17
Human Responses to Water Elements in Interior Environments: A Culture and Gender Comparison
Background and Contextual Information
Water is the most common substance on Earth, covering more than 70% of the planet's surface. The location of water has helped to determine where humans settle and grow crops for food. The human body is about two-thirds water, and without water the longest any human can expect to live is 10 days.
This life-giving substance has played an important role in the religion, literature, and art of every culture. For example, the ancient Greeks had springs where only the immortal gods were privileged to imbibe (Moore 1994b), and in Christianity the Bible makes frequent mention of the mystical and religious powers associated with water: “A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers” (Genesis 2:10).
The simple yet interesting physical characteristics of water stimulate our senses, and the mental connections these help us make. According to the literature, these connections are important and can also be used to create experientially rich and meaningful places. Almost unanimously, studies have shown that water is one of the most powerful elements in enhancing human preferences (Brush and Shafer 1975; Civco 1979; Hammitt, Patterson, and Noe 1994; Kaplan and Kaplan 1982; Palmer 1978; Palmer, Schloss, and Sammartino 2013; Penning-Roswell 1979; Shafer, Hamilton, and Schmidt 1969; Strang 2006; Syme and Nancarrow 1992; Ulrich 1981; Yang and Brown 1992; Zube, Pitt, and Anderson 1975).
For example, in Yang and Brown's study in Korea the characteristics of preferences for three landscape elements – water, vegetation, and rock – were analyzed. The main purpose of the study was to compare the characteristics of preferences of a group of Korean citizens and Western tourists, with special emphasis on the general patterns of preference and the relationships of landscape preference to landscape styles and elements. The research results showed that water was the most preferred landscape element, regardless of the cultural differences of the people (Yang and Brown 1992).
More evidence of the strong connections between people and water is provided by a study by Syme and Nancarrow. This longitudinal study was done to assess the level of demand and the motivations for participating in urban water planning in three Australian cities. The research concluded that there is a strong demand for involvement in water-related planning (Syme and Nancarrow 1992).
In her book The Meaning of Water (2006), Strang suggests that there is a highly complex relationship between people and water in which “physical, sensory and cognitive experiences articulate with cultural meanings and values.” In a systematic research model, Strang used ethnographic data (collected via classical anthropological research methods of long-term fieldwork, in-depth interviews, observation and mapping of social, spatial, and environmental relations) to examine this complex relationship. The results of her study showed that the meanings people associate with water are highly consistent over time and that these meanings exert influence over every decision involved in how water is used. In addition, she found that the associations people have with water are difficult to alter.
Throughout time, special meanings such as life, purity, fertility, security, hospitality, and communion with God have been associated with water (Douglas 1970). It is suggested that water has a physical hold on the lives of every one of us, carrying mental images that have meaning for us – from birth in the amniotic fluid to death in the mythical waters of the river Styx (Moore 1994b).
In addition to water's association with special meanings and symbols, the literature cites the basic human need to be close to – and feel part of – nature. For instance, according to Fitzsimmons and Salama, a water-related recreation facility can help improve the physical and mental health of the users (Fitzsimmons and Salama 1977). Several studies have shown that water has a positive therapeutic effect. Alexander argued that going into the water might bring a person closer to the unconscious process in their life and closer to their dreams (Alexander 1977). In psychoanalysis, it is common to consider the appearance of water in people's dreams as associated with special meanings. Jung and the Jungian analysts consider the great bodies of water as representing the dreamer's unconscious.
For many of us, water has a great attraction. People often visit places with water such as rivers, lakes, waterfalls, or swimming pools. Water touching our skin is the most personally intimate experience we can have. Degrees of contact range from being misted by warm steam, to being splashed by a waterfall, to being completely immersed in a bath. Immersion is a kind of escape or disconnection from the world outside the water.
