98 TWO Chairman: Authors: THEORY OF MAN-ENVIRONMENT - RELATIONS Irwin Altman, Department of Psychology, University of Utah Irwin Altman, "Some Perspectives On The Study of Man-Environment Ph~nomena" Aristide H. Esser, "Structures of Man-Environ- ment Relations" Amos Rapoport, "An Approach To The Construction of Man-Environment Theory" Raymond G. Studer, "Man-Environment Relations: Discovery Or Design" Edwin P. Willems. "Behaviora 1 Ecology As A Perspective For Man-Environment Research Joachim F. Wohlwill, "The Environment Is Not In The Head!" Adapted from: Representative Research in Social Psychology, Vol. IV, No.1, published by Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chap-el Hill SOME PERSPECTIVES ON THE STUDY OF MAN-ENVIRONMENT PHENOMENA (1) Irwin Altman Professor and Chairman Department of Psychology University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 Abstract 2.0 This paper examines differences in value systems and approaches of behavioral scien- tists and practitioners, reviews briefly the history of relations between practi- tioners and scientists, and examines alternative philosophical models implicit in present day research in the field. These models include mechanistic, perceptual- cognitive-motivational, behavioral, and ecological-social systems approaches. Introduction From the perspective of one who has been both a witness and participant, the field of man-environment studies has been growing continuously and is presently character- ize.d by theoretical, methodological and substantive diversity, confusion and contro- versy. Considerable energy is being directed toward man-environment phenomena by practitioners and academic researchers, conferences are frequent and well-attended (even poor papers are received with attentiveness and rapture), organizations and newsletters are endlessly spawned, and the various disciplines try frantically to communicate with one another. In many instances, the alienated from several disci- plines have come together, disenchanted by the provinci~ of their parent pro- fessions. These include practitioners who want to build environments in terms of man's capabilities and needs and who criticize their own disciplinary "establish- ments" on the grounds that they are largely interested in creating personal monu- ments to designers. And, there are behavioral scientists who feel that their disciplines have neglected man's unity with his physical environment. Some talk of a coming unity of the scientist and the practitioner. Others foresee a Tower of Babel which will ultimately lead all back to their provincial disciplinary languages, values and approaches. This paper examines the historical and sociological status of the man-environment field, with an eye toward providing some perspective about its roots, progress to date, philosophical underpinnings and potential future. -The first section contrasts styles of problem-solving by practitioners and behavioral scientists (primarily psychologists). The second section discusses the history of relations between behavioral scientists and practitioners. The last part of the paper outlines some philosophical "models of man" implicit in present-day work in the man-environment field, which may be considered as alternative strategies. The discussion is design- ed to provide an historical and philosophical perspective, to facilitate decisions by researchers and practitioners about how to expend their energies, and to assist them in consciously moving the field in directions which they consider worthwhile. 99 100 / ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH, VOL. 2 The Differing "Psyche" of Practitioners and Behavioral Scientists A major barrier to progress in man-environment research is lack of productive commu- nication between practitioners and behavioral scientists. It is our thesis that there are, in fact, basic differences in strategies among practitioners and behavioral scientists. But, their different approaches should not necessarily be compromised. Rather, each side should learn the other's strategy, gain skill in translating from one approach to the other, and should begin to develop some "role- playing" skills so as to be able, temporarily, to get into the "psyche" of one another. Thus, understanding and solution of man-environment problems may well come from preservation of the divergent approaches of practitioners and scientists, not from a search for consensus or the elimination of differences. But, how do their strategies differ? Figure I differentiates practitioner and researcher approaches in terms of units of study, environmental phenomena and stages of the environmental design process. The first dimension, unit of study, refers to places, from molecular units such as individual family homes to complex units such as cities and urban areas. The second dimension refers to environmental phenomena or social processes, e.g., privacy, territoriality. The typical practitioner, whether he be an architect or urban plan- ner, usually focuses on a particular unit or place a home, neighborhood, or city. His interest is in specifiable environmental units having spatial boundaries. In designing a place he necessarily deals with a variety of processes, whether they be the ones listed on the second dimension (privacy, territoriality) or other issues such as economic, political, and technological matters. In short, he fixes at a particular level on the place dimension and scans across phenomena or processes. On the other hand, the behavioral scientist is usually