Journal of Environmental Psychology (1997) 17, 263–281 0272-4944/97/040263+19$25·00/0  1997 Academic Press Limited ENVIRONMENTAL

Journal of PSYCHOLOGY PICTURE OR PLACE? A MULTIPLE SORTING STUDY OF LANDSCAPE

M. J. SCOTT AND D. V. CANTER Department of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, U.K.

Abstract

Previous research has often used photographs as a tool for examining preference for landscape and in clarify- ing an understanding of what is aesthetically pleasing. Implicit in their use is the assumption that they will be regarded by the participants as representing the places shown. The present study demonstrates that there is a theoretical and empirical distinction between evaluations of pictures and evaluations of the places they represent, and thus future research needs to distinguish between evaluating the content of the photograph and the places represented in them. Using a sorting task, 41 participants sorted 20 photographs of local places, which they knew, in a free sort and a directed sort. The directed short instructed the participants to think about the places in the photo- graphs, and to sort the items according to their knowledge of those place. Analysis of the first sort showed that items were grouped according to the content of the photograph, focusing on land form and the presence of water. The second sort showed that the items were grouped according to memories and sense experiences other than just the visual information presented in the photographs. The results showed that the participants conceptualise photographs differently according to whether they are asked to evaluate the photograph or the place represented by the photograph. Landscape evaluation research therefore needs to be clear about what is being evaluated, picture or place.  1997 Academic Press Limited

Introduction photographs as a substitute for direct experience of the landscape. Several authors (Zube, 1984; Uzzell, Landscape preference research examines the types 1989; Carles et al., 1992) have stressed the import- of landscapes that people prefer, and explores why ance of using senses other than just sight when they prefer them. Such information can be applied researching landscape, and that the information to conservation and landscape design, also towards from other senses must be included, if possible, in a greater understanding of what is aesthetically the research. If this is the case, then information pleasing across a wide range of places. For practical from all the senses will reduce the impact of one fea- reasons, photographs are usually used as represen- ture such as the visual sensation of a lake, and com- tatives of various landscapes, and it is often bine to form experience. assumed that the photographs will be evaluated in In examining the validity of photographs as rep- the same way as the place depicted in the photo- resentations, Kroh and Gimblett (1992) compared graph. It is the aim of this paper to demonstrate laboratory data with that gathered in the field for theoretically and empirically, that there is a differ- preference ratings of places. They discovered differ- ence between an evaluation of the content of a ences in the preferred landscape compositions and photograph and an evaluation of the experience of the degree of preference stated. They went on to say the place as if the person was actually there. that,

Photographs as representatives the discrepancies between the two sets of data indi- cate that people’s ability to rate a scene for prefer- ence and to reach a higher level of agreement is There has been considerable debate within the area increased when multi-sensory stimuli are available. of landscape research as to the suitability of using (p. 67).

