2004 - Issue 4

Published in Issue 2, 2011

Designers and planners increasingly work on complicated, multi-stakeholder projects. NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) is rampant, while public and private clients seek results that satisfy all constituencies. Understanding stakeholder expectations and needs is critical to project success. Behavioral economics, a sub-discipline of economics that focuses on how people actually behave (as opposed to the prevailing “rational actor” economic theories that propose how people should behave), provides insights and approaches to help designers and planners better understand stakeholders’ perspectives and achieve successful outcomes. Behavioral economics research has been further supported by neuroeconomics research, which utilizes brain imaging to uncover brain activity that underlies human responses.  By explaining basic behavioral economics and neuoreconomics  concepts as they apply to design projects, I hope to give designers more tools to aid in understanding how people react to design and planning problems in their communities.

Basic research in behavioral economics, led by Tsversky and Kahneman, shows that humans adopt sensible “rules of thumb” or heuristics to aid in decision making.  People are faced with too many decisions on a daily basis; deliberating every one of them would result in mental gridlock, so people make many decisions on “auto pilot” through the use of heuristics that simplify their lives. Although essential, use of heuristics increases the likelihood of short term rather than long term outcomes.  Designers and planners can use insights about human heuristics to aid in crafting stakeholder input processes that achieve better long term outcomes. (References to the behavioral economics and neuroeconomics work from researchers Tsversky, Kahneman, Thaler, Sunstein, Gilbert, Bar, Peters, Buchel and Ariely appear at the end of the article.)

Behavioral economists Thaler and Sunstein propose packaging behavioral concepts into a framework of “Choice Architecture,” or asymmetric paternalism, to aid in improved decision making.  Choice Architecture is not architecture as planners and designers think of it in the built environment, but rather, it involves designing how choices are presented to people in order to obtain the best long-term outcomes. 

Some people argue that purposeful presentation of information should not be used to influence decisions; however, virtually every choice that people make is already organized in a way that will predispose them to a particular choice, whether the organization of the choices is accidental, or instead is thoughtful and intentional. Proponents of Choice Architecture argue that people will be influenced by how things are presented, so the presentation should be structured toward arriving at the best long term-outcomes.

According to Thaler and Sunstein, the Choice Architect is responsible for organizing the context in which people make decisions.  Every aspect of how choices are presented to people affects the decisions they make.   To achieve positive results, all default choices must set people in the best direction, while still allowing individuals to make a change if they request to do so.

Designers who learn to employ behavioral economics concepts and become “choice architects” can add significant value to their projects through improved stakeholder interaction and decision-making.

Are NIMBY’s Normal? 
Why do stakeholder groups dislike or distrust new projects and other changes in their environment?  People are naturally fearful of potential negative impacts on property values, property rights, traffic, safety, schools, and the livability of their homes and neighborhoods.  According to behavioral economists, this fear arises out of a basic human heuristic, Loss Aversion. People hate losing something they have, so much so that losing something makes people twice as unhappy as the happiness they experienced when they first obtained that same thing.

Loss Aversion contributes to another human heuristic called status quo bias. People have a tendency to want to maintain their current situation, whatever it is. For example, most teachers would observe that students tend to sit in the same seats in class, even when seats are not assigned. This is a simple example of a bias that humans employ for much more important matters, and people will put up with a significant amount of inconvenience or other costs in order to avoid the potential loss presented by a change. 

The Ownership Bias or Endowment Effect also plays into NIMBYism.  According to Ariely, people become attached to the things they have and the more work they put into something, the more ownership they begin to feel. This has been dubbed, tongue in cheek, “the IKEA effect” because pride of ownership rises proportionally with the difficulty in assembling the furniture.  It’s easy to see how a strong sense of ownership develops when people invest significant time and effort in making a place their home. 

