Journal of Environmental Psychology (1996) 16, 45–54
 1996 Academic Press Limited
0272-4944/96/010045+10$18.00/0
Journalof
ENVIRONMENTAL
PSYCHOLOGY
DEVELOPMENTAL SHIFTS IN THE PLACE PREFERENCES OF BOYS
AGED 8–16 YEARS
JON C. MALINOWSKI* AND CHRISTOPHER A. THURBER†
*Department of Geography & Environmental Engineering, United States Military Academy, West Point,
NY, U.S.A. †Department of Psychology, University of California at Los Angeles, U.S.A.
Abstract
Little is known about how and why children’s preferences for different places changes as they get older. This
study is a preliminary examination of developmental shifts in boys’ place preferences. Boys aged 8 to 16 years
(n=155) attending a residential summer camp were asked to indicate their favorite place in the camp and why
they liked that place. The responses were categorized using a four-part classification scheme (land use, social,
commercial and aesthetic/cognitive). Younger boys tended to choose places valued for a particular land use,
while older boys tended to choose places for their aesthetic or cognitive qualities. A new developmental model
of place preferences in boys is discussed.
 1996 Academic Press Limited
Introduction
these studies have demonstrated interesting differences, few researchers have gone further than stating that differences in preference exist between
these groups. In general, there has been little discussion of how the place and landscape preferences
of children change as they grow older.
Interestingly, in the research field of environmental perception and spatial cognition, developmental
models are common. For example, research in wayfinding and route-learning has focused on the acquisition of configural environmental knowledge both
developmentally (Hart & Moore, 1973) and experientially (Golledge et al., 1985; Gale et al., 1990).
Researchers espousing a developmental sequence of
spatial information acquisition generally base their
work on the theories of Piaget, who saw spatial
understanding as passing through several separate
stages during childhood. During this developmental
sequence, children understand increasingly complex principles of spatial relations, maturing from
an understanding of topological principles such as
closeness, separation and closure to a cognisance of
projective space and later of Euclidean principles
(Piaget & Inhelder, 1956, 1957; Moore, 1976; see
also Matthews, 1992).
Importantly, Piaget’s research focused on small-
In the past 25 years, researchers have expanded our
knowledge of how children’s understanding of their
environment develops. While topic and methodology
have varied widely, studies have focused on what
and how children know about their environment.
Psychologists and geographers alike have studied
such areas as the child’s cognitive map (Matthews,
1980, 1984), children’s environmental exploration
(Hazen, 1982; Cornell & Hay, 1984; Matthews,
1987) and children’s wayfinding skills (Darvizeh &
Spencer, 1984; Golledge et al., 1985, 1992; Gale et
al., 1990). While studies such as these are significant contributions, they often neglected children’s
attitudes and feelings about their environment.
A smaller group of studies has looked directly at
children’s preferences for certain types of feature in
their immediate surroundings (Hart, 1979; Moore,
1986) or for more general landscape types
(Balling & Falk, 1982; Lyons, 1983; Zube et al.,
1983). Place and landscape preference studies often
discuss the differences between the preferences of
children of various ages (Hart, 1979; Chawla, 1992)
or between the preferences of children and adults
(Lyons, 1983; Zube et al., 1983). While many of
45
46
J. C. Malinowski and C. A. Thurber
scale environments (e.g. models and small objects).
Hart and Moore (1973) attempted to connect Piaget’s ideas to children’s understanding of large-scale
environments. They offered a model in which a
child’s understanding of his or her surroundings
becomes less egocentric and concrete and increasingly allocentric and abstract with age. Hart and
Moore believe that until the age of 5 or 6, children
tend to view the world egocentrically, considering
the environment only as it relates to themselves. In
addition, they argued that, beginning around age 3,
a child’s self-centered orientation is gradually
replaced by a fixed reference system in which the
environment is thought of in relation to important
landmarks, such as the child’s house or school. As
children approach the age of 10 or 11, their reference system becomes more abstract and they view
the environment in terms of coordinated reference
systems. An understanding of places in terms of
cardinal directions (i.e. East or North) is one
example of this developing skill.