ps970068 264 M. J. Scott and D. V. Canter

Place experience includes information from all the graphs can be considered suitable simulations of senses, and although evaluation is based primarily real landscapes, although there are reservations on the visual aspect (Baling and Falk, 1982) the about their use and ways of improving the standard information from the other senses is important. of the simulation. In fact, as Canter (1974) points Shuttleworth (1980), Zube et al. (1987) and Ste- out, if the simulations were not good substitutes, wart et al. (1984) endorsed photographs as a valid then they would not be recognized as represen- simulation, and the latter suggested that if people tations of the objects they simulate. However, were viewing a scene, then they would gather simi- although photographs can be validly used as rep- lar information to that supplied by a photograph, resentations, their use, and any conclusions which since they would be standing still and mainly use are drawn, need to be done in the full knowledge their sight to gather the information. However, that they are just representations and not the real even though photographs have been found to be a experience. valid representation of a scene, there are still disad- vantages in using them as substitutes for a field Preference and scenic beauty study. Brown and Daniel (1987) found that time of day and the seasons in which they are taken and Much of the landscape preference literature has viewed should be similar. Therefore, weather and focused on identifying features or qualities included number of people, cars, etc. in the photographs in the photograph which seem to correlate to either should also be taken into account. Law and Zube preference decisions or to high scenic beauty scores (1983) however found that there was no need to con- (e.g. Herzog, 1985, 1989; Gimblett, 1990; Patsfall et trol for foreground detail and enframement in the al., 1984; Bernaldez et al., 1987; Ruddell et al., photographs. Hodgson and Thayer (1980) disco- 1989). From this type of work, some consistent vered that using labels in the study could influence results have been found. For example, when people the preference rating for the scene depending on categorize various landscapes, the division between whether they inferred human influence on the land what is rural and what is urban is strong (Ulrich, use. These results however, assume that evalu- 1977; Uzzell and Lewand, 1990), with rural places ations are intended to be made based on the infor- being much preferred to urban places. (Zube, 1973; mation presented in the photograph rather than Hodgson and Thayer, 1980; Zube et al., 1983; Hull drawing on the experience of the place in the and Revell, 1989). The presence or absence of water photograph. is also a clear division. (Zube, 1973; Zube et al., Another issue is the choice of scenes for the photo- 1983; Blankson and Green, 1991). Its presence graphs. Danford and Willems (1975) point out that seems to increase scenic value (Zube, 1973; Blank- researchers select scenes which contain those son and Green, 1991). properties of the environment which they believe Whilst these factors may indeed be relevant and will be salient in eliciting the response from the par- consistent when people are initially asked to con- ticipants. Controlling events in this way again sider photographs of places, they are not necessarily reduces the similarities between real life and the salient in judgements and evaluations about places, experiment because people experience many things or in preference decisions. ‘Preferences exist within and not necessarily those presumed to be salient. a context of values, beliefs and experiences,’ (Kroh Coeterier (1983) compared on-site experience, to and Gimblett, 1992, p. 58), and thus as Uzzell and photographs and found that none of the participants Lewand (1990) and Grahn (1991) suggest, there is a recognized where the photographs were taken need to look at the models people hold rather than despite the fact that they had visited the sites. This just regarding preference as a function of physical may be because what the participants thought was aspects. Attempts have been made to move land- important at the site was not captured in the photo- scape preference research towards a more struc- graph. A way to solve the problem of what to take tured and coherent model of preference for places and how to improve recognition of the photographs, (Hull and Revell, 1989; Schroeder, 1991; Kroh and is suggested by Hull and Revell (1989). They asked Gimblett, 1992). A useful guideline for such members of the participant pool to choose and research is Canter’s (1977) model of place, which photograph the scenes themselves. This meant that suggests that a place is a combination of the physi- the photograph pool was generated by the partici- cal attributes, the behaviours which occur there and pants, and that therefore, the photographs would be people’s concepts of that place. In much work on known to the participants. landscape preference, expected behaviours have The literature therefore suggests that photo- been ignored as an influence on preference Picture or Place? A Multiple Sorting Study of Landscape 265 decisions. However, Genereux et al. (1983) found Although there are strong theoretical reasons for that people have particular ideas about the types of distinguishing between evaluations of photograph behaviours which are expected and suitable in content and the evaluations of the place which is places and thus highlights the importance of includ- represented by that photograph, the techniques ing such factors in any preference evaluations. which have frequently been employed to research In researching the impact of the senses other landscape preference, such as semantic differentials than visual input, Kroh and Gimblett (1992) noted and bipolar adjective scales, are not necessarily able that ‘tactile, dynamic factors significantly contrib- to show this distinction since the participants are ute to preference.’ (p. 67) and Carles et al. (1992) not able to use their own concepts when rating the found that most of the environmental preference photographs. By using researcher-imposed con- was dominated by the auditory factors. These fac- cepts, information about how the participants con- tors would be experienced in the field but would not ceptualize and what they consider to be important be included in research using photographs unless is lost. If the aim is to understand the evaluations referred to, or inferred, specifically. or preference decisions, it is important to explore a person’s own understanding. A method which can Visual vs place experience explore this and show any differences between these two types of evaluation is the Multiple Sorting The main problem for researching landscape evalu- Task. ation is that humans experience landscapes when they are actually in a place. Paintings and photo- graphs of landscapes require an interpretation of The multiple sorting task the scene by the perceiver, (Hodgson and Thayer, 1980) and particular aspects of the scene are given A method which reveals people’s own concepts is the importance by the artist of the painting or photo- multiple sorting task. (Canter et al. 1985; Canter graph (Davis, 1989). Ittleson et al. (1974) write that and Monteiro, 1993). The sorting task allows this to ‘all environments carry a set of meanings . . . happen through providing material to be sorted, for [which] are recognized by the individual in terms of example photographs, but then allowing the partici- his (sic) own perceptions and values.’ (p. 17). pant to categorize according to their own concepts Humans do not just see something and understand and constructs. It enables the participants to it. They use experience to interpret what they see respond to the provided material, unhindered by (Hume, 1777; 1986 edition). prespecified concepts from the researcher (Groat, Thus, various influences on people can play a 1982). In this way, the participants provide their large role in determining the interpretations people individual conceptualizations, rather than the give to landscape and nature. In addition, not all of researcher imposing his or hers on the participants. the representation of the place in a person’s By providing the participant with information, the thoughts is gained through direct experience. Other sorting task seeks to uncover the conceptual struc- knowledge can be gathered through books or con- ture through which the participants understand tact with other people. (Appleyard, 1970). and arrange the information, and thus the nature of Experience is generally understood to mean the the interpretation of the data upon which they knowledge gained from participation in an event make their evaluations. through which a person has lived (Flew, 1979, This draws heavily on the work of Kelly (1955) Reber, 1985). It is the ‘sum total of what one has and Personal Construct Theory. Kelly maintained observed, learnt or undergone’ (p. 257 Penguin that people have theories about why things happen, English Dictionary, 1965). Thus, experience is a derive hypotheses and then test the hypotheses to sum total of knowledge which is gained from what see whether the they are validated or invalidated. people see, hear, feel, smell and taste. Furthermore, (Fransella, 1984). He suggests that psychological the reasons a person has for being in a place and understanding of ourselves and others comes what they have done or can do there also shape through studying ‘the personal constructs we have their experience of that place. It includes the under- each evolved in order to help us predict events in standing of the sum total of experience of the place. our personal world.’ (Fransella, 1984, p. 132). Evolutionary theories (e.g. Kaplan, 1987) derived Clearly, from this position, preferences, evaluations from studies of photographs may therefore be mis- and decisions stem from the constructs and models leading because they ignore the meanings and which we hold about the world. By looking at the associations which people have for places. models which people hold and their goals or pur- 266 M. J. Scott and D. V. Canter

FACETS Physical Actions Cognitive Urban Walking Like Rural Playing Dislike Local villages Viewing Not unanimous ELEMENTS Seaside Tourist Specific things Sport No action

