Table of Contents
Urban Studies Research
Volume 2011, Article ID 736307, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/736307
Research Article

Differences in Architects and Nonarchitects' Perception of Urban Design: An Application of Kansei Engineering Techniques

Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería en la Edificación, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain

Received 7 June 2011; Accepted 22 September 2011

Academic Editor: Annette Hastings

Copyright © 2011 Carmen Llinares et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. H. Gans, “Towards a human architecture: a sociologist view of the profession,” Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 2, pp. 26–31, 1978. View at Google Scholar
  2. L. N. Groat, “Meaning in post-modern architecture: an examination using the multiple sorting task,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3–22, 1982. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. C. Friedman, J. D. Balling, and J. J. Valadez, “Visual preference for office buildings: a comparison of architects and non-architects,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, 1985.
  4. M. Duffy, S. Bailey, B. Beck, and D. G. Barker, “Preferences in nursing home design: a comparison of residents, administrators and designers,” Environment and Behavior, vol. 18, pp. 246–257, 1986. View at Google Scholar
  5. J. C. Vischer and C. C. Marcus, “Evaluating evaluation: analysis of a housing design awards program,” Places, vol. 3, pp. 66–86, 1986. View at Google Scholar
  6. K. Devlin and J. Nasar, “The beauty and the beast: some preliminary comparisons of "high" versus "popular" residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 333–344, 1989. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. K. Devlin, “An examination of architectural interpretation: architects versus nonarchitects,” in Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, B. C. Scheer and W. F. E. Preiser, Eds., pp. 156–164, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY, USA, 1990. View at Google Scholar
  8. J. L. Nasar and T. Purcell, “Beauty and the beast extended: knowledge structure and evaluations of houses by australian architects and non-architects,” in Proceedings of the Culture, Space, History. Sevki Vanh Foundation for Architecture, 1990.
  9. T. Purcell and J. L. Nasar, “Australian architect and non-architect experiences of american houses,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on Empirical Aesthetics of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, 1990.
  10. A. E. Stamps, “Public preferences for high rise buildings: stylistic and demographic effects,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 72, pp. 839–844, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  11. R. Gifford, D. W. Hine, W. Muller-Clemm, D. Reynolds, and K. Shaw, “Decoding modern architecture: a lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons,” Environment and Behavior, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 163–187, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. R. Gifford, D. W. Hine, W. Muller-Clemm, and K. T. Shaw, “Why architects and laypersons judge buildings differently: cognitive properties and physical bases,” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 131–148, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. A. Akalin, K. Yildirim, C. Wilson, and O. Kilicoglu, “Architecture and engineering students' evaluations of house façades: preference, complexity and impressiveness,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 124–132, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. E. Brunswik, Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments, University of California, Berkeley, Calif, USA, 1956.
  15. D. E. Berlyne, Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY, USA, 1971.
  16. J. L. Nasar, “Architectural symbolism: a study of house-style meanings,” in Proceedings of the Paths to Co-existence of Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA '88), D. Lawrence and B. Wasserman, Eds., vol. 19, pp. 63–171, 1988.
  17. A. T. Purcell, “Environmental perception and affect: a schema discrepancy model,” Environment and Behavior, vol. 18, pp. 3–30, 1986. View at Google Scholar
  18. A. T. Purcell, “The relationship between buildings and behaviour,” Building and Environment, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 215–232, 1987. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. A. T. Purcell and J. L. Nasar, “Experiencing other people's houses: a model of similarities and differences in environmental experience,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 199–211, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. P. Lewicki, T. Hill, and E. Bizot, “Acquisition of procedural knowledge about a pattern of stimuli that cannot be articulated,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 24–27, 1988. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. L. W. Barsalou, “Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 629–654, 1985. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. F. M. Dieleman and C. H. Mulder, “The geography of residential choice,” in Residential Environments: Choice, Satisfaction and Behavior, J. I. Aragonés, G. Francescato, and T. Gärling , Eds., pp. 35–54, Bergin & Garvey, South Hadley, Mass, USA, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  23. C. H. Mulder, “Housing choice: assumptions and approaches,” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 209–232, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. I. G. Ellen and M. A. Turner, “Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence,” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 833–866, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. T. Gärling and M. Friman, “A psychological conceptualization of residencial choice and satisfaction,” in Residential Environments: Choice, Satisfaction and Behavior, J. I. Aragonés, G. Francescato, and T. Gärling, Eds., pp. 55–80, Bergin & Garvey, South Hadley, Mass, USA, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  26. M. Nagamachi, Kansei Engineering, Kaibundo, Tokyo, Japan, 1989.
  27. M. Nagamachi, “Kansei engineering: a new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 3–11, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. K. Lynch, A Theory of Good City Form, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1981.
  29. D. Appleyard, Livable Streets, University of California, Berkeley, Calif, USA, 1981.
  30. F. D. Jarvis, Site Planning and Community Design for Great Neighborhoods, Home Builder, Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
  31. R. Küller, “Architecture and emotions,” in Architecture for People, B. Milkellides, Ed., pp. 87–100, Studio Vista, London, UK, 1980. View at Google Scholar
  32. R. Küller, “Environmental assessment from a neuropsychological perspective,” in Environment Cognition and Action: An Integrated Approach, T. Gärling and G. W. Evans, Eds., pp. 111–147, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  33. A. P. Field, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage, London, UK, 2nd edition, 2005.
  34. J. Terninko, Step-by-Step QFD: Costumer-Driven Product Design, St. Lucie Press, Florida, 1997.
  35. C. E. Osgood, G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Ill, USA, 1957.
  36. T. Jindo, K. Hirasago, and M. Nagamachi, “Development of a design support system for office chairs using 3-D graphics,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 49–62, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. Y. Matsubara and M. Nagamachi, “Hybrid Kansei Engineering System and design support,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 81–92, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. C. Llinares and A. F. Page, “Application of product differential semantics to quantify purchaser perceptions in housing assessment,” Building and Environment, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 2488–2497, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. B. Flury, Common Principal Components and Related Multivariate Models, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1988.
  40. A. Basilevsky, Statistical Factor Analysis and Related Methods: Theory and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1994.
  41. D. L. Streiner, “Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency,” Journal of Personality Assessment, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 99–103, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. S. Nagasawa, “Kansei evaluation using fuzzy structural modeling,” in Proceedings of the 1st Japan-Korea symposium on kansei engineering—consumer oriented product development technology on Kansei engineering I, M. Nagamachi, Ed., pp. 119–125, Kaibundo, 1997.
  43. C. Llinares and A. F. Page, “Differential semantics as a Kansei Engineering tool for analysing the emotional impressions which determine the choice of neighbourhood: the case of Valencia, Spain,” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 247–257, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. T. R. Herzog, “A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 237–248, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. R. Kaplan, “The role of nature in the urban context,” in Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research, I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill, Eds., vol. 6, pp. 127–162, Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA, 1983. View at Google Scholar
  46. J. L. Nasar, “Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes,” in Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Applications, J. L. Nasar, Ed., pp. 228–253, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1988. View at Google Scholar
  47. J. L. Nasar, “The evaluative image of the city,” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 41–53, 1990. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. T. Jindo and K. Hirasago, “Application studies to car interior of Kansei engineering,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 105–114, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. S. Ishihara, K. Ishihara, M. Nagamachi, and Y. Matsubara, “An analysis of Kansei structure on shoes using self-organizing neural networks,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 93–104, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. Y. Shimizu and T. Jindo, “A fuzzy logic analysis method for evaluating human sensitivities,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 39–47, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus