing Needs of ARAMCO Employees. Report

prepared for Real Estate Research Corporation, November. Bechtel, R. (1979) ‘The Use of Ecological Psychology Techniques in Therapy’.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Associa- tion, New York.

Bechtel, R., Achelpohl, C. and Binding, F.R.S. (1970) E m Side Wesr Side and Midwe.v. Greater Kansas City Mental Health Foundation, Epidemiological Field Station.

Bechtel, R. and Ledbetter, C.B. (1976) The Temporary Environment. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Special Report 76-10, October.

Bechtel, R. and Ledbetter, C.B. (1980) Post Occupancy Evaluation of a Planned Community in Arctic Canada. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Special Report 80-6, February.

Bechtel, R., Ledbetter, C.B. and Cummings, N. (1980) Post Occupancy Evaluation of a Remore Ausrralian Community: Shay Gap, Ausrrolia. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Special Report 80-29, July.

Canter, D. and Rees, K. (1982) ‘A Multivariate Model of Housing Satisfaction’, In- ternaiional Review of Applied Psychology, 31 (2), 185-208,

Chapin, F.S. (1974) Human Activity Patterns in the City. Wiley. Craik, K . (1973) ‘Environmental Psychology’, Annual Reviews of Psychology, 24,

Dumouchel, J.R. (1971) Arrowhead Final Recommendations. Environmental Research and Development Foundation (ERDF).

Goering, P. and Bechtel, R. (1979) Recommendationsfor Future Single Worker Ac- commodation, Town of Pine Point, NWT. Report prepared for COMJNCO, Ltd. by Peter Goering, architect, September.

Guttentag, M. and Struening, E. (1975) Handbook of Evaluation Research, 2. Sage.

Kasmar, J. (1970) ‘The Development of a Useful Lexicon of Environmental Descriptors’, Environment and Behavior, 2, 135-169.

Ledbetter, C.B. (1978) Architectural Programming Guide. Department of Army Technical Manual.

Michelson, W. and Reed, P. (1975) ‘The Time Budget’, in W. Michelson (ed.), Behavioral Research Methods in Environment Design. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

Moos, R. (1974) ‘Systems for Assessment and Classification of Human En- vironments: An Overview’, in R.H. Moos and P.M. lnsel (eds), Issue.s in Social Ecology. National Press Books.

Schoggin, P. and Schoggin, M. (1980) ‘Some Emerging Common Themes in Behavior-Environment Research’. Paper presented as invited address to Division 34, Population and Environmental Psychology, American Psychological Association, 4 September.

Tadjer, R., Cohen, D., Shefferman, A. and Bigelson, T. (1975) Studies and Plan- ning Services to Develop and Apply Performance Specifcarions in Procurement nnd Evaluation of Housing. Data Analysis Report to the Imperial Government

403-422.

166 Robert B Bcclifel

of Iran, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Building and Housing Research Center, July.

Thiel, P. (1970) 'Notes on the Description, Scaling, Notation and Scoring of some Perceptual and Cognitive Attributes of Physical Environment', pp. 593-618 in H. Proshansky, W. Ittelson and L. Rivlin (eds), Environmenral Psycho/ogy. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Wicker, A. (1 979) An Inrroducrion 10 Ecological Psychology. Brooks/Cole. Zube, E. (1980) Enr.ironinen~al Evaluarioti. Brooks/Cole.

Appendix 1

Fort Wainwright Housing Questionnaire Cold Regions Habitability Project

Child visitors per week? Winter

How long d o they stay? On post adult visitors per week?

How long do they stay, each visit? Off post adult visitors per week?

How long d o they stay, each visit? Hours spent inside the quarters per day?

Summer

Winter Summer

Winter - Summer

Weekday Saturday Sunday Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer

No.4 - - ____ __ - I_

Do you consider these average for your neighbors? Yes No Above Average Below

5. Hours per week at home spent cleaning?