FIGURE 1. The three Facets and the Elements within them for Photograph Selection Process. poses, a greater understanding of people’s evalu- during the time of the data collection, and so were ations and preference decisions can be made. available in school during June and July when the Taking this further, Canter (1984) suggests that data was collected. it is the meaning which a place holds for a person The subjects of the photographs used in the which may in some way be entwined with the pleas- research were proposed by a sample of the partici- ure of a place. To address preference therefore, peo- pant group in a group discussion. They were asked ple need to be able to express their conceptualiza- to suggest landscapes and places which they liked tions about a place. As a result, the multiple sorting and disliked within the local area. The local area task is useful for uncovering the models which peo- was regarded by the participants as a stretch of ple hold when they make their evaluations. The reaching from Whitby across the study therefore used the multiple sorting task to to . The school is situ- investigate whether different evaluations are made ation at the foot of the , 10 miles if the participants are asked to evaluate the photo- from and 20 miles from Whitby. graph, compared to evaluations of the place in the Thirty-seven photographs were taken of all the photograph. places identified in the group discussion, over four days in May 1993, under similar weather and time of day conditions. The selection process for the Method printed photographs used the three aspects or facets of place as defined by Canter (1977). A unique Participants and items number was assigned to each photograph and then each one was classified in terms of one of the A Secondary School in North Yorkshire, England, elements within each facet. The three facets were was chosen as the source of participants for the physical attributes, actions which could be carried study because its catchment area covers all the out in the places captured in the photograph, and school age pupils (11–18) from the local towns and cognitions of the places. These photographs are villages, and the socio-economic status of the stud- shown in the Appendix. ents at the school therefore reflects that of the For the physical attribute facet, the elements immediate local area. Many of the students are resi- were urban, rural, local villages, seaside and dent in the area for the whole of their academic specific things or areas. The elements for the career. This means that students at the school are actions facet were walking, playing, viewing, ‘tour- likely to be familiar with the surrounding area. ist’ activity, sport and no action. The third facet of The participants, students in the Lower 6th form cognitions arose from the original information (aged 16–17), were chosen as a homogeneous group which the students gave the researcher about because they are of similar age and educational whether they liked or disliked the landscapes and standard. Most will have turned 17 years old during places. (See Figure 1.) the educational year, and so may be learning to By categorizing each photograph in terms of the drive and gaining independence. This increases above facets, items which always appeared together opportunities to explore the locality for themselves, could be assumed to be showing similar landscapes something which may be denied to younger stud- or places, and therefore not a great deal of variety. ents. Another important factor was that these stud- By discarding similar surplus photographs, the item ents were not involved in external examinations pool was reduced to 20 photographs which best Picture or Place? A Multiple Sorting Study of Landscape 267 reflected the wide variety of locations. The process since the first sort was intended to allow partici- of reducing the photograph pool was intended to be pants to respond based on the presented infor- exhaustive, but with no redundancy, as this would mation without any direction. The second sort how- bias the weighting in the sorting. Labels were ever, deliberately focused on the place represented attached to the front of the photographs to indicate in the photograph. the focus and location of the photograph, and they were re-numbered 1–20 on the back. The research was carried out during May, June and July 1993 at Stokesley School. The tasks were Analysis completed by 41 students working alone. There were 23 males and 18 females. Each participant Multidimensional scalogram analysis (MSA) used a set of the 20 colour photographs, and response sheets were provided for each stage of the The data produced by the sorting tasks was ana- process. Instructions were given verbally, plus some lysed using multidimensional scalogram analysis written instructions for the sorting tasks provided (MSA Wilson, 1995). In this type of analysis, the on the response sheets. groupings imposed by the participant on the photo- graphs can be represented by a row of data or ‘pro- The multiple sorting task file’, which can be compared with the profiles for all the other photographs. Comparisons of the profiles Photograph sort In this sort, the participants were show how often photographs have been grouped presented with data in a similar way to many land- together. The photographs can then be plotted as scape preference studies, i.e. they were simply pre- points in space. The more frequently photographs sented with the photographs and asked to respond. have been grouped together, the more similar their In this case, the participants were asked to look at profiles and, therefore, the closer points are to each the photographs, and then to sort them into groups other. Points which are distant from each other in such a way that the photographs in any group indicate that the photographs have generally been were similar to each other in some way and diff- considered to be conceptually dissimilar in some erent from those in other groups. Each photograph way. could be in one group and one group only. There The plots are divided into areas by reference to could be as many groups as they liked, and as many the original data supplied by the participants, and photographs in each group as they liked. It was lines drawn to best represent the categorizations of emphasised that there were no right or wrong the participants. A line dividing two adjacent points answers, and that it was their opinions which indicates that although the points are physically counted. The common aspects identified by each close together, the overall structure of the partici- participant for the photographs in each group were pants’ categorizations shows that they belong in then written down by the participant, together with separate sections of the plot. It indicates a construct the numbers of the photographs which were in each on which these items are similar, but which is not group. as strong as the constructs which have created the divisions. The descriptions of the areas in the plots Place experience sort When the participants had come from the names given to the groups by the completed sorting the photographs, they were asked respondents in the sorting. These are the aspects of to spend a few moments thinking about the places the photographs which those in a group have in in the photographs. They were asked to imagine common. Content analysis was carried out on these being there, and to think about how they would feel, descriptions for each sort. what they would expect to see, hear, smell, taste The data was divided into four groups to check for and touch, to focus on the activities there, and what reliability across the sample. The sample was div- their moods, feelings and emotions would be like in ided according to the gender of the participant and this place. They were then asked to repeat the sort- the science/art bias of their chosen A level subjects. ing procedure, this time focusing on the places in (A levels are exams which are accepted as entrance the photographs according to their feelings about qualifications to universities). The data is presented the places, rather than in terms of the photographs to show four MSA plots for each sort. By dividing themselves. This moved the focus of the research to the data in this way, consistent themes of evalu- the places in the photographs. ation can be demonstrated. Random division of par- The order of the sorts could not be alternated ticipants could have been applied, however, this div- 268 M. J. Scott and D. V. Canter ision also tested whether there were any gender or types of sorts. (See Table 2) showed that there was a educational differences. highly significant difference between the photo- graphs and the place sort, (χ2=57·3 df.=6 p<0·001). Content analysis of the two sorts This is clearly produced by the emphasis on physi- cal features in the photograph sort and the empha- Table 1 shows a content analysis of the descriptions sis on the conceptual issues in the place sort. The used in the two sorts. In the first sort, 98 different further MSA-I analysis helps to clarify the concep- descriptors were used, compared to 194 in sort 2. In tual structures that underlie these content dif- sort 1, 12 descriptors were used five or more times, ferences. compared to 17 descriptors which were used five or more times in sort 2. In addition, a content analysis of the type of Results descriptors used in the two sorts was carried out, with each descriptor being coded by two researchers Photograph sort according to combinations of the aspects of place—physical features, behaviours or concep- In the first sort, there were 12 descriptors that were tualizations or some combination of these (see Can- used five or more times. These related to physical ter, 1977). A chi square test carried out to investi- aspects of what could be seen in the photographs, gate whether there was an association between the such as agriculture, industry, seaside and water. type of the descriptors used and the focus of the two Figure 2 shows a horseshoe structure, with the progression from moorland to tourist/coastal. The progression moves through ‘farming/countryside’ to TABLE 1 Table of Key Headings from the Sort and Frequency ‘leisure/recreation’ and ‘urban/populated’. Reference to the photographs shows that the progression is 1st Sort 2nd Sort from rural to urban. There is also another facet, No. of different 98 194 which is water. The water facet includes photo- descriptions given graphs from the rural and the urban elements, and Descriptors used 5 Agriculture Boring straddles the horseshoe separation. or more times Buildings Busy Figure 3 also has the horseshoe structure, with a Farming Cars progression from ‘moorland/farmland, rural, open Hill landscapes/ Children Playing space’, to ‘recreation/leisure, green areas in towns’ views to ‘urban and industry’. The only reference to water Industry Familiar Man-made Free is ‘seaside’ which is in the urban area of the plot, Moors Fresh and therefore does not seem to be as strong a facet Open spaces Happy as in Figure 2. Seaside Lots of people Figure 4 has the horseshoe structure from ‘iso- Tourist Noisy lated’ to ‘farming’ to ‘little civilization’ and to ‘built Town Peaceful Water Pollution up’. In this plot the progression is from right to bot- Quiet tom left. The facet of ‘water’ is clear in this plot, but Relaxing here it is located in the middle of the rural/urban Summer progression, rather than where the horseshoe is Tourism separated. Windy Figure 5 has the rural/urban horseshoe, again

