environmental quality and preference among different socio cultural groups in israeli society - full...
Post on 20-Jan-2015
48 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society
Adi Reich RomanGabriela Goldschmidt Einat Kalish Rotem
Technion ‐ Israel Institute of Technology
EDRA 44 ‐ Providence, RI ‐May 31, 2013
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Introduction
Lecture Outline• Introduction• Research Objectives • Methodology
• Participants• Research Design• Procedure
• Results • Quantitative Data• Qualitative Data
• Discussion• Socio‐Cultural Group Profiles• Design Recommendations• Implications• Limitations and Advantages
2 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Introduction
Introduction• The main role of architects and urban designers is to create environments for people and to ensure the quality of these environments.
• Environmental quality deals with human welfare.
3 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Human Satisfaction and HealthHuman ‘Wants’ and ‘Needs’
How do people regard and define “quality”?
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Introduction
Culture, Society and Perception• Social groups and cultures establish norms for behavior, and emphasize different criteria for preference and evaluation.
• Every society produces its own spaces, often resulting in different spaces for different societies.
4 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Examination of differences in perception and preference
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Introduction
Landscape Assessment• Potential to integrate the fields of Urban Design, Perception and Cultural Studies.
• A tool to assist in engaging participants in planning and aid in decision making processes.
5 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Perception
Urban Design
Culture
Landscape Assessment
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Research Objectives
Research Objectives• Examination of the differences among different socio‐cultural groups regarding appreciation of characteristics of public space and their effects on preference.
• The Israeli context ‐ a society composed of various socio‐cultural groups living side by side in the urban environment.
6 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Methodology
Participants• Five socio‐cultural groups from Israeli society were chosen:
GroupGender Age
TotalMen Woman 20‐40 41‐60 61+
Ethiopian 13 17 10 10 10 30
Israeli Arab 11 19 14 15 1 30
Ultra‐Orthodox 2 28 21 6 3 30
Tsabar 15 15 15 9 6 30
Soviet Union 16 14 12 11 7 30
Total 57 93 72 51 27 150
7 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Methodology
Research Design
8 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Explanation of preference differences though differences in interests and motivations
QualitativeIn‐depth interviewsContent analysis
Common/Unique group interests and motivations
QuantitativePreference ratingStatistical analysis
Differences in preferences between groups
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Methodology
Research DesignThe research design consists of the following stages:• Identifying characteristics which influence perception and preference of the public space.
• Creating 2D simulation‐sets of a public space manipulated according to identified characteristics.
• Conducting interviews and establishing preference ratings using the simulation‐sets.
• Qualitative and quantitative analysis and integration.
9 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Methodology
Characteristics Eight Characteristics were chosen: • Building height• Street furniture• Paving• Fixed functions• Vegetation• Density • Activity• Nighttime lighting
10 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Methodology
Building Height:
Street Furniture:
Simulation Sets
11 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Methodology
Simulation SetsPaving:
Fixed Functions:
12 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Methodology
Simulation SetsVegetation:
Density:
13 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Methodology
Simulation SetsActivity:
Nighttime Lighting:
14 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Methodology
ProcedureVegetation:
Most Favored:
15 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Least Favored:
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Results
Characteristic Image Ethiopian Israeli Arab Ultra Orthodox Tsabar Soviet Union All
participants
BuildingHeight(A)
Medium height (A1)
Tall building (A2)
Low building (A3)
StreetFurniture(B)
Concrete benches (B1)
Wooden benches (B2)
Stone benches (B3)
Paving(C)
Granolithic paving (C1)
Stone paving(C2)
Wooden paving (C3)
FixedFunctions(D)
Brand name shops (D1)
Cafes and restaurants (D2)
Services (D3)
Vegetation(E)
No vegetation (E1)
Thick vegetation (E2)
Thin vegetation (E3)
Density(F)
High density (F1)
Low density (F2)
Medium density (F3)
Activity(G)
Motion activities (G1)
Stationary activities (G2)
Spectatorship activities (G3)
NighttimeLighting(H)
Medium lighting level (H1)
Low lighting level (H2)
High lighting level (H3)
Quantitative Results
16 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Most Favored Ratings
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Results
Quantitative Results
CharacteristicSoviet Union
/ Ethiopian
Soviet Union/ Ultra‐Orthodox
Soviet Union/ Israeli Arab
Soviet Union/ Tsabar
Ethiopian/ Ultra‐Orthodox
Ethiopian / Israeli Arab
Ethiopian/ Tsabar
Ultra‐Orthodox/ Israeli Arab
Ultra‐Orthodox / Tsabar
Israeli Arab
/ Tsabar
Building height
M - - 0.0019** - - - - 0.0264 - -L 0.0334 ‐ 0.0011** 0.0327 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Street furniture
M - 0.0141* - - 0.0263 - - 0.0136* 0.027 -
L 0.0072* 0.0001*** ‐ 0.0274 ‐ 0.0159* ‐ 0.0001*** 0.0109* 0.0089*
PavingM - 0.0069* - 0.0214 0.0149 0.0322 - - - 0.005*
L ‐ 0.0182 0.0355 0.036 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.007*
Fixed functions
M 0.0001*** - 0.0001*** - 0.0006*** - 0.0001*** 0.0001*** - 0.0001***
L 0.0054* ‐ 0.0001*** 0.0056* ‐ 0.0016** 0.0001*** ‐ 0.0001***
VegetationM - - - - - - - - - -L - - - - - - - - - -
DensityM 0.0325 - - 0.0164 0.0012** 0.0085* 0.0001*** - 0.0042** 0.0241
L - - - - - - - - - -
ActivityM - - - - - 0.0028** - 0.0179 - 0.0288
L - - - - - - - - - -
Nighttime lighting
M - 0.0142 - - 0.0062* - - - - -
L - - - - - - - - - -
