Environmental Psychology, Urban Planning and Economics: Intersections, Crossroads & Tangents

Environmental Psychology, Urban Planning and Economics:

Intersections, Crossroads & Tangents

Ulaş Başar Gezgin  

Abstract

Compared to urban planning and economics, environmental psychology is a relatively recent area. The young discipline focuses on topics such as psychological effects of urban policies; place attachment and place identity; perceptions of city image and urban design; pro-environmental behavior, transportation choices, urban navigation and commuting issues; urban noise, recycling behavior, energy-related behaviors, green identities; and perceptions, attitudes and information on green issues such climate change, global warming, sustainability, conservation, biodiversity, and mitigation measures.

On the other hand, economics is involved in urban issues through the areas of urban economics and economic geography which ask questions such as why some cities and districts economically develop more than their counterparts, and how to plan the cities in a way to maximize the economic performance including quality of life. Thirdly, urban planners, professionals that are almost as old as the emergence of cities in human history continue to plan cities mostly without the feedback and input from relevant areas such as environmental psychology, urban economics and economic geography. There are some intersections, crossroads and tangents across these areas. The influence of participatory approaches is growing in urban planning profession although at a slow rate; and the knowledge of both environmental psychology and urban economics are needed in the grassroots democratization of urban planning.  

In this context, this paper focuses on the more-or-less uncharted division of labor across the disciplines at issue, and makes suggestions for better collaboration options.

Contents

1. Introduction

2. The Possible Contributions by Environmental Psychology to Urban Planning

2.1. Research on Place Identity and Place Attachment

2.2. Research on Environmental Attitudes

2.3. Research on Green Attitudes vs. Behavior

2.4. Research on Eco-Practices

2.5. Research Relevant to Disaster Planning

2.6. Research Relevant to Elderly-Friendly Cities

2.7. Research Relevant to Child-Friendly Cities

2.8. Research on Urban Crime

3. Suggestions for Collaboration of Environmental Psychologists and Urban Planners

4. The Possible Links Between Environmental Psychology, Urban Planning and Economic Geography

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Environmental Psychology, Urban Planning and Economics:

Intersections, Crossroads & Tangents

1. Introduction

The term ‘environmental’ in ‘environmental psychology’ has two distinct meanings as in some other research areas (of course it is also possible to do research in intersecting areas): The first involves how human beings interact with their environment in a spatial/cognitive sense. An example of this is Hund & Nazarczuk (2009) which investigate sense of direction and wayfinding efficiency. The second involves affect, behavior and cognition about environmental and urban features and problems. There is also another line of research which can sometimes be considered under the former and some other times under the other, based on the topic. These are research on perceptions of architectural structures and elements. Examples of these are Rechavi (2009) which studies the uses and psychological meaning of living room at home based on in-depth interview; Akalin et al (2009) which investigate the evaluations of house façades on the basis of preference, complexity and impressiveness; Amole (2009) which studies residential satisfaction of students in Nigeria tapping social qualities of the student residences etc among many others in this line. This paper focuses on environmental psychology in the sense of affect, behavior and cognition about environmental and urban features and problems. Many intersecting research topics are visible in this sense of ‘environment’ between environmental psychology and urban planning: Place identity and place attachment; environmental attitudes; green attitudes vs. behavior; eco-practices; disaster planning; elderly-friendly cities; child friendly cities; urban crime etc. The next section provides an overview of environmental psychology research on these topics, and discusses the possible contributions by environmental psychology to urban planning.

2. The Possible Contributions by Environmental Psychology to Urban Planning

2.1. Research on Place Identity and Place Attachment

                                                                                                      

