Urban Ecology, 7 (1982/1983) 281-305

281Elsevier Science Publishers B.V ., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

HABITAT AS EXPERIMENT: THEORY AS PRACTICE

JOSEPH J. VALADEZ

Smithsonian Institution's Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies, and Depart-ment of Family and Community Development, University ofMaryland, College Park,MD 20742 (U.S.A .)

(Accepted 25 May 1983)

ABSTRACT

Valadez, J.J ., 1983. Habitat as experiment : theory as practice. Urban Ecol ., 7 : 281-305 .

Principles from Campbell's Experimenting Society are transferred from programevaluation to habitat design. Diverging meanings of the concept of experiment arecontrasted to show how scientific methods can be used by designers and social scientistsfor addressing problems of both practice and knowledge . As integrating the concernsof the two groups is an immense task, islands of theory should be constructed as an initialstep for organizing the efforts of those involved in the proposed marriage of the twoprofessions. The islands of theory discussed here explore the problem of how muchhabitat structure should be designed by professionals and how much should be left to theinitiatives of residents. As behavioral constraint is both a by-product and a requirementof habitat design, upper and lower limits of structure are inspected to elucidateconditions when habitats are oppressive or anomic (i .e ., allowing either too few choicesor too many choices of their respective residents to foster community development) . Atheoretical framework and methodology is discussed for inspecting this topic ; a researchagenda is also proposed .

INTRODUCTION

Though the concept of Experimenting Society (Campbell, 1969, 1978)may as yet only be an anticipation, its logic and ethics remain compelling .As originally framed, such a society "will vigorously try out proposedsolutions to recurrent problems, . . . will make hard-headed and multi-dimension evaluations of the outcomes, and will move on to try otheralternatives when evaluation shows one reform to have been ineffective orharmful" (1978, p . 1 ; see also 1969, p . 409). It is primarily a reminder thatsociety may be conceived of as a laboratory, and its social programs asexperiments . Despite difficulties which lie in the intransigencies of suchresearch settings when compared with a classical laboratory, social experi-ments are still required in order : (a) to systematize a conceptual frameworkleading to the identification of both theoretically and practically important

0304-4009/83/$03 .00 © 1983 Elsevier Science Publishers B .V .

282

issues; (b) to formulate appropriate research designs ; (c) to develop methodsensuring measurement of pertinent variables, and (d) to identify feedbackmechanisms likely to improve the use of new knowledge in practice . Eventhough the methods for the experimenting society produce cumulative andcomparable findings about social development (Campbell, 1978 ; Friedman etal., 1978, p. 4), the difficulties involved in evaluation design induce fewprofessionals to use them in practice (Cook and Campbell, 1979, pp .37-94).

Environmental designers tend to be better prepared for planning habitatsthan for analysis of their habitats' impact on users. Though they areexpected to anticipate individual behavior in planned environments, theyrarely engage in follow-up investigations of whether their anticipations arejustified or accurate (Friedman et al., 1978, p. 4). In contrast, they are moreprone to accumulate data on material features (e .g ., logistics, durability,capacity, cost, etc .) of the production process . Because they respond toecological pressures of the work environment, their "judgments (are)influenced . . . by such factors as role, political views, and agencyorientation" (Howe and Kaufman, 1979, p . 253) . As a result, "No set ofconcepts or ideas has emerged that convinces a majority of practitioners ortheorists that the theory of planning has been found" (Hemmens, 1980, p .239) .

On the other hand, many social scientists tend to narrowly confine theirresearch to issues deemed `mainstream' by their respective disciplines .Though their research may enlighten our general understanding of urbansociety, it is rarely specific enough to help resolve problems of practitioners,policy-makers, and residents . Abstract theory and concrete reality canhardly mesh as long as "applied research in urban affairs is consistentlyrelegated to a second class status" (Bolan, 1980)! Indeed, the need for sucha reorientation of social scientists was recently expressed by the 1981president of the American Sociological Association, Wiliam Foote Whyte,who indicated in his inaugural address that a fruitful direction forsociological research is to investigate existing human problems and todiscover their solutions . This reference to applied research though notoriginal, may augur well for interdisciplinary studies that are pertinent toboth theoretical and practical audiences .

In summary, environmental designers plan and develop physical habitatsthat affect the social, psychological, political, and economic lives of users .In contrast, social scientists study interrelationships of people and theirphysical or social surroundings . But their respective literatures and practicesignore one another . The qualities of the relationship between the fields ofdesign and social science are therefore similar to those attributed to theRoman deity Janus . Indeed, the symbol of Janus, characteristic of thecurrent state of affairs, refers to a `two-faced', single-bodied creature witheach face either contradicting or speaking in terms irrelevant to the otherface. Yet, the symbol also refers to the ubiguitous vision that could be

283

achieved, for instance, by the integration of the two disciplines in which theinformation collected by one face complements that gathered by the other .Though the burgeoning of program evaluation during the 1970's made gainsfor this latter version of Janus, such research has dealt more often withmanagement and development of community support programs and deliverysystems than with environmental design .

The disjunction of environmental design and the social sciences results inlarge part from the differential meaning that the two types of practitionersassign to the concept of experimentation . Correspondingly, the first part ofthe paper is devoted to an exploration of the distinctive logics underlyingthis concept in the two professional contexts . In a second part, I delineate atheoretical framework within which the two versions of the concept ofexperimentation can be integrated ; this section is followed by oneillustrating concretely what investigations the two disciplines can explorejointly. This illustration will lead us in the conclusion to evoke the benefitswhich might be derived from the proposed integration .

EXPERIMENTATION AS SCIENCE

As used by social scientists, the notion of experiment involves asystematic analysis of the relationships deemed to exist between a 'treat-ment' and its effects on various populations . This analysis consists of twodistinct tasks, both of which rest upon a specific conceptualization of time .

The first task involves measurement of the relationship betweenindependent and dependent variables within a structured setting at apreliminary time point . Experimental independent variables are thereaftermanipulated at specific intervals while dependent variables are againmeasured at a second time point . Pre- and post-treatment statisticalcomparisons of dependent variables measured in their experimental andcontrol conditions elucidate their sensitivity to the effect of independentvariables .

The second systematic analysis involves comparative examinations of twopopulations matched as closely as possible at a single point in time . Anintervention (the independent variable) is subsequently introduced into oneof the populations, but not into the other which is retained as a controlgroup. Dependent variable measures are taken at both pre- and post-interven-tion stages of the enterprise in both the target and control populations . Therelative difference between populations is indicative of the power of theindependent variable in the experiment.

