Paper Presented at the Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, April 1988
INTRODUCTION
In the Non-Visual Lifeworld: A Comparative Phenomenological Geography, Hill identified six behavior-environment zones.1 She described these as "a complex of action spaces characterized by similarities in the type of characteristic problems and behaviors."2 This zonation applied to the experience of blind people and attempted to describe and identify their working relationship with their environment and how they function within it. However, all people have a relationship with the environment. No testing has been conducted to determine if this zonation also applies to the general public.
The purpose of this study was to determine the correspondence of the behavior-environment zones between the two populations. This may lead to a better understanding of humankind's functioning within the environment, and through practical applications yield design improvements for public and private spaces.
The hypothesis was sighted people have the same behavior-environment zones as the visually handicapped population. Although some characteristics may differ, the general zonation was examined.
One limitation was the Likert format of the questionnaire, which did not allow for explanation of experiences and exceptions and limited the depth of the responses given. It was assumed that the experiences of the subjects were representative of all sighted people.
DESIGN
Fifty one subjects were surveyed. A list of suitable participants was compiled from contacts known to the researcher. Randomization was not attempted. The subjects represented both sexes and a range of ages. The study was very briefly explained, and willing participants were given a Likert format questionnaire consisting of 102 questions, plus general information questions to be completed and returned. The questions covered aspects of the six behavior-environment zones.
After the questions were returned, the responses were rated numerically from 1 to 5, with a 5 strongly supporting the hypothesis. MICROSTAT, An Interactive General-Purpose Statistics Package was used to analyze the data.3 Means and frequencies for each of the questions were provided by the program. The means of the zones and the final mean were calculated by hand. No testing of significance of the results has yet been made.
ANALYSIS
Body-Self
The body-self is the individual with its spatial dimensions and environmental contacts. Elements include sensory abilities, perception, thoughts, subconscious activities, learning and personality. It links the individual to the surrounding world.
Ten questions were used to evaluate the body-self zone. The average overall value was 3.61. However, a score of 4.04 or 82% was achieved if only eight questions were considered. Questions 3, "I remember turning my alarm clock off." had a high percentage of disagreement, but a number of subjects noted that they did not use alarm clocks or that their spouses woke them. Therefore, this question might best be disqualified. Questions 1, "I am always aware of the world around me." also had a low score, 2.18. As will be shown later, these results often contradict those in other areas of the questionnaire.
Familiarity with the environment is a result of the repeated connection between the body-self and its world. Familiarity with a place yeilds an increase in comfort as was shown in questions 2 and 4. In the former "As I become more familiar with a place, I become more comfortable," 98% agreed with an average score of 4.49. In the latter question, "I never feel insecure in a strange place." 75% acknowledged their insecurity, with an average score of 3.75. Elements of these two questions are reinforced by other questions later in the questionnaire.
Body-Subject Action Space
The body-subject action space is the area of greatest personal concern and comfort, and is dominated by body-subject actions. These are the everyday, routine activities which the body performs without conscious effort or attention, and are most frequent in a familiar area. With an average score of 3.57, the existence of this zone was supported.
In the body-subject action space, body-subject is capable of controlling the majority of the body's spatial movements. Such activities can occur without later recall. The turning on of light switches is one such example. On question 4 the average score was 4.22, and 92% of the subjects agreed that they did not need to think about where the light switches are in their homes.
Intimate bonds form with areas with which the body is most familiar. In response to question 10, 65% agreed to having a favorite chair or room. Yet contradicting results occurred on question 8, "I am equally comfortable in all areas of my house.", which had a score of 63% disagreement. It was expected that some parts of the house are more familiar and thus more comfortable. In question 12, 76% of the subjects stated that they were more attached to their homes now than they were when they moved in.
Environment Necessity Hurdle
The environment necessity hurdle is a decision making process rather than a zone of environmental interaction. It acts as a psychological boundary separating the familiar area from the zones beyond. The comparative weight of environmental forces versus necessity determines whether travel and behavior will extend beyond the body-subject action space. Each of its elements and their values change with time and situation.
Twenty eight questions were used in this section. The average score was 3.39. Eight, however, received negative or nearly split responses. Three of these dealt with meteorological conditions. Question 1, "Before winter weather hits, my household stocks up on food and supplies." received a score of 2.62, with 64% disagreement. Question 16 and 24 concerned driving in wind and rain, they received scores of 2.48 and 2.69 respectively. Apparently, the subjects were not concerned about driving in wind and rain, but they preferred not to drive in snow, ice and thunderstorms (questions 18, 12 and 20). Question 8 dealt with detours, and will be discussed later with the community nichesite zone. Two of the eight questions receiving negative responses dealt with companionship. Question 17, "I perfer to shop with another adult." and 23 "I like being somewhere as a part of a crowd.", had scores of 2.45 and 2.88. Another, question 14, asks if expense is considered before leaving home. The results were almost split, 40% disagree, 12% were unsure and 48% agreed; the score 3.04.
Planning can maximize necessity and lessen environmental factors. Question 28 states "Planning activities outside the home is a matter of habit." The response was 44% agree and 20% unsure. A number of those responding stated that their spouses, or other family member, did the planning, which could explain the high percentage of "unsure" responses. However, in question 27, 80% agreed that planning includes the consideration of "when." In traveling or shopping, subjects considered the grouping of errands (question 3), utilizing the most familiar routes and stores (questions 7 and 11), weather (questions 12, 15, 18 and 20), road conditions (questions 8 and 9), expense (question 4) and traffic (question 22).