While Hart and Moore’s model has not been
explicitly applied to environmental preference studies, it suggests the need to examine the attitudes of
children toward their surroundings in a developmental context. It is reasonable to assume that if
children’s configural knowledge of the environment
changes as they grow, their attitude towards that
environment might also change. Thus, environmental preferences should be examined in a developmental context.
While most studies of children’s place preferences
address only what types of place are preferred or
used by one discrete age group, discussions of how
place preferences change with age do exist. In his
classic study, Hart (1979) found that younger children (grades K–3) tended to express a stronger preference for places of commercial appeal or social
activity, while older children (grades 4–7) expressed
slightly greater preferences for places valued for a
particular land use. As an illustration, an 8-year-old
may select a friend’s house as a favorite place and
give as a reason, ‘I like being with my friend’ (social
activity), while a 12-year-old may select a baseball
field and give as a reason, ‘I like to play baseball’
(land use). Although both answers involve social
and land-use components, the former emphasizes
interpersonal interaction, while the latter emphasizes use of the place for a specific purpose, hence the
distinction between the two. However, Hart’s
cohorts are fairly broad, potentially obscuring developmental trends that might emerge at a finer age
resolution.
In a review of a number of earlier place prefer-
ence studies, Chawla (1992) noted several differences that have been found in the favorite places of
younger vs older children. Examining both studies
of frequency of place use and favorite place, Chawla
concluded that:
a general pattern exists of a life centered in the
home, at friends’ houses, or at immediate site facilities at age 6, followed by an appreciation of diverse
neighborhood resources in middle childhood, culminating in adolescent investments divided among the
home again, private outdoor places, and commercial
establishments (p. 81).
The pattern Chawla observed emphasized the
expanding activity spaces of youth, but no speculation was offered on reasons why this pattern
emerges. Moreover, Chawla’s combination of studies measuring frequency of use studies with studies
documenting favorite places raises an issue that has
not been adequately addressed in the literature:
whether or not frequency of use, a common methodology in preference studies, predicts children’s favorite places, or vice versa. Hart (1979) showed that
many of the places that most interest children are
outside parentally approved activity areas. Also,
while some strongly preferred places are used
infrequently (e.g. campgrounds and arcades), it is
equally likely that frequently used places (e.g.
schools and bathrooms) are not preferred places for
many children.
Other studies have examined the development of
landscape preferences in children. Zube et al.,
although not directly examining place preferences,
have explored landscape preferences in a developmental context (Zube et al., 1983). Examining preferences for a set of landscape photographs (e.g.
jungles, mountains and woodlands), they found significant differences in landscape preference
between younger children (ages 6–8 and 9–11) and
teenagers (ages 12–18), as well as between younger
children and adults. Bernáldez et al. (1987), in a
similar study, found that younger children
expressed less of a preference for naturalistic settings, shadowed scenes and harsh surfaces than did
teenagers or adults. Balling and Falk (1982) found a
similar difference between younger and older children. Zube et al. hypothesized that the differences
between the groups were due to the children ascribing a relatively low level of importance to naturalistic settings. While place preference studies (e.g.
Hart, 1979) and landscape studies (e.g. Zube et al.,
1983) differ in many ways, it is nevertheless important to ask whether Zube’s developmental explanation (that younger children appreciate naturalistic settings less than older children do) can
Place Preferences in Boys
explain the trend found by Hart (that younger children prefer places for their social value and older
children prefer places for their land use). Perhaps
the increased preference for outdoor places with
specific land uses (e.g. baseball fields and
playgrounds) results from an increasing appreciation for naturalistic settings in general. Alternatively, older children may prefer outdoor places with
specific land uses because they have more opportunity and freedom to explore such places than do
younger children. Preference for the familiar is a
robust finding in psychological research (Zajonc,
1968; Brickman & D’Amato, 1975; Mita et al., 1977;
Stang & Crandall, 1977; Jorgensen & Cervone,
1978). Ideally, research addressing children’s place
preferences would allow children equal access to a
wide variety of places within a controlled
environment.