TABLE 2 Frequency Table of Category Types for Each Sort Physical Behaviour Concept Physical/ Physical/ Behaviour/ Physical/ Total Feature Behaviour Conceptual Conceptual Behaviour/ Conceptual Photograph 43 6 23 2 16 4 4 98 Place 14 8 134 1 15 19 3 194

Total 57 14 157 3 31 23 7 292 Picture or Place? A Multiple Sorting Study of Landscape 269

North York Moors Field of Oil Seed Rape Ingelby Incline Carlton Bank Farm between and Captain Cook's

Wainstones Kirby Scout Hut

MOORLAND FARMING Mill Riggs, Stokesley Sheepwash COUNTRYSIDE Public Playground, Stokesley

Scaling Dam Stewart Park, Marton River Leven, Great Ayton

WATER LEISURE, RECREATION

Whitby Abbey URBAN, POPULATED TOURIST, COASTAL

Spar, Stokesley Beach

Amusements, Redcar

Hotels, Saltburn Teesside

Coulby Newham

FIGURE 2. Sort 1, Males who are studying Art-biased A levels. from right to left, and the facet of water is in the The subject groups consist of either three or five centre of the progression. The progression goes from different segments in each plot, with themes of ‘rural, green areas in towns’ to ‘urban’, with the ‘rural’, ‘urban’ and ‘water’ or ‘seaside’ being in each water facet between the ‘green areas in towns’ and figure. The difference between the three and five ‘urban’. Items which are more ‘water’ than ‘urban’ segment plots is that the ‘rural’ segment has been such as Sheepwash are located higher up the plot, further segmented to differentiate between very with a closer relative position to ‘rural’ items, rural and isolated, ‘farming’ and ‘little whereas Redcar Beach is located relatively closely civilization/leisure/recreation’. The progressions are to ‘urban’ items such as Whitby Abbey and the same, however. Teesside. Whilst there are some differences between the The four plots from sort one clearly show a horse- plots, such as the number of segments, many of the shoe structure with the progression from rural to photographs are consistently located relative to one urban as the main facet. However, there is also the another. For example, photographs 9, 13, 14 and 17 water facet which is attracting items from both the always appear together under the title of ‘moorland, rural and the urban elements. These facets can both isolated or rural’. Photographs 12, 16 and 19 always be described as relating to the content of the photo- appear together under the title of ‘farmland or graph, i.e. the descriptors depend upon information rural’. Photographs 4, 18 and 20 always appear which is given in the photograph. together under the title ‘leisure/recreation, green 270 M. J. Scott and D. V. Canter

