3.1. Kaplan and Kaplan's Preference Framework
Based on the research of psychologists, architects and planners, Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) developed a Preference Framework (Table 1) to describe how people use information to satisfy their needs of making sense and exploring in an uncertain world. Their framework is based on a series of studies in which subjects were asked to view photographs of physical landscapes and landmarks and assess them against a list of items. These items were then factor analyzed resulting in the four factors, which comprise the Preference Framework.
From these studies, Kaplan and Kaplan found that making sense (understanding) and exploring (involvement) represent the two basic informational needs. These needs are further categorized by a time dimension that focuses on immediate versus longer-term possibilities. Individuals have preferences for environments, which will enable them to meet these needs in the future.
Humans, as cognitive animals, can quickly calculate the future possibilities of present choices. Kaplan and Kaplan's framework depicts both the immediate and future calculations, which can occur quickly but sequentially. The primary level of the Preference Framework represents an immediate or direct perception of the elements in a scene. For example: “Can I comprehend this situation (coherence); is there enough going on to maintain my interest (complexity)?” These dimensions allow a rapid assessment of a scene or situation based upon a surface examination. Settings which are orderly (coherent) increase the individual's ability to understand the environment. Environments containing richness of elements (complexity) encourage exploration. Neither complexity nor coherence alone is sufficient to motivate activating one's cognitive map and, hence, feeling confident and comfortable in an environment; both are required.
This immediate assessment is followed by an inference of what is deeper within a landscape. Kaplan et al. (1998) have equated this with moving from a two-dimensional space (coherence and complexity) to a three-dimensional space (legibility and mystery). In other words, standing at the garden gate (two-dimensional space) versus walking through the garden (three-dimensional space). The questions one would have on the latter level would be: “Does this environment have a memorable component that will help me find my way in the future (legibility); is there a chance to learn more (mystery)?” Having a memorable component act as a landmark assists in understanding an unfamiliar landscape while being distinctive reduces confusion in finding one's way in the future. To motivate someone to explore a landscape, there must be a promise of future satisfaction compelling the subject onward.
The fact that these two levels of assessment occur rapidly is why there is a preference for landscapes which score high on all four dimensions. Research demonstrates that people favor landscapes which recognize a preference for coherence and legibility (Lynch, 1960), while at the same time accommodating a desire for some complexity (Wohlwill, 1976) and mystery (Kaplan, 1973b).