the comparison of preference between architecture … · 2017-05-03 · the comparison of...

37The Comparison of Preference between Architecture Students

and Foreigners on the Built Environment in front of the Hue Citadel

Assistant Professor Karuna Raksawin, Dr.Eng.1 and Pham Manh Hung2

Abstract

The aim of this research was to examine the preferences of people to the built environment in front of the Hue Citadel in Vietnam by comparing the preferences of two groups of respondents. The study was conducted base on the theories and literatures of environmental perception study and visual preferences. The study was concentrated on the route from a tourist parking-lot to a main entrance of the Hue Citadel. The photographic observation along this area used the digital camera. Fifty photos were carried out and represented for variations of the feature attributes of the environment. The research has

obtained the perceptions of the built environment in front of the Hue Citadel base on gathering

of preference evaluations with Likert-scale in the questionnaires to evaluate. Thirty-three participants as architecture students and four hundred and four participants as foreigners were chosen. The data were analyzed by basic analyses. In comparing the preferences

between these two groups of respondents as architecture students and foreigners on built environment in front of Hue citadel, the results are coincident. The results also indicated that people prefer the environment with more vegetation, shading image, well ordered, and

systematic spatial configurations.

Keywords : comparision, preference, architectural student, foreigner, built environment, Hue citadel

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture, Chiang Mai University [email protected] Graduate student in Master of Architecture Program, Faculty of Architecture, Chiang Mai University [email protected]

The Comparison of Preference between Architecture

Students and Foreigners on the Built Environment in

front of the Hue Citadel

38“เมืองและสภาพแวดลอม” ฉบับที่ 3 : 2555 - 2556

“City & Environment” Vol. 3 : 2012 - 2013

INTRODUCTION

Background of the study

The Hue Citadel is one of monument of the complex of monuments of Hue city (Vietnam), which is acknowledged by UNESCO as World Cultural Heritage. This historical place for preservation is not only plenty of heritage buildings inside but also be location of settlement (Figure 1). Nowadays, Hue citadel has become the most famous destination for tourists come to visit Hue city. So the Hue Citadel has an important meaning as the face of Hue.

Figure 1. The Hue Citadel (Source: http://www.map.google.com)

The Ngan Gate, which is located in front of Hue citadel, is considered as the main entrance of this monument. So the environment in front of the Hue citadel plays the role

as the face of the citadel. Therefore, study of the preferences on the built environment in

this area is necessary to solve many issues around the perceptions of the people to this area.

Theories of environmental perception

Rapoport (1977) classifies “perception” into three usages. Firstly, people perceive or experience through all sense modalities which are hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch. It is called environmental perception. Secondly, the term of perception is applied to the environmental cognition. This usage can be understood that when people come to know the



environment through information which is not experienced directly, people understand, learn, and apprehend the environment by messages from media and other information systems. Lastly, people evaluate the perceptions in terms of preference. The preference can be evaluated the experience and indirectly known environments as advantage or disadvantage, desirable or undesirable, good or bad. This usage accounts for environment evaluation or preference. Rapoport’s categorization shows that perception, cognition, and preference are intertwined process of people’s response to the environment which can explain how the environment is perceived, remembered, and valued (Rapoport, 1976). Additionally, Ittelson (1973) suggests that environmental perception is including five interrelated levels of response and analysis, which are affect, orientation, categorization, systematization, and manipulation. This complex process includes emotional responses

coupled with cognitive judgments relating to the identification and analysis of environmental

features as well as an acknowledgement of the interactive nature of the interface between observer and environment. He also purposes that those levels continuously interact and change over time, and are also a function of how an observer chooses to conceptualize the environment under observation. Lynch (1960) purposes that perception and evaluation of urban environments is a two-way process. Environmental images arise as a result of this two-way process and these images. Lynch asserted three components of the images: identity, structure and meaning. Identity has to do with the notion that each environmental image is a separate entity and distinct from other environmental image. Structure relates to the spatial and relational patterns inherent in an environmental image. Meaning relates to the practical or emotional meaning that the environmental image holds for the observer. Lynch (1960) identified five key elements that contributed to a particular city’s identity: landmarks, paths, districts,

edges, and nodes.

Visual preference

Study on visual preference is often found in the studies of environmental percep-tion. This literature is also mentioned to solve the topics of the research. Regarding to this,

Rapoport (1977) suggests that, visual preference deals with an evaluation of the environment perceived through direct senses of environmental perception as well as media and memory

of environmental cognition. There is a dichotomy between two parts of preference which are cognitive mediated and direct and immediate (Kaplan, 1987, 21).