To summarize, place and landscape preference
studies have only begun to touch on the ways in
which the attitudes of children toward their
environment may change with age. While it seems
generally accepted that children of various ages
have different environmental likes and dislikes,
how and why they are different is less clear.
This study explored developmental trends in the
place preferences of boys aged 8–16 years and
included an assessment of the reasons why boys
chose certain places as their favorites. By examining the developmental trends in the reasons that
underly children’s place preferences, we hoped that
researchers in the field could begin to tie the sundry
group of place and landscape preference studies
together and move toward a coherent theory of
humans’ preferential relationships with places.
Method
Subjects
Subjects were all campers at a residential (i.e.
overnight) boys’ sports camp located in New
Hampshire in the North-eastern United States.
Parent and child consent were obtained by mail
several months prior to the start of camp. Of 463
campers registered for the 1993 summer, 395 (85%)
chose to participate in a longitudinal study of
camper adjustment to separation from home, of
which the place preference research was a part (see
Thurber, 1995). Ethnic minorities represented 8% of
the sample. Participants ranged in age from 8 to 16
years old. The sample was primarily middle class;
socio-economic status averaged 67 (range=10–90)
47
on Hollingshead’s (1975) index of parental occupation. There were no significant differences
between the participants or nonparticipants based
on age, number of previous stays at summer camp
or parental occupation. All 463 campers took part in
a daily trivia contest concurrent with the study, as a
form of positive reinforcement and a fair method of
remuneration.
Setting
The camp setting where this study took place contains a variety of built and natural environments.
Set on over 173 acres, the camp maintains over 45
buildings, mostly cabins, and numerous manmade
recreational facilities, such as ball fields and tennis
courts. Larger features include a lodge with a small
library and camp store, a dining hall with room for
330 and a covered basketball court. Prominent
natural features include a grove of tall white pines,
large areas of mixed deciduous and coniferous forest, over 2000 feet of freshwater lakefront, a meadow, wetlands, beaches and a small island. In short,
the setting affords numerous environmental opportunities, both natural and built. The basic layout of
the camp is depicted in Fig. 1.
The choice of the setting for this study deserves
special attention. Most place preference studies
have examined children in a residential setting, be
it urban or rural. While these studies have been
crucial to our understanding of children’s place preferences, residential studies are not without limitations. Children in residential settings are often
restricted in their movement by parental regulations (e.g. Hart, 1979; Matthews, 1987). In
addition, unless every subject in the study lives in
close proximity, the places available on a daily basis
differ from child to child. In the camp setting utilized here, each camper had access to the same
areas, regardless of age, and all ages of camper utilized most of the same facilities. As an example, of 23
separate sports or activities offered repeatedly during a typical week at the camp, only one activity,
cross-training, is limited to a specific group, the oldest boys. While many aquatic activities are limited
to certain campers for reasons of safety, the restrictions are based on swimming or boating skill rather
than age.
Procedure
Near the end of his 2 or 4 week stay, each of the 395
subjects was asked to state his favorite place in
camp on an exit questionnaire. The questionnaire
48
J. C. Malinowski and C. A. Thurber
Lake
Camper cabin
Bathroom
Lodge
Activity area
Staff cabin
Swimming
and boating
Trail
Road
Dining
hall
Campfire
area
Chapel
Approx. 122 m (400 ft)
Field
Field
Fields
FIGURE 1. Map of the summer camp study site.
was part of a larger study on camper moods and
included a variety of questions that asked the boys
to rate their camp stay. Each camper completed the
written survey individually, but each question was
read aloud to ensure that every question would be
understood by even the youngest campers. No comprehension problems were reported. Since this
study was a preliminary investigation of this topic,
it was decided that only favorite places would be
investigated. Negative environmental attitudes are
part of our ongoing research. In addition, the length
of the questionnaire was kept short to reduce the
impact on the boys’ daily activities.