These two approaches to systematic analysis can be distinguished in termsof their respective focus on causal relativity and population relativity . Thisdistinction emphasizes two research strategies . In causal relativity, one seeksto assess empirically consistent relationships predicted by a theory ; reliablereplication is the sine qua non condition for a theory to gain credibility . Inpopulation relativity, one also uses replication in order to determine the

284

reliability of theoretical outcomes, but one inspects simultaneously twogroups rather than only one. As population relativity facilitates evaluationsof competing interpretations of the outcome measure, it is usuallyconsidered superior to studies focused on single population causal relativity(cf, Campbell and Stanley, 1963, passim) .

As the `scientific method' is linked to the logic of experimentation, itshould be distinguished from both quantified research (Bolan, 1980, p . 27)and functionalist study (Hemmens, 1980, p . 260). Quantified evaluationsmay or may not have scientific merit. In and of itself, quantification isinsufficient to access the validity of an analysis ; the logic of a research designin which data are collected determines whether quantified information iscredible or even necessary (cf, Cook and Campbell, 1979, pp . 37-94) .Likewise, the functionality of research is irrelevant to whether informationhas scientific merit. Even though Einstein's theory of relativity was producedduring the early 20th century, it was not practically utilized until the nuclearage .

As used by social scientists, the concept of experimentation takes placewithin a sociological time which consists of adjacent, cumulative, andreversible units. In experiments, adjacent time units refer to the observationsof an object prior to and immediately following exposure to an intervention .Cumulative units refer to continuing observation of the object at severalpost-intervention time points (e.g ., 1 h, 5 h, 10 h, etc .). Reversible units oftime are peculiar to the experimental context since the researcher is able toorganize another run of an experiment in order to inspect time points earlierthan those already studied . For example, in the preceding definition ofcumulative units, time points `5 h' and '10 h' were examined . Despite thisprocedure, the investigator can run the experiment again, but study earliertime points such as 4 h and 8 h. Thus, in this special sense, time is reversible(Levi-Strauss, 1963) .

Therefore, sociological time embraces a set of scenarios that (a) examinesan object at one point in time and then at an adjacent point following somechange in its habitat ; (b) inspects the cumulative effects of the stimulus suchas how long it takes for it to become visible and then dissipate ; and (c)inspects temporal scenarios passed over in earlier experiments . In the contextof analyses based on this type of time, researchers may be concerned withassessing functional properties of a habitat . These functional properties refer,for example, to : (a) the wearing out of materials and its deleteriousconsequences on efficiency ; and (b) the ironing out of initial quirks fromdesigns in order to increase their efficiency after early inconveniences .

Of these two properties, the influence of wear may be dominant becausethe aging of even well planned designs eventually reduces their functionality .But the process of ironing out initial design imperfections may also prevailas a problem whenever the persistence of inconveniences vitiates promisesof the initial design and disaffects residents and financial sponsors .

Yet, applying sociological time in social science experiments raises serious

285

questions . In the real world, the properties of time are not necessarilycumulative and do not necessarily follow linear patterns ; they may also bereversible after a period of cumulation, and, therefore, follow curvilinearpatterns. Instead of exploring conditions under which time has cumulative orfragmenting influences, researchers too often opt arbitrarily for the firstof these alternatives . They tend to formulate hypotheses positing linearrelations between variables, rather than develop theories identifying curvi-linear ones. Thus, their method of analysis becomes a determinant of theirtheory when in fact scientific logic requires that the chosen theory deter-mines the appropriate methodology .

The dilemma raised by the curvilinear versus linear properties of time is noidle academic exercise . For example, Litwak's (1961, pp. 267-270)examination of "voluntary organizations and neighborhoods cohesion"included analyses of both . He showed that "moderately settled" respondentsused voluntary organizations to integrate themselves into local neighbor-hoods more than either "most settled" or "least settled" individuals .Refining his analysis, he found that "moderately settled" residents withpositive neighborhood orientations joined voluntary organizations moreoften than either those "least settled" or "most settled," also a curvilinearrelationship. In contrast, individuals with negative neighborhood orientationsexhibited a positive linear relationship of organization-joining relativeto length of time settled . Litwak's distinction between positive and negativeresident orientations revealed two properties of time . The first characterizedthe behavior of positively oriented residents and required curvilinearanalysis. The second applied to the behavior of those residents with negativeorientations, but required linear analysis .

These dual properties of time raise a fundamental question regarding theevaluation of experimental architecture (cf, Doxiades . 1974, p . 68) : At whattime point should evaluations commence? For example, how long after theconstruction of a project should resident satisfaction with a new habitat beexamined? Should not evaluations attempt to control for a time frame inwhich users orient themselves initially in an unfamiliar space? Data collectedduring such a period may may reflect residents' intrepidness and optimism,or their anxiety and confusion ; this information may pertain to temporaryadaptation processes rather than to stable measures of satisfaction . Thus, atwhat time point should positive and negative feedback from users beincluded in an evaluation of a design? For example, was the initial optimismof Levittowners about their home essential for community development(Gans, 1967, p . 40)? Did this optimism persist over time and, if so, how didit relate to community formation?

EXPERIMENTATION AS INNOVATION

Experimentation as innovation refers to the production of a good orservice which deviates from the norm with the purposes of precipitating

2 86

paradigmatic revolution in a discipline (cf . Kuhn, 1970, passim ; Clignet,1979, passim). Experimentation in architecture as typified by Le Corbusier's`Towers in a Park', Safdie's Habitat in Montreal, and Aillaud's housingproject, La Grande Borne in Grigny, France (which residents call the`Noodle'), implies that architecture is : (a) an art that the designer imposeson residents rather than a humane facility in which user needs are empirical-ly assessed and given priority consideration ; and (b) a complex habitat inwhich the planner has not intended to identify discrete independent,dependent, and intervening variables, and to formulate hypotheses predictingdefinitve relationships between spatial forms and human behavior. Sinceexperiments as innovations are simply accepted or rejected, they arepredicated on a principle of `all or nothing' . Space is designed as a holisticexperience, making later remediation of the entire structure less easilyimplemented. For example, Aillaud's housing project, the `Noodle', couldbe altered substantially due to its pervasive undulating motif. Even if faultswith the design might be acknowledged by authorities or designers, theycannot be remedied after construction. The success of experimentation asinnovation is, therefore, contingent upon its acceptance by the public (i.e .,public authorities, peers, press, and individuals at large) as a fashionablecontribution, rather than upon its viability as a habitat .