Felonneau (2004) investigates ‘urbanophilia’ and ‘urbanophobia’ which are defined as “the degree of attraction towards or rejection of the city”; and finds that the former underestimate urban incivilities and holds a strong urban identity, while the latter overestimates them and holds a weak urban identity. In this context, Brown, Perkins & Brown (2003) find that “[p]lace attachment is also high for individuals who perceive fewer incivilities on their block, who have fewer observed incivilities on their property, who have lower fear of crime, and who have a higher sense of neighborhood cohesion and control (i.e. collective efficacy)” (p.259). Felonneau (2004) and Brown, Perkins & Brown (2003) complement each other as the former investigates urban identity, while the latter studies neighborhood attachment. Hidalgo & Hernandez (2001) compare attachment to house, neighborhood and city physically and socially, and find that the weakest one is attachment to neighborhood, while Mannarini et al (2006) investigate the relationship between image of neighborhood and sense of community. Lewicka (2010) finds that “[t]he overall best direct predictor of place attachment was neighborhood ties, followed by direct and indirect effects of length of residence, building size, and type of housing” (p.35) and suggests that “attachments to smaller (apartments, homes) and larger (city) scales of place along with their unique predictors deserve more attention from environmental psychologists” (p.35). She further states that “Place attachment, of course, is not the same as residence satisfaction or positive evaluation of residence place. Data from present studies show that lowered control and less security did not prevent participants from feeling strongly attached to their cities. Although it is probably easier to become attached to a place that satisfies basic needs or is considered pleasant (exciting or relaxing), people may be attached to a place that do not provide them with any of these. When WWII ended, previous residents of the almost totally ruined Warsaw returned to their city to live there despite the fact that only available dwellings were cellars, the whole city was in ruins, and almost no services were available. There are residents of the endangered area close to Tchernobyl who refused to leave their houses despite the radiation danger and total lack of usual services available after the accident” (p.48).

Scannell & Gifford (2010) develop a framework of place attachment in 3 dimensions (person-process-place): “The person dimension of place attachment refers to its individually or collectively determined meanings. The psychological dimension includes the affective, cognitive, and behavioral components of attachment. The place dimension emphasizes the place characteristics of attachment, including spatial level, specificity, and the prominence of social or physical elements” (p.1). This framework may be useful for urban planning professionals, as the popularity of urban projects partially depends on the ways the residents attach to the place. Scannell & Gifford (2010) suggests that the relationship between place attachment and pro-environmental behavior should be studied. The findings of this line of research can provide valuable input for urban planning professionals. It might be expected that residents who are attached to a place would keep it clean and green. Another line of research can be the links between place attachment and attachment to nature. On the other hand, Morgan (2010) criticizes the models of place attachment which are not developmental. He builds a developmental model of place attachment based on human attachment theory.

2.2. Research on Environmental Attitudes

Karpiak & Baril (2008) investigate the relationship between Kohlberg’s moral reasoning model and environmental attitudes among college students. They found that developmental level of moral reasoning is associated positively with ecocentrism (defined as “belief in the intrinsic importance of nature” (p.203)), and negatively with environmental apathy; while no relationship was observed for anthropocentrism (defined as “belief that nature is important because it is central to human wellbeing” (p.203)). Boeve-de Pauw, Donche & Van Petegem (in press) study the link between adolescents’ environmental worldview and personality, and find that personality does not predict environmental worldview which can be explained by the fact that adolescence is the formative period for personality. On the other hand, they also find that egocentrism and ecocentrism are considered to be opposites by Belgian adolescents. Kortenkamp & Moore (2001) study ecocentrism (defined as the belief that “nature deserves moral consideration because how nature is treated affects humans” (p.261)), anthropocentrism (defined as the belief that “nature deserves moral consideration because nature has intrinsic value” (p.261)) and moral reasoning about ecological dilemmas; and the conditions under which ecocentric and anthropocentric reasoning could be elicited, such as the presence of information about the damage to the nature.

Lima & Castro (2005) investigate ‘environmental hyperopia effect’ which is defined by the following statements: “concern for local environmental issues was more attenuated than for global ones, risk perception of local sources of pollution was perceived as lower than distant threats, and global sources of information about the environment were considered more trustworthy than local ones” (p.23). Similarly, Lai et al (2003) find that “hazards were appraised to be more threatening in the global than the local context” (p.369), while developing Hong Kong Chinese version of ‘the environmental appraisal inventory’. Uzzell (2000) find that “environmental problems are perceived to be more serious the farther away from the perceiver” (p.307), and this is associated with feelings of powerlessness. Hatfield & Job (2001) state that “optimism bias regarding environmental degradation may inhibit pro-environmental behaviour” (p.17). These studies are important for promotion of green campaigns at city level.