NIMBYism is also affected by Virtual Ownership Bias. People can begin to feel ownership of something before they actually own it. You see this at work at an auction, where the bidders begin to imagine themselves as the owner of an item they are bidding on. The longer they are engaged in the auction, the more they imagine themselves owning the item, and the more intensely they feel about bidding to win it. This concept also translates to people’s feelings about their neighborhood park, and from there, resistance to any proposed changes to the park.  Likewise, virtual ownership takes hold over vacant land in a community, even if that open land is actually owned by someone else who has plans for future development; the virtual ownership phenomenon explains the otherwise irrational resistance to development by the neighborhood or community.

Impact Bias also plays a role in NIMBYism by escalating people’s fears about new proposals.  According to Gilbert, impact bias is the heuristic that causes stakeholders to substantially overestimate the negative effect that a given change will have on them and their level of satisfaction or happiness.

“Choice Architecture” Solutions to NIMBYism
 A number of behavioral economics concepts can be employed to help alleviate NIMBYism. Here are three:

•    Structure stakeholder processes:  Identify in advance the issues that are most likely to trigger “loss aversion” and “ownership bias.” Prepare information that will assist participants in understanding what will be GAINED by potential changes. 

•    Utilize framing:  Framing is the proven psychological concept that the choices people make partially depend upon the way in which the choices are stated, or “framed.” Two proposals of identical quantitative value will yield very different responses, on average, due solely to how the choices are worded and presented. In general, people will respond to the choice that appears to offer the most gain or the least loss.  Frame a call to action for adoption of something new by framing the status quo as a “loss,” thus showing the need for change.

•    Start public engagement early:  Start working with stakeholders before negative opinions and coalitions solidify.  Some clients want to avoid the unpleasantness of stakeholder input, so they wait until their plan is ready or the design completed.  They are then disappointed with a less than positive reception from stakeholder groups or the public to the already completed plan.  Instead, create stakeholder ownership in the project by involving people early in the process.  This uses ownership bias in service to the project and can help minimize impact bias by allowing stakeholders time to understand the nature of the changes.

When Stakeholder Meetings Go Bad, They Get Worse
What causes difficult stakeholder meetings to devolve into even more challenging circumstances?  People are influenced by the actions of others, and they are influenced by their own inferences about others people’s likely views or actions, a concept called Herd Mentality.  For example, peer pressure causes people to give different answers to the same questions, depending upon the method for collecting responses. When responses are solicited publicly, such as by raising hands or asking for vocalized “yes’s” or “no’s,” there is much more conformity in the results when compared with use of written surveys or other anonymous methods.  So, if there are vocal participants who are unhappy, they can sway the attitudes and opinions of others in the group.

Another contributor to devolving stakeholder meetings is the Availability Heuristic.  People assess the likelihood of risks based upon how many examples come easily to their minds. Recent events, particularly dramatic events, heavily influence people’s assessment of any given risk.  Personal experiences of negative events or close affiliation with a person who experienced a negative event also increase a person’s assessment of the importance and likelihood of that risk.  Biased perceptions about risks can inappropriately influence how communities respond to challenges,  allocate resources or plan future development.  So for example, if a community has experienced a number of recent fatal traffic accidents, then any proposal that is perceived as increasing traffic may be opposed by the community just due to the community's knowledge of those fatal accidents.

Expectations Alter Opinions.  A person’s prior knowledge of an experience they are about to have modifies their brain activity, causing their experience to be altered from what it would have been if they had not had the information in advance.  The result is that if a person expects something to be good, the odds are that they will experience it positively; likewise, if they expect it to be bad, they will experience it as bad.

 “Choice Architecture” Solutions for Positive Stakeholder Meetings
Here are a set of behavioral economics ideas for better meetings:

•    Intention is a motivator.  Obtain a better meeting turnout through advance contact with stakeholders you believe are essential to a good process; request a statement of intent to participate from potential participants. By asking people to state their intention to participate, you will increase the likelihood that they will attend.  Likewise, by asking participants to write down their reasons for participating, designers can gain important insights while stakeholders reinforce to themselves what is important to them.