The time within which experimentation as innovation takes place hasreversible properties . Yet, because innovative designs are products of specifichistorical contexts, their systematic evaluation may be historically relative,too. As theorized by Moyer and Clignet (1980, passim) and by macro-historians such as Sorokin (1962), the career of a design can be cyclical,varying with fashion . Thus, what is labeled as `durable' architecture in theshort term may become `rubbish' in the long term, and then once againresurge as durable at a later date (Thompson, 1979, passim) . And the sameholds true for `transient' designs which after having been thrown into therubbish category may be preserved later as historical legacies . As the qualitiesimputed to innovative designs are social constructs, the question is to deter-mine whether successful architecture, for example, the Pompidou Center inParis, is a `flash in the pan' or whether it will endure . To what extent shouldits success influence our current design considerations? Should the designsfor the Transamerica Building in San Francisco or the Hayward Gallery inLondon be replicated or left as ones of a kind? Which alternative optimizesthe success of the design? Would proliferation of a heretofore successfuldesign reduce its current popularity?

To summarize, the notion of experimentation used by social scientists isbased on the significance of relativity and causality, within the context ofsociological time. Experimentation used by environmental designers is basedon the significance of the `new' which is either accepted or rejected as acontribution ; this `all or nothing' is within the context of historical time .That is, an object may enter the category `new' immediately or 30 yearsafter its creation . Thus, the `careers' of design experiments exhibitirreversible and discontinuous properties of historical time .

287

To be sure, there is an interaction between the two notions of experimen-tation. Variations in the popularity cycle of a design may be related to wear,and the nadirs of designs may reflect their functional obsolescence as muchas a change in aesthetic values. As the functional and aesthetic properties oftime are linked, researchers should pay equal importance to the determinantsand consequences of deterioration and fashion, for the influences of onemay confound our perceiving the other . These properties should also beinspected in diverse settings, to assess their external validity, i .e ., thetransferability of findings across cases differentially located in space andtime .

Full understanding of the complementarity of the two concepts of experi-mentation is hampered by the dearth of systematically collected informationon the impact of architectural space on human processes . From a scientificviewpoint, architecture is less advanced than many other fields of activity .This may be because architectural research is very limited (Zeisel, 1975 ;Friedman et al., 1978, p. 3) . In order to overcome the effects of thisscarcity, it may be necessary to proceed in an incremental way throughdeveloping islands of theory (Guetzkow, 1950, p . 435) that explain relation-ships between habitats and users' responses to them . In other words, themarriage between designers and social scientists advocated by this paperrequires the identification of research areas that contribute to bothdisciplines. Although both groups of professionals focus on the users of builtenvironments, their respective relations with these users differ from oneanother. For designers, the problem is to evaluate the cost and benefitsattached to the participation of users in planning their habitats . For socialscientists, the major problem is to ascertain the ways in which such a habitatshapes and constrains human behavior. Our next task is then to present aframework which is pertinent to the concerns of the two professions .

UPPER AND LOWER LIMITS OF STRUCTURE

Both architects and social scientists share a concern over the social effectsof design variations . These concerns are clarified by the concept ofbehavioral scarcity . Architecture constrains a priori human behavior byrestricting the number of possible alternative behaviors in a space . The morearchitecture controls residents, the fewer behavioral choices are open them ;hence, the greater is the behavioral scarcity of the habitat . (Architectureconstrains behavior in the sense that design conveys a specific meaning and,hence, specific uses. Once a wall is built, the space cannot be used as anentrance. Obversely, the space designed as the World Trade Center in NewYork cannot easily be used as a playground or a grocery, albeit it facilitatesbusiness . Though this latter space may make possible hundreds of businesstransactions that were not possible on the site prior to construction, oncethe decision was made to build a business space, the design options of bothits designers and users were constrained .)

288

As behavioral control is an inescapable consequence of environmentaldesign, the question is how much behavioral control is required in order tocreate a viable habitat and a viable community .

From a scientific viewpoint, this query requires measuring variations inhabitat structures (from low to high levels) and their influence on theamount of variance in the distribution of users' responses . Indeed, manypoints along this structural continuum should be analyzed . Exclusive studyof low structured habitats would be uninformative as such residential spacesenhance the variability of users' behavior ; due to excessive standarddeviations in these distributions (depicted as a line horizontal to the x-axis)it is not possible to assess population relativity . Exclusive study of highstructured habitats is equally uninformative, as these spaces reduce to zero(in extreme cases) the variability of users' behavior . Because the standarddeviations of these distributions are null, such structures are merely self-fulfilling prophecies. Thus, it is essential to ascertain initially which spacesand their levels of structure are associated with optimal behavioral variancein patterns of human adaptation . `Optimal behavioral variance' is an idealtype and hence may be non-existent ; yet it is a useful heuristic device for ex-ploring a range of spaces and structures in which viable long term, satisfyingcommunities have developed .

The query concerning identification of optimal behavioral variance canalso be explored from a socio-political viewpoint . Too little structure resultsin too little participation and an undifferentiated environment in whichindividuals experience the forms of anomie generated by having too manychoices (i .e ., choice `affluence') . Users embrace diffuse spatial orientations,because their visions of the universe in which they live are mere by-productsof their individual biographies . But too much structure is oppressive andallows too little participation on the part of users ; this choice `scarcity' mayalienate them because of the architecture's poor accommodation to theirdiverse needs, wants, and desires .

Finally, from a purely economic perspective, too little structure mayminimize short term costs for the designers and their sponsors, due tominimal capital outlay for materials ; yet, long term costs may increase sub-stantially as a result of the anomie of affluence discussed above . Conversely,although short term costs of a highly structured space vary markedly withthe type of design adopted, they should be more expensive than their lowstructured counterparts . Yet their long term costs are likely to be uniformlyhigh due to the users' dissatisfaction and their corresponding lack of commit-ment and maintenance .

For these scientific, socio-political, and economic reasons, it seemsnecessary to identify the zone between no structure and maximum structure('no structure' and `maximum structure' are ideal types defining an abstractcontinuum) within which the physical environment is sufficiently structuredby the designer to enable its occupants both to use the services provided bythem and to retain the possibility of developing their habitat according to

28 9

their own idiosyncracies. Experimentation should facilitate the identificationof a zone within which residents maximize their time, energy, activity andemotional investments with regard to their space. This experimentationinvolves measuring two variables. The first one pertains to an assessment ofthe level of structure, characterizing the design formulated by theprofessional architect ; the second one is the amount of residents' commit-ment to their habitat and, hence, to their satisfaction as well as to theirparticipation in its further development .

It remains necessary, however, to articulate more explicitly the `islands oftheory' that link these variables to one another . This linking can besystematically identified in terms of the notion of `dependence' whichrelates perceptions, behaviors, and feelings to one another . Indeed, wesuggest : (a) the greater the externally induced constraints imposed uponresidents' perceptions, the greater their functional (or behavioral)dependence on that environment ; (b) the lower the externally inducedconstraints imposed upon residents' perceptions, the lower their functionaldependence on it ; (c) the area between the high and the low ends of thefunctional dependence continuum is associated with moderate to lowemotional dependence. Thus, the relations between functional dependenceand emotional dependence is curvilinear since emotional dependence ishighest when functional dependence is either very high or very low. Thesepropositions being made, we define relevant terms and identify in whichsense they are dialectically interrelated .

PERCEPTIONS

Our premise is that attitudes and behaviors are based on perceptions .Prevailing theory posits that one's visual field is structured in terms of figureand ground (Perls et al ., 1951, p . 25) . Seeing consists of organizing visualfragments from the environment into an object or a whole . This processinvolves selecting some information to form the figure and other informationas the ground against which this figure is perceived. The "`Figure' is thefocus of interest, . . . with `ground' the setting or the context" . But what arethe degrees of freedom we have when deciding which informationconstitutes figure and which is ground? Further, how are these degrees offreedom related to the shape of the object and to the subject's experiences inthe selection process of figure and ground?

These queries can be illuminated through three examples . At the lowestend of the continuum is a minimally structured stimulus such as a Rorschachinkblot. Correspondingly, respondents are forced to rely exclusively upontheir own criteria to choose figure and ground ; their descriptions to what theinkblot refers are shaped by their cognitive and emotional memories, inshort, by their own biographies . At the middle part of the continuum, thelevel of structure of the stimulus is increased. Though viewers have reduceddegrees of freedom, they still have some choices in contrasting ground to

290

Fig. IA. Figure-ground illusion depicting a chalice or two faces looking at each other .Fig. 1B. Figure and ground clearly defined by including more structure .

figure. Thus, in the classical example illustrated in Fig . IA, the viewer seeseither a chalice or two heads facing each other . The option is there, but thereare intra-populations differences as to the sequential order in which they seethese two objects. At the high end of the continuum, a further reduction inthe degrees of freedom through the addition, for instance, of a table surfaceand of a knife as exemplified in Fig . 1B reifies the chalice and minimizes theplausibility of the two profiles . At the upper limit of structure, there are,therefore, no degrees of freedom : only one choice is possible, regardless ofthe psychological or social characteristics of the average population . Mutatismutandis, designers manipulate the degrees of freedom that residents enjoyin their perceptions of the various components of the space in which theylive. Indeed this manipulation commands the extent and the form of thefunctional dependence they experience toward such a space .

FUNCTIONAL DEPENDENCE

At the upper limit of the continuum, designers structure a space socompletely that they reduce the occupant's degrees of perceptive freedomand constrain correspondingly the range of his/her modes of adaptation tothe habitat and to the other occupants .

Variations in the control of human behavior through arthcitectural designextend over at least five types of space : scale, view, sound, smell, and utilityspace (Table I) . Room size constrains behavior since it is planned with anoptimal number of occupants in mind ; similarly, the number of rooms in anapartment implies the family size for which it was intended. The socialcontrol exerted through these scale variables are evident in studies of density(Michelson, 1977, for a review), which linked crowding inside the home tothe incidence of pathology . In such contexts, size is the agent of control ;

TABLE I

Five types of space with examples

(1) Scaleroom sizenumber of roomsbuilding sizeproject size

(2) Viewnumber of windows (light)placement of windows (aesthetic and functional)children watching (parenting)neighboring (social relations)

(3) Soundinsulation between apartmentsinsulation between corridor and apartmentinsulation between out of doors and apartment (traffic and pedestrians)

(4) Smellinterapartment odorlingering building odorsintra-apartment ventilation

(5)

Utilitynumber of entrancesnumber of elevatorslength of corridorslaundry roomsgarbage

291

pathology is the behavior resulting from the functional dependencegenerated by this control .

View space, as determined by window placement has been discussed byseveral scholars. Lack of "privacy caused by cross-exposure of windows anddoors" (Mayo, 1979, p . 378) has been a source of dissatisfaction forindividuals living on cul-de-sacs (Kuper, 1953 ; Willmott, 1963, pp . 80-82) .Alternatively, Newman (1972) concluded from his study of public housingthat lack of inter-resident surveillance arising from current window place-ment was related to the incidence of crime.

Sound space is a function of insulation regulating perception ofextraneous noise. One reason why Levittowners objected to row houses wasthat "you hear everybody's troubles . . . (and) spend too much time withyour ear against the wall" (Gans, 1967, p . 274) . Highrises constructed onlandfill settle inevitably with frequent cracking within the supporting walls .This fault results in sound corridors exposing neighbors on adjoining floorsto each other's noise .

29 2

Smell space also involves inter-apartment insulation . Though all of us haveprobably been tantalized by a strong fragrance, smell can constrain behaviorby supplanting one's own olfactory stimuli thus forcing accommodation ofthe intruding odor . A smell can be offensive if it does not complement one'sown preferences .

Utility space refers to areas designed for specific activities, e.g ., exits,elevators, corridors, laundry rooms, garbage rooms, and the like . These, apriori, control behavior because of their particular functions . They fosterfunctional dependence insofar as they dictate compulsory points of passagebetween public and private spheres of activity and shape accordinglypatterns of social interaction .

Thus, the concept of functional dependence pertains to the control ofbehavior in one or several of the types of spaces just described . Havingshown the generalizability of this theory, discussion will focus exclusivelynow on the functional dependence of physical space .

Constraints such as those related to the 1980 MGM Grand Hotel fire inLas Vegas that claimed 84 lives illustrate the potentially pernicious con-sequences of upper limit designs and of a particular type of functionaldependence. While fire exists restrict behavior in emergencies and directpeople toward an orderly escape, the poor maintenance and design ofexisting exits in the Grand Hotel allowed leakage of smoke into protectedcorridors. Since no other options remained, the upper limits design led totragedy . Similarly, environment controlled buildings often offer anotherillustration of the negative effects of upper limit design of structures . Mal-functions of the air conditioning system leave little choice but to "bakewhen cooling breezes gust outside" . However, the social consequences ofupper limit designs are not always pernicious . Fire exits, when maintainedand properly designed, are vital . The functions of bathrooms require thesystematic use of materials and uniform spatial organization across dwellingunits in order to differentiate them from other rooms . This decision, whichis based on logistical as well as cultural grounds, restricts residents' choicesto a narrow set of optimal behaviors, e .g., hygiene, bathroom decor. Thus,functional dependence constrains behavior within definable limits that varywith the architectural form (e.g ., fire exit versus bathroom) .