2.3. Research on Green Attitudes vs. Behavior

Pichert & Katsikopoulos (2008) try to solve one of the puzzles of environmental psychology research involving the discrepancy between attitudes and behaviors in the case of using green electricity vs. ‘grey’ electricity. Their findings have implications for energy planning in the cities. Chasing the same discrepancy puzzle, Ohtomo & Hirose (2007) investigate the attitudes towards recycling and recycling behavior by focusing on situational and attitudinal factors in a sample of Japanese undergraduates. Both studies point out the importance of defaults and norms in particular, and contextual/situational factors in general. While Thogersen (2004) revolves on the same puzzle focusing on consistencies and inconsistencies in ‘environmentally responsible behavior’, Thogersen (2006) investigates norms associated with environmentally responsible behaviors such as ‘buying organic milk’, ‘buying energy saving light bulbs’, ‘source-separating compostable kitchen waste’ and ‘using public transportation for work and shopping’ and finds that people apply different norms for different behaviors, suggesting inconsistencies across different situations. Likewise, Thogersen & Olander (2003) find that transfer of ‘environment-friendly consumer behavior’ from one domain to another is not common; and in his study of behavioral responses to climate change, Whitmarsh (2009) finds a gap between prescriptions of the policy-makers and actions taken by the public. Bamberg (2003) suggests that specific cognitions relevant to environment should be studied rather than generic variables such as ‘environmental concern’, as the generic variables can’t explain and predict specific behavioral patterns.

Converging with Pichert & Katsikopoulos (2008)’s findings about defaults, Fujii (2006) finds that perceived ease of implementation is associated with pro-environmental behaviors such as “reductions in electricity and gas use, garbage, and automobile use”. Nordlund & Garvill (2003) find that personal norms are important for “willingness to reduce personal car use”, while Garling et al (2003) find the importance of personal norms again in ‘proenvironmental behavior intention’. Clark, Kotchen and Moore (2003) identify “ecosystem health, personal health, environmental quality for residents, global warming, and intrinsic satisfaction” (p.237) as the motives to participate in a green electricity program; while Vollink, Meertens & Midden (2002) identify perceived advantage and perceived compatibility as the two most important criteria of evaluation when utility companies are making decisions about adopting energy conservation interventions. 

2.4. Research on Eco-Practices

Clayton (2007) investigates motivations for gardening such as appreciation for nature, social concerns and uses etc, while Kiesling & Manning (2010) find that environmental identity predicts ecological gardening practices. This finding is important, since ecological practices are necessary for sustainable cities. To promote ecological practices, environmental identity should be addressed by urban planners. Planning professionals can collaborate with environmental psychologists to build green identities in both senses; psychological building at individual/household level, as well as material building (construction) at community and city level. On the other hand, some mixed results about the relationship between ‘green identity’ and ‘green behavior’ have been found by Whitmarsh & O’Neill (2010) which indicate that more research is necessary on this link to support urban planning policies from a psychological point of view.

Mannetti, Pierro & Livi (2004) study recycling behavior and find that personal identity in general, and “the similarity between personal identity and “identity of typical recyclers”” in particular is associated with the recycling behavior. This finding can be used in green campaigns. Knussen et al (2004) investigate the effect of past behavior of recycling, perceived habit and perceived lack of facilities on intentions to recycle household waste, while Swami et al (in press) investigate personality variables involving 3R behaviours (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) in household waste management. Likewise, Castro et al (2009) study psychological variables involving recycling behavior. Devine-Wright & Howes (2010) conduct a case study about the attitudes towards wind farm projects with regard to the concept of NIMBY (‘Not In My Back Yard’). This research is quite valuable for alternative energy projects in cities. Finally, White & Gatersleben (in press) investigate the preferences for and perceptions of ‘building-integrated vegetation’ such as green roofs and façades. The results can be useful for urban planners and other planning professionals to promote urban agriculture/horticulture models as a way to ease urban heat island effect.

2.5. Research Relevant to Disaster Planning

Another area in which environmental psychologists and planning professionals can collaborate is the psychological factors associated with disaster preparedness. Especially as a result of climate change, a higher number of unusual weather-related events such as floods is reported. Disaster planning is a growing area of urban planning. In this context, Sundblad, Biel & Garling (2007) is useful as it investigates risk judgments concerning climate change in a sample of Swedish residents. Nilsson, von Borgstede & Biel (2004) investigate the effect of values and norms on “willingness to accept climate change strategies”. Miceli, Sotgiu & Settani (2008) that interview residents of an alpine valley in Italy about disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk is a valuable contribution from environmental psychology to urban and regional planning. Finally, Caia, Ventimiglia & Maass (2010) study psychological well-being of earthquake survivors and their attitudes towards post-earthquake temporary housing type (dacha vs. container). This is useful for post-disaster planning.