North York Moors Ingelby Incline Carlton Bank Field of Oil Seed Rape Wainstones

Sheepwash Stewart Park, Marton

Public Playground, Stokesley

Scaling Dam River Leven, Great Ayton MOORLAND/FARMLAND RURAL, OPEN SPACE Mill Riggs, Stokesley Farm between Roseberry Topping and Captain Cook's

Kirby Scout Hut

RECREATION/LEISURE GREEN AREAS SEASIDE IN TOWNS

Redcar Beach

Whitby Abbey

Teesside INDUSTRY

Hotels, Saltburn Amusements, Redcar Coulby Newham URBAN Spar, Stokesley

FIGURE 3. Sort 1, Males who are studying Science-biased A levels.

areas in towns or little civilization’. Photographs 1, The progressions and the influence of water are 2, 6, 8 and 10 appear together under the title ‘tour- reasonably consistent across these groups. ist, coastal, seaside or built up’, unless there is the feature of water which pulls some of them into Place experience sort another group. Photographs 3, 5, 7, 11 and 15 are not consistently grouped with any other photo- In the second sort, 17 descriptors were used five or graph. These items with the greatest relative more times. These descriptors related to experi- change in location have some reference to water, ences which would be expected to occur in the places and are affected by the water feature to different in the photographs, such as ‘boring’ or ‘children degrees in the four figures. playing’ or associations which stemmed from the The most major difference between the plots is scenes and places in the photographs, such as ‘sum- that in Figures 2 and 3, the water feature is located mer’ or ‘windy’. across the separation of the horseshoe progression. Figure 6 has a horseshoe structure which pro- In Figures 4 and 5, the water facet is located in the gresses from ‘hayfever, open space, independence, centre of the horseshoe progression. awe, cold’ through ‘children, picnics, bored, relaxed’, There are no major differences between the plots ‘summer, childhood memories’, ‘seaside tourist’ to for males and females or between arts and science. ‘frantic, industrial, shopping, socializing’. Picture or Place? A Multiple Sorting Study of Landscape 271

LITTLE CIVILIZATION Ingelby Incline Field of Oil Seed Rape Mill Riggs, Stokesley Carlton Bank Wainstones Stewart Park, Marton North York Moors Sheepwash FARMING

River leven, Great Ayton Farm between Roseberry Topping and Captain Cook's Scaling dam Kirby Scout Hut Public Playground, Stokesley

WATER ISOLATED

Redcar Beach

Whitby Abbey

BUILT UP

Teesside Coulby Newham Amusements, Redcar Spar, Stokesley Hotels, Saltburn

FIGURE 4. Sort 1, Females who are studying Art-biased A levels.

Figure 7 also has a horseshoe structure, however The structure of the plots is a horseshoe, with a there are only three segments in the progression progression through from ‘rural’ descriptors to which goes from ‘isolation, peace’ to ‘some wind, ‘urban’ descriptors. However, the subject groups are cars’ then ‘busy people’. The items are plotted in a not simply based on the land form which can be regular horseshoe shape, progressing from top left inferred from the photograph, but on the experi- to middle right and bottom left. ences which the participants expected would hap- Figure 8 has a horseshoe structure, with the pro- pen if they were in that place, their personal goals gression from ‘lonely, peaceful, relaxing, natural’ to and sensations from all the senses. ‘activity; children playing, dog walking’ then ‘noisy, Photographs 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19 always crowded, traffic, fumes’. Again the plots are clearly appear together with category names such as plotted in a regular horseshoe shape, progressing ‘peaceful, freedom, relaxing and space’. Photo- from top left to middle right and bottom left. graphs 3, 18 and 20 appear together with ‘dogs, chil- Figure 9 is also a horseshoe structure progressing dren and football’, as category titles. Photographs 2 through three segments from top left to middle and 10 appear together with ‘busy, petrol fumes’ as right and bottom left. The descriptors progress from descriptors, and photographs 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and ‘fresh, clean’ to ‘dogs, families’ and then, ‘sea smells, 16 are not consistently found with any other cold’. photograph. 272 M. J. Scott and D. V. Canter

Field of Oil Seed Rape Carlton Bank Wainstones Ingelby Incline WATER North York Moors Farm between Roseberry Topping and Captain Cook's Kirby Scout Hut Sheepwash Mill Riggs, Stokesley Scaling Dam Public Playground, Stokesley River Leven, Great Ayton Stewart Park, Marton RURAL

Redcar Beach GREEN AREAS IN TOWN

SEASIDE

Whitby Abbey Teesside

URBAN

Hotels, Saltburn Amusements, Redcar Spar, Stokesley Coulby Newham

FIGURE 5. Sort 1, Females who are studying Science-biased A levels.

On the actual photographs, there are very few ments at Redcar being associated with Geography people in the frames, and yet there are references to field work, and the Public Playground at Stokesley ‘peaceful’ and ‘busy’. Any concept of population or associated with the council estate behind it, and level of human activity has been inferred by the being described as a ‘no go area’. These examples participants through thinking about the experience suggest that when invited to do so, participants are of the place. The ability of the participants to move able to extrapolate beyond photographs to the beyond the content of the photograph to consider places in the photographs. the place which it represents is illustrated by a com- In the first sort, the structure of the results was a ment made during the sessions by a participant horseshoe progression for land form with the influ- about an ice-cream shop which is in the same vil- ence of water as another facet. In the second sort, lage as an area in one of the photographs. There are the structure was also a horseshoe progression, but no references to this shop in the photograph, and without the additional water facet. The first sort yet in considering the place in the photograph the was quite consistent across the groups in the rela- shop is linked. Further examples include Amuse- tive location of items, with any inconsistency due Picture or Place? A Multiple Sorting Study of Landscape 273