People often say that water makes them feel relaxed or that water can enhance a living environment. In recent years a variety of small to large-scale water fountains for living environments have become available in the marketplace, with retailers extolling the virtues of a fountain to create an ambience of relaxation that sets the mind at ease and refreshes the senses. According to these marketing tactics, fountains can also take you away to a distant place, improve your concentration, rest your body, and restore the balance between your mind, body, and soul.
Today, from shopping malls, to hotel lobbies, to fish tanks in our living rooms, water continues to be used throughout our interior environments. Recognizing this, some fundamental questions arise. Does the use of water in interior spaces elicit positive human responses, as the literature seems to indicate? Does the use of water in interior spaces have different meanings depending on gender and cultural orientation?
These questions are not easily answered and depend upon many variables. In an attempt to gain a better understanding of the relationships between people and water Lin conducted an initial exploratory study (Lin 1999). The purpose of the study was to examine human responses to water features in public interior spaces and to determine the extent to which people modified their behavior as they moved through public spaces where water features were included.
This non-participant, observational study was conducted in 10 public interiors with a major water feature. Observational data were collected on the behavior of people as they passed through each public space with a water feature. Notes and mapping techniques were used to document behaviors such as whether people looked at the water feature, and, if so, for how long; if people tried to interact with the water feature by touching or playing in the water; whether people appeared to modify their pathway to better interact with the water feature; and if there were differences between the genders in their behavior toward the water feature.
The results showed surprising differences in the way people of different genders and ages responded to the water features. In general, and contrary to expectations, the study showed that people's physical response to water features in public interiors was very low, with most people paying little to no attention to the water feature as they passed through a space. Additionally, and contrary to expectations and the literature, male subjects tended to consistently respond to water more frequently than female subjects.
To more fully explore the responses people had to water features in interior spaces, a new study was designed to examine how people from two different countries, the US and Taiwan, reacted to water features. Since water has played an important role in Taiwanese culture, one aspect of the study was to examine the cultural differences between Taiwanese and American preferences for the use of water features in interior environments. Also, because the results from the previous study on gender differences and preference were inconclusive, this study set out to examine in more depth the differences between men's and women's preferences. Lastly, a goal of the study was to investigate, and possibly challenge, preconceived notions about the use of water in interior spaces (i.e., both the use of the image of water versus the use of real water).
Overview of the Relationship between Water and Humans
As noted earlier, water has played an important role in the religion, literature, and art of every culture, and throughout time special meanings have been associated with water. Ancient philosophers regarded water as the symbol of life and as one of the four basic elements of the universe along with earth, air, and fire (Moore 1994b), and through the ages water has been used as a design element in a multitude of ways, presenting a complexity and interweaving of function and symbolism (Campbell 1978).
Modern artists and designers have used water as a source of inspiration or as a major design element. For instance, Claude Monet spent his final years painting impressions of the transcendent pond that resulted in the water lily series with the intention of bequeathing his last peaceful opus to the people of France (Moore 1994b) and Frank Lloyd Wright, in the Hollyhock House in Los Angeles, used water throughout the house to create specific moods.
Our associations with water today have been shaped by our ancestors, so that the lapse of centuries adds to the symbolism (Moore 1994b). Campbell wrote, “I seriously doubt that any of the sounds created by water could be considered distressing or annoying” (Campbell 1978). The effectiveness of the audio element of water is demonstrated in the design of the Hospital Santa Engracia in Monterrey, Mexico, where a sunken fountain is used to mask street sounds (Tetlow 1997).
A design enhancement such as a decorative fountain with splashing water has also served as a way-finding device in certain spaces, with the sound of the fountain providing orientation cues (Patterson 1997). In addition to these qualities, designers have used water for its reflective properties to provide depth and taken advantage of the infinite surface of water for relief of claustrophobia and expansion of personal space (Moore 1994b).
The human relationship with water involves understanding not only environmental behavior but also our biological roots. It is a central contention of anthropology that humans are different by culture, but fundamentally the same by nature. Our DNA takes the form of innate propensities, things we do unthinkingly and without having to learn from our parents. For example, regardless of culture differences, humans seem to be biologically prepared to look for very specific cues about the natural world. Biologists believe that the way our ancestors lived has shaped our DNA, and the strings that tie us to our past may stretch back more than 2 million years.