2.6. Research Relevant to Elderly-Friendly Cities

Borst et al (2009) investigate the street features that affect walking route choices of the elderly based on GIS, while Borst et al (2008) investigate the street features that attract elderly walkers such as trees along the route, bus and tram stops, passing through parks or the city centre, traffic volume etc. Likewise, Foster, Giles-Corti & Knuiman (in press) study the factors that make neighborhoods attractive for pedestrians, summarized in the concept of ‘walkable streetscapes’.

Lord, Despres & Ramadier (in press) investigate the relationship between built environment and the reduced daily mobility of the elderly by a qualitative and longitudinal design. Oswald et al (2006) develop a “four-domain model of perceived housing in very old age” which covers “housing satisfaction, usability in the home, meaning of home, and housing-related control beliefs” based on a sample of 1223 octogenarians living alone. These studies are especially useful for planning cities in rapidly ageing countries such as Europe and Japan. As the proportion of urban elderly is increasing, more public participation by the elderly is important for a higher quality of life for residents and for resident satisfaction. Environmental psychology can fill this gap by offering its findings, methodology and services for urban planners which plan elderly-friendly cities.

2.7. Research Relevant to Child-Friendly Cities

The papers that stand at the intersection of environmental psychology and child-friendly urban planning are promising. Kytta (2004) investigates children’s independent mobility and child-friendly environments. Rissotto & Tonucci (2002) investigate elementary school children’s representation of home-school itinerary and different modes of travel (alone, with an adult, on foot, by car etc). Francis & Lorenzo (2002) discuss various approaches to children’s participation in urban planning. In their article discussing children’s participation, Sutton & Kemp (2002) present design charrette method which is defined as “an intensive, hands-on workshop which designers and citizens collaborate to solve a community design problem” (s.171). Horelli & Kaaja (2002) discuss the opportunities opened up by internet-assisted urban planning tools for children’s participation to urban planning. Chawla & Heft (2002) discuss how to evaluate the level of participation of children and adolescents. Morgan (2010) is another contribution to child-friendly cities debate, as it proposes a model that explains how place attachment develops from childhood onwards. These and related studies can be elaborated to provide inputs to child-friendly city models in urban planning.

2.8. Research on Urban Crime

Ceccato (2005) investigates homicide patterns in Sao Paulo and finds that peak times of homicide are when the people have free times (vacations, evenings and weekends). This finding has implications in crime prevention and activity planning as part of urban planning whereby the residents can be introduced to leisure activities such as sports in their free times. Secondly, Brown, Perkins & Brown (2004) study the block and individual effects on incivilities, place attachment and crime which identify the properties of neighborhoods associated with crime. These papers differ from research on crime in different areas such as social psychology, sociology etc by the fact that their focus is exclusively spatial. The research in other areas is not necessarily spatial. This is one of the distinguishing features of the studies relevant to urban planning.

3. Suggestions for Collaboration of Environmental Psychologists and Urban Planners

Robin, Matheau-Police & Couty (2007) develop a scale of perceived environmental annoyances in urban settings which can be used as a screening tool by planning professionals at city and district levels. The statistical analysis revealed 7 principal dimensions: “Feelings of insecurity, inconveniences associated with using public transport, environmental annoyances and concerns for global ecology, lack of control over time related to using cars, incivilities associated with the sharing of public spaces between different users, lack of efficiency resulting from the density of the population, and an insecure and run-down living environment” (p.55).

Gatersleben et al (2007) study expectations for and perceptions on a new underground line in 5 areas in London. It is useful, as it gives clues about bottom-up views on the project. In some cities, participatory planning approaches are applied, where such research is conducted as an indispensable part of the preparation stages for the urban projects. On the other hand, there are differences in the methodology of an urban pre-implementation research and relevant psychological research. The former is mainly qualitative; while the latter is mostly quantitative. The former is spatial (it involves maps), the latter is rarely spatial. The former is data-driven, the latter is theory-driven. The former is practical, the latter is mostly theoretical. The former is not only descriptive, it is also prescriptive (it always involves recommendations); while the latter is only descriptive. In the former, knowledge is the by-product of participatory planning process; in the latter, knowledge is the main product. In the former, process of research is more important; in the latter the results are more important. The former can’t be experimental, while the latter can. These differences are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Differences Between Urban Pre-Implementation Research vs. Relevant Psychological Research

Urban Pre-Implementation Research	Relevant Psychological Research
Mainly qualitative	Mostly quantitative
Spatial (involves maps)	Rarely spatial
Data-driven	Theory-driven
Practical	Theoretical
Descriptive and prescriptive	Descriptive
Knowledge is the by-product.	Knowledge is the main product.
Process is important.	Results are important.
Not experimental.	Sometimes experimental.