A subset (n=155) of the boys, selected randomly,
was interviewed by one of the authors about their
favorite place and asked, ‘Why is that place your
favorite?’ The interviews were conducted late in
each boy’s stay at a quiet location during an afternoon siesta period. After indicating their favorite
place, the boys were prompted to explain why that
place was preferred. These responses were audiotaped, transcribed and then categorized using a
classification scheme based on the one employed by
Hart (1979). Answers were coded into one of four
categories;
(1) land use/activity;
(2) social/interpersonal;
(3) commercial;
(4) aesthetic/cognitive.
Table 1 illustrates a few typical responses for
each category. Since the children were free to
answer in as limited or extensive a manner as they
desired, some responses were later coded as combination answers (e.g. social/interpersonal and
commercial). An inter-rater reliability check of the
coding scheme showed it to have ‘almost perfect’
reliability (k=0.91; Landis & Koch, 1977). The
responses were divided by age quintiles of roughly
equal size: 8–10-year-olds (n=35), 11-year-olds (n=
22), 12-year-olds (n=35), 13-year-olds (n=33) and
14–16-year-olds (n=30). The wider age ranges in the
youngest and oldest groups reflected a small number of boys aged 8, 9, 15 and 16 who were too few in
number to be considered separately.
Results
Table 2 lists the top 10 favorite places of the entire
sample. The lake ranks the highest, with 22.6% of
the campers choosing it as their favorite place.
Other near-water places are also included, such as
Place Preferences in Boys
49
TABLE 1
Classification scheme of children’s reasons for choosing favorite places
Category
Representative responses
Land use/activity
‘I like the archery range because I like to shoot archery.’
‘My favorite place is Clark Field because of the cool games we play there.’
Social/interpersonal
‘I like the lodge, mostly because I like to hang out with my friends there.’
‘My favorite place is the Cabin 3, because my best friend is in that cabin.’
Commercial
‘My favorite place the craft shop, because I can buy moccasins.’
‘I like the store best, because you can get whatever you need there.’
Aesthetic/cognitive
‘My favorite place is the Cadet Beach, because when the sun sets over the lake there, it’s
really beautiful.’
‘My favorite place is the top of Hall Lodge, because it’s quiet. You can see the whole
waterfront from there. It’s a good place to sit and think.’
Adapted from Hart (1979).
TABLE 2
Boys’ 10 most favorite places at a residential summer
camp
Favorite place
Percentage of all
responses*
Lake/waterfront
Cabin
Woodcraft circle†
Main lodge
Main Dock swimming area
Bunk/bed
Beach
Archery range
Divisional area
Bathroom
22·7
12·4
8·1
5·6
5·1
4·8
4·8
2·8
2·5
2·5
Cumulative percentage
71·2
*n=395.
†Site of a weekly campfire attended by the entire camp.
Main Dock and the beach. This result echoes the
findings of Hart (1979) and Zube et al. (1983), which
showed water as an important environmental
element for children. The other favorite places are
interesting in their own right. Some are the site of
special activities unlikely to be available at home,
such as the archery range and the Woodcraft circle,
the location of a weekly campfire. Other places seem
to be social in nature, such as the cabin, the divisional area and the bathroom, the latter two of
which are centrally located among a group of cabins
and thus serve as a gathering point for children.
Other places on the top 10 list are more private
places, such as the bunk or bed.
Interestingly, when favorite places are examined
by age quintile, there are only minor differences.
Table 3 lists the top 10 activities by age quintile.
For each quintile, the ‘lake or waterfront’ was the
most frequent response for favorite place. For three
out of the five quintiles, ‘the cabin’ received the
second most votes, and in the other two quintiles,
‘the cabin’ was the third most popular place. The
Woodcraft circle, Main Dock, bunk/bed and Conlon
Lodge each appear in the top 10 in at least four of
the quintiles. Many other responses also appear in
several lists.
These findings clearly illustrate that, for a wide
age range of boys, a small number of places
accounted for most favorite places in this environment. An examination of these findings alone, however, might leave the impression that place preferences are the same or similar for boys of all ages.