As the amount of structure imposed by designers on residential spacedecreases, the degrees of freedom enjoyed by users of that space increases .The functional dependence they experience declines accordingly . In thiscontext, the designer tends to maximize the variability of users' adaptation,which becomes entirely determined by their individual biographies. At theextreme, each user may impose his/her own idiosyncratic structure on thehabitat as though it was a Rorschach inkblot ; this is a form of anarchy whereusers compete with one another to impose incompatible structures . Suchconflicts may inhibit local initiatives and prevents the organizing of thespace. Yet, low structured designs may also result in anomie of individualswho are unable to give meaning to a space . As they are unable to organizebehavior, their space becomes derelict .

293

Between these two extremes, it is therefore important to identify the zonewithin which the interaction between the structural constraints imposed bydesigners and the social characteristics of residents maximizes the commit-ment of the latter to their surroundings . This investigation is made moredifficult by variations in the properties of space .

In summary, functional dependence refers specifically to behavioralconstraints that designers impose upon the use of collective and privatespace, or upon the use of scale, view, sound, smell, and utility spaces . Designwith upper limits of functional dependence impose behavioral scarcity bygiving users few choices . Lower limits are defined by affluence of choice . Asan example, the number of elevators in a housing project prescribes a rate oftraffic flow between each private residential unit and the outside world . Oneelevator implies slow mobility and behavior scarcity ; many elevatorsaccelerate mobility by increasing choice and therefore minimizes dependenceon any one facility . Similarly, variation in the level of acoustic isolation ofboth common and private spaces modifies residents' perceptions of theirsurroundings, of their own behaviors, and of their neighbors .

EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCE

The level and the form of functional dependence of one's surroundingsare related to the sentiments one feels for these environments and theiroccupants. Sentiments vary in terms of their intensity as well as in terms oftheir form, namely, they may be positive or negative . The question is then topredict the intensity and the form of the sentiments which constitute theemotional dependence generated by a particular functional dependence .

At the upper limit of the functional dependence continuum, individualsmay have intense feelings about their constrained behavior . These can beeither positive or negative . This position is contrary to Homans (1951) whotheorized that the frequency of social contacts enhances group integrity, i.e .,members liking or having positive feelings toward one another . But surelythe context matters . Frequency of contacts cannot have the same effectsin groups where contacts result from the anticipation of personal benefitsto be derived from collective associations (Guetzkow and Valadez, 1981, p .223), and in groups where contacts result of externally induced forces, andingroups not having goal orientations. Nor can the effects of enhanced socialinteractions be alike in the case of socially homogeneous groups in whichmembers reinforce one another and in those comprised of individuals withconflicting habits and traditions (Francescato et al ., 1979) .

The enhanced emotional dependence resulting from a maximal functionaldependence may lead to four differing behavioral outcomes . Firstly,residents may adapt to their scarcity, and yet have strong positive feelingsfor their space and its other occupants . For example, warships, for the pastseveral hundred years, have displayed upper limits designs, yet comradery ofshipmates is normative behavior . This behavior may be due to the self-

294

selection of the population as well as to an elaborate code of conductdefining the `do's' and `don'ts' of social relations for both men and officers .The infamous examples of the Bounty and Caine Mutinies in which thecaptains violated rules of conduct underscore the strict requirements ofoccupants in such constrained spaces. But, in contrast to these examples,residents of public housing projects cannot self-select themselves into anenvironment organized with a clear set of rules . Thus, they share neither thesame vision of the world nor of their community. Secondly, residents mayaccommodate the constraints imposed upon them, but, due to negativefeelings, lower artificially the frequency of their contracts and reduce theiravailability for collective action . Gans' Levittowners were sufficiently con-cerned by the consequences of eavesdropping in row houses that they mayhave reduced their contact with their neighors . Thirdly, high emotionaldependence may lead residents to accommodate constrained behavior bybearing emotional costs . These negative feelings can be focused on oneselfor on the anonymous environment at large. Schmitt's (1966) reporting ofthe relationships between density and pathological behavior exemplifies theformer case . The latter is illustrated by Newman's discussion of vandalism inPruitt Igoe . More generally, this second response involves scapegoating(either oneself or another person) . Right or wrong, residents in housingdevelopments with poor elevator services tend to blame their neighbors,the janitor, or children rather than to organize themselves to improve thesituation by minimizing their respective functional dependence .

Fourthly, residents may adapt to the habitat in ways which violate theintentions of the designer. As an example, Suttles (1968, p . 234), in hisobservation of the Addams area in Chicago, showed how a whole network ofBlack institutions essential to social life was destroyed by an urban renewalprogram. He concluded that the new housing projects "disrupted internalorganization (making) it impossible for (Blacks) to develop a complement ofethnic institutions" . Since the housing projects were unalterable and wereunsuitable for provincial slumlife, residents used them as bedroomcommunites, preferring adjacent locales as yet unaffected by renewal .

At the lower limit of the functional dependence continuum, there is acorresponding increase in the intensity of negative feelings towards thehabitat, but the feelings for other occupants are more varied. Whether usersdisplay anarchic behavior in their competition by imposing their ownstructure on the environment or are anomic and do not have meaning forthe space, they have strong feelings of aggression or frustration vis a vis thehabitat. Correspondingly, they may have negative feelings for theircompetitors or have no feelings for them due to low social contact withother residents ; hence, in both cases they are unable to establish a socialorganization for maintaining the space. As suggested earlier, such alienationmay lead to progressive deterioration of the space . Yet, such residents mayalso organize themselves to form a united front against designers or ownersand compel them to add more structure to the habitat . In this case, group

295

cohesion is produced through positive emotional dependence . Therefore, inlower limit designs, there is greater though indeterminant variability in theintensity and direction (i .e ., positive or negative) of feelings toward otherindividuals, than what people experience in habitats with upper limitsdesigns .

Three discrete items of evidence suggest, however, that these outcomes ofminimal functional dependence might be improved by altering people'sconceptions of the space or portions of the physical structure .

Robbin's (1969) discussion of the Tenant Gardens program supported bythe New York Authority, is a landscape architecture example of : (a) users'negative or ambivalent reactions to space at the lower limits of design ; and(b) changes in their behavior once additional structure is introduced. Smallmarginal areas situated between Harlem tenement houses were dustyeyesores and, with the exception of occasional use by children, gangs, streetmechanics, and the like, they were virtually abandoned albeit littered withdebris. Authorities decided to transform these areas into tenant gardens .Their program consisted of : (a) disposing of garbage and preparing the earthfor eventual cultivation ; and (b) establishing social outreach activitiesthrough which local neighborhood residents learned that the spaces wereavailable to them for gardening. The Authority encouraged residents byawarding citations for aesthetic merit. In most cases, neighborhood peoplethrew themselves into the program and cultivated flower and vegetablegardens . Users included individuals who maintained the spaces as well asthose who visited them for relaxation . Neighborhood identification wasexhibited in two ways : (a) tenants over time continued to maintain anddevelop their gardens without outside intervention ; (b) in some cases, usersformally named these spaces, thus giving them special status by distinguish-ing them from those of other neighborhoods ; and (c) residents spoke withpride about them since they were indications of local competencies andvalues .