North York Moors Ingelby Incline Carlton Bank Field of Oil Seed Rape CHILDREN, PICNICS Wainstones BORED, RELAXED

Sheepwash Farm between Roseberry Topping and Captain Cook's

HAYFEVER, OPEN Mill Riggs, Stokesley SPACE Public Playground, Stokesley INDEPENDENCE, Kirby Scout Hut AWE COLD Stewart Park, Marton

River Leven, Great Ayton

Scaling Dam

FRANTIC SUMMER, CHILDHOOD INDUSTRIAL MEMORIES SHOPPING SOCIALISING SEASIDE TOURIST

Whitby Abbey

Teesside Hotels, Saltburn Redcar Beach

Coulby Newham Amusements, Redcar

Spar, Stokesley

FIGURE 6. Sort 2, Males who are studying Art-biased A Levels. largely to the water facet. In the second sort, there there is re-categorization of items which means that was less consistency of relative item location across they move their position in the horseshoe pro- the groups. Another difference was that the first gression. In the comparison of males who are study- sort had fewer descriptors than the second sort. The ing Art-biased A levels (Figures 2 and 6), the first first sort descriptors focused on land form and fea- sort clearly shows that there is a horseshoe pro- tures which were visually given in the photographs. gression but that the water facet is attracting some In the second sort, the descriptors included aspects of the ‘moorland’ and ‘tourist/coastal’ items. As a which were not presented in the photographs but result, the River Leven in Great Ayton and Scaling which were inferred by the participants based on Dam are in the ‘moorland’ segment. In the second their experience of these, or similar places. sort, these items are further along the progression Comparison of the first and second sorts of the in the ‘summer, childhood memories’ segment. The four sub-groups reveals that within the groups items in ‘tourist/coastal’ and ‘urban/populated’ 274 M. J. Scott and D. V. Canter

North York Moors Wainstones Carlton Bank Farm between Roseberry Topping and Captain Cook's

Ingelby Incline ISOLATION, PEACE, WATER, COUNTRYSIDE Kirby Scout Hut FEW PEOPLE, ANIMAL AND PLANT NOISES Field of Oil Seed Rape WINDY, HAPPY, CONTENTMENT, FREEDOM SMELL OF FRESH GRASS Sheepwash

Scaling Dam

Mill Riggs, Stokesley Stewart Park, Marton

River Leven, Great Ayton

Public Playground, Stokesley

SOME WIND, CARS PEOLPE IN BACKGROUND FOOTBALL, FRISBEE DOGS BUSY, PEOPLE, SADNESS CARS, FEAR, SMELLS, NOISE CAPTIVE FEELING, PETROL FUMES Whitby Abbey

Redcar Beach

Coulby Newham

Amusements, Redcar Hotels, Saltburn Spar, Stokesley Teesside

FIGURE 7. Sort 2, Males who are studying Science-biased A levels.

remain in the same segments in the second sort, absence of water is not as important, so there is a however, Kirby Scout Hut changes the associations change in the relative position of items such as Mill in the two sorts. Riggs Stokesley and Whitby Abbey. A similar There is a similar pattern in comparison of Fig- example is given in Figures 5 and 9 (females who ures 3 and 7 (males who are studying Science- are studying Science-biased A levels). The second biased A levels) Kirby Scout Hut and The Farm sort has different relative positions for the Mill between Roseberry Topping and Captain Cooks Riggs, Sheepwash and Spar items. change their relative position in the second sort so These changes emphasise that different concep- that they are further along the horseshoe pro- tualizations are being used since features which gression. In Figures 4 and 8 (female who are study- had placed two items together in the first sort were ing Art-biased A levels) the water facet attracts no longer relevant in the second sort. The influence items and disrupts the horseshoe structure of the of water is seen in the first sort, but is no longer land form facet. In the second sort, the presence or important in the concepts in the second sort. This Picture or Place? A Multiple Sorting Study of Landscape 275

Ingelby Incline North York Moors Wainstones Carlton Bank Field of Oil Seed Rape Farm between Roseberry Topping and Captain Cook's

Kirby Scout Hut

Mill Riggs, Stokesley

Sheepwash ACTIVITY: CHILDREN PLAYING, DOG WALKING LONELY, PEACEFUL, RELAXING NATURAL

Scaling Dam

River Leven, Great Ayton Stewart Park, Marton Public Playground, Stokesley

Whitby Abbey NOISY, CROWDED TRAFFIC, FUMES Spar, Stokesley

Redcar Beach

Hotels, Saltburn

Amusements, Redcar

Coulby Newham Teesside

FIGURE 8. Sort 2, Females who are studying Art-biased A levels. illustrates that different experiences can be had by a sample of the participants. Identification of the with water depending on whether it is a lake, a places was also improved by labels on the front of river or is the sea. each photograph. The majority of the participants As with the first sort, there are no differences in had lived in the vicinity for several years. the plots between males and females or between As mentioned previously, some consistent results arts and science biased students. have been found in previous landscape research. Ulrich (1977) suggested that maybe rural and urban areas of landscape are inherently different, Discussion and research by Zube (1973), Zube et al. (1983) Hull and Revell (1989) and Blankson and Green (1991) This research indicates that people conceptualize found that people prefer rural areas over urban the content of a photograph in a different way to areas, and that the presence of water was also how they conceptualize the places represented in related to preference. In the current study’s first the same photographs. sort, this conceptual division of rural and urban, The participants knew the places in the photo- and the presence of water was found. It demon- graphs since the sample pool of items was suggested strated that people, when presented with and asked 276 M. J. Scott and D. V. Canter

