Research on the Configuration and Composition Characteristics of Courtyards in Japanese Independent Residential Works: A Case Study of Projects from 2015 to 2024
School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(18), 3253; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15183253
Submission received: 19 July 2025
/
Revised: 24 August 2025
/
Accepted: 25 August 2025
/
Published: 9 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human-Centric Architectural Design: Neuroarchitecture as a New Tool to Shape Futureproof Inclusive Buildings)
Abstract
Residential courtyards serve as critical mediators between architecture and nature in contemporary high-density urban environments. However, extant scholarship predominantly examines isolated courtyard typologies, lacking comprehensive systemic analysis, while contemporary designs frequently suffer from functional diminishment. This study investigates 72 representative Japanese detached residential projects (2015–2024) to systematically analyze spatial configurations, compositional characteristics, and functional interrelationships between courtyards and interior spaces. The methodological framework incorporates typological classification based on spatial positioning and constituent elements, coupled with analytical examination of aperture connections, interpreted through the lens of pattern language theory. Findings reveal a distinct hierarchical organization and a set of recurrent design patterns: front courtyards predominantly employ “partially walkable” surfaces with symbol trees to reconcile circulatory and esthetic functions, establishing a transitional sequence; central courtyards achieve daylight optimization and spatial extension through compact dimensions and non-paved surfaces, creating intimate outdoor rooms; side courtyards demonstrate scale-dependent adaptive strategies for privacy and microclimate regulation. The predominant living room-courtyard interface configuration features “group-planted trees with large openings,” creating vertically stratified visual experiences. This tripartite system translates traditional nature concepts into evidence-based spatial patterns, providing a transferable design matrix and pattern language for human-centered courtyard design in high-density contexts.
1. Introduction
1.1. Research Background
Residential courtyards, serving as pivotal mediators between the built environment and nature, undertake critical ecological and psychological regulatory roles within high-density urban settings [1]. While Eastern traditions historically conceptualize them as vessels of “miniaturized nature” [2] and Western theories like Genius Loci emphasize their role in place-making [3], contemporary design challenges extend beyond symbolic representation. The pressing need is to understand how spatial configurations and sensory interactions tangibly address inhabitants’ behavioral patterns and psychological well-being, particularly amidst escalating urban ecological and mental health pressures.
However, a significant theory-practice gap persists. Predominant research focuses on isolated courtyard typologies (e.g., daylight performance of atria or the symbolism of front yards), lacking a systemic analysis of how integrated courtyard systems orchestrate diverse human experiences. An overreliance on quantitative metrics (e.g., area, green ratio) often neglects the qualitative aspects of user behavior and sensory perception. In practice, courtyards are frequently reduced to decorative appendages, disconnected from interior living spaces, thus failing to perform as functional extensions of the home. This misalignment underscores an urgent need for a human-centric paradigm shift in courtyard design.
Grounding this shift, emerging neuroarchitecture research demonstrates that spatial configurations fundamentally shape cognitive and emotional responses [4]. As multisensory interfaces, courtyards can potentially modulate stress recovery through visual-nature exposure (aligned with Ulrich’s Stress Reduction Theory [5]) and spatial sequencing (informed by Gibson’s Affordance Theory [6]). The synergy between morphological characteristics and architectural interfaces is thus not merely formal but directly correlates with psycho-physiological well-being, providing a scientific basis for transitioning courtyard design from esthetic manipulation to the crafting of biophilic, neuro-enhancing environments.
Consequently, this study reconceptualizes courtyards as “human-centered ecological units,” whose value lies in synchronizing spatial configurations with natural elements to enhance user experience, foster spatial belonging, and facilitate biophilic connection. Through