Visual preference is considered a product of the interactions between people and environment or a response of people to environment stimuli. Visual preference shares characteristics of aesthetic response, involves the process of stimulus seeking, selection, processing, and response to stimuli (Im, 1983). The variables of visual preference are includ-ing physical, abstract, symbolic, or individual variables (Im, 1987; 1983). The physical magnitudes of the environment such as color, size, form, texture, area, and perimeter and the basic properties are referred by the physical variables. They have been focused by designers to their characteristics and can be contributed to design approaches aiming at the visually pleasing environment. Complexity, congruity, and novelty are main factors of abstract variables, which have been the focus of visual preference studies because they are conceptualized characteristics of physical environment. Thus, visual preferences are an evaluation of the perceived environment and help the designers to develop visually pleasing products as perceived by viewers.

Visual preference and the built environmental features

Peterson (1967) and Im (1987) confirm the relationship between visual preference and the built environment’s characteristics. Peterson (1967) shows that physical attributes can affect the desirability of the visual appearance of the residential environment. Im (1987) proposes that visual preference can be affected by physical variables, including texture, color, and shape of space components, as well as ratios among various dimensions. It can be understood that visual preference is a dependent variable, the built environment’s characteristic is an independent variable, and the requirement of the built environment’ characteristics for achieving a desirable level of visual preference.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

In case of this study, the preferences of the built environment were collected at the area around the main entrance of the citadel, on the route from the tourist parking-lot

to the Ngan Gate (Figure 2). The method employed in this study for the assessment of the urban landscape quality is referred to as psychophysical. This method achieves a compromise between expert-based and perception-based methods, combining public perception surveys and statistical analysis of the data gathered in order to identify visual components determining the public



perception (Schafer et al., 1969; Daniel, 2001; Arriaza et al., 2004). Surveys are utilized to gather public preferences for scenes portrayed in photographs. The use of photographs to elicit scene evaluations has been successfully accomplished and tested by numerous studies, which include the comparison of results of photo-based and on-site ratings (Schafer and Brush, 1977; Schuttleworth, 1980; Law and Zube, 1983; Stewart et al., 1984; Hull and Stewart, 1992; Stamps, 1990; Bernaldez et al., 1998). According to the research design that was mentioned above, the methodology of the study was conducted following steps as the strategy of research.

Data collection and respondents

This research studies the built environment in front of the Hue Citadel through

evaluating the environment stimuli in this area. The visual survey of environment was carried out as an observation on the area of the route from the tourist parking-lot to the main entrance of the citadel by digital camera. All photos were captured in a landscape format consistently with previous studies (Hull and Steward, 1992; Wherrett, 2000; Rogge et al.,

2007). All pictures were taken at eye level within 180o and without any vertical tilting of the camera. The photographic survey was conducted at the same period of day with very similar light conditions (Bernasconi et al., 2008). Pictures were captured along pedestrian paths for

various scenes that include the environmental stimuli. Eighty-three photos were taken base on above mentions, which are represented to reflect for the images of the environment in front of Hue citadel and named the series in sequence from 01 to 83. (Figure 3)

Figure 2. Main entrance of the Hue Citadel



Figure 3. Eighty-three photos were captured from the visual survey (a: photos from 01 to 6; b: photos from 7 to 21, c: photos from 22 to 36, d: photos from 37 to 51, e: photos from 52 to 66, f: photos from 67 to 81, g: photos from 82 to 83)



Figure 3. (continued)



For narrowing the number of photographs, photograph categorization is executed to find out the pictures that represent for the environment in this area to investigate. The exception process is conducted base on their features that didn’t reflect the environmental stimuli. It can be rejected due to the view of perspective is too far or the feature attributes

are not clear or enough. For example, the photo below (photo number 27) only has sky, greenery, and the yard which are too much percentage of the picture area (Figure 4). The motorbike parking is only temporary feature due to the shadow of the tree; and some other

features are not clear.