•    Help potential participants overcome small roadblocks to attendance through use of Channel  Factors.  For example, the person who said they will attend a public meeting is even more likely to attend if you ask them to look at a map and locate the meeting site in relation to where they live or work, then trace the route they would take to get to the meeting.  This activity is simplified through technology such as on line maps.

•    Set a positive expectation at the beginning. “Frame” the introductory information in a positive light with regard to your goals.  Ask one or two representatives of the stakeholder group, who you know will be positive, to speak about the importance of the meeting and their own enthusiasm about it.

•    Provide information about who supports the initiative (e.g., names of community leaders, groups, or statistics about the percentage of supporters).  This will help stakeholders approach the subject more positively.

•    Avoid negative peer pressure—obtain input anonymously. Use paper surveys or feed-back methods rather than a show of hands or voice vote when you want to measure uninfluenced opinions.

•    Priming results from simple, sometimes seemingly irrelevant cues such as furniture and objects.  For example, on average, people behave more competitively, less cooperatively and less generously when they are in a room set up like a business environment with, for example, boardroom tables and briefcases.  When designing a process to achieve cooperation from the stakeholders, select non-competitive meeting locations, settings, furniture and other visual cues (such as briefcases).  Avoid hierarchical room set ups, such as business settings with boardroom tables, raised daises, etc. that might cue participants to behave competitively.

•    Avoid creating factions.  Take care if you use “break out” sessions. Peer pressure within small groups can cause the members of each small group to align in support of a particular viewpoint.  These differing small-group viewpoints are consistently defended when the small groups are brought together into a larger group.  Some facilitators favor processes such as World Café, where the members of small discussion tables are rotated after each question or discussion item so that factions are less likely to form or become entrenched.

In the next issue of Research Design Connections, we will examine how the choice architect can help groups select optimal alternatives, arrive at acceptance of mitigation measures, and better understand large scale proposals and long-term outcomes.

Kathleen M. Fox is a registered landscape architect,  Fellow of the American Society of Landscape Architects, and executive director of the Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission.  A 2002 Loeb Fellow at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, she also holds a graduate certificate in Alternative Dispute Resolution from Capital University Law School and is author of the research paper Utilizing Behavioral Economics to Improve Public and Private Decision Systems in Community Planning and Development.  She can be reached at:  kfox@post.harvard.edu.    

References:

Dan Ariely. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New York:
Harper Collins Publishers, 2008.

Moshe Bar. ”Wait for the Second Marshmallow? Future‐Oriented Thinking and Delayed Reward
Discounting in the Brain.” Neuron 66, 66, April 15, 2010.

Daniel Gilbert. Stumbling on Happiness.  New York:  Vintage Books, 2007.

Kurt Lewin. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. New York: Harper &
Row, 1951.

Jan Peters and Christian Buchel. “Episodic Future Thinking Reduces Reward Delay Discounting
through an Enhancement of Prefrontal‐Mediotemporal Interactions.” Neuron 66, 138–148,
April 15, 2010

Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and
Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. “Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185 (1974): 1124‐31

In her latest book, Sarah Susanka describes the basic architectural principles that create a homelike setting. Her descriptions form a useful “spatial experience” language to be shared by architects and homeowners that will facilitate the creation of more satisfying homes.

Susanka's principles fall into three categories: space, light, and order. She defines space as “how volume can be shaped, molded, and divided to give you a particular kind of spatial experience.” When considering space, Susanka focuses several themes: entering the home—paths, receiving places, gateways, etc.; shelter and activity throughout the home—as facilitated by alcoves, window seats, soffits, rugs, etc.; the sequences of places encountered as an individual moves through a home—including alcoves passed and connecting views; ceiling height variety; interior views—diagonal, long, connecting, partially hidden, and surprise; layering or doorways encountered, implied walls and sliding partitions; connections between the inside and outside—such as windows; changes in level; provision of public and private spaces; openability—doors, screens, panels, etc.; a sense of enclosure; differentiating parts of the home—using beltlines, floating surfaces, and pods of space, etc.; and providing depth and thickness to walls.