17 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Significance: * < 0.05 ** < 0.005 *** < 0.001M – Most Favored, L – Least Favored
Differences among paired groups regarding the most and least favored ratings
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Results
Qualitative ResultsMotivations:• Economy, • Nostalgia and Association, • Emotion, • Appearance and Characteristics, • Social, • Practicality and convenience, • Uses, • Conventions and norms, • Health, • Disturbance and Danger, • Miscellaneous
18 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Results
Qualitative Results
19 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Ethiopian Israeli Arab Ultra‐Orthodox Tsabar Soviet Union All Groups' Average
Distribution of references to each motivation by the all groups (%)
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Discussion
Ethiopian Group Profile• Uses ‐ “An environment which has a variety of activities, walking, sitting, shops, different people” (Ethiopian woman, 20‐40)
• Practicality and Convenience ‐ “Health center, post office, bank – these are the places I attend at least once a month” (Ethiopian woman, 61+)
• Social ‐ “I am a person who connects and likes people, and this image represents a large amount of people” (Ethiopian man, 20‐40)
• Nostalgia and Association – “Anything designed from stone reminds me of Ethiopia” (Ethiopian man, 41‐60)
• Nature ‐ “I love plants, nature, and this image takes me back to the village I was born at in Ethiopia…” (Ethiopian man, 20‐40)
20 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Discussion
Israeli Arab Group Profile• Disturbance and Danger ‐ “I don’t like [multiple] stories, possibly I’ll disturb others, or the other way around, and in case of danger it is easier to escape” (Israeli Arab woman, 41‐60)
• Practicality and Convenience ‐ “… I’m in a rush to get to work and to transport things and it [crowdedness] could delay me” (Israeli Arab man, 41‐60)
• Social ‐ “People are essential. It is impossible without people” (Israeli Arab woman, 20‐40).
• Learn from physical attributes ‐ “Shows humility and equality between people” (Israeli Arab woman, 20‐40, concerning Building Height).
21 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Discussion
Ultra Orthodox Group Profile• Conventions and Norms ‐ “Nice, feels most familiar, normal” (Ultra‐Orthodox woman, 20‐40)
• Ultra Orthodox way of life ‐ “A lot of non‐frum [Ultra‐Orthodox] people” (Ultra‐Orthodox woman, 41‐60).
“Smooth, safe surface and easy for strollers” (Ultra‐Orthodox woman, 41‐60)
22 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Discussion
Tsabar Group Profile• Uses ‐ “…What is the purpose of the place without trees?” (Tsabar man, 20‐40)
• Emotion – “Not claustrophobic, but this is noisy and crowded” (Tsabar woman, 41‐60)
• Social ‐ “Belongs to the older generation, [playing] backgammon and cards…” (Tsabar man, 41‐60)
• Spatial concepts ‐ “Most crowded, on the verge of the place’s capacity. Shouldn’t look like a rally” (Tsabar man, 20‐40)
23 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Discussion
Soviet Union Group Profile• Appearance and Characteristics ‐ “I like wooden paving, [it’s] fun, well kept and prestigious” (Soviet Union woman, 20‐40)
• Disturbance and Danger ‐ “It is uncomfortable to walk on stones, you might fall and break a leg” (Soviet Union man, 41‐60)
• Health ‐ “[I] like wood better. The concrete and stone may cause a cold” (Soviet Union woman, 61+)
24 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Discussion
Design Recommendations• Building height ‐Most prefer low rise buildings, higher buildings appeal to Soviet Union and Ultra‐Orthodox residents.
• Street furniture ‐ Integration of wood into the design of street furniture will probably increase the users’ preference.
• Paving ‐ Ethiopian, Tsabar and Soviet Union participants prefer wood, Israeli Arab and Ultra‐Orthodox prefer granolith.
• Fixed functions ‐ A mixture of different assortments of functions is advised. For Ethiopian and Israeli Arab residents a greater emphasis should be placed on accessibility to services, while for other groups greater emphasis should be given to cafes and restaurants.
25 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Discussion
Design Recommendations• Vegetation ‐ Nearly all participants agreed that the more vegetation exists in the public space, the more preferable it will be.
• Density ‐Most of the population prefers medium density, yet the Ethiopian participants showed a tendency towards high density.
• Activity ‐ A pluralistic space, capable of accommodating several types of activity to one degree or another is advised.
• Nighttime lighting ‐ Despite the overall tendency towards high lighting levels, several concerns were made regarding energy saving and the possibility of having too much lighting.
26 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Discussion
Implications• Differences in appreciation and preference exist among different socio‐cultural groups regarding characteristics in urban space.
• Identification of different issues which influence socio‐cultural groups' criteria for environmental quality.
• Many of our motivations regarding environmental preference are basically similar, yet subtle differences exist among the groups, which may be the basis for identified differences in preference.
27 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Discussion
Limitations and Advantages• Generalization of several sub‐groups into one group in order to create coherent definitions of the socio‐cultural groups at the expense of more detailed descriptions.
• Relatively small sample size of 30 participants per group.• Interviewers were allowed to choose the interviewees, which imposes difficulties regarding validity and reliability.
• Ultra‐Orthodox group – Participants form a sub‐group of mostly women immigrants from the USA.
• The study has succeeded in releasing preference research from laboratory constraints and bringing it to the field.
• The research design may be applied in cases which require non‐expert participation in urban design and planning.
28 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
Introduction Research Objectives M
ethodology Results Discussion
Discussion
Conclusion
Thank You
Questions?29 Environmental Quality and Preference among Different Socio‐Cultural Groups in Israeli Society Adi Reich Roman
top related