{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020603737422137038, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011499760421657882, 'mean_word_length': 5.385321100917431, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Perceptual and behavioural theory in practice

a growing concern about orientating our ways of knowing around human contexts and experiences. This concern reflects the belief that our work should reveal the ambiguity, the uncertainty, and the change inherent in lived experience because the supression of human values such as these in theory first reflects and then justifies the suppression of humans in practice. For theory building to be honest, then, it must be reflexive and practical. The current report picks up on this theme by exploring the notion of perceptual and behavioral theory in practice. The urban/regional planning and environmental design professions are consumers of perceptual and behavioral theory to the extent that it alludes to human use and values in the context of intervention with the built and natural environment. These professions include landscape architecture and urban design, conservation and environmental management, sustainable development and resource planning, regional analysis and prediction, transportation planning, and mapping programmes. By the early 1980s, a growing number of investigators from various fields of research, including perceptual and behavioral geography, were directing their attention to the connections between academia and these professions (cf. Villeco and Brill, 1981; Schon, 1983; Moore et al., 1985; Goodey and Gold, 1987; Ventre, 1989). The current report is different from these past reviews of how research is applied in that it raises questions about some of the ways in which perceptual and behavioral theory has found its way into contemporary planning and design contexts. The use of the word application to describe the relations between theory and practice is problematic to us because it carries meanings which are grounded in our collective cultural and intellectual history. The concept of an ’application’ is based on the understanding that knowledge generated in one sphere (academia) is then used in the ’real’ world by potential consumers of research results. Within this mode, research and practice