Susanka is clearly charmed by the potential of light. She describes light to walk toward as desirable, as are light intensity variations, reflecting surfaces, and correctly positioned windows. She explains techniques to provide visual weight, such as colored walls, dark-colored ceilings, textured walls or ceilings, subtle color differences, and colored alcoves; and “windows” that provide views—one way, through small panes, etc.—or non-views, made from artglass, transmitting light only.

Order is “the way in which the design elements are arranged to give it an identity all its own.” Susanka sees it applied through the use of patterns and geometry, alignments, rhythms, themes and variations such as signature forms or patterns, composition, expressed structure, focal points, and an organizing strategy.

Home by Design is just as easy for non-architects to read and apply as Susanka's earlier books. It is a worthwhile book for designers to peruse—not because they will learn much about residential design—but because it will present the terminology that many of their clients will use and understand.

In a definitive study, grass and trees in outdoor spaces were shown to increase the use and social activity in outdoor places. This research resolves any questions about the value of grass and trees in promoting social interaction that arose from less comprehensive earlier studies.

Sullivan and associates state: “It seems likely that spending more time in nearby common spaces with trees and grass fosters informal face-to-face contacts among neighbors that lead to more social interaction . . . The results here suggest that by increasing face-to-face contact and the number of individuals involved in social interactions, trees and grass in inner-city common spaces contribute to the social cohesion and vitality of a neighborhood.”

Previous research presented conflicting information regarding neighborhood common space usage and the presence of nature. This study reveals that trees and grass “not only bring neighbors together but also support social interaction among them.”

Sullivan, William., Frances Kuo, and Stephen DePooter. 2004. The fruit of urban nature: Vital neighborhood spaces. Environment and Behavior, vol. 36 no. 5, pp. 678–700.

Recent research has shown that individuals talking on cell phones are not as aware of information being presented in the area they are passing through as individuals who are not talking on cell phones. Women talking on cell phones did notice more objects placed on the ground, however, than women who were not talking on the phone. It seems that women look down when talking on the phone. This research is consistent with previous research linking car driver distraction and accidents with cell phone use. Cell phone users also travel to places generally viewed as dangerous that they would not visit if they did not have a cell phone. Designers should be aware of this reduced situation awareness among cell phone users and mark potentially dangerous areas and conditions (such as steps) accordingly.

Nasar, Jack., Peter Hecht, and Richard Wener. 2004. Poster presentation at the Environmental Design Research Association annual meeting, Albuquerque, NM, June 20–26.

Women are generally better able to perceive differences in colors in the orange-red spectrum. Women’s increased sensitivity to variations of the color red can help explain differences in their responses to indoor and outdoor environments.

PsycPORT.com. 2004. Evidence that men, women literally see the world differently: Study shows color vision may have been adaptive during evolution, July 14.

When elementary school teachers were asked to assess the teaching and learning activities promoted by five different classroom shapes (shallow rectangle, deep rectangle, T-shaped, fat-L-shaped and cross-shaped), they believed the classrooms fell into two distinct usage sets, with the T-shaped, fat-L-shaped and cross-shaped classroom designs being more suitable for innovative teaching than the rectangle shapes, but that the rectangles “facilitate control and focus in teaching and learning activities.”

One segment of the teachers participating in this study, who indicated that they “emphasize in the conduct of teaching and learning activities: exploration, examination, inquiry, hands-on involvement, independence and spontaneity, small group and/or individualized curriculum, and class development emerging out of activities” believed that the cross-shaped classroom would best meet their teaching needs, while the rectangular classrooms would least support their teaching techniques. They believed that a cross-shaped classroom is “adjustable to a variety of student orientations, promotes the conduct of diverse activity, and permits multiple spaces-uses with flow potentials between them.”