The changes of perceptions of spatial structure of residents is fundamentalto this transition from derelict to used space . The level of structure of thederelict space is at the lower limit . By moving perceptions away from thislimit to one in which figure could be distinguished from ground, the tenantgardens program shifted perceptions and behaviors toward the middleportion of the structural continuum .

The second example concerns the reactions of Vancouver's inhabitants tothe transformation of the architecture of five obsolete seaplane hangars forthe 1976 United Nation's Forum on the Human Habitat. Initially, theCanadian Government had allocated about $1 million to prepare 'Jericho'(the site of these hangars) for the Habitat Forum . Clearly, these seaplanehangars imposed a minimal functional dependence since they had not beenused since 1945. Teams of designers and crafts people renovated the fivehangars using local cedar and douglas fir (Fig . 2). Despite insufficient funds,workers continued construction, even without wages, for about two months

296

Fig. 2 . Airplane hangar at Jericho transformed into Habitat Forum .

until the Forum was officially opened. They often said that it was the `Spiritof Jericho' that moved them to volunteer their time . During the year of con-struction, this `spirit' was exhibited in two ways. Firstly, local Vancouveritesspontaneously visited the site for a variety of reasons : evening walks,socializing, and play . Secondly, a worker's subculture was formed at Jericho .Friends and associates would visit Jericho staff for social activities at theproject site . As the work area was transformed into a rather fashionablenight spot, volunteers continued to join the work staff during this period .Following Habitat, Jericho had continued popularity. In the subsequentyear, about a dozen formal events were staged by local citizens who wereinterested in maintaining the five hangars as a permanent fixture ofVancouver's cultural scene. Local residents also continued to use the spaceinformally for recreation and leisure .

The `Spirit of Jericho' was an indication of positive emotional dependenceby its users for a space which prior to the Forum exerted low functionaldependence. This Spirit was born during the renovation of Jericho . Thus, byphysically changing the environment, architects moved this space from thelower limit of structure toward the mid region of the continuum . By sodoing, they appealed to a wide range of individuals in terms of ethnicity,social economic status, and age . The positive emotional response of userswas probably best exhibited by a citizens' nonprofit organization, `Friendsof the Forum', that organized events at Jericho following the close of theUN Conference. Their activities continued until Jericho was gutted by fire .

Self-help architectural projects, such as those found in squatter settle-ments throughout Latin America, are the third item of evidence of positiveeffects associated with minimal structures. Though such projects are oftenwithout the de jure support of local governments, these formal institutionscan be de facto supporters . For example, in Fig. 3, the occupants of thisChilean resident-made house are siphoning electricity illegally from theelectric lines. The availability of electricity was a sufficient structuring of thehabitat to encourage someone to build near to the high tension wires . In thiscase, the `owner' is satisfied with his self-made house for he has added asheltered patio, and a pen for small animals . The local government is hisde facto supporter since it has not forced the `owner' to disconnect hissource of free energy . This particular house has been attached to the electriclines for several years .

Fig. 3 . User-built Chilean house illegally connected to electric lines .

2 9 7

298

One main argument of self-help advocates has been that self-help "has apositive effect on the maintenance of community facilities and maystimulate the community to construct other infrastructure projects, e.g ., sidewalls (and) community centers" (Bamberger, 1974, pp . 45-48) . Such anexpectation suggests a theory of citizen participation which says thatindividuals feel more committed to and identify more strongly with spacesthat they have helped construct; research is now needed to identify theminimal physical and administrative structures required to ensure suchsuccess .

Despite the differing natural histories of these three projects, they allsuggest that functional dependence can be improved through alterations ofthe environment, and that manipulation of minimal structures may nurturethe occupants of a residential space to experience positive emotionaldependence toward their surroundings and their neighbors and to transformthis positive dependence into an active and cooperative commitment to theirhabitat. Yet, it remains necessary to ascertain which type of initiative(increasing the level of structure through physical or perceptual change)leads to such successful actions . It also remains necessary to determinewhether the results of such initiatives differ when they are taken byoutsiders (architects, policymakers) or by insiders (residents) .

In summary, this review of islands of theory suggests that : (a) the amountand the form of the structure that professional designers impose upon aresidential space, condition users' perceptions of both the space and itsoccupants ; (b) such perceptions shape the amount and the form offunctional dependence these users have on their surroundings ; and (c) thisfunctional dependence influences both the intensity and the form ofsentiments that users experience toward their community and its members .

A further suggestion is that while maximal functional dependence fostersan intense positive or negative emotional dependence, minimal functionaldependence alienates individuals from their community, leading to eitheranomic or anarchic behavior . While the former response constitutes anoverall retreat from the environment, the latter represents self-defeatingindividual initatives to achieve a higher level of spatial structure whichproduces negative emotional dependence vie a vie competitors . But minimalstructures may lead to positive emotional dependence in cases whereoccupants recognize their shared problems (Minar and Greer, 1969, p . 47)and unite to increase the level of structure .

Thus, this review of these islands of theory emphasizes the importance ofdetermining with greater accuracy the level and the form of structures thatfoster cooperative rather than competitive behavior among residents . Indeed,this section suggests that these `islands' could be further explored byorganizing simultaneous or successive experiments to define the middleregion of the structural continuum .

299

APPLICATIONS OF ISLANDS OF THEORIES TO THE NOTION OFEXPERIMENTING SOCIETY

Environmental pressures and projections of resource scarcity havestimulated urban designers to search for innovative strategies for designingfuture neighborhoods (Van Til, 1979) . Hopefully such strategies will beformulated by interdisciplinary teams using experimental techniques in orderto systematically map and improve new cities . As yet there are few cityexperiments .

One exception concerns Valadez and Bellalta's (1981) study of Macul, asuburb of Santiago, Chile (designed in 1969) - the 1981 winners of theAmerican Society of Landscape Architects' Merit Research Award, and theAmerican Institute of Landcape Architects' Special Design Award for uniquecommunity solutions. Space was constructed to maximize interaction ofneighbors and to facilitate community development. Space in Maculdeveloped for these purposes was based on social psychological findings suchas those by Festinger (1951), Merton (1951), Kuper (1953), Michelson(1977), Carey and Mapes (1972) and Valadez and Bellalta, 1983 .