However, what these lists do not show, and what
many studies have neglected, are the reasons the
boys gave for liking their favorite place.
Table 4 shows the reasons given for liking a favorite place, sorted by age quintile. For the youngest
camper, it is clear that places are liked for the
activity that goes on at that place. Nearly 72% of
the youngest boys gave a land use/activity reason,
and almost 60% of the 11-year-olds did so. However,
there is a reduction in the frequency of this
response as age increases. Only 23.3% of the oldest
boys gave a straight land use/activity response. The
older boys tended to give more responses categorized as aesthetic/cognitive: 43.3% of the fifth quintile compared with only 11.4% of the youngest boys.
This increase in aesthetic/cognitive response can
also be seen in the increase in the frequency of the
combination land use/aesthetic response in the oldest two groups. Social and commercial responses
were very small in all groups. The differences in
responses among the five age groups were statistically significant (χ2(4154)=14·9; p<0·005, corrected for
ties). Figure 2 graphically illustrates these trends.
50
J. C. Malinowski and C. A. Thurber
TABLE 3
Boys’ 10 most favorite places at a residential summer
camp, sorted by age quintile
Age quintile
Favorite place
Percentage of
responses
8–10-yearolds
Lake
Divisional area
Cabin
Woodcraft circle
Conlon (main) Lodge
Bunk/bed
Main (swimming) Dock
Nowhere
Craft shop
Rifle range
Cumulative percentage
16·5
9·9
9·9
9·9
6·6
4·4
4·4
3·3
3·3
3·3
71·4
11-year-olds
Lake
Cabin
Woodcraft circle
Main (swimming) Dock
Archery range
Nowhere
Bunk/bed
Clark (sports) Field
Bathroom
Cadet Beach
Rifle range
Junior (divisional) Lodge
Nature (fish) pond
Junior divisional area
Cadet divisional area
Cumulative percentage
21·1
15·8
6·6
6·6
5·3
5·3
3·9
3·9
2·6
2·6
2·6
2·6
2·6
2·6
2·6
88·2
12-year-olds
Lake
Cabin
Woodcraft circle
Bunk/bed
Main (swimming) Dock
Conlon (main) Lodge
Archery range
Nowhere
Bathroom
Woods (in general)
Outpost Beach
Pine grove
Everywhere
Cumulative percentage
28·6
16·9
9·1
6·5
6·5
5·2
3·9
2·6
2·6
2·6
2·6
2·6
2·6
90·9
14-year-olds
Lake
Cabin
Woodcraft circle
Bunk/bed
Archery range
Conlon (main) Lodge
Outpost Beach
Bathroom
Main (swimming) Dock
Dining hall
Cumulative percentage
25·6
10·3
9·0
7·7
5·1
5·1
5·1
3·8
3·8
3·8
79·5
TABLE 3 (continued)
Age quintile
Favorite place
14–16-yearolds
Lake
Outpost Beach
Cabin
Conlon (main) Lodge
(outdoor) chapel
Woodcraft circle
Main (swimming) Dock
Woods (in general)
Craft shop deck*
Ruth’s (lakeside) Bench*
Everywhere
Cumulative percentage
Percentage of
responses
23·0
16·2
9·5
8·1
5·4
5·4
4·1
4·1
2·7
2·7
2·7
83·8
*Both the craft shop deck and Ruth’s Bench offer places
to sit overlooking the lake.
Discussion
Previous research on children’s place and landscape
preferences has informed us that differences exist
but has not suggested a developmental model for
how and why preferences may shift as children
grow older. This study examined the place preferences of boys aged 8–16 who were attending a residential summer camp for 2 weeks. Subjects’ equal
access to all areas and their broad range made this
setting uniquely suited to elucidating developmental shifts in place preferences. Results from interviews indicated that the reasons boys gave for liking
a favorite place showed patterns as the boys’ ages
increased. Younger boys preferred places for their
land use or activity, whereas older boys preferred
places for their aesthetic or cognitive value.