A second group of teachers, who are fairly similar to the first group in also favoring “exploring, examining, and inquiring activities in the classroom, together with a hands-on approach to student learning,” preferred the fat-L shape (with a second choice of a T-shaped classroom) because it is “adaptable to a variety of student-activity orientations—one that permitted multiple space uses with flow potentials between them, and one that was nonstandard in shape.” These teachers also believed that the rectangular-shaped classrooms would most poorly meet their needs.

Teachers favoring “independence and spontaneity in student expression, the use of exploration, examination, and inquiry in instruction, and a hands-on approach to student learning” also favored the fat-L or T-shaped most (and least preferred the rectangular classroom shapes) because they are “adaptable for multiple and diverse student-activity, support alternate spatial arrangements of student working facilities, and allow for separation of activities with privacy.” The teachers who believed that the rectangular layouts best facilitated their teaching activities generally seemed more concerned than other teachers with a layout that facilitates supervision and observation of students.

This article provides information that can be used to align classroom shapes in school buildings, community centers, and other places with the teaching styles and needs of the individuals who will actually teach in those spaces.

Amedeo, Douglas, and James Dyck. 2003. Activity-enhancing arenas of designs: A case study of the classroom layout. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, vol. 20, pp. 323–43.

Recent color research has investigated relationships between the emotions and preference. The analyses also explore cross-cultural and gender differences in response to color. In a pair of studies, Ou and associates investigated color emotion and color appearance attributes—first for individual colors and then for pairs of colors.

When single colors were assessed, no differences were found in the emotional assessments of colors by men and women, although differences were found between British and Chinese participants on some assessments. The two colors showing the greatest differences between Chinese and British participants were black and deep purple. Chinese were more apt to see black as tense, and the British were more apt to see it as relaxed. Chinese participants disliked deep purple, which was liked by British participants. The colors used in this experiment varied in hue, lightness, and chroma, and showed good coverage of the CIELAB color space.

When the investigators used colors in combination, they found that men and women had different emotional reactions to color combinations, but there were no differences in emotional responses between the Chinese and British participating in the study. The second set of research indicated that “female observers tended to prefer the colour pairs that were ‘soft,’ ‘relaxed,’ ‘light,’ or ‘feminine,’ whereas this tendency did not occur for male observers.”

Ou, Li-Chen., M Ronnier Luo, Andrée Woodcock, and Angela Wright. 2004. A study of colour emotion and colour preference, part I: Colour emotions for single colors. Color Research and Application, vol. 29 no. 3, pp. 232–40.

Ou, Li-Chen., M. Ronnier Luo, Andrée Woodcock, and Angela Wright. 2004. A study of colour emotion and colour preference, part II: Colour emotions for two-colour combinations.” Color Research and Application, vol. 29 no. 4, pp. 292–98.

In this issue we cover an atypical venue—museums—with special attention to science museums. We hope you will enjoy this look at designing places and exhibits that promote learning. Our expert, Guy Newsham, gives us a guided tour in Expert's Corner of online tools to help office design. As always, we review important research covering both outdoor and interior places—in this case, from studies on how to promote walking in neighborhoods to color preferences.

I think it is significant that two of our articles in this issue emphasize an aspect of designing places for people that perhaps hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. The article on museum exhibit design and our article on new hospital paradigms both discuss the importance of designing spaces that recognize the social dimension of experience. We do most things with other people, such as go to a museum or zoo, and even our hospital visits involve a strong social component. The general public is becoming more knowledgeable about how place can affect individuals, but that recognition needs to be expanded to include an understanding of how place can encourage beneficial social interactions. It's about place and people, not place and person. Thank you again for subscribing to RDC. Together we will make a difference.