process oriented. He studies such issues as privacy, territoriality or crowding, often in any setting which facilitates answers to his questions. For example, Galle, Gove and McPherson (2) examined the impact of various types of crowding in terms of people per room in apartments (home unit), number of apartment units per house (apartment house unit), number of apartment houses per residential neighborhood (neighborhood unit) and number of residents per census tract (community unit). Thus, they scanned across places in studying the phenomenon of crowding. As another example, studies of proximity and friendship are often not concerned with family, neighborhoods and communities per ~, but compare such places to the extent that they provide informa- tion about the phenomenon of friendship. In short, the behavioral scientist focuses his microscope on processes and scans across places, whereas the practitioner ex- amines places and scans across phenomena. Obviously, not all behavioral scientists rigidly adopt this strategy; a number emphasize a particular cell in the two-dimen- sional space, e.g., privacy in the home. And, others emphasize more than single processes, e.g., the sociology of the family may involve study of privacy in the home and the role of the family in the community. Thus, some deal with a block of space, not just a vertical or horizontal slice. In general, however, the typical practitioner and the typical behavioral scientist seem to have different approaches in their respective emphasis on units and places vs. processes and phenomena. The third dimension refers to the design process or the steps necessary to create a ~\.~"h ~-<;o"h-<;~ \J?e ~-<;~C' GO~? ,,-\."h~ ~\.o~ 'i)e 7 e?? ~-<;Oc, ~ 'i)e?'\-l7 Places An "entity" or "system" Cities Communities Hospitals Prisons Neighborhoods Homes .,", . o~P:rj 1;'<-'\- V qCy \.~ l'e < 11; :r:rjt: v 0:r y Pe:r So IllJ v • SP q 'lJ q ./ -l:ro ce 'lJlll e 'lJt: q ./ C:rOIv, . 'd-l lJg Ph elJ °llle 'lJ q • 'IJ Figure 1. Rehavioral Scientist and Design Practitioner Orientations to Man-Environment Issues. !'l ~ f= m Z S :D o Z !!: m z :D m ~ o z en ::I: m o :D -< o 102 I ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH, VOL. 2 building, home, or city [Zeisel (3)]. Briefly, programming involves identification of design criteria or the goals of the unit; design is a specific plan to achieve programming goals. Construction includes building the place; use refers to user activities and adaptations to completed units. Evaluation includes assessment of whether the completed unit satisfied original programming goals. Historically, researchers have not been involved in the design process. And, when they have participated, it has largely been in the evaluation stage, i.e., Is the place doing what it was supposed to do; does it have "validity"? For example, Bechtel (4) iden- tified problems associated with a low-cost housing development. Unique to his approach was the feeding of evaluative limitations into a rehabilitative design pro- cess. While practitioners have occasionally recruited behavioral scientists to participate in the design process, their success has been limited. Researchers are not prone to deal easily with such questions as: "How can the cultural background of group X be translated into the design of a home?" or "What design features should be built into this specific community for poor people?" Researchers do not typically pose questions in such specific place/locale form. The average scientist often replies that he can research the problem, but that his answers will be tentative and re- stricted in generality, and that the problem will require many studies, long-term funding and development of a body of theory. The practitioner, caught in the bind of a place to be built immediately, and operating with limited dollars, often throws up his hands in dismay, pleading that the design process must go on, and that decisions must be made in spite of incomplete knowledge. He goes on to say that he will accept educated guesses, but that the behavioral scientist must assume some responsibility, in spite of his uncertainty. The behavioral scientist often then steps aside, unwilling to assume such responsibility, to be driven by schedules and dollar limitations, and to act in the absence of thorough and scholarly documenta- tion. Furthermore, he is often not interested in an applied product focused on a particular place or entity. Implicit in this three-dimensional framework and in the paraphrased dialogue of miscommunication are several other differences in approach. 1. Criterion-oriented vs. process-oriented approaches So-called "applied" researchers who work on weapon, transportation, education, and health care "systems" share much in common with environmental designers and are divergent from "basic" researchers. The practitioner and applied researcher are typically criterion- or problem-oriented in that they begin with a statement of goals or end-points to be achieved. They have a known criterion with known proper- ties, e.g., a building or community to house X people and to provide X services, a transportation system which is to achieve a given flow of traffic in a specified period of time, etc. The job is to solve a specific problem and to produce a work- able product. The practitioner or applied researcher then proceeds backwards from the criterion, gathering information and conducting research directed specifically towards problem solutions. While there may be by-products which go beyond immedi- ate