Excluding the eight questions with negative or split responses, the score was 3.88 or an average of 63% and is supportive of the hypothesis.
Neighborhood-Nexus Zone
The neighborhood-nexus zone grounds travel around the immediate vicinity of the house and traversals through the area to more distant destinations. This area, while partially known and somewhat familiar, does not present the comfort and security characteristic of the body-subject action space.
Fourteen questions were used in this section, with an average score of 3.64 and an average 69%. The last two questions were somewhat unsupportive. Question 13 states "Distance can be measured by effort expanded." Only 38% agreed, but 40% were unsure. Because of a typographical error, the question read "expanded" instead of "expended," which accounts for the uncertainty and meaninglessness of this question. The last question about bus stops was about evenly divided. Few of the participants rely on this service.
The level of familiarity is perhaps the most important aspect of neighborhood-nexus. 90% of the subjects claimed to pay particular attention when driving somewhere for the first time and pay little attention when riding somewhere for the first time.
Community-Nichesite
The community nichesite zone is an area of lesser familiarity. General knowledge of the community can be gained through various communication means. Nichesites are learned through repeated experience. A greater intensity of usage results in heightened familiarity and comfort or decreased anxiety about the undertaking.
In this section, the average score was 3.28. This score was the lowest average of any of the six zones, but it still supports the zone's existence.
Contrary to expection, 62% of the subjects disagreed with question 10, "When I get lost, I look for the sun." How they regained orientation was not examined.
Questions 15 simply states, "I do not like detours." and 76% agreed. Similarly, question 6 states "I am not apprehensive about detours when I drive." Only 47% agreed. Both had 8% unsure. Interestingly, this exact same question was used in the environment-necessity hurdle section (question 8) and the response was somewhat different: 43% agreed, 12% were unsure. Both had average scores of 2.96, but the breakdown of responses was different.
Extended Environs
The extended environs surrounds the presently experienced world. The zone is vague and mostly unknown. Within it are outliers, which have been experienced and have some degree of familiarity. They may be visited periodically or may represent an area of past familiarity. Around them, dependant upon the amount of familiarity developed, may be remnant behavior-environment zones. Outliers may be attached to the community-nichesite zone by active involvement along the connecting routes that may interweave. Unknown areas will remain interspersed between routes. Knowledge of the environment comes from written reports, maps and verbal communication.
In terms of travel, question 15 states "When I travel outside Kentuckiana, I go somewhere I have never been before." 55% disagree, and 10% were unsure. 96% of the subjects did agree that different communities have different personalities (question 5).
Returning to the idea of familiarity, 60% sleep better at home than in a motel or friend's home, but 68% say they can shower or bathe just as comfortably. 80% look for switches in unfamiliar areas, compared to 6% who look for them at home.
In this section, eighteen questions were used, with an average score of 3.63. This is a supportive score.
SUMMARY
The six behavior-environment zones identified by Hill represent the working relationship of the non-visual population with the environment, and how they function within it. This study examined the relationship that the general population has with the environment.
The extent of the information available to the five senses is immense, but only partially and incompletely experienced. Insight into the essential core of people's involvement with the everyday world can aid adjustment and be applied in designing more satisfying and pleasant built environments.
During the everyday routine, little attention is generally paid to the awareness of the role of the environment in activiites. The lack of awareness could account for some of the discrepancies.
The Likert format questions were designed
to investigate characteristics attributed to each of the zones. Not all
questions were readily applicable or clear. Nevertheless, average values
for the questions on each of the six zones were generally supportive; even
more strongly so, when the poorly designed ones were eliminated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Body Self |
|
| Body-Subject Action Space |
|
| Environment-Necessity Hurdle |
|
| Neighborhood-Nexus |
|
| Community-Nichesite |
|
| Extended Environs |
|
|
Overall Average Mean
|
|
The overall value of the survey had a weighting of 3.49. With the elimination of the poorly designed questions, the total might be considered to be 3.64. Thus the conclusion is that characteristics of the behavior-environment zones may pertain to the general population. No statistical tests of the level of significance were made. Much further investigation is needed. Some aspects and characteristics may need to be somewhat altered. A more extensive study should be conducted that will allow detailed answers, explanations and exceptions.
After the questionnaires were returned, a number of additional questions arose. For example, how many of the subjects actually drive? How many drive with a degree of regularity? How many work outside the home? How far do they travel to work or school? Are they urban or rural dwellers? Answers to these could further explain some of the questionnaire answers.
It was noted that the majority of the subjects had resided in their present location for less than five years. The duration of residency dramatically influences responses. Better control over this variable was needed.
Additionally, improved wording and precision of questions would yield more valid results. Perhaps a better answer system could be developed to take into account exceptions and experiences which are not "general" in terms of the overall population.
In conclusion, a more extensive examination of the zones can be warranted by this investigation.
FOOTNOTES
1Miriam Helen Hill, "The Non-Visual Lifeworld: A Comparative Phenomenological Geography." Ph.D. Dissertation, (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University, 1986).
2Ibid., p. 71.
3MICROSTAT, An Interactive General-Purpose Statistics Package, Release 4.0, developed by Ecosoft, Inc., (1984) P.O. Box 68602, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46268-0602.
Presentations List
Vita
Vita Subdivision Page
Condensed Vita