Unlike the clear-cut distinctions above, Wells (2005) is at the intersection of environmental psychology and public participation, as it investigates ‘low-income women’s participatory housing experiences’ in partnership with self-help housing organization, and the sense of ‘self confidence, optimism, and determination’ etc, based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Secondly, Lima (2004) investigates risk perception and mental health of residents living near a waste incinerator plant. Although this line of intersecting research is promising, it is still rare.

One neglected line of research in environmental psychology is the psychology of intentional communities (planned communities). Kirby (2003) which is a case study on the ecovillage at Ithaca (USA) is a valuable exception. Another neglected research topic is the variables associated with environmental activism. McFarlane & Boxall (2003) is an exception. Considering the sustainability and the debate against oil-dependent cities, more research is necessary on urban transportation choices. Although they have no such agenda, Evans & Wener (2007) study some of the factors that affect passenger satisfaction in urban trains; and Antonson et al (2009) investigate the effects of landscape type (open, forested, and varied) on driving behavior by a driving simulator, and discuss the implications of the findings for traffic safety. Such studies should adopt sustainable transport frameworks to collaborate with urban planners; albeit that they still have implications for urban transportation planning (and train design in the case of Evans & Wener (2007)) even without the greening of their research agenda.

Environmental psychologists need to reframe their studies to collaborate with planning professionals, as some of environmental psychological research are parochial and inward-looking. The brilliant models and findings are of no use if they can’t be utilized to raise urban quality of life. As a limitation of this paper, we can state that this paper can’t be comprehensive enough to cover all or most of the environmental psychology research relevant to urban planning in such a limited space. However, it may still be stated that it provides an overview of the relevant research and makes suggestions for collaboration that may be useful for both professions.

4. The Possible Links Between Environmental Psychology, Urban Planning and Economic Geography

Mackinnon & Cumbers (2007) present 4 approaches in economic geography: Traditional approach, spatial analysis approach, political economy approach, and institutional/cultural approach. The traditional approach is based on the philosophy of empiricism, classical German geography, anthropology and biology. It conceives economy as “[c]losely integrated with the natural resources and culture of the areas” (Mackinnon & Cumbers, 2007, p.23). Its geographical orientation is “[c]ommercial geography stressed global trading system” and “regional geography highlighting unique places (regions)” and its geographical focus is “colonial territories, distinctive regions, mainly in Europe and North America, often rural and geographically marginal” (Mackinnon & Cumbers, 2007, p.23). Its key research topics are “[e]ffects of the natural environment on production and trade; identifying distinctive regional economies” and its research methods are “[d]irect observation and fieldwork” (Mackinnon & Cumbers, 2007, p.23).

The spatial analysis approach is based on the philosophy of positivism and neoclassical economics. It conceives economy as “[d]riven by rational choices of individual actors” (Mackinnon & Cumbers, 2007, p.23). Its geographical orientation is “[w]ider forms of spatial organization” and its geographical focus is “[u]rban regions in North America, Britain and Germany” (Mackinnon & Cumbers, 2007, p.23). Its key research topics are “[i]ndustrial location; urban settlement systems; spatial diffusion of technologies; and land use patterns”, and its research methods are “[q]uantitative analysis based on survey results and secondary data” (Mackinnon & Cumbers, 2007, p.23).

The political economy approach is based on the philosophy of dialectical materialism, Marxist economics, sociology and history. It conceives economy as “[s]tructured bu social relations of production, [d]riven by search for profit and competition” (Mackinnon & Cumbers, 2007, p.23). Its geographical orientation is “[w]ider processes of capitalist development; and [p]laces as passive ‘victims’ of these wider processes” and its geographical focus is “[m]ajor cities in industrial regions in Europe and North America; and [c]ities and regions in developing countries, especially Latin America ” (Mackinnon & Cumbers, 2007, p.23). Its key research topics are “[u]rbanization processes; industrial restructuring in developed countries; global inequalities and underdevelopment” and its research methods are “[r]einterpretation of secondary data according to Marxist categories; and [i]nterviews” (Mackinnon & Cumbers, 2007, p.23).