Based on these findings, we propose a preliminary developmental model for place preferences
that acknowledges a change from a land use/activity
orientation in late childhood to an aesthetic/
cognitive one in adolescence. If Hart’s (1979) findings with younger children are aggregated with the
results of this study, a larger model might emerge
that predicts a trend in social/interpersonal and
commercial preference in early childhood (Fig. 3).
Only a longitudinal study that included a much
wider age range of young people (e.g. ages 4–18)
could determine whether reasons for place preferences develop from a social/interpersonal and commercial orientation in early childhood into a land
use orientation in middle childhood and then into
an aesthetic/cognitive orientation in adolescence. As
Fig. 3 implies, it is likely that the various orientations develop alongside each other and interact to
produce preferences for particular places. The frequency of combination reasons given for liking a
Place Preferences in Boys
favorite place may reflect such an interaction. Since
combination answers were more common among
older boys, an increase in multiple-dimension
reasons for place preferences might be part of the
developmental trend suggested by this study.
Environmental factors must also influence children’s place preferences and the reasons for those
choices. Prior exposure to different environments,
rural vs urban upbringing, parental restrictions on
environmental exploration, vicarious familiarity
with diverse environments through the media, and
peers’ preferences are a few of the variables likely to
influence children’s judgements and justifications
concerning their favorite places. Future models of
place preference should assess as many of these
influences as possible. The generality of our prelimi-
51
nary model is limited by our single-gender, primarily middle-class sample. Future research should
include girls as well as children of diverse ethnicity.
The setting we chose had the important advantage
of permitting equal access to a finite number of
diverse places. However, future research in similarly controlled environments is necessary to validate the developmental shifts we observed in the
summer camp environment.
Despite the limitations of the population used in
this study, the preliminary model is a noteworthy
complement to extant research. The model proposed
here may help to explain some of the findings noted
by other researchers. For example, the findings by
Zube et al. (1983) and Bernáldez et al. (1984) showing that younger children prefer less naturalistic
TABLE 4
Percentage distribution of reasons given for favorite place, by age quintile
Category
Ages 8–10
(n=35)
Land use/activity (LA)
Social/interpersonal (SI)
Commercial (CO)
Aesthetic/cognitive (AC)
No reason
LA/SI
LA/CO
LA/AC
SI/AC
LA/AC/SI
LA/AC/CO
Cumulative percentage
71·4
0·0
0·0
11·4
2·9
5·7
2·9
5·7
0·0
0·0
0·0
100·0
11-year-olds
(n=22)
59·1
4·5
0·0
18·2
0·0
4·5
0·0
9·1
0·0
0·0
4·5
100·0
12-year-olds
(n=35)
40·0
5·7
2·9
22·9
2·9
14·3
0·0
5·7
2·9
2·9
0·0
100·0
13-year-olds
(n=33)
39·4
0·0
0·0
27·3
0·0
6·1
0·0
24·2
3·0
0·0
0·0
100·0
Ages 14–16
(n=30)
23·3
3·3
0·0
43·3
3·3
6·7
0·0
16·7
3·3
0·0
0·0
100·0
80
Percentage responding
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
8–10
11
12
Age quintile
13
14–16
FIGURE 2. Distribution of reasons given for favorite place, by age quintile. (–)=no reason; -j-=land use/activity; - -n- -=
aesthetic/cognitive; –x–=social/interpersonal; -s-=commercial; -e-=combinations.)
52
J. C. Malinowski and C. A. Thurber
Approximate importance
of each reason
Aesthetic/cognitive
Land use/activity
Social
Commercial
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
FIGURE 3. A preliminary developmental model of place preferences in boys. (Note: shading is not intended to indicate specific values.)
settings could be explained by the social or functional orientation of younger children compared
with the more aesthetic or cognitive penchant of
adolescents. Similarly, Bernáldez et al. (1987)
showed that older children had a greater preference
for landscape photographs that contained challenging visual components such as darkness and texture, elements consistent with aesthetic techniques
used by artists and photographers. This finding
could also be explained by the model proposed in
this paper.