The designers hypothesized that by building a minimally structuredhabitat, co-owners would have latitude to improve it according to their ownpreferences. Indeed, planners expected that the process of interresidentnegotiation would lay the basis for subsequent community development .Thirty large plazas were constructed, each being defined by eight houses ;none of them were landscaped by the original professional designers with theexception of a minimal infrastructure. Completing this environment was theresponsibility of the plaza residents . The longitudinal data collected byevaluators from 1971 through 1976 consisted of rates of plaza developmentand speed of development. Analysis was based on the assumption thatintegrated communities would reach agreements faster and carry out theirdecisions more efficiently .

The notion of `minimally structured habitat' used in that context wassimilar to the `lower limits' discussed in this paper . Three varations amongthe thirty plazas allow systematic analysis of the consequences of differingstructures and, hence, of differing functional dependence on group forma-tion and activity . Two variations were examined as experimental groups,each having a configuration aiming to maximize resident interaction . Oneencouraged pedestrian traffic, but the other was private, intended only forresidents. A third variation formed the control group since it had less thanthe minimum of structuring required for the expected outcome . The purposeof the Macul experiment was to examine how variations in the structure ofplazas affected their development by their residents . It was also to examinehow their rate of development was influenced by the public or privateproperties of these plazas . In Macul, one entrance private plaza residentsdisplayed more successful participation than any other spatial variation ; inFig. 4 the residents of this private plaza cultivated a diverse garden which

30 0

Fig. 4. One entrance plaza in Macul with garden landscaping .

was already mature when this photograph was taken in 1976 . Two entrancepublic plazas were less successful than the former types but more successfulthan the control variation ; in Fig. 5 the residents developed a formal civiclandscape. The less mature vegetation in this plaza as compared with that ofthe former plaza may suggest that the residents of this second variation tooka much longer time to make their design decision or to realize it . The controlversion tended to remain undeveloped (see Fig. 6) (Valadez and Bellalta,1983).

While comparison of subsequent development in the two experimentalgroups uis a uis the control group begins to clarify what parameters definelower limits, it also facilitates the analysis of a particular type of functionaldependence since each experimental space was planned to foster the samebehavior (i.e ., resident interaction) . In short, Valadez and Bellalata's researchbegins to throw some light on how functional and emotional dependence arerelated. Residents of one and two entrance plazas had sufficient structure todevelop their habitats and the social relations with which to carry out theirdesign decisions. The open-sided, control plazas lacked sufficient structure,and their anomie residents either tended to retreat from each other orremained indecisive about their design decision .

Incremental development projects of the World Bank's Sites and ServicesProgram ('services' in this context is used in a broad sense and includesenergy facilities - water, gas, electricity - commercial areas, churches, andschools) offer a second example of experiments for exploring the lower

Fig. 5. Two entrance plaza in Macul with formal civic landscaping .

Fig. 6 . Open sided plaza in Macul that remained undeveloped.

301

302

limits of shelter design (Valadez, 1981) . First, they are experimental sinceseveral variations of a single theory are examined simultaneously . Second,since each variation is progressively more structured, lower limits can beidentified more accurately. Incremental development consists of fouroptions : (a) completion of party walls, poles, and a roof ; (b) completion ofthe end gable wall and sides to the sanitary unit ; (c) provision of a mezzaninefloor ; and (d) a complete shell (Reforma, 1977, p. 17). For each of theoptions, user self-help is the means through which shelters are finished . Acentral question then is to ascertain which of the four options enhancesresidents' participation and results in high quality albeit inexpensive housing .If the structure attached to each option is insufficient, then individuals maynot be able to construct dwellings that meet World Bank standards as well asthose of the client country . But if too much structure is provided, unneededcosts are accrued by borrowers which, in a global context, representsbillions of dollars .

Though recent literature (Valadez, 1981) has developed several methodsfor studying incremental development, such projects are not currentlyevaluated on this basis . If each option was examined comparatively withappropriate controls exerted over confounding intervening variables (e .g .,demographic characteristics, culture), it might be possible to assess which ofthe options might be defined as a lower limit . If such a lower limit wasreliably determined, options which fell below this threshold could beeliminated from further consideration as a shelter development strategy .

GROUNDS FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY EFFORTS

The previous discussion describes processes of theory building that couldfeed directly into planning practice and contribute to sociological under-standing of human behavior in built environments . By researching upper andlower limits of design, social scientists could learn more about how physicalstructure influences human perception and adapation in cities . And designersthemselves could more adequately understand structural requirements forhabitats and clarify their role and that of residents or community organiza-tions in developing viable communities .

Through delineation of the interaction of functional and emotionaldependences, researchers would collect a wealth of information leading toprogress in social science disciplines and in design . For the social sciences,such work could help resolve debates of physical determinists (Festinger,1951 ; Merton, 1951) and urban ecologists (Burgess, 1925, Firey, 1945), orat least provide the two schools with a common focus . For the planningprofessions, this research could illuminate how physical structure and socialprocesses interrelated for community formation. The design of spacesoptimal for users would be based on scientific understanding rather thanconjecture (but see Fracescato, 1980) .

Though the proposed integration of the social sciences and the planning

3 03

professions suggests potential benefits, there are biases to be overcome .Social science's voyeur relationship with cities has earned it a label as a"luxury of abstraction or compartmentalization of experience andknowledge" (Bolan, 1980, p. 272). By getting social scientists' hands dirty,the proposed integration would have them sacrifice the advantage ofexamining communities only after construction, and bear the heavyresponsibility of shaping the future along with planners ; thus they wouldbecome targets of criticism as well as critics . Since the field of planningrequires decision rather than indecision, grey areas of knowledge could nolonger be ignored. As suggested earlier, social scientists could develop theoryin an incremental way, based on "hard-headed, multi-dimensionalevaluations of outcomes" (Campbell, 1978, p . 1) that could help constructknowledge and move toward an evolutionary learning society (Dunn, 1971) .

This proposed marriage should benefit planners too . Hemmens observedthat "planning theory appears to be stuck and in need of renewal" . The"increasing criticism of the ruling planning theory" in recent years may bedue to a failure to develop a "competitive set of ideas (attracting) sufficientsupport to supplant it" (Hemmens, 1980, p . 59). Such criticism may also beattributed to social pressures within the field that perpetuate currentpractices and mitigate against introduction of alternatives (Howe andKauffman, 1979, pp . 253-254) . With social scientists as allies, designerscould systematically explore creative solutions that are not subsumed bycurrent approaches to resolve planning problems . Having the advantage ofdisciplinary distance, these new contributors may escape immediate socialand political pressures which lead designers to maintain inaction rather thanto reform. But social thinkers may be in a propitious position to comple-ment the existing knowledge of their partners, by formulating design experi-ments (both as innovation and as science) which may improve planningtheory through mapping controversial areas, and increasing options fordecision-making .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported in part by a Faculty Research Award anda Semester Research Award from the University of Maryland's GeneralResearch Board .