The institutional/cultural approach is based on the philosophy of postmodernism and institutionalism, cultural studies, institutional economics, and economic sociology. It builds its understanding on the “[i]mportance of social context” and on the assertion that “[i]nformal conventions and norms shape economic action” (Mackinnon & Cumbers, 2007, p.23). Its geographical orientation is based on an “[e]mphasis on individual places in context of globalization” and its geographical focus is “[g]rowth regions in developed countries; [g]lobal financial centres; and [k]ey sites of consumption” (Mackinnon & Cumbers, 2007, p.23). Its key research topics are “[s]ocial and institutional foundations of economic development; consumption; work identities; financial services; and corporate cultures” and its research methods are “[i]nterviews, focus groups, textual analysis, ethnography, and participant observation” (Mackinnon & Cumbers, 2007, p.23).

There are rooms for environmental psychologists especially in the third and fourth approaches: Environmental psychologists can study the psychological variables concerning profit and competition motives of companies. The topic can be narrowed down to greening of these companies, and the motivations of green companies in the areas of green production, green supply chains, pollution mitigation, gardening materials etc. One interesting topic might be the possible clash of green companies in case of profit maximization vs. ecocentrism. Another topic may be how urbanization and suburbanization and accompanying problems such as densification vs. sprawl, formal vs. informal housing etc can affect mental health and related psychological variables. A fifth topic may be the psychological effects of industrial restructuring, whereby industrial labor in high-income countries are losing their jobs, as industries are moving to cheap labor paradises such as China and Vietnam. This topic can be widened to cover psychological problems of workers in ‘cheap labor paradises’ (or ‘cheap labor hells’ depending on your position in relations of production). Sixth topic can be the psychological effects of global inequalities and underdevelopment. This may include media effects which reduce the feelings of frustration in some cases and precipitate them in other cases. Seventh topic may be reframing of environmental psychology findings from a Marxist point of view. This view is totally lacking in environmental psychology.

As to the fourth approach, environmental psychologists can study cultural issues affecting global economies such as ethnic production, consumption, and marketing, Chinatowns, ‘Little Indias’, ‘Little Saigons’ etc. Informal networks can be more visible by a psychological point of view. Green finance can be another topic of environmental psychology. For example, environmental psychologists can study psychological determinants of investor decisions for carbon trade. As institutional/cultural approach also focuses on identity issues, there are immense areas of collaboration for environmental psychologists. Another focus of this approach is corporate cultures which is obviously a topic of interest for environmental psychologists, especially in the case of their ‘greening’ decisions. On the other hand, to collaborate with the institutional/cultural approach, environmental psychologists should be more positive about qualitative methodology. Of course, these topics can be studied by economic psychologists, given that economic psychology has an older tradition; however, economic psychologists are not spatial in their outlook.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

In this paper, we focused on the intersections among the areas of environmental psychology, urban planning and economic geography. As these areas are very large, this paper in no way provides a comprehensive overview of these three. However, the real intention behind this paper has been making some suggestions for future collaboration. In that sense, as the intersecting research papers will increase in numbers, this paper will fulfill its mission. The paper concludes with some recommendations for collaboration:

- Environmental psychologists should be GIS-literate or Google-Earth- literate. This is a prerequisite for a spatial understanding of urban and environmental problems and issues.

- Environmental psychologists should be more practice-oriented.

- Urban planners should include psychologists in their teams to receive inputs on topics such as place identity and place attachment; environmental attitudes; green attitudes vs. behavior; eco-practices; disaster planning; elderly-friendly cities; child friendly cities; urban crime etc. 

- Economic geographers of political economy approach and of institutional/cultural approach can collaborate with environmental psychologists to investigate topics such as psychological variables associated with profit and competition motives, urbanization, culture, identity, consumption etc.

- As public participation approaches are getting more and more common in urban planning practice; environmental psychologists and economic geographers can be part of urban planning teams, as their views, data and methodologies will be valuable for grassroots democratization of urban planning.

References

Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C., & Kilicoglu, O. (2009). Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house façades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 124-132.

Amole, D. (2009). Residential satisfaction in students’ housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 76-85.