It is believed that over thousands of years of evolution humans recognized certain features of the landscape as offering greater chances for survival (Conniff 1999). In addition to providing a physical necessity for survival, bodies of water also provided a defense from most natural enemies and attracted other animals and plant life on which humans depended.
Through time, there is no doubt that the meaning of water has grown and developed along with many different human cultures. Research across many disciplines supports the hypothesis that there is a fundamental basic human need to connect closely with nature. This condition is known as biophilia. If this biophilia hypothesis has merit, it provides a framework across different disciplines for the investigation of the meaning of water and the relationships humans have with it (Kahn 1999).
Another idea appropriate for consideration when examining the relationship between humans and water is the “involvement theory” proposed by Goffman in the early 1960s. The involvement theory suggests that humans and animals have the capacity to divide their attention between main and side involvements. A main involvement is the major focus of one's attention and interest, visibly forming the principal current determinant of one's actions. A side involvement is an activity that an individual can carry on in an abstracted fashion without interrupting or confusing the main involvement: for example, singing while working, and knitting while listening (Goffman 1963).
When applying the involvement theory to questions about the relationship between humans and water in interior environments, the use of a water feature would be considered a side involvement. This is in keeping with Goffman's idea that people in a public space sustain minimal main involvement to avoid the appearance of being totally disengaged – whether a main involvement is present or not.
Other examples of side involvements include the use of such things as magazines and newspapers in waiting rooms and the incorporation of water features in parks, waiting areas, and lobbies. According to the involvement theory, the use of water features in these environments plays an important role, providing a source of minimal involvement to fulfill a basic human need.
The use of water features in our built and natural environments has been of long-standing interest to researchers. There are several studies that have examined the use of water on the exterior of buildings, and in landscapes, that have shown it to be an important element that enhances the human response to a building or environment (e.g., Brush and Shafer 1975; Civco 1979; Kaplan and Kaplan 1982; Palmer 1978; Penning-Roswell 1979; Shafer, Hamilton, and Schmidt 1969; Ulrich 1981; Zube, Pitt and Anderson 1975). However, water as a component of interior environments, and its interrelationship with human behaviors, has received only limited attention – with the majority of such studies being done in relation to healthcare facilities. For example, a study in a Swedish university hospital investigated whether exposing heart surgery patients in intensive care units to nature pictures improved outcomes (Ulrich, Lundèn, and Eltinge 1993). Those patients assigned a landscape with trees and water experienced less anxiety, and required fewer strong pain doses, than control groups assigned no pictures.
Gender Considerations
Like any social institution, gender exhibits both universal features and chronological and cross-cultural variations that affect individuals' lives and their social interactions in major ways. Lorber claims that gender is an institution that establishes patterns of expectations for individuals, orders the social processes of everyday life, is built into the major social organizations of society, such as the economy, ideology, family, and politics, and is also an entity in and of itself (Lorber 1994).
Most people find it hard to believe that gender is constantly created and re-created out of human interactions and social life. Yet gender, like culture, is a human production that depends on everyone constantly “doing gender” (West and Zimmerman 1987).
In almost every encounter, human beings produce gender, behaving in the manner they learned as appropriate for their gender status, or resisting or rebelling against these norms. Coser claims that women and men spend much of their time with people of their own gender because of the way they work and how their families are organized. This spatial separation of women and men reinforces gendered differentness, identity. and ways of thinking and behaving (Coser 1986).
In a study conducted by Weisman and Birkby women were asked to draw their environmental fantasies in workshops conducted across the United States. The participants were chosen to be diverse in age, lifestyle, experience, and education. After Weisman and Birkby collected hundreds of drawings from the workshops, they began to notice patterns of shared experiences and common characteristics among the participants. One of the four themes resulting from the study was the importance of contact with nature and natural materials to soothe and stimulate the senses (Weisman 1992).