Canada’s National Research Council (NRC) has developed two free software tools to help designers, managers, and planners configure open-plan office environments. The user simply describes the workstation and its surroundings, and the software provides feedback on both the physical performance of the space and (in one of the tools) its potential effects on occupant satisfaction. This allows the user to explore options to maximize speech privacy, for example, or to meet a given desktop illuminance while minimizing glare. If one wishes to increase illuminance, which is the most effective strategy: changing the luminaire, making cubicles bigger, lowering panels, or increasing the panel reflectance? Which is least detrimental to speech privacy? The software can help answer questions such as these.

Tools Based on Research
The software tools embody the results of workplace research conducted at NRC. In the Spring 2004 issue of Research Design Connections, a front-page article (“Workplace Environments Being Decoded”) discussed a project called Cost-effective Open-Plan Environments (COPE). COPE objectively examined the effect of office design choices on the workplace environment, and the effect of that environment on occupant satisfaction, using literature reviews, studies in office laboratories, computer simulations, and a large field study.

The first software tool coming out of this research, COPE-ODE (Office Design Evaluator) is on-line software that takes a broad view of the physical environment in an open-plan office, potential occupant satisfaction issues, and costs. The second tool, COPE-Calc, is downloadable software that allows a more detailed look at acoustical design for cubicles. Both tools are available from the COPE project web-site: http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ie/cope/.

COPE-ODE for Physical Design
The interface for this software allows the user to describe various aspects of the physical design of the cubicle workstation itself, and the office environment around it, as shown in Figure 1.

Clicking on the “Cost Estimate” button on the left side of the interface brings up a spreadsheet where the user can enter relevant first-time and recurring costs associated with the design. After the design is specified, the software calculates some physical environment indicators, such as Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) between adjacent cubicles, desktop illuminance, and a categorization of reflected glare on a computer screen, as shown in Figure 2(a).

Figure 2(a) also shows a visualization of the glare and lighting design to the right. Note that next to the numerical performance indicators there is also an indicator bar showing how the design performs relative to performance criteria that can be input from design guidelines or recommended practices. As shown in Figure 2(b), a different tab on the output section carries information on occupant satisfaction. Here the software highlights aspects of the design that might negatively (X) or positively (tick) affect occupant satisfaction.

The example shown in Figures 1 and 2 does not perform particularly well—i.e., speech intelligibility and glare are both higher than desirable, and there are four negative satisfaction indicators. How might one solve these problems? First, one could retrofit with a luminaire with a low-glare parabolic louver and an electronic ballast. Getting SII down to an acceptable level (ideally below 0.2) requires a number of measures. Installing a sound-masking system, high-absorption ceiling tile and furniture panels, and raising the furniture panel height to 64 inches will achieve this, though note that the latter measure will also lower desktop illuminance. The result of this set of design changes is compared to the original design in a summary window shown in Figure 3.

Note that these design changes would all likely have costs associated with them that should be reflected in the associated costing spreadsheet. One of the benefits of the tool is that it shows the material benefits of that extra investment, and presents options for savings elsewhere. For example, specifying smaller cubicles might save enough in real estate costs to cover all or part of the investment. However, the tool will also show that making cubicles smaller will increase SII and lower desktop illuminance and, if cubicles are too small, they can engender negative sensations of crowding.

For more information on COPE-ODE, consult the on-line help files and the “Quick Start Guide” on the web site.

COPE-Calc for Acoustic Design
In COPE-Calc the user inputs a similar set of office design parameters as in COPE-ODE—but only those concerned with acoustic performance. Whereas COPE-ODE is limited to a relatively small number of standard materials and noise profiles, COPE-Calc has a much bigger database, and allows users to add their own materials and profiles. The software calculates SII based on a complex set of equations that describe all sound paths between two cubicles. COPE-Calc has two additional and useful features. A “Give Me Advice” button analyzes the current design and reports back a list of design changes that would have the biggest effect in reducing SII. A “Listen” button allows the user to hear what a person talking on the telephone in a next-door cubicle would sound like given the current office design. Hearing the relative difference between two designs is sometimes a more effective performance comparison than simply knowing the SII number.