Antonson, H., Mardh, S., Wiklund, M. & Blomqvist, G. (2009). Effect of surrounding landscape on driving behaviour: A driving simulator study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 493-502.

Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 21-32.

Boeve-de Pauw, J., Donche, V. & Van Petegem, P. (in press). Adolescents’ environmental worldview and personality: An explorative study. Journal of Environmental Psychology.

Borst, H.C., de Vries, S.I., Graham, J.M.A., van Dongen, J.E.F., Bakker, I., & Miedema, H.M.E. (2009). Influence of environmental street characteristics on walking route choice of elderly people. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 477-484.

Borst, H.C., Miedema, H.M.E., de Vries, S.I., Graham, J.M.A., & van Dongen, J.E.F. (2008). Relationships between street characteristics and perceived attractiveness for walking reported by elderly people. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(4), 353-361.

Brown, B.B., Perkins, D.D. & Brown, G. (2004). Incivilities, place attachment and crime: Block and individual effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 359-371.

Brown, B., Perkins, D.D. & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 259-271.

Caia, G., Ventimiglia, F. & Maass, A. (2010). Container vs. dacha: The psychological effects of temporary housing characteristics on earthquake survivors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 60-66.

Castro, P., Garrido, M., Reis, E. & Menezes, J. (2009). Ambivalence and conservation behaviour: An exploratory study on the recycling of metal cans. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 24-33.

Ceccato, V. (2005). Homicide in Sao Paulo, Brazil: Assessing spatial-temporal and weather variations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 307-321.

Chawla, L. & Heft, H. (2002). Children’s competence and the ecology of communities: A functional approach to the evaluation of participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1-2), 201-216.

Clark, C.F., Kotchen, M.J. & Moore, M.R. (2003). Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 237-246.

Clayton, S. (2007). Domesticated nature: Motivations for gardening and perceptions of environmental impact. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), 215-224.

Devine-Wright, P. & Howes, Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 271-280.

Evans, G.W. & Wener, R.E. (2007). Crowding and personal space invasion on the train: Please don’t make me sit in the middle. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 90-94.

Felonneau, M.-L. (2004). Love and loathing of the city: Urbanophilia and urbanophobia, topological identity and perceived incivilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 43-52.

Francis, M. & Lorenzo, R. (2002). Seven realms of children’s participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1-2), 157-169.

Fujii, S. (2006). Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(4), 262-268.

Garling, T., Fujii, S., Garling, A. & Jakobsson, C. (2003). Moderating effects of social value orientation on determinants of proenvironmental behavior intention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 1-9.

Gatersleben, B., Clark, C., Reeve, A. & Uzzell, D. (2007). The impact of a new transport link on residential communities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(2), 145-153.

Hatfield, J. & Job, R.F.S. (2001). Optimism bias about environmental degradation: The role of the range of impact of precautions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1), 17-30.

Hidalgo, M.C. & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273-281.

Horelli, L. & Kaaja, M. (2002). Opportunities and constraints of ‘Internet-assisted urban planning’ with young people. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1-2), 191-200.

Hund, A.M. & Nazarczuk, S.N. (2009). The effects of sense of direction and training experience on wayfinding efficiency. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 151-159.

Karpiak, C.P. & Baril, G.L. (2008). Moral reasoning and concern for the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 203-208.

Kiesling, F.M. & Manning, C.M. (2010). How green is your thumb? Environmental gardening identity and ecological gardening practices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 315-327.

Kirby, A. (2003). Redefining social and environmental relations at the ecovillage at Ithaca: A case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 323-332.

Knussen, C., Yule, F., MacKenzie, J. & Wells, M. (2004). An analysis of intentions to recycle househould waste: The roles of past behaviour, perceived habit, and perceived lack of facilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 237-246.

Kortenkamp, K.V. & Moore, C.F. (2001). Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: Moral reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 261-272.

Kytta, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 179-198.

Lai, C.-L. J., Brennan, A., Chan, H.-M. & Tao, J. (2003). Disposition toward environmental hazards in Hong Kong Chinese version of the environmental appraisal inventory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(4), 369-384.

Lewicka, M. (2010). What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 35-51.

Lima, M.L. (2004). On the influence of risk perception on mental health: living near an incinerator. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 71-84.

Lima, M.L. & Castro, P. (2005). Cultural theory meets the community: Worldviews and local issues. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1), 23-35.