concerns, their perspective is directed primarily toward solving a particular problem. Thus, the practitioner and applied researcher are dependent variable oriented and work backwards only to those independent variables which may affect 2. MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS: THEORY / 103 goal achievement. The basic researcher generally proceeds in the opposite direction. While interested in behavioral outcomes, his style is to pose first the question "What are the major classes of factors which affect behavior X?" His specification of behavior X is initially in fairly global terms. The next step, particularly if the researcher is experimentally oriented, is to design a multifactor study, with considerable attention devoted to properties of the laboratory setting and to care- ful specification and manipulation of independent or antecedent variables. In a sense, detailed description of behavioral or dependent variables comes last and is often contingent on what can be measured in the situation. And, the researcher is usually not concerned with a particular level of behavioral proficiency, but wishes to demonstrate how independent variables produce reliable differences in behavioral outcomes. In summary, he tends to be independent variable oriented, at least in terms of starting point. Is it any wonder that practitioners and researchers encounter communication diffi- culties, when the practitioner poses a criterion or dependent variable question, e.g., "How can we satisfy people's needs for privacy in the design of this home?" and the researcher translates this into an independent variable framework, "What factors can I study as independent variables which will yield demonstrable effects of privacy?" The practitioner will not obtain the answer to his specific problem from the researcher's strategy, and the researcher is not accustomed to posing his research in the form requested by the practitioner. The result is an impasse. 2. Analysis vs. synthesis Embedded in the preceding discussion is an issue which has been of philosophical and scientific interest for centuries. The practitioner often describes his job as "putting everything together" to solve problems. Not only must he worry about an array of technological questions architectural design, plumbing, electricity, materials, transportation, building codes but he must also deal with sociological and psychological matters. His job is to synthesize these different areas in order to create a viable entity. Implicit in many behavioral science approaches is an analytic strategy, i.e., the unraveling of the contribution of individual and clusters of variables to behavior- al outcomes. Thus, scientists usually focus on specific behaviors, specific set- tings, and specific independent variables. While the ultimate goal is broad gener- alization, immediate goals usually involve dimensionalizing phenomena, partial ling out of variance, and detailed analysis of the impact of specific variables on specific behaviors. Or, to put it somewhat facetiously, the behavioral scientist is primarily interested in behavior, and only secondarily in putting information together to describe whole people or whole groups. So, when the practitioner poses the question "What does this particular cultural group need by way of privacy, availability to transportation, cultural centers, etc.?" the behavioral scientist not only translates this into the independent variable strategy described above, but he also may reply, "I am a specialist in religious institutions of rural mem- bers of that group and, therefore, can only speculate about the many other parts of your question." The result is another mutual frustration. 104 I ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH, VOL. 2 3. Doing and implementation vs. knowing and understanding The environmental practitioner is action-oriented; he is a "doer" whose energies are directed toward a specific end product. The typical behavioral scientist is less compelled to achieve an immediate "real world" product. His goal is usually a published study or a theory, with unknown or limited immediate application. Again, these differences in orientation can lead to an impasse. The practitioner, geared toward rebuilding a city or designing a low-cost housing project, must take immedi- ate action. The behavioral scientist devotes his energies to understanding rather than to direct action, and in controlled settings where he can tease out relevant sources of variance. He is generally less driven to directly and immediately apply his knowledge. While these distinctions are not categorical, they collectively point to differ- ences in approach of behavioral scientists and practitioners. And, as noted earli- er, the ideal relationship is not necessarily one of consensus or homogeneity of style. Divergencies in approach are probably healthy, for they will bring to bear a variety of knowledge and strategies to the same problems. Furthermore, it will be particularly unhealthy if divergencies are seen by either party as inadequacies on the part of the other, or if there is a refusal to undertake translation between approaches. Such translation can take any of several forms. Practitioners and researchers can shift roles, i.e., the sc~entist can attempt occasionally to trans- late his work into the practitioner's framework, and vice versa. Or, we can try to develop a new breed of scientist-practitioner, who has a commitment to both types of professions, who works at the boundary of disciplines, and who becomes