Over the last thirty years there have been a plethora of studies within environment-behaviour research which have examined the interpretation and assessment of natural and built landscapes, with environmental aesthetics now recognised as a self-contained field in its own right. Initial research in this field was heavily influenced by the traditions of experimental and perceptual psychology, with attempts to translate the findings of laboratory- based research to environmental settings. However, it has been increasingly recognised that such studies of austere object perception decontextualise the functioning of individuals from their social and cultural milieu, and therefore provide only a partial explanation of human interaction with the environment (Uzzell, 1989). Indeed, such research largely ignores the variations amongst people, arguing that cognitive processes are common to all individuals as they possess similar nervous systems and perceptual apparatus. In marked contrast to this approach is the idea that environmental assessment is dependent on the meanings ascribed to the environment by virtue of individual histories and experience. As each individual potentially attributes a unique meaning to their environment, it could be considered that scientific investigation of this phenomena is impossible. On the contrary, it has been suggested that environmental meanings are constructed through established codes which are socially transmitted and thus based on learning and culture (Pennartz, 1989). It can be argued that these codes are not individual properties, and that there exist structures of perception, cognition and action common to all members of a group. This can be compared with the concept of habitus developed by Bourdieu (1977) which describes the 'sociallyconstituted system of cognitive and motivational structures' which influence people's world-view.