Many studies support the idea that women are: (1) more sensitive than men and (2) looking for relief from environmental stress, especially in public environments (Gardner 1989; Goffman 1963; Mozingo 1989). Ortner suggests that a woman's psyche is closer to nature and that the female personality tends to be involved with concrete feelings, things, and people rather than with abstract entities, thereby tending toward personalism and particularism (Ortner 1996).
Culture Considerations
According to Amos Rapoport, a noted authority on the interface between people and built environments, valid generalizations about this relationship must be based on a broad sample, covering a wide variety of situations both in space and time and thus requiring both cross-cultural and historical studies (Rapoport 1976). Rapoport claims that built environments are much more than physical objects or economic devices, and that in order to understand human–environment relationships one must get beyond material aspects of the environment by using a cross-cultural and historical approach, with the nature of cultural environments and their relationships playing a central role (Rapoport 1980).
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine human responses to water features used in interior environments and to determine the extent to which the incorporation of water features may influence people's preference for those environments. To test this concept, the following hypotheses were developed:
- Hypothesis 1. Overall, the preference score for photographic images emphasizing water will be higher than a preference score for photographic images that do not emphasize water.
- Hypothesis 2. The preference score for photographic images emphasizing water will increase when a water fountain is present in the interior environment.
- Hypothesis 3. Female subjects will have a higher preference score for images emphasizing water than male subjects.
- Hypothesis 4. Taiwanese subjects will have a higher preference score for photographic images emphasizing water than subjects from the United States.
Sample
To test these hypotheses, data were collected from a sample of 400 college students. A convenience sample of 200 subjects from the Pacific Northwest of the United States of America (100 male and 100 female) was selected from students at an institution of higher education. Another convenience sample of 200 Taiwanese subjects (100 male and 100 female) was selected from universities in Taiwan. The identity of the subjects was kept confidential and anonymous.
Photographic Images of Public Interiors
Six pairs of photographic images of public interiors were developed, with each pair showing a different interior environment. Four of the six pairs consisted of an image of a public interior where a water feature was emphasized and an image of the same interior without the water feature emphasized. Each pair of photographic images was duplicated as closely as possible, with the only exception being the emphasis or de-emphasis on the water feature.
In addition to these four pairs of images, a fifth set of images where a water feature was not included and a sixth pair of images where a water feature was included were developed and included in the packet that subjects reviewed. The purpose of the fifth and sixth pair of images was to prevent subjects from determining the purpose of the experiment and behaving differently than they would if they were unaware of the purpose of the experiment (demand characteristic).
Because the photographic images were a key part of the study, the content and quality were important. Interior design experts was asked to review the images and recommend six pairs that, based on their design expertise, they felt were most appropriate for this study. The criteria for these recommendations were: (1) the consistency of contemporary design characteristics; (2) the consistency in scale of the water features; and (3) the consistency in function of the interior environment. The final six pairs of images recommended for the use in the study by the design experts were developed into 8″ × 10″ color photographs.
Room Setting and Viewing Order
A small room (approximately 10′ × 15′) was set up for the subjects to view the six pairs of images of interior environments with and without water features. In room setting W (water), a small portable water fountain (W8″ × D8″ × H10″) with water flowing was placed in the room. In room setting NW (no water), the fountain was removed from the room. In other words, the only difference between the two room settings was the presence or absence of the water fountain. In each culture and gender group, an equal number of subjects was exposed to each room setting.
In addition, to counteract an order effect, the images were presented to the subjects in two different random orders (coded as A and B). One-half of each subject group viewed the images in random order A and the other half viewed the images in random order B. For example, within the 50 American male sample group (S1) 25 subjects viewed the images in random order A and the other 25 viewed the images in random order B. The overall design is summarized in Table 17.1.
Table 17.1 The overall experiment design
Photo Questionnaire and Test Administration
The photo questionnaire included the following items:
- Brief instructions for completion of the questionnaire
- A place for the investigator to mark code information
- A short demographic profile for the subject to complete; i.e., age, gender, and education
- Preference indicators that each subject could mark when viewing the images
To ensure that the Taiwanese subjects had a clear understanding, a Chinese version of the photo questionnaire was also developed.