skilled at the translation process on an everyday basis. In any case, the theme proposed here is that differences in style exist, and need to be understood and bridged, not obliterated. Evolutionary Stages of Researcher-Practitioner Contacts The momentum for researchers and pract"itioners to join forces began in the late 1950's, when long smoldering discontents began to surface in the design professions and in behavioral science fields. Many practitioners rebelled against what they termed an egocentric approach to the design process, where the main product was accused of being for the benefit of the designer's aesthetic and personal aspira- tions, and not for the benefit of the human user. The needs of the environmental consumer became primary in the eyes of the malcontents, even at the expense of beauty in design. This led to a reaching out toward disciplines who presumably knew something about man's limitations, motivations and needs socio1ogy, psychol- ogy, political science, anthropology. In the social and behavioral sciences (speaking primarily of psychology), a complementary discontent mounted about the same time. Some began to question the use of laboratory experimentation as the sole approach to understanding behavior and called for the study of behavior in "real world" settings. The hold of the laboratory was quite firm at the time, and it was not popular to conduct field research. However, there had been several notable field studies [Barker & Wright (5); Barker (6), (7); Sommer (8)] which demonstrated that meaningful information 2. MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS: THEORY I 105 could be obtained using field experimental or observational techniques. Neverthe- less, those who advocated field studies were often alienated from the mainstream of research. Second, a realization grew that psychology traditionally had been examin- ing behavior almost independent of the physical environment. irhen it was consider- ed, the environment had been treated primarily as an independent variable and physi- cal determinant of responses, e.g., lighting, noise, color. It was not really con- ceived of as a social milieu or as a modifier of social structures and interaction patterns. Furthermore, the environment had rarely been studied in a dependent vari- able sense, as a manifestation and extension of behavior, e.g., privacy mechanisms, personal space, territorial behaviors. Sommer (9) and Barker [Barker (10), (11); Barker & Wright (12)] demonstrated how environments serve as a social milieu, calling forth complex patterns of social behavior. And, the work of Hall (13), (14), undertaken from an anthropological perspective, and that of Kuethe (15), (16), done in a laboratory context, were early illustrations of the role of personal space mechanisms in different social situa- tions. These early efforts sensitized researchers to the role of the environment as an essential feature of social behavior. The result was a reaching out to disci- plines who dealt with the environment-architecture, interior design, geography, urban planning. Thus, in the early 1960's a critical mass of professionals develop- ed, who wanted to break away from the constrictions of their own disciplines. During this initial period, spontaneous and organized interdisciplinary discussions took place, some under the sponsorship of formal organizations, and others as ad hoc meetings. From these meetings new channels of communication and more organize~  activities emerged, such as formal conferences and symposia, newsletters and infor- mal journals, interdisciplinary organizations, and academic programs to train man- environment researchers and practitioners. In the mid- to late 1960's it appeared as if the early honeymoon was over, as basic value systems and styles of behavioral scientists and practitioners began to clash. The criterion-oriented, problem-directed, unit/place strategy of the practitioner was not being satisfied by the researcher, and vice versa. That state continues to exist to some extent, but one also has the impression that, having gone through a period of unreal expectations and subsequent disillusionment, a new stage of rela- tionship now exists. Both sides seem ready to make a more realistic assessment of each others' pOints of view and mutual advantages and disadvantages. It is essen- tial that continued efforts be made in this direction, else the study of man-envi- ronment relations will fragment, and once again be approached from the myopic view of individual disciplines. A Models-of-~1an View of the Field The conduct of environmental research by practitioners and scientists has increased dramatically in the past few years as evidenced in conference proceedings, techni- cal reports, newsletters and journal articles. And, there is apt to be an even greater outpouring in the coming years. Aside from the question of which research topics are popular or desirable to pursue [see Craik (17); Proshansky, Ittelson & Rivlin (18); Sommer (19), (20)], there is the less tangible issue of which philo- 106 I ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH, VOL. 2 sophical models underlie present-day research. What general conceptions or models of man seem to be implicit and are in vogue in existing studies? Do these represent historical, evolutionary stages of the man-environment field? Are there philosophi- cal viewpoints which may be fruitful to pursue but which are not yet evident in current research? Even brief consideration of these questions may make salient guiding