Research Problem 1/12

Overall Principle:
0-1. Provide a narrative hook
0-2. lower the barrel

1. Describe a problem
1-1. write an opening sentence that stimulates interests as well as conveys an issue to which a broad readership can relate
1-2 specify the problem (dilemma, issue) leading to the study
1-3 indicate why the problem is important
1-4 focus the problem statement on the key concept being tested (the dependent variable)
1-5 as a general rule, refrain from using quotes in the leading sentence
1-6 stay away from idiomatic expressions or trite phrase
1-7 consider numeric information for impact
1-8 consider short sentence for impact

2. Describe the literature about the problem
2-1 discuss the literature that addresses the problem and set the problem within the ongoing dialogue in the literature
2-2 refer to the literature by summarizing groups of studies, not individual studies
Mention deficiencies in the literature
2-3 write about areas overlooked by past studies, including topics, special statistical treatments, and significant implications
2-4 discuss how the present study addresses these deficiencies and provides a unique contribution to the literature (what remains to be explored) (little empirical research) (very few studies)

3. Target an audience
3-1end the introduction by discussing the significance of the problem for a specific audience
3-2 to phrase a question that the audience likely would want to answer

Examples:

Will people drive less or recycle more only when they feel that they must do so to ward off the threat of ecological collapse? We see in environment-behavior research an emphasis on risks, damages, and moral obligations as the driving forces of ecological behavior (i.e., behaviors that contribute to environmental preservation and conservation) (Axelrod & Lehman, 1993). Although research on negative determinants such as personal threat (e.g., Baldassare & Katz, 1992), harm (e.g., Manzo &Weinstein, 1987), and guilt feelings (e.g., Kaiser & Shimoda, 1999) may help to ameliorate environmental problems, it represents a limited perspective on the motivational basis of ecological behavior. In this article, we apply a complementary perspective that encompasses positive motivations for ecological behavior.
(ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 33 No. 4, July 2001 590-607)

In 1996, more than 13 million children in the United States were living below the poverty line. Among White children, 16% live in poverty, where­as nearly 40% of African American children live in poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998). Along with poverty often come substandard housing conditions-commonly characterized by overcrowding, infestation by rodents or insects, and lack of adequate heat or plumbing. According to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a record 5.3 million low-income households are paying more than 50% of their income for rent or are living in severely substandard housing (“In Our Opin­ion,” 1998). Children living in poverty commonly face a host of environmental chal­lenges such as poor housing, deteriorated neighborhoods, and overcrowded schools, not to mention the prevalence of social ills such as crime, violence, and racism. Within this context, it is likely that housing conditions can have a strong effect on young occupants. Yet the nature of this effect is unclear. The extant empirical literature provides little evidence regarding the housing characteristics that matter. Of particular interest in this article, the extent of the naturalness of children’s home environment has received virtually no research attention. Does the view from a child’s home affect his or her well-being? Do nearby trees make a difference in cognitive functioning? There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that these factors are gener­ally important to human well-being, but there is little clarity regarding their significance to children within the home environment. Before considering the question of nature in the home, I will first review the literature regarding the effects of housing on children.
(ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 32 No. 6, November 2000 775-795)

People tend to prefer natural over built environments ability to provide restoration from stress or attentional (see reviews by Ulrich, 1983; Knopf, 1987; Kaplan & fatigue (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Hartig & Evans, 1993; Kaplan, 1989; Hartig, 1993). For example, in samples of Staats, Kieviet, & Hartig, 2003). In particular, pre-European and North American adults, photographs of natural scenes consistently receive higher ratings of liking, scenic beauty, or pleasantness than photographs of urban scenes (e.g. Purcell, Lamb, Mainardi Peron, & Falchero, 1994; Stamps, 1996). Typically, levels of self-reported preference for natural scenes are so much higher than preference levels for urban scenes that the distributions of ratings for the two domains hardly overlap (e.g. Kaplan, Kaplan, & Wendt, 1972; see also Ulrich, 1983). People’s preference for natural over built environments can also be inferred from behavioral indicators, such as the higher prices paid for real estate in natural surroundings (e.g. Anderson & Cordell, 1988; Luttik, 2000).
Given that the empirical evidence for the preference for natural over built environments is strong and robust, it becomes important to ask why people have such a ubiquitous fondness for nature. According to several authors, at least part of the answer relates to nature’s ability to provide restoration from stress or attentional fatique (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Hartig & Evans, 1993; Staats, Kieviet, & Hartig, 2003). In particular, preference for natural over built environments may be mediated by an implicit assessment of these environments’ potential for restoring or improving wellbeing (Appleton, 1975; Ulrich, 1983; Kaplan, 1987). Although this explanation is theoretically plausible, relatively little evidence has directly supported the mediating role of restoration in environmental preferences. The present research was designed to fill this void.
(Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 135-146)

Where rural arterial roads approach cities, they become magnets for urban commercial expansion. When approaching a city from the countryside, these roads too often present visually chaotic settings consisting of commercial development that represents the worst of urban sprawl-settings that are open, barren, monotonous, and overwhelmingly ugly. Designed for maximum visibility and convenience, commercial strips along the roads of the rural-urban fringe include enormous parking lots in front of superstores that are set a great distance from the road, with a striking openness and lack of spatial definition or trees that might block views to a store, its merchandise, or its advertisements. The result is a landscape that people dislike, but somehow tolerate. Should we relegate commercial strip development at the rural-urban fringe to the visual category of landscape that includes industrial sites and junkyards? Or are there inexpensive ways to improve the visual quality, and ultimately, the experience of the users of such settings? In this paper, we explore the extent to which typical commercial development in a Midwestern US agricultural landscape impacts the visual quality of the countryside. We also explore the reactions of nearby residents to alternative patterns of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe.We begin by examining commercial development at the rural-urban fringe and the resulting landscape that it too often creates. Next, we review recent research regarding preferences for various landscape settings, focusing on roadsides, scenic corridors, and central business districts. Finally, reporting the results of a new study, we examine the extent to which local citizens prefer various development patterns for a roadway corridor at the fringe of a medium-sized community and discuss the implications of the findings for planning commissions, designers, and businesses.
(Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152-166)