The room setting had two chairs and a table. Each subject was invited into the room and asked to sit down across the table from the investigator. In room setting W, the room also included a fountain with flowing water that was within a 3-foot radius of the table. The room setting NW was the same but did not include the water fountain.
The investigator reviewed the instructions with each subject, assured them of confidentiality and anonymity, and then asked them to complete the demographic information. Once that was done, the investigator showed them each a set of the six pairs of photographic images with and without water. Each subject was asked to indicate their preference for one of the two images in each pair they were shown. After responding to all six pairs of photographic images the subject was thanked and the next participant invited into the room.
Findings and Analysis
The average age of the 400 subjects was 21years with a range between 18 to 31 years, and 342 (85.5%) were under the age of 23. The dependent variable was the number of preference marks (preference score) made by each subject for images of an interior environment with a water feature emphasized. Since two out of the total of six pairs of photos were used to prevent subjects from determining the true purpose of the experiment, only the data from the four applicable pairs were counted. This meant that the range of the preference scores was from 0 to 4. The closer a subject's score was to 4, the higher their preference for the interior environment with a water feature shown. Table 17.2 shows the mean preference score and standard deviation for the eight sample groups.
Table 17.2 Mean preference score and standard deviation
The null hypotheses tested were:
- The preference score for the photographic images emphasizing water will be the same as the preference score for the photographic images that do not emphasize water features.
- The preference score for the photographic images emphasizing water will not change when the water fountain is present.
- Male and female subjects will have the same preference score for the photographic images emphasizing water.
- Taiwanese subjects will have the same preference score for the photographic images emphasizing water as American subjects.
A t-test was administered to test the first null hypothesis of indifference (in this study, mean = 2) to determine if there was a significant difference between the subjects' responses to images of interiors with water and images of interiors without water. The result of this test was a t of 8.69. Since a t over 1.65 is required for rejection of the null hypothesis at the .05 level of significance the hypothesis was rejected. Rejection of the null hypothesis supports the idea that there was a significant difference in the subjects' responses to interiors with and without water features. In addition to the results of the t-test, an examination of the mean scores supports the conclusion that there was a higher preference for the interiors where water was included (see Table 17.3).
Table 17.3 t-test of overall mean = 2 (null hypothesis of indifference)
H0:  | |
H1:  or  | |
| Mean | 2.58 |
| Observation | 400 |
| t | 8.69 |
| t Critical one-tail | 1.65 |
A three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the results of both the main effect and the interaction effect of the following three factors: water (with or without real water flowing in the test room), culture (US versus Taiwan), and gender (male versus female). The three-way ANOVA results are shown in Table 17.4.
Table 17.4 Tests of between-subjects effects
In Table 17.4, if the F score is above 1, it is significant at .05 level. The “Sig.” column gives the probability (p) value of the F test. The results of this three-way analysis of variance yielded no significant three-way interactions between culture, water, and gender (F = .073, p = .787), and there was no significant two-way interaction between culture and water (F = .982, p = .322); culture and gender (F = .398, p = .529); or water and gender (F = .000, p = 1.000).
The main effect for culture was found to be significant (F = 180.257, p = .000) indicating that the preference score of US subjects and the preference score of Taiwanese subjects tended to be different. The main effect for gender was also significant (F = 3.930, p < .05) indicating the preference score of female subjects and the preference score of male subjects also tended to be different.
The difference between the overall mean score of males and the overall mean score of females was only −.22. This indicates that if groups of 100 males and 100 females were compared, the females would prefer a photo emphasizing water a total of 22 more times than the males. This relatively small difference suggests that the substantive importance of this finding may need further examination.
Lastly, the main effect when a water fountain was present in the test room had an F value below the .05 level and therefore was not significant (see Table 17.4). The means are shown in Figures 17.1 and 17.2 (with Figure 17.1 representing the room setting with real water flowing and Figure 17.2 representing the room setting without real water flowing).