assumptions underlying current research. And, other perspectives about which researchers and practitioners are not yet wholly aware may evolve from such an analysis. (See the paper by Rapaport in this volume for a more extensive list of various models of man.) 1. The mechanistic model of man This model was one of the first applied to the study of man-environment relations. Its origin was in the human engineering, hardware-oriented systems work of the 1950's and 1960's, when it was a maxim that the design of complex systems had to include considerations of human users. The "man-machine systems" approach called for the design of equipment built around physical, sensory, motor and intellectual capabilities and limitations of man, with one motto being, "Fit the machine to man." The roots of this approach were in the early industrial psychology studies of time and motion, energy expenditure, etc. In modern times this approach has been trans- lated into layout analyses, traffic flow systems, lighting, color, heating analyses of environments. Several assumptions are implicit in this model. Man is viewed primarily as a ~ forming, task-oriented organism. As a consequence, emphasis has been placed on his capabilities for sensing, processing, and interpreting inputs, and on his skills in evaluating and selecting action alternatives. Motivational and emotional states and interpersonal processes are either of secondary interest or are treated as factors which enhance or degrade man's system-like functioning. Such processes are not usually considered in and of themselves, but are cast in the context of efficient performance output. Another feature of this approach is its extensive concern with environmental design, or the shaping of physical environments. The goal has been to insure that man's performance-related skills are maxinized and that his limitations are not exceeded or unduly stressed. While training for maximum performance is often undertaken, emphasis has been placed on the design of physical environments, with man as one major c8nstraint on that environment. Thus, environments are designed for man, often in a static sense and with relatively few options for him to alter environ- ments or to function in them in a flexible fashion. In this sense, man is merely another system component with limited degrees of operating freedom. While this approach achieved popularity in the 1950's and early 1960's, and still has relevance today, current man-environment research does not appear to rely heavily on this model. 2. The perceptual-cognitive-motivationa1 model of man The major present-day approach in environmental research conceptualizes man in terms of a variety of internal processes. These include perceptual reactions to the 2. MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS: THEORY 107 environment (how he senses, perceives, and organizes environmental stimuli), moti- vational and emotional states associated with environmental stimuli (stress, nega- tive and positive affect), cognitive responses to the environment (subjective esti- mates of the richness, complexity, meaning and evaluation of the environment). This model conceives of man as an internal processing organism, and is more concerned with subjective psychological processes in relation to the environment than with overt behavioral responses. Historically, psychology has relied heavily on an "internal state" model of man. This has been especially true in clinical psychology which, stemming from the earlier Freudian tradition, emphasized man's emotional and motivational states. This model has also been prevalent in social psychology, with its emphasis on: (1) attitudes and belief systems, (2) personality-oriented social states such as need achievement, affiliation, and dominance, and (3) interpersonal psychological states involving cooperation and competition, interpersonal attraction, conformity and influence, etc. Research-oriented practitioners have been quick to adopt this model, perhaps because there is a large body of available theory and measurement techniques. The goal has been to uncover how ~an sees, perceives, feels and. reacts to aspects of his environ- ment. Use has been made of questionnaire and rating procedures such as the semantic differential, where environments are rated on scales tapping evaluative (good-bad), activity (dynamic quality of environments), and potency (impact characteristics of environment) dimensions. Other approaches include "cognitive maps," where people are literally asked to draw their neighborhoods, streets, and cities, or are inter- viewed as they move through environments. The goal is to determine subjective per- ceptions of an environment, independent of its "objective" characteristics. One of the earliest examples of this approach involved taking people on a walk and asking them to give subjective impressions as they l'1oved about [Lynch 8: Rivkin (21)]. Recently, Ladd (22) asked black children to draw their neighborhoods and streets, and then content analyzed their responses. Various aspects of cognitive map re- search and techniques have been summarized by Stea and Downs (23). A massive body of data is building in this area and it seems that this model of man dominates research at the present time. It is also interesting to consider this approach from an extended historical perspective. Early in the history of modern psychology, during the last third of the nineteenth century, a substantial aspect of research involved "introspection," or the systematic analysis and self-reporting of internal cognitive and psychological events. In fact, there was an attempt by Wilhelm Wundt and his associates to establish a "mental chemistry." In many re- spects the cognitive map movement in man-environment research is analogous to the introspectionist movement of the 19th Century, as it also seeks to unravel how man cognizes, perceives and feels about the environment. It will be interesting to see how long this "inside the head" model of man remains prominent in man-environment research. A comprehensive analysis and criticism of this approach is presented by Wohlwill in this volume. 