I am very indebted to Remi Clignet for his advice, encouragement, andwisdom, and to Donald T . Campbell for sharing his creativity and imagina-tion with me over the years . I also want to thank Guido Francescato andespecially, Esmee Bellalta for her patience and tenacity as we continue tryingto integrate our fields of design and social science .

304

REFERENCES

Bamberger, M., 1979 . Progressive development : self-help construction as a means toincrease the low income urban housing stock . Rep . Sixth Annual Conference onMonitoring and Evaluation of Shelter Programs for the Urban Poor, Ottawa, Ont .,Canada. Div. Urban and Regional Development, World Bank, Washington, DC, pp .41-48 .

Bolan, R .S., 1980. The practitioner as theorist : the phenomenology of the professionalepisode . J. Am. Plann. Assoc ., 46 : 261-274 .

Burgess, E.W., 1925 . The growth of the city . In : R.E. Park and E.W. Burgess (Editors),The City . University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp . 47-62 .

Campbell, D .T ., 1969. Reforms as experiments. Am. Psychol., 4 : 409-429 .Campbell, D.T., 1978 . Methods for the Experimenting Society . Northwestern University,

Evanston, IL, 66 pp .Campbell, D .T. and Stanley, J .C ., 1963 . Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs

for Research . Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, 84 pp .Clignet, R., 1979 . The variability of paradigms in the production of culture . Am. Sociol .

Rev., 44 : 392-409 .Cook, T. and Campbell, D .T ., 1979. Quasi-Experimentation : Design and Analysis Issues

for Field-settings. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL . 405 pp .Doxiades, C .A ., 1974. Architecture in Transition . Oxford University Press, New York,

NY, 199 pp .Drum, E .S., 1971 . Economic and social development : a process of social learning . Johns

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 327 pp .Festinger, L ., 1051 . Architecture and group membership . J . Soc. Issues, 7 : 152-163,Firey, W., 1945. Sentiment and symbolism as ecological variables . Am. Sociol . Rev., 10 :

140-148 .Francescato, G., 1980. The optimizing designer : Persona non grata . Proc. Environmental

Design Research Association, March EDRA 12, at Charleston, NC (Unpublished) .Francescato, G ., Weidemann, S., Anderson, J .R. and Chenoweth, R., 1979. Residents'

satisfaction in HUD-assisted housing : Design and management factor. United StatesHUD Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, DC, 163 pp .

Friedman, A ., Zemring, C . and Zube, E ., 1978. Environmental Design Evaluation. PlenumPress, New York, NY, 225 pp .

Gans, H.J ., 1967. The Levittowners : Ways of Life and Politics in a New Urban Communi-ty. Pantheon Books, New York, NY, 474 pp .

Guetzkow, H., 1950. Long range research in international relations . Am. Perspect ., 4 :421-440 .

Guetzkow, H. and Valadez, J.J ., 1981 . International relations theory: contributions ofof simulated international processes . In: H. Guetzkow and J .J. Valadez (Editors),Simulated International Processes : Theories and Research in Global Modeling . Sage,Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 197-252 .

Hemmens, G.C., 1980. New directions in planning theory . J . Am. Plann. Assoc ., 46 :259-260 .

Homans, G ., 1951. The Human Group. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 484 pp .Howe, E. and Kaufman, J ., 1979. The ethics of contemporary American planners . J . Am.

Plann. Assoc ., 45 : 243-255 .Kuhn, T., 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolution . University of Chicago Press,

Chicago, IL, 172 pp .Kuper, L., 1953 . Living in Towns . Cressett Press, London, 370 pp .Levi-Strauss, C ., 1963. Structural Anthropology . Basic Books, New York, NY, 454 pp .Litwak, E., 1961. Voluntary associations and neighborhood cohesion . Am. Sociol. Rev .,

25 :258-271 .

305

Mayo, J.M ., 1979. Effects of street forms on suburban neightborhood behavior . Environ .Behav ., 11 : 375-297 .

Merton, R.K ., 1951. The social psychology of housing . In : W. Dennis, R. Lippitt, K .T .Belanan, J.S. Bruner, J.L. Moreno, R.E. Merton, P .F. Lazarsfed and J .G. Miller(Editors), Current Trends in Social Psychology . Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh,PA.

Michelson, W ., 1977. Environmental Choice, Human Behavior, and Residential Satisfac-tion. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 403 pp .

Minar, D. and Greer, S ., 1969. Community as place . In : D. Miner and S . Greer (Editors),The Concept of Community. Aldine, Chicago, IL, pp . 47-48 .

Moyer, D. and Clignet, R ., 1980. Social problems in science and for science . Knowl .Creation Diffus. Util ., 2 : 93-116 .

Newman, 0., 1972 . Defensible Space . MacMillan, New York, NY, 264 pp.Perls, F.S ., Hefferline, R .E. and Goodman, P., 1981 . Gestalt Therapy : Excitement and

Growth in the Human Personality . Dell, New York, NY, 470 pp .Reforma, M .A ., 1977, An evaluation of the Tondo Dagat-Datatan Development Project :

a research design. World Bank, Washington, DC, 53 pp .Robbins, I.D ., 1969 . Tenants' gardens in public housing . In: W.N. Seymour, Jr . (Editor),

Small Urban Spaces . New York University Press, New York, NY, pp . 139-148 .Schmitt, R.C ., 1966. Density, health, and social organization . Am. Inst . Plann . J., 32 :

38-40 .Sorokin, P ., 1962 . Social and Cultural Dynamics . Bedminster, New York, NY. 718 pp .Suttles, G.D., 1968. Social Order of the Slum ; Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City .

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 243 pp .Thompson, M., 1979. Rubbish theory : the creation and destruction of value . Encounter,

52 :12-24 .Valadez, J.J ., 1981. Non-survey Techniques for Evaluating Urban Shelter Projects . World

Bank, Washington, DC, 158 pp .Valadez, J .J . and Bellalta, E., 1983. Macul: influences of tasks, and social and physical

space on habitat development . Human Organ . (In press).Van Til, J., 1979. Spatial forms and structure in a possible future . J. Am. Plann. Assoc .,

45:318-329 .Willmott, P., 1963. The Evolution of a Community : A Study of Dagenham after Forty

Years. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 153 pp .Zeisel, J ., 1975. Sociology and architecture . Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY,

57 pp .