From Figures 17.1 and 17.2 an examination of the main effects of real water flowing in the test room on culture and gender can be done. Contrary to expectations, the presence of real water flowing in the test room did not significantly affect the mean preference scores. Figures 17.1 and 17.2 show that the mean preference scores were similar in both room settings (with and without real water flowing.) Also, unexpectedly and contrary to what was hypothesized, subjects from the United States had higher preference levels than Taiwanese subjects regardless of whether real flowing water was present or not. Lastly, as anticipated, female subjects had higher preference levels than male subjects in all settings regardless of cultural background.
Figures 17.1 and 17.2 also show the interaction effect between and among the following variables: (1) real water flowing in the test room and culture; (2) real water flowing in the test room and gender; (3) culture and gender; (4) real water flowing in the test room, culture, and gender. An examination of these interaction effects shows that the cultural difference between Taiwanese subjects and US subjects was greater in the test room with real water flowing than it was in the test room without real water flowing. Unexpectedly, the effect of real water flowing in the test room was positive for American subjects, but negative for Taiwanese subjects.
Figures 17.1 and 17.2 also indicate that there was very little interaction between the presence of real water flowing in the test room and gender and there was very little interaction effect between culture and gender. When the interaction effect was examined among the three variables of real water, culture, and gender, there was also very little interaction.
Conclusions
The literature indicates that water is one of the most powerful elements that can be used to enhance the human experience (e.g., Brush and Shafer 1975; Civco 1979; Hammitt et al. 1994; Kaplan and Kaplan 1982; Palmer 1978; Penning-Roswell 1979; Shafer, Hamilton, and Schmidt 1969; Syme and Nancarrow 1992; Ulrich,1981; Yang and Brown 1992; and Zube, Pitt and Anderson 1975). For example, Moore claims that water touching our skin is the most personally intimate experience we can have (Moore 1994b). Also, Campbell claims that we must feel the water in order to complete our experience (Campbell 1978).
The literature also supports the notion that water carries special meanings and associations for people of different ethnic, cultural, and social backgrounds. By the same token, the literature shows that gender, and the way that it is interpreted by different social and cultural groups, is an extremely powerful component of our everyday lives (Gardner 1989; Goffman 1963; Mozingo 1989; Ortner 1996; Whyte 1980). As such, it is a powerful design element when used in our built environment.
Overall, the fact that the subjects, regardless of gender or culture, preferred interior images where water features were emphasized supports the literature that suggests people's experiences are enhanced by the presence of water. Additionally, in keeping with the literature on gender which points out that women are more sensitive to their surrounding environment, the study found that female subjects, again regardless of culture, had a significantly higher preference level for images of interiors with water emphasized than male subjects.
Contrary to expectations, overall the presence of real running water had little to no effect on the subjects' preferences for an interior image. There are several possible explanations for this result. For instance, perhaps the size of the fountain (water element) in the test room was not sufficiently large that people noticed it. Or, perhaps, the sound of the water was actually annoying rather than pleasant for most of the subjects. It could also be because the overall design of the water fountain was not integrated well into the whole setting or the design of the fountain itself was not attractive to the subjects.
In a previous exploratory study that examined the use of existing water features in public spaces (Lin 1999), contrary to the literature and what was expected, it was found that the frequency of people's responses to water features in public interiors was very low. In addition, there were surprising differences in the way the genders responded to the water features, with male subjects tending to respond more frequently than female subjects.
In an attempt to further examine these results, the experimental setting for this study used a small, private, and enclosed interior space where the variables could be more controlled. The results of the study were contrary to those of the earlier exploratory study, showing that, indeed, female subjects had a higher preference for interior environments with water features than male subjects.