Our model may also fit with Hart and Moore’s
(1973) augmentation of Piagetian theory discussed
above. The egocentrism of younger children might
lead them to prefer those places where gratification
is readily available and protection close at hand.
This would explain Hart’s finding that young children prefer commercial and social places. As noted
above, Hart and Moore argued that, as children
grow, they lose their egocentric orientation and
begin to understand their immediate surroundings
in terms of fixed reference points such as a home or
a school. Perhaps children’s maturing understanding of their surroundings focuses attention on the
purpose and use of that space, producing the land
use orientation noted here and in Hart’s work.
Finally, perhaps older children’s increase in aesthetic responses noted above could be related to the
increasingly abstract view of the world discussed by
Piaget, and Hart and Moore. It is possible that children’s greater awareness of the relationship
between their surroundings and the global or
regional environment lends itself to the develop-
ment of an aesthetic or cognitive relationship with
particular places, a sense of place in the larger
scheme of the world.
While the pattern discussed here might fit within
the confines of the Piagetian paradigm, other developmental theories or explanations are possible as
well. Some of the spatial cognition research fits
nicely with information-processing approaches to
human development, yet other approaches have
been somewhat neglected. For example, Vygotsky’s
work has been largely neglected by researchers in
the field, with the exception of Bourassa (1990), yet
Vygotsky’s focus on the cultural and historical factors affecting development might have relevance to
the evolution of place preferences. Lyons (1983)
noted the importance of these types of factor over a
decade ago, but these issues are to date relatively
unexplored. Physical changes might also play an
important role as well, since the increase in an aesthetic orientation seems to occur in boys about the
time most are experiencing significant pubertal
changes. Perhaps hormonal changes influence place
preferences directly, or indirectly through hormonally-induced changes in the ways in which boys
interact with their environment.
Another approach that has yet to be discussed
and debated widely concerns the concept of affordances proposed by Gibson and his followers (Gibson,
1979; Heft, 1989). Gibson proposed that the
environment could be viewed in terms of the functional significance, or affordances, of particular
places. Thus, a field affords a child a place to play
soccer, and a rock a place to sit (Heft, 1989). The
Place Preferences in Boys
present study suggests that what a child seeks in an
environmental setting might change as the child
grows. Interestingly, among the boys we studied,
some places, such as the lake, afforded different
things for boys of different ages. For the younger
boys, it was a place to swim; for older boys, it was a
place to admire the beauty of a sunset. This finding
supports Heft’s claim (1989) that objects or places in
the environment possess multiple affordances. The
importance of assessing the reasons why children
choose certain places as their favorites cannot be
understated. Clearly, more work could be done to
integrate Gibson’s ideas in future models of place
preference.
The aim of this study was to propose a preliminary model, a stepping stone to a more complete
explanation of how children’s place preferences
develop and change. It is important to remember
that boys of all ages in our study gave a variety of
responses to the question ‘Why is that place your
favorite?’ Furthermore, the limited demographic
variability in our subjects and the cross-sectional
design of the study restrict the generality of our
findings. Perhaps the results would be different if
the camp were coeducational. It is also possible that
the older children were simply better at explaining
why they like certain places, not because of
increased linguistic sophistication but because of
increasingly sophisticated metacognitive skill. If
this were the case, the changes documented in this
paper across boys of different ages may have
resulted not from a change in their reasoning per se
but from a more accurate understanding of that
reasoning.
We hope this study stimulates research that integrates various findings in the field of geography and
environmental psychology and cultivates integration with other disciplines such as environmental engineering. If adults are to create or control
access to the spaces in which children live, learn
and play, it is incumbent upon these adults to
ensure that those places satisfy the needs and
desires of youth. Only through an integration of
ideas from multiple disciplines can concerned
adults hope to provide better environments for
children.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by grants from
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, and the
Colin Brown Fund. We extend the warmest thanks
to the parents, children, and staff who participated
53
in and helped with this research. We thank Allison
Wohlfield for reliability coding. We also thank directors Caryn and Gene Clark and Tom Giggi for their
encouragement and for allowing us to conduct
research under the pines. Finally, we thank John R.