Lord, S., Despres, C. & Ramadier, T. (in press). When mobility makes sense: A qualitative and longitudinal study of the daily mobility of the elderly. Journal of Environmental Psychology.

Mackinnon, D. & Cumbers, A. (2007). An introduction to economic geography: Globalization, uneven development and place. Harlow, England et al: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Mannarini, T., Tartaglia, S., Fedi, A., & Greganti, K. (2006). Image of neighborhood, self-image and sense of community. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(3), 202-214.

Mannetti, L., Pierro, A. & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: Planned and self-expressive behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 227-236.

McFarlane, B.L. & Boxall, P.C. (2003). The role of social psychological and social structural variables in environmental activism: an example of the forest sector. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 79-87.

Miceli, R., Sotgiu, I. & Settani, M. (2008). Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: A study in an alpine valley in Italy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 164-173.

Morgan, P. (2010). Towards a developmental theory of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 11-22.

Nilsson, A, von Borgstede, C. & Biel, A. (2004). Willingness to accept climate change strategies: The effect of values and norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 267-277.

Nordlund, A.M. & Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(4), 339-347.

Ohtomo, S. & Hirose, Y. (2007). The dual-process of reactive and intentional decision-making involved in eco-friendly behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(2), 117-125.

Oswald, F., Schilling, O., Wahl, H.-W., Fange, A., Sixsmith, J., & Iwarsson, S. (2006). Homeward bound: Introducing a four-domain model of perceived housing in very old age. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(3), 187-201.

Pichert, D. & Katsikopoulos, K.V. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 63-73.

Rechavi, T.B. (2009). A room for living: Private and public aspects in the experience of the living room. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 133-143.

Rissotto, A. & Tonucci, F. (2002). Freedom of movement and environmental knowledge in elementary school children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1-2), 65-77.

Robin, M, Matheau-Police & Couty, C. (2007). Development of a scale of perceived environmental annoyances in urban settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 55-68.

Scannell, L. & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1-10.

Sunblad, E.-V., Biel, A. & Garling, T. (2007). Cognitive and affective risk judgements related to climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(2), 97-106.

Sutton, S.E. & Kemp, S.P. (2002). Children as partners in neighborhood placemaking: Lessons from intergenerational design charrettes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1-2), 171-189.

Swami, V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Snelgar, R., & Furnham, A. (in press). Personality, individual differences, and demographic antecedents of self-reported household waste management behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology.

Thogersen, J. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: An extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(4), 247-261.

Thogersen, J. (2004). A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 93-103.

Thogersen, J. & Olander, F. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 225-236.

Uzzell, D.L. (2000). The psycho-spatial dimension of global environmental problems. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(4), 307-318.

Vollink, T., Meertens, R. & Midden, C.J.H. (2002). Innovating ‘diffusion of innovation’ theory: Innovation characteristics and the intention of utility companies to adopt energy conservation interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(4), 333-344.

Wells, N.M. (2005). Our housing, our selves: A longitudinal investigation of low-income women’s participatory housing experiences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(2), 189-206.

White, E.V. & Gatersleben, B. (in press). Greenery on residential buildings: Does it affect preferences and perceptions of beauty? Journal of Environmental Psychology.

Whitmarsh, L. (2009). Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 13-23.

Whitmarsh, L. & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314.

 Source: Gezgin,  U.B.  (2011).  Economics,  Environment  &  Society:  Planning  Cities  at  the  Center  of  Mass/mess of the Sustainability Triangle. Germany: Lambert Publishing. 

ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENT & SOCIETY: PLANNING CITIES AT THE CENTER OF MASS/MESS OF THE SUSTAINABILITY TRIANGLE Dr. Ulaş Başar Gezgin Contents - Spatial Identity Formation: How Urban Planning and Economics Are Forming Asian Urban Identities? - Spatial Identity Formation, Tourism and Sustainable Development at a Peninsular Town - Urban Biodiversity, Economics & Ethics - Environmental Psychology, Urban Planning and Economics: Intersections, Crossroads & Tangents - Education for Green Business and Sustainability/Sustainable Management:  Urban and Regional Challenges and Opportunities - The Social Consequences of Environmental Degradation in Vietnam: A Country-level and City-level Pollution Haven Analysis - Economic Crisis, Ethics and Technics: Where Is the Drawing Line Between Positive Economics and Normative Economics?