Regarding to the reasons on the former photo, thirty-three photos were reduced to, those are 01, 02, 08, 11, 13, 15, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35, 37, 39, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 69, 71, 71, 74, 80, 81, 82, and 83. Thus, the preference of fifty remaining photographs, which are represented for the built environment in front of the Hue Citadel, was carried out. Response to the built environment in front of the citadel can be realized by many groups of people. This study selected the group of local architecture students as the expert group (Lynch, 1960; Rapoport, 1976) and the foreigners as a kind of tourist group for gather-ing the preferences (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Example of the exception photo (photo number 27)

Figure 5. Categorization and selection of participant group for study



Questioning

Two groups of respondents were approached to gather the preferences by different methods. The preference of each group was collected and then compared to solve the issues of the topic of this study. Preference of architecture students The questionnaire was designed to interview the architecture students, in which the main part uses Likert-Scale (Sommer and Sommer, 2002) with 10 scores. In studies that focus on preference for objects or environments, the construct is generally represented by the variable like-dislike (Caivano & Rimoldi, 1996; Herzog, 1992; Kaplan & Herbert, 1992; Tannenbaum & Osgood, 1952). The preference of each picture is evaluated through rating the score from 1 to 10 with rating 1 for the least preference and 10 for the most preference as followings (Figure 6).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10dislike like

Figure 6. Design of preference scores of each photo in the survey questionnaire

The study aims to test the preferences of all photos in field of environment, which are taken in the area study (50 selected photos). Participants of the study were thirty-eight architectural students (Yamane, 1967) who are considered as the respondents with partly expert evaluation in this field. The survey was carried out in a class room with showing the picture by projector.

Each slide was shown within 15 seconds and the respondents gave the score of preference on the questionnaire by themselves.

Preference of foreigners Unlike the group of architecture students, this group must be surveyed by interviewing face to face. The next procedure was grouping the fifty remaining photos. Selection of photos

was base on the feature attributes of environment in each photo (Building; Tree (greenery); Temporal shadow; Parking; Goods; Temporal building view point: The observational view was belonging to the point of the camera stood and the direction to view). Ten groups of

photos are designed as following table, in there, each of group has five photos (see Table 1).



Table 1 Grouping photos base on feature attributes (environmental stimuli) of the pictures and observational view (F.A.V.: Feature attributes and view)



Table 1 (continued)



The feature attributes can be divided to two types which are permanent attributes and temporal attributes. These two attributes are different due to the time duration. The temporal attributes are the features that can be changed in short time. For examples, the shadow can be changed due to the sunlight and the building view point can be changed when changing the focus view point. The feature attributes which are evaluated to permanent attributes are tree, buildings, goods, and parking. The temporal attributes are shadow and building view point. From the reasons from above paragraph, ten-categorization of photos is considered to re-group into three groups: G1 is including groups: A, C, D, and I G2 is including groups: B, F, G, H, and J G3 is including group: E The samples of photos are considered from those three groups (G1, G2, and G3). Number of samples is five photos (Figure 7). Two photos are from G1; two photos are from G2; and one photo is from G3. Each photo has a name due to using in the next procedure. The names are shown as: Photo number 22 named P1; Photo number 24 named P2; Photo number 26 named P3; Photo number 42 named P4; Photo number 44 named P5. The first set of questionnaire was contributed. P1 to P5 were colourly printed by “4x6”. The researcher brought P1-P5 to participants to evaluate. The questionnaire was designed, in which the main part uses Likert-Scale (Sommer and Sommer, 2002) with 5 scores. The preference of each picture is evaluated through rating the score from 1 to 5 with rating 1 for the least preference and 5 for the most preference. Participants of the study were 404 foreigners (Yamane, 1967) with interviewing on one person normally was not over 15 minutes, so it was consistence with amount of time

for obtaining information without tiring the respondent (Zeisel, 1981). This research chose

the places to survey at the public spaces. The survey was carried out since 8.00 am till 4.00 pm without rainy days to keep the good natural light to see the photos.

Compare preferences of two groups of respondents.

Comparing preferences of architecture students and foreigners on the built environ-ment, the results are obtained in the next part.



RESULTS

Preference of architecture students Base on the basic analysis, the results of total preference scores of 50 photos order from 97 to 259. The photo-41 has the highest preference score with 259 scores is considered as the most preference; the photo-22 has the lowest preference score with 97 scores is

considered as the least preference (Figure 8 & Figure 9).

Figure 7. Photo number 22 is named as P1; Photo number 24 is named as P2; Photo number 26 is named as P3; Photo number 42 is named as P4; Photo number 44 is named as P5



Preference of foreigners

The result of this group’s survey was the scores of preferences of five selected photos as following (see Table 2 and Figure 10):

Table 2 Results of foreigners’ preferences on the built environment in front of Hue citadel

Photo name P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Score 1112 1318 1157 1372 1731

Figure 8. Results of preference scores of fifty selected photos through the survey

(a) Photo-22 (b) Photo 41

Figure 9. The least preference picture (a) and the most preference picture (b)



The photo-P5 (photo number 44) has the highest preference score with 1731 scores is considered as the most preference; the photo-P1 (photo number 22) has the lowest preference score with 1112 scores is considered as the least preference (Figure 11).