COPE-Calc comes with complete on-line help and a “Quick Start Wizard.”

Dr. Guy Newsham has more than 15 years’ experience researching indoor environments, and has published more than 100 articles on his work. He heads the Lighting Research Group at the Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada, and also managed COPE (Cost-effective Open-Plan Environments), a multi-disciplinary investigation of cubicle environments. He can be reached at guy.newsham@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

"Research on visitor learning in museums suggests that interactivity promotes engagement, understanding, and recall of exhibits."¹ Museums, and particularly science museums, are continuing to investigate the ways in which places themselves, rather than individuals, facilitate learning. Many of the museum findings are applicable wherever informal learning takes place—schools, playgrounds and children’s gardens, training centers, and potentially even dementia care facilities.

In recent publications, Sue Allen, investigator at the Exploratorium, a San Francisco science museum, writes about science museum exhibits and learning, and Saul Carliner presents information about his study of museum exhibit design and, as an additional bonus, its relation to web design. In addition, Marianna Adams (Institute for Learning Innovation), Jessica Luke, and Theano Moussouri present ideas about interactivity and design, and Robert West (Informal Learning Experiences) presents information on interactive exhibit costs and consequences—both as part of a special issue of Curator on interactive learning.

Present the Stage for Learning
Successful exhibit design requires a broad focus. Allen writes about the importance of “immediate apprehendability”—the goal of making the museum itself, its areas, and the general workings of the exhibits easy to understand. Without immediate apprehendability, visitors spend their attention on figuring out how the museum is laid out or how to work an exhibit, instead of concentrating on the exhibit’s purpose. She writes that “research has suggested that visitors will only engage in a challenge if they are comfortable and orientated.” Good apprehendability can counteract museum fatigue—a particular challenge in a hands-on science museum. Allen mentions the importance of providing easily located services, sufficient seating, and prominent museum orientation aids. She cites a study result indicating schoolchildren learned more in a museum when they were given a pre-visit orientation and time to eat or shop in the museum store before their museum program. Carliner writes that large, well-placed signature objects in a museum or exhibition can be effective orientation aids, in addition to enticing visitors to further exploration and action.

At the exhibit level, user-centered design principles, such as presenting intuitive controls (knobs are for turning, plates are for pushing), limiting the number of controls, and standardizing the presentation of information, can all help apprehendability. Working with people’s common experiences, such as using a race as the setting for a science principle demonstration, is another way to increase comprehension.

Get the Visitor Involved
Learning involves mental engagement, often sparked by curiosity. Techniques to engage visitors outlined by Carliner include recreating a setting to create immersion in a place, time, or event; focusing the exhibit through presenting a limited number of themes; or using personal narratives or perspectives. Juxtaposition and repetition of material can also increase interest. One popular and generally successful method to spark curiosity is through physical interaction. Researchers at the Exploratorium tested three exhibits about glowworms. One exhibit was highly interactive with live worms, one interactive with live worms, and one non-interactive without live worms. They found that both interactive exhibits captured visitors’ attentions better than the non-interactive version, although there was little difference in interest between the two interactive versions. Allen remarks, though, that two of the museum’s most attractive exhibits—a terrarium containing live frogs, and a display of natural animal decomposition—do not have hands-on components, promoting the idea that physical interactivity is not necessarily the only way to foster involvement. Carliner provides a cautionary note about video components in exhibits. Based on observation, he finds these underused. Since many visitors prefer to think and ponder without interruption, he believes that visitors might be inhibited by creating sound that bleeds into the general exhibit area. Where an interactive exhibit is placed affects how much it is used, Adams and associates write, with interactive exhibits near the museum or gallery entrance being more popular.