Weisz and Wilbert Gesler for their comments on
earlier drafts of this paper.
Notes
Correspondence should be addressed to: Jon C.
Malinowski, Department of Geography & Environmental
Engineering, United States Military Academy, West
Point, New York, 10996, U.S.A.
References
Balling, J. D. & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual
preferences for natural environments. Environment
and Behavior, 14, 5–28.
Bernáldez, F. G., Gallardo, D. & Abello, R. P. (1987).
Children’s landscape preferences: from rejection to
attraction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 7,
169–176.
Bourassa, S. C. (1990). A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and Behavior, 22, 787.
Brickman, J. C. & D’Amato, B. (1975). Exposure effects in
a free-choice situation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 32, 415–420.
Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood place attachments. In I.
Altman & J. F. Wohlwill, Eds, Place Attachment. New
York: Plenum Press.
Cornell, E. H. & Hay, D. H. (1984). Children’s acquisition
of a route via different media. Environment and
Behavior, 16, 627–641.
Darvizeh, Z. & Spencer, C. (1984). How do children learn
novel routes? The importance of landmarks in the
child’s retracing of routes through the large-scale
environment. Environmental Education and Information, 3, 97–105.
Gale, N., Golledge, R. G., Pellegrino, J. W. & Doherty, S.
(1990). The acquisition and integration of route
knowledge in an unfamiliar environment. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 10, 3–25.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual
Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Golledge, R. G., Gale, N., Pellegrino, J. W. & Doherty, S.
(1992). Spatial knowledge acquisition by children:
route learning and relational distances. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 82, 223–244.
Golledge, R. G., Smith, T. R., Pellegrino, J. W., Doherty,
S. & Marshall, S. P. (1985). A conceptual model and
empirical analysis of children’s acquisition of spatial
knowledge. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5,
125–152.
Hart, R. A. (1979). Children’s Experience of Place. New
York: Irvington.
Hart, R. A. & Moore, G. T. (1973). The development of
54
J. C. Malinowski and C. A. Thurber
spatial cognition: a review. In R. M. Downs & D. Stea,
Eds, Image and Environment. Chicago: Aldine.
Hazen, N. L. (1982). Spatial exploration and spatial
knowledge: individual and developmental differences
in very young children. Child Development, 53,
826–833.
Heft, H. (1989). Affordances and the body: an intentional
analysis of Gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 19,
1–30.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social
status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University,
New Haven, CT.
Jorgensen, B. W. & Cervone, J. C. (1978). Affect enhancement in the pseudorecognition task. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 285–288.
Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of
observer agreement for categorial data. Biometrics,
33, 159–174.
Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape
preference. Environment and Behavior, 4, 487–511.
Matthews, M. H. (1980). The mental maps of children.
Geography, 65, 169–179.
Matthews, M. H. (1984). Cognitive maps: a comparison of
graphic and iconic techniques. Area, 16, 33–40.
Matthews, M. H. (1987). Gender, home range, and
environmental cognition. Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers, New Series, 12, 43–56.
Matthews, M. H. (1992). Making Sense of Place. Savage,
MD: Barnes & Noble.
Mita, T. H., Dermer, M. & Knight, J. (1977). Reversed
facial images and the mere exposure hypothesis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,
597–601.
Moore, G. T. (1976). Theory and development of environmental knowing. In G. T. Moore & R. G. Golledge,
Eds, Environmental Knowing. Stroudsberg, PA:
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
Moore, R. C. (1986). Childhood’s Domain: Play and Place
in Child Development. London: Croom Helm.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1956). The Child’s Conception of
Space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1967). The Child’s Conception of
Space. New York: Norton.
Stang, D. J. & Crandall, R. (1977). Familiarity and liking.
In T. M. Steinfatt, Ed, Readings in Human Communication. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Thurber, C. A. (1995). The experience and expression of
homesickness in preadolescent and adolescent boys.
Child Development, 66, 200–222.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9, 1–27.
Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G. & Evans, G. W. (1983). A lifespan
developmental study of landscape assessment.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 115–128.