Figure 10. The foreigners’ preferences on the built environment in front of Hue citadel

(a) Photo-P1 (Photo-22) (b) Photo P5 (Photo 41)

Figure 11. The least preference picture (a) and the most preference picture (b)

DISCUSSION

Base on above results, this study chose the least preferred and the most preferred photos to evaluate the preference of the respondents. Firstly, it can be realized that the photo-44 is in the same group with photo-44 in categorization of the photos (Group D from



G1) as mention above. So, in comparing between two results, the most and the least preferred photo are similar. The least preferred photo from two results is the photo number 22 and the most preferred photos from two results are come from one group photo with similar features. Therefore, the results of the least and the most preferred photo are coincident. Discussions of characteristics of environment in the photos can solve how the respondents prefer to. Im (1983) suggests that visual preference is considered a product of the interaction

of the responders and environment or the response to the environment stimuli. This includes a complex interaction of affective and cognitive responses to environmental stimuli (Kaplan, 1987; Nasar, 1994; Rapoport, 1977; Ulrich, 1983; Zajonc & Marcus, 1982). In this study, the built environment stimuli, those are considered as the environmental feature attributes, are the environmental characteristics of the pictures such as: vegetation; shading; the buildings

(shophouses); skyline; images of commercial activities (goods); electric equipments, advertising sign, vehicle parking; and the others in visible senses. These characteristics are affected to the visual preference (Peterson, 1967; Im, 1987).

Vegetation

Greenery is one of built environmental elements, which is different among two photos. Photo-41 and 44 are responded in terms of environment as the most preference with a big amount of vegetation.

While looking at the photos, participants perceived the vegetation and they evaluated through their experiences of the vegetation’s functions with the environment. The role of vegetation in landscape is claimed in many studies (Rogge et al., 2007; Wolf, 2004; Herzog et

al., 2000; Coeterier, 1996; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1983; Purcell and Lamb, 1984). According to Ulrich (1986), liking for urban scenes is usually increased when trees and other vegetation are presented. Views of nature, compared to most urban scenes lacking natural elements such

as trees, appear to have more positive influences on emotional and physiological states. The benefits of visual encounters with vegetation may be greatest for individuals experiencing stress or anxiety. His research demonstrates that responses to trees and other vegetation

can be linked directly to health, and in turn related to economic benefits of visual quality (Ulrich, 1986). People perceive green spaces in terms of certain dimensions, some of which are more important and preferred compared to others with respect to helping people recover from stress (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2010).



Unlike the photo-41 and 44, in the photo-22, the vegetation is only one or a few small trees which are existed among the picture with a hot climate sense. Lacking of green tree in the images of photo-22 may be one of reasons made the participants feeling hot and dazzling. The larger green canopy and higher percentage greenery can protect and against the heat from the sunshine. Base on those functions of greenery in urban environment, the participants prefer the photo-41and 44 as the most is also the answer for the preferences of people to the vegetation. The large green canopy from the big tree in the picture of photo-41 and 44 has made more positive feeling to the responders due to their experience of greenery’s roles. The greenery causes a cooler sense below the sunshine of a tropical area as Hue city. The results reveal that, people prefer the greenery in term of environmental response and their evaluations are entirely based on the environmental perceptions. The preferences of built environment increase in correlating with increase of the greenery in the environment. In other words, people prefer more vegetation to less vegetation in urban and it should be better with the big trees and large greenery canopy.

Shading

Besides, in the photo-41 and 44, the environment is also appeared with most shading, while the photos-22 are lacking in shading, especially, the shadow of outdoor space. This is one of elements that affects to the respondents’ cognition. In the area of study, almost shading is due to the canopy of the big tree. Nevertheless, the shadow from the trees makes

the outdoor spaces looking cool, but the shading indoors causes the buildings looking darker.

Shading is one of feature attributes in landscape and urban design. Many studies have investigated about the decrement of temperature due to the shading (Papadakis et

al., 2001; Porta-Gándara et al., 2009). Shading refers to the effect of shadows cast upon

adjacent areas by proposed structures. Consequences of shadows upon land uses may be positive, including cooling effects during warm weather, or negative, such as the loss of natural light necessary for solar energy purposes or the loss of warming influences during cool weather. However, the shading in this case may effects to the participants in the

experienced evaluation of the climate of visiting in a tropical country. The shadow of the big tree can protect and reduce the heat from the sunshine and make the activities of the human are more advantageous. The results of preferences of environment aesthetic are

more increasing following to the amount of shading in the pictures. Thus, people prefer



more outdoor shading in the environmental landscape, particularly the shading as shadow of the vegetation.