Field of Oil Seed Rape Carlton Bank North York Moors Ingelby Incline Wainstones Sheepwash Farm between Roseberry Topping and Captain Cook's Kirby Scout Hut

Scaling Dam FRESH, CLEAN, WINDY, EMPTY PEACEFUL, RELAXING, WILD, FREE

DOGS, FAMILIES, URBAN, FREEDOM, FRESH CUT GRASS, HAPPY

River Leven, Great Ayton Teesside Stewart Park, Marton

Mill Riggs, Stokesley SEA SMELLS, COLD, DIRTY Public Playground, Stokesley DRAB, BUSY, BUSTLING, MISERABLE

Whitby Abbey Coulby Newham Spar, Stokesley Amusements, Redcar Hotels, Saltburn

FIGURE 9. Sort 2, Females who are studying Science-biased A levels. to comment on photographs, conceptualize in terms each of the places represented in the photographs. of land form and water. It should be noted however, The horseshoe structure and the progression that in the sorts, the participants were not asked to became clearer in the second sort even though the make a preference judgement. Rural/urban, and the range of descriptors increased. presence of water was a clear concept to use, and The groupings from the second sort did corre- there was little variation amongst the participants spond to the groupings according to land form from in the categorization of the photographs. Variation the first sort, but the descriptions in the second sort only arose when the separate facet of water was concerned activities, people, sounds, emotions and attracting some photographs to be in a water group physical conditions, and several items changed rather than a land form group. their relative position when the focus changed from When people were asked to conceptualize the picture content to place experience. The content actual places in the second sort, the aspects of land analysis showed that there is a qualitative and form and water were not used in the categoriza- quantitative difference between the types of tions. Aspects of what the photographs contained descriptors used in the first and second sorts. The were no longer important. What was important was inclusion of sounds as a factor, to some extent, sup- the place experience which the participants had for ports the work of Carles et al. (1992) who found that Picture or Place? A Multiple Sorting Study of Landscape 277 most of the environmental preference was domi- Canter, D. (1984). Action and Place: the Existential Dia- nated by the auditory factors. lectic IAPS 8 Conference on ‘Environment and Human Action’. West Berlin pp. 16–26. However, the results from the sorting tasks dem- Canter, D., Brown, J. & Groat, L. (1985). A Multiple Sort- onstrate more than just the ability of participants to ing Procedure for Studying Conceptual Systems. In infer experiences from photographs. The value of M. Brenner, J. Brown, & D. Canter, Eds. The this research is that participants made different Research Interview: Uses and Approaches. London: conceptualizations depending on whether they Academic Press. Canter, D. V. & Monteiro, C. (1993). The Lattice of Pol- looked at the photographs, or they thought about emic Social Representations. In G. M. Breakwell & D. the place in the photograph. V. Canter, Eds. Empirical Approaches to Social Rep- This study shows that it is possible to explore the resentation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. experience of places using relatively simple and Carles, J., Bernaldez, F. & De Lucio, J. (1992). Audio-vis- cost-effective means. The results of such procedures ual Interactions and Soundscape Preferences. Land- enable the area of place evaluations to move beyond scape Research 17(2), 52–56. Coeterier, J. F. (1983). A Photo Validity Test. Journal of an exploration of the picturesque to a more careful Environmental Psychology 3, 315–323. examination of how the place connects with people’s Danford, S. & Willems, E. P. (1975). Subjective Responses lives. This has theoretical implications in question- to Architectural Displays: a Question of Validity. ing strongly biological explorations of landscape Environment and Behavior 7(4), 486–516. preference. It also has practical implications in Davis, T. (1989). Photography and Landscape Studies. Landscape Journal, 8(1), 1–12. showing the ways in which the meanings and Flew, A. (1979). A Dictionary of Philosophy. Pan Books. associations with places may be more powerful in Fransella, F. (1984). Personal Construct Therapy. In W. influencing decisions about them than what is Dryden, Ed. Individual Therapy in Britain. Milton depicted in photographs. Keynes: Open University Press. Garmonsway, G. N. (1965). The Penguin English Diction- ary. London: Penguin Books. Genereux, R. L., Ward, L. M. & Russell, J. A. (1983). The Note Behavioural Component in the Meaning of Places. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3, 43–55. Correspondence and reprint requests to: Professor David Gimblett, H. R. (1990). Environmental Cognition: The Canter, Department of Psychology, University of Liver- Prediction of Preference in Rural Indiana. Journal of pool, Liverpool L69 3BX, U.K. Architectural and Planning Research 7(3), 222–234. Grahn, P. (1991). Landscapes in Our Minds: People’s Choice of Recreative Places in Towns. Landscape Research 16(1), 11–19. References Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in Post-modern Architecture: an Examination Using the Multiple Sorting Task. Appleyard, D. (1970). Notes on Urban Perception and Journal of Environmental Psychology 2, 3–22. Knowledge. pp. 97–101. EDRA Two. Proceedings of Herzog, T. R. (1985). A Cognitive Analysis of Preference the Second Annual Environmental Design Research for Waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psy- Association Conference. October 1970 Pittsburgh, chology 5, 225–241. Pennsylvania. Halstead Press. Herzog, T. R. (1989). A Cognitive Analysis of Preference Balling, J. D. & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of Visual for Urban Nature. Journal of Environmental Psy- Preference for Natural Environments. Environment chology 9, 27–43. and Behavior 14(1), 5–28. Hodgson, R. W. & Thayer, R. L. (1980). Implied Human Bernaldez, F. G., Gallardo, D. & Abello, R. P. (1987). Chil- Influence Reduces Landscape Beauty. Landscape dren’s Landscape Preferences: From Rejection to Planning 7, 171–179. Attraction. Journal of Environmental Psychology 7, Hull, R. B. & Revell, G. R. (1989). Cross-Cultural Com- 169–176. parison of Landscape Scenic Beauty Evaluations: A Blankson, E. J. & Green, B. H. (1991). Use of Landscape case study in Bali. Journal of Environmental Psy- Classification as an Essential Prerequisite to Land- chology 9, 177–191. scape Evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning 21, Hume, D. (1777). Enquiries concerning Human Under- 149–162. standing and Concerning the Principles of Morals. Brown, T. C. & Daniel, T. C. (1987). Context Effects in (1986 edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Perceived Environmental Quality Assessment: Scene Ittleson, W. H., Proshansky, H. M., Rivlin, L. G. & Win- Selection and Landscape Quality Ratings. Journal of kel, G. H. (1974). An Introduction to Environmental Environmental Psychology 7, 233–250. Psychology. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Inc. Canter, D. (1974). Empirical Research in Environmental Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, Affect and Cognition: Psychology: a Brief Review. Bulletin of the British Environmental Preference from an Evolutionary Per- Psychological Society 27, 31–37. spective. Environment and Behavior 19(1), 3–22. Canter, D. (1977). The Psychology of Place. London: Kelly, G. A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Con- Architectural Press. structs. New York: W.W. Norton. 278 M. J. Scott and D. V. Canter