One explanation for these contradictory results is not only that the experimental setting was more controlled but also that, as the literature points out, females may be more conscious of their safety when in open public environments and therefore less apt to stop or display their response to water features. In addition, as part of a social order or norm, there is evidence that suggests that women in general more tightly define how they behave in public spaces than men (Gardner 1989; Goffman 1963; Mozingo 1989; Ortner 1996; Whyte 1980). These studies have concluded that sometimes women display certain attitudes and behavior, yet may shun others.
On the other hand, the literature also suggests that women are more sensitive to their surrounding environment. As stated earlier, the result of the study conducted by Weisman and Birkby shows that women felt it was important to have contact with nature and natural materials that soothe and stimulate the senses (Weisman 1992). Based on the results of the controlled experiment and the literature on gender and social norms, it can be concluded that although women are actually more sensitive to their surrounding environment, they are less prone to openly respond to water features in public spaces.
One unforeseen and interesting result of this controlled study was that American subjects had a significantly higher level of preference for the images with water features than the Taiwanese subjects. In addition, a closer examination reveals that the effect of real water flowing in the test room was positive for American subjects, but negative for Taiwanese subjects. It is suggested that this may be the result of unanticipated variables between the test room in the United States and the test room in Taiwan such as overall design of the room, lighting, layout, background noise, and other such variables – even though the size, scale, level of sound, and distance of the flowing water from each subject was tightly controlled in both settings.
Another possible explanation for the greater preference of subjects from the United States for water than Taiwanese subjects may be related to media focus in the United States on the benefits of “feng shui,” making the incorporation of water features into interior environments very trendy. In contrast, feng shui is an integral part of the Taiwanese culture. Therefore, it may be that since water is an important element of feng shui, it is not unusual for water features to be incorporated into Taiwan's built environment. For Taiwanese people, the use of water elements is just something that is always there. In other words, having water elements in the built environment is normal and not unusual, whereas for the subjects from the United States it is less common.
The geographical location of the two cultures could be another explanation for subjects from the United States' preference for water features. The North American continent is so large that it does not allow everyone to be exposed to a big body of water on a daily basis, while Taiwan is a tropical island with the total area of 32,260 km2, and water is a constant part of daily life.
Lastly, since all of the images used in this study were of contemporary interiors, the low preference level of Taiwanese subjects might indicate a preference for more traditional interiors reflecting the Taiwanese culture. In other words, perhaps the images of interiors with water features shown in the study were not attractive to most of the Taiwanese subjects
Implications for Future Study
The results of this study emphasize the complex nature of design issues that surround the use of water in public interiors. It is suggested that a study focusing on the design of interior water features would add to our understanding of these issues. The purpose of such a study could be: (1) to identify the most favorable design for interior water features for specific settings including design aspects such as scale, color and material used; and (2) to examine the sound of water, including the level and kind of sound appropriate for specific settings.
In addition, it is suggested that a study similar to this one including only Taiwanese subjects could be conducted to further explore the reason for the lower preference level of Taiwanese subjects for water features in interior environments. The focus of such a study would be on the incorporation of traditional Taiwanese design elements versus non-traditional, contemporary design elements and water features.
According to an old saying, “Water can either float or sink a boat.” This and many other studies reinforce the idea that water is a powerful element in human experience. This study represents only a small contribution to our understanding of the complex relationship between humans and water and, in many ways, has raised more questions than it answered. Such is the nature of research. Regardless, the results suggest that the use of water in interior environments should be carefully considered by designers and it should not be assumed that all people will respond positively and at the same level to its inclusion.
References
- Alexander, C. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Brush, R. O. and Shafer, E .L. 1975. “Application of a landscape-preference model to land management,” in E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, and J. G. Fabos (eds.), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources. Sydney: Halstead Press, pp. 168–181.
- Campbell, C. S. 1978. Water in Landscape Architecture. New York: Litton Educational Publishing.
- Civco, D. S. 1979. Numerical Modeling of Eastern Connecticut's Visual Resources. Proceedings of Our Natural Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource (General Technical Report PSW-35, pp. 263–270). Berkeley: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
- Conniff, R. 1999, November. “The natural history of art,” Discover 94–101.