3. The behavioral model of man This approach emphasizes study of overt behavior rather than internal, subjective states. What man does is stressed rather than how he feels, perceives or cognizes. [...]... theme of this approach is that man-environment relations occur at several levels of behavioral functioning, and as a coherent system The man-machine, perceptual-motivational-cognitive and behavioral models emphasize different facets of human functioning, and almost presume that each is sufficient unto itself to understand man-environment relationships It is proposed here that many such levels of behavior... position or use of the physical environment This results in a wide repertoire of behaviors which are coordinated in various patterns While sole emphasis on one level of behavior may be necessary in a particular research study, continued particularistic analysis without integration of behavioral levels can lose sight of the system quality of man-environment relations From the perspective of this paper,... model, with man conceived of as an internal, subjective, inside-the-head processor This model is presently popular in man-environment research, in the form of studies of cognitive maps and subjective reactions to environmental stimuli; 3 a behavioral model, which places emphasis on overt behavior rather than internal psychological processes According to this position, man-environment relations are best understood... fruitful "model" of man for several reasons For example, it may be useful in establishing connections between the other models Furthermore, it seems to fit 110 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH, VOL 2 more appropriately the complex nature of man-environment relationships It also may help bridge the gap between the place-oriented approach of the practitioner and the process-oriented approach of the behavioral... behaviors and (3) where there is a mutual relationship 2 MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS: THEORY I 111 between environment and behavior, each influencing and shaping the other, (d) in a dynamic time-linked sense The position was taken that no single model is complete, but that the ecological social systems approach held considerable promise for understanding man-environment relations for several reasons: 1 it... Barker, R G (Ed.), THE STREAM OF BEHAVIOR, New York, App1eton-CenturyCrofts, 1963 (25) Barker, R G., ECOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1968 (26) Barker, R G., and Gump, P., BIG SCHOOL, SMALL SCHOOL, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1964 Neighborhood Maps", ENVIRONH1AGES OF SPATIAL ENVIRON- 2 MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS: THEORY / 113 (27) Barker, R G.,... BASIS OF DESIGN, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1969 (33) Altman, I., "The Communication of Interpersonal Attitudes: An Ecological Approach" in Huston, T L., PERSPECTIVES ON INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION, New York, Academic Press, 1973 (34) Altman, I., Nelson, Patricia, and Lett, Evelyn E., THE ECOLOGY OF HOME ENVIRONMENTS (Final Report, Project No 0-0 502, Grant No OEG- 8-7 0-0 202 (508), Office of. .. place-unit and process-oriented approaches can be bridged, as can analysis and synthesis strategies Summary and Conclusions Progress in the man-environment area depends on the joining of forces by scientists and practitioners However, barriers to mutual understanding exist, because of differences in styles of practitioners and researchers Researchers are primarily analytic and independent variable-oriented,... modes of attack Researchers and practitioners have implicitly adopted one of several theoretical "models of man." While none of the following models are "correct" in an absolute sense, they have served to guide research and practice: 1 A mechanistic model, with man viewed primarily as part of a complex man-machine system, and emphasis placed on performance-related behaviors; 2 a perceptualcognitive-motivational... use of the environment by people, Dot merely reactive responses to environmental stimuli 3 A third feature of this ecological approach concerns the dynamic, changing quality of man-environment relaticns These are not static, immutably fixed or intransigent relationships Territories shift, functions alter, group composition changes While a seemingly obvious truism, practitioners and researchers often . Authors: THEORY OF MAN-ENVIRONMENT - RELATIONS Irwin Altman, Department of Psychology, University of Utah Irwin Altman, "Some Perspectives On The Study of Man-Environment. "Structures of Man-Environ- ment Relations& quot; Amos Rapoport, "An Approach To The Construction of Man-Environment Theory& quot; Raymond G. Studer, " ;Man-Environment Relations: . OF HOME ENVI- RONMENTS (Final Report, Project No. 0-0 502, Grant No. OEG- 8-7 0-0 202 (508), Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare), University of