Kroh, D. P. & Gimblett, R. H. (1992). Comparing Live Appendix Experience with Pictures in Articulating Landscape Preference. Landscape Preference 17(2), 58–69. Law, C. S. & Zube, E. H. (1983). Effects of Photographic Summary of the photographs Composition on Landscape Perception. Landscape Research 8, 22–23. 1. Spar, Stokesley. A small grocers shop in a market Patsfall, M. R., Feimer, N. R., Buyhoff, G. J. & Wellman, town J. D. (1984). The Prediction of Scenic Beauty from 2. Coulby Newham. A housing estate on Teesside Landscape Content and Composition. Journal of Environmental Psychology 4, 7–26. 3. River Leven, Great Ayton. A river next to an area Reber, A. S. (1985). The Penguin Dictionary of Psy- of grass chology. London: Penguin. 4. Mill Riggs, Stokesley. A footpath into the town Robson, C. (1983). Experiment, Design and Statistics in next to a field Psychology; an Introduction. Pelican Books. 5. Whitby Abbey. The ruined abbey on the cliff Ruddell, E. J., Gramann, J. H., Rudis, V. A. & Westphal, J. M. (1989). The Psychological Utility of Visual Pen- 6. Amusements, Redcar. Amusement arcades in a etration in Near-View Forest Scenic-Beauty Models. seaside town Environment and Behavior 21(4), 393–412. 7. Redcar Beach. The beach at Redcar Schroeder, H. W. (1991). Preference and Meaning of 8. Hotels, Saltburn. Old hotels on the sea front Arboretum Landscapes; Combing Quantitative and 9. North York Moors. A general scene of the moors Qualitative Data. Journal of Environmental Psy- chology 11, 231–248. 10. Teesside. The industry and commerce on the Shuttleworth, S. (1980). The use of Photographs as an banks of the Tees Environment Presentation Medium in Landscape 11. Scaling Dam. An artificial dam used for water Studies. Journal of Environmental Management 11, sports 61–76. 12. Field of Oil Seed Rape. An agricultural field Stewart, T. R., Middleton, P., Downton, M. & Ely, D. (1984). Judgements of Photographs vs Field Observa- 13. Carlton Bank. A local moorside tions in Studies of Perception and Judgement of the 14. Wainstones. Two protruding rocks Visual Environment. Journal of Environmental Psy- 15. Sheepwash. A beck and picnic spot on the moors chology 4, 283–302. 16. Kirby Scout Hut. A scout hut on the moorside Ulrich, R. S. (1977). Visual Landscape Preference: a 17. Ingleby Incline. A disused railway site up the Model and Application. Man-Environment Systems 7, 279–293. moorside Uzzell, D. L. (1989). People, Nature and Landscape: A 18. Public Playground, Stokesley. Playground in the Research Review. Environmental Psychological Per- market town spectives on Landscape. Landscape Research Group. 19. Farm between Roseberry Topping and Cap. Monograph. Cooks. A farm between two local hills Uzzell, D. L. & Lewand, K. (1990). The Psychology of Landscape. Landscape Design , 34–35. 20. Stewart Park Marton. A public park in Teesside Wilson, M. (1995). Structuring Qualitative Data: Multidi- mensional Scalogram Analysis. In G. M. Breakwell, S. Hammond & C. Fife-Shaw, Eds. Research Methods in Psychology. London: Sage Publications. Zube, E. H. (1973). Rating Everyday Rural Landscapes of the Northeastern U.S. Landscape Architecture, 370–375. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G. & Evans, G. W. (1983). A Lifespan Developmental Study of Landscape Assessment. Jour- nal of Environmental Psychology 3, 115–128. Zube, E. H. (1984). Themes in Landscape Assessment Theory. Landscape Journal 3(2), 104–110. Zube, E. H., Simcox, D. E. & Law, C. S. (1987). Perceptual Landscape Simulations: History and Prospect. Land- scape Journal 6(1), 62–81. Picture or Place? A Multiple Sorting Study of Landscape 279 280 M. J. Scott and D. V. Canter Picture or Place? A Multiple Sorting Study of Landscape 281