- Coser, R. L. 1986. “Cognitive structure and the use of social space,” Sociological Forum 1(1): 26.
- Douglas, M. [1970] 2002. Natural Symbols, London: Barrie & Rockliff.
- Fitzsimmons, S. J. and Salama, O. 1977. Man and Water: A Social Report. Boulder, CO: Westview.
- Gardner, C. B. 1989. “Analyzing gender in public places: rethinking Goffman's vision of everyday life,” The American Sociologist 20: 42–56.
- Goffman, E. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gathering. New York: Free Press.
- Hammitt, W., Patterson, M., and Noe, F. 1994. “Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas,” Landscape and Urban Planning 29(2–3): 171–183.
- Kahn, P. H., Jr. 1999. The Human Relationship with Nature: Development and Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. 1982. Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger.
- Lin, G. F. 1999. “Behavioral Responses to Existing Uses of Water Elements in Public Interior Environments.” Master's thesis, Washington State University.
- Lorber, J. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Moore, C. 1994a. “The potential for wonder,” Architecture and Water. London: VCH Publishers.
- Moore, C. W. 1994b. Water and Architecture. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
- Mozingo, L. 1989. “Women and downtown open spaces,” Places 6(1): 38–47.
- Ortner, S. B. 1996. The Politics and Erotics of Culture. Boston: Beacon Press.
- Palmer, J. F. 1978. An Investigation of the Conceptual Classification of Landscapes and its Application to Landscape Planning Issue. Priorities for Environmental Design Part 1. Washington DC: Environmental Design Research Association.
- Palmer, Stephen E., Schloss, K., and Sammartino, J. 2013.“Visual aesthetics and human preference,” Annual Review of Psychology 64: 77–107.
- Patterson, M. 1997, November. “Accessible to accessible through,” Buildings 91(11): 60–63.
- Penning-Roswell, E. C. 1979. The Social Value of English Landscapes. Proceedings of Our National Landscape. (General Technical Report PSW-35, pp. 249–255). Berkeley: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
- Rapoport, A., ed. 1976. The Mutual Interaction of People and Their Built Environment: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Chicago: Mouton.
- Rapoport, A. 1980. “Cross-cultural aspects of environment design,” Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research 4: 7–46.
- Shafer, E. L., Hamilton, J. F., and Schmidt, E. A. 1969. “Natural landscape preference: a predictive mode,” Journal of Leisure Research 1: 1–19.
- Strang, Veronica. 2006. The Meaning of Water. Oxford: Berg.
- Syme, G. J. and Nancarrow, B. E. 1992. “Predicting public involvement in urban water management and planning,” Environment and Behaviour 24: 738–758.
- Tetlow, K. 1997, June. “Hospital Santa Engracia,” Interiors 156(6): 100–105.
- Ulrich, R. S. 1981. “Natural versus urban scenes: some psychophysiological effects,” Environment and Behavior 13: 523–556.
- Ulrich, R. S. 2000. “Environmental research and critical care,” in D. K. Hamilton (ed.), ICU 2010: Design for the Future. Houston: Center for Innovation in Health Facilities, pp. 195–207
- Ulrich, R. S., Lundén, O., and Eltinge, J. L. 1993. Effects of Exposure to Nature and Abstract Pictures on Patients Recovering from Heart Surgery. Paper presented at the thirty-third meeting of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, Rottach-Egern,Germany. Abstract published in Psychophysiology 30 (suppl. 1): 7.
- Weisman, L. K. 1992. Discrimination by Design: A Feminist Critique of the Man-Made Environment. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
- West, C. and Zimmerman, D. 1987. “Doing gender,” Gender and Society 125(1): 51.
- Whyte, W. H. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington DC: Conservation Foundation.
- Yang, B.-E. and Brown, T.J. 1992. “A cross-cultural comparison of preference for landscape styles and landscape elements,” Environment and Behavior 24: 471–507.
- Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., and Anderson, T. W. 1975. “Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the Northeast,” in Landscape Assessment. Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.