Accommodate Different Learning Styles
Allen and Carliner both emphasize the importance of planning for a diversity of learners and learning styles, and embracing the tenets of universal design. Exhibits have to be engaging for those who want to read all the exhibit text, as well as those who skip it entirely or who skim it. Including objects children and adults can touch can enrich the presentation for many, as may unique sounds or even smells. Creating animated, active places and more contemplative learning environments is another way to promote diversity and support different types of learning. Adams notes that exhibits and spaces can be designed to provide active or calming experiences, and some children may prefer less high-energy exhibits. Some people may prefer interactive exhibits over static ones, or vice versa, West remarks, depending on the type of museum experience they value.

"Many interactives do not foster social interaction, and thus diminish the experience for many visitors—thus limiting their interest and potentially their future visits."²

Promote Social Learning
Most museum visitors come in groups. Even simple things, such as having planned gathering spaces, have to be considered to streamline group visits. Allen relates the success of exhibits designed for manipulation by more than one person and for open-ended exploration. These exhibits allowed for visitors to experience different aspects of scientific phenomena. Visitors stayed longer at those exhibits, experimented with different behaviors, and seemed to be interested in answering a broader range of questions than at simple “manipulate this and see the result” exhibits. Carliner mentions scavenger hunts, demonstrations, and other special activities as other ways to engage family groups in learning. Adams and associates remark that learning can be enhanced by the comments and information family members share, and children learn more when they interact with a parent at an exhibit. They also relate cases where family interaction with a staff member or interpreter added significantly to the museum experience.

Computers Can Be Overrated
Both Adams and West write cautionary notes about computer exhibits. West writes that research has shown that if designed for one user, one member of a family group will likely get involved in the computer-based exhibit at the expense of group sharing. Also, many visitors have expressed opinions that they want to do things at the museum they can’t do at home. In one study, Adams and associates reported that visitors did not rate computers very high on a list of things they wanted in an exhibit. Computers can also degrade the perception of the museum if they are old, slow, or not working, West adds.

Avoid Turnoffs
One aspect of planning exhibits is planning for crowds. What happens when the most popular interactive exhibit has too many people who want to use it, or if lines form? Adams and associates report that crowding can degrade the interactive experience, since visitors will skip crowded exhibits. Mismatch of exhibits and visitor expectations may confuse visitors, particularly if a museum adds interactive exhibits without thinking about how those exhibits relate to the museum’s image, West writes.

Consider the Cost
West puts the price of interactive exhibits between $300 to $700 a square foot, with static exhibits costing $125 to 350 a square foot. Theme parks are usually even more expensive. In addition, maintenance costs for interactive exhibits will be higher. In many cases, interactive exhibits benefit from floor staff—another added cost. Yet, West notes that the cost may be considered an investment. “When the visitor is able to effectively engage with an exhibit, and the exhibit is designed to respond to visitor input—rather than generate the same result each time—there are compelling reasons for visitors to return.”

Test and Retest

Since visitors bring their own expectations to a museum and a specific exhibit, they may not react as exhibit designers expect. As in other situations, visitor satisfaction and learning can only be verified through observing and questioning users. Adams and associates provide some basic questions in Table 1. The authors of all of these papers point out that good exhibit design requires testing. The principles of post-occupancy evaluations apply in museums as well as other informal learning venues, helping us learn how places facilitate learning.
 

Adams, Marianna, Jessica Luke, and Theano Moussouri. 2004. Interactivity: Moving beyond terminology. Curator, vol. 47 no. 2 (April), pp. 155–68.

1. Allen, Sue. 2004. Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education, vol. 88 no. S1, pp. S17–S33.

Carliner, Saul. 2003. Modeling information for three-dimensional space: Lessons learned from museum exhibit design. Technical Communication, vol. 50 no. 4 (November), pp. 554–70.

2. West, Robert “Mac.” 2004. The economics of interactivity. Curator, vol. 47 no. 2 (April), pp. 213–23.