Other spatial confi gurations

According to Hershberger (1992), the forms, colours and spatial configurations

of the built environment that may influence overall aesthetic response; and, due to the variation among such elements. Im (1987) also proposes that visual preference can be affected by physical variables, including texture, color, and shape of space components, as well as ratios among various dimensions. In this research, those elements are occurred differently in each photo. In the photo-41 and 44, the buildings (shophouses) are not high and quite systematic with one storey only. Meanwhile the photo-22 contents the images of the shophouses with lacking of identities: difference of the height and the width among each of shophouses; uneven skyline; and inhomogeneous number and height of storey. In addition, in the photo-41, the image of sidewalk is occurred that can be used for almost the walk-way; the sidewalk in the photo-22 is employed for commercial activities (goods and advertising sign) or vehicles parking. Public equipment such as traffic signals, telephone boxes, moving public toilet, electric poles, also affect to the environmental perceptions. These elements is impeded the viewing of the responder while observing the landscape. The buildings and the goods of shophouses in this area cannot be appeared clearly because of the obstacle of those elements. Besides, the sky in the photo-41 and 44 is almost hidden by the canopy of the trees, but it seems to be drawn by the electric lines in the photo-22. Its environment has responded with fewer preferences with the image of the electric lines on the sky. The characteristic as commercial activity also causes the troubles with its attributes such as

goods and advertising signs. Types of goods and numerous of form of advertising signs make

the spatial configuration of built environment is different in each photograph. Other spatial configurations are commercial activity and their settings including restaurant, guesthouse, and tourism service office. The respondents evaluate these features with less preferences

than when those are disorder and unsystematic. Thus, from the results analysis and the descriptions of the elements of form and

spatial configurations above, the study extracts that the participants respond to environmental

attributes as forms and spatial configurations in this area base on cognizing through the photos and they give less preference with inhomogeneous buildings and unclear viewing.



CONCLUSION

The research has obtained the perceptions on the built environment in front of the Hue Citadel base on gathering of preference evaluations. The preferences to the environment have carried out to investigate through surveying the respondents’ evaluations follow to Likert-scale method. Area of study was limited on the route from a tourist parking-lot to a main entrance of the Hue Citadel; and the participants were chosen are two groups, those are the local architecture students and foreigners. In comparing the preferences between these two groups of respondents on built environment in front of Hue citadel, the results are coincident. This results also reveal that respondents prefer environment with more veg-etation and shading image. Besides, spatial configurations of the environment also influence to the respondents’ preference. People prefer a neat and clear space for the environment; buildings and its attributes which have strong identity; and the public service equipments should be used and adjusted in its right functions and place.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This article is supported by the scholarship from Faculty of Architecture, Chiang Mai University and Graduate School of Chiang Mai University.



REFERENCES

Arriaza, M., J. F. Canas-Ortega, J. A. Canas-Madueno and P. Ruiz-Aviles. (2004). “Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes.” Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 115-125.

Bernaldez, F. G., J. P. Ruiz, J. Benayas and R. P. Abello, (1998). “Real landscapes versus photographed landscapes: Preference dimensions.” Landscape Res. 13: 10-11.

Bernasconi, C., M. P. Strager, V. Maskey and M. Hasenmyer. (2008). “Assessing public

preferences for design and environmental attributes of an urban automated transportation

system.” Journal of Lanscape and Urban Planning 90: 155-167.

Caivano, J. L., L. Rimoldi. (1996). “The meanings of color in Argentina.” In Colour report:

Colour and psychology F50. Proceedings of the 7 Interim Meeting, 161-163. Edited

by L. Sivik. Gothenburg: Scandinavian Colour Institute AB.

Coeterier, J. F. (1996). “Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch

landscape.“ Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning 34: 27-44.

Daniel, T. C. (2001). “Whiter scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st

century.“ Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning 54: 267-281.

Grahn, P. and U.K.Stigsdotter (2010). “The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of

urban green space and stress restoration.“ Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning

94 (3-4): 264-275.

Hershberger, R.G. (1992). “A study of meaning and architecture.” In Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and application. Edited by J. L. Nasar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herzog, T. R. (1992). “A cognitive analysis of preference for fi eld-and-forest environments.”

In Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and application. Edited by J. L. Nasar.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herzog, T. R., E. J. Herbert, R. Kaplan and C. L. Crooks (2000). “Cultural and developmental comparison of landscape perceptions and preferences.“ Environ. Behav. 32(3): 323-346.

Hull, R. B. and W. P Stewart (1992).“Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments.“ Journal

of Environmental Psychology 12: 101-114.

Im, S. B. (1983).“Visual preference in enclosed urban space: An exploration of a scientifi c approach to environmental design.“ Environment and Behavior 16, 2: 235-262.

Im, S. B. (1987).“Optimum W/H ratios in enclosed spaces: The relationship between visual

preference and the spartial ratio.“ The Journal of Architecture and Planning Research 4, 2: 134-148.

Ittelson, W. H. (1973). Environment and cognition. New York: Seminar Press.



Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. (1983). Cognition and environment. Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.

Kaplan, R. and E. J. Herbert. (1992).“Familiarity and preference: A cross-cultural analysis.“ In Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and application. Edited by J. L. Nasar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, S. (1987).“Aesthectics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective.“ Environment and Behaviour 19: 3-32.

Law, C. S. and E. H. Zube (1983).“Effects of photographic composition on landscape perception.“ Landscape Res. 8: 22-23.

Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nasar, J. L. (1994).“Urban dsign aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors.“

Environment and Behaviour 26 (3): 377-401.

Papadakis, G., P. Tsamis and S. Kyritsis. (2001).“An experimental investigation of the effect of

shading with plants for solar control of buildings.“ Journal of Energy and Buiding:

831-836.

Peterson, G. L. (1967). “A model of preference: Quantitative analysis of the perception of the

visual appearance of residential neighborhoods:” Journal of Regional Science 7: 19-31.

Porta-Gándarab, M. A., V. M. Gómez-Mu˜noz and J. L Fernándezc. (2009). “Effect of tree

shades in urban planning in hot-arid climatic regions.” Journal of Landscape and Urban

Planning 94 (2010): 149-157.

Purcell, A. T. and R. J. Lamb. (1984). “The prediction of scenic beauty from landscape content

and composition.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 4: 7-26.

Rapoport, A. (1976). “Environmetal cognition in cross-cultural perspective.” In Environmental

knowing. Edited by G. T. Moore and R. G. Golledge. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson

& Ross.

Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: Toward a man-environment approach to

urban form and design. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Rogge, E., F. Nevens and H. Gulinck. (2007). “Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders:

Looking beyond aesthetics.” Landscape Plan 82: 159-174.

Schafer, E. L., J. F. Hamilton and E. A. Schmidt. (1969). “Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model.” J. Leisure Res. 1: 1-19.

Schafer Jr., E. L., R. O. Brush (1977). “How to measure preferences for photographs of natural

landscapes.” Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning 4: 237-256.Schuttleworth, S. (1980). “The evaluation of landscape quality.” Landscape Res. 5: 14-20.

Sommer, R. and B. Sommer. (2002). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques. Oxford: Oxford University Press.



Stamps, A. E. (1990). “Use of photographs to simulate environments: Ameta-analysis.” Percept. Mot. Skills 71: 907-913.

Stewart, T. R., P. Middleton, M. Downton and D. Ely. (1984). “Judgment of photographs vs. fi eld observation in studies of perception and judgment of visual environment.” Journal Environmental Psychology 4: 283-302.

Tannenbaum, P. H. and C. E Osgood. (1952). Effect of color on the meanings of advertised

products. Cited in C. E.Osgood, G. J. Suci and P. H. Tannenbaum. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Ulrich, R. S. (1983). “Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment.” In Human

behaviour and environment: Vol. 6. Behaviour and the natural environment. Edited by

I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill. New York: Plenum Press.

Ulrich, R. S. (1986). “Human responses to vegetation and landscapes.” Landscape and urban

planning Vol. 13: 29-44.

Wherrett, J. R. (2000). “Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques.”

Landscape Res. 25: 76-96.

Wolf, K. L. (2004). “Trees and business district preferences: A case study of Athens.” Georgia,

U. S. J. Arboricult 30: 336-346.

Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis. New York: Harper and Row.

Zajonc, R. B. and H. Marcus. (1982). “Affective and cognitive factors in preferences.” Journal

of Consumer Research 9 (2): 123-131.

Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by design. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

the comparison of preference between architecture … · 2017-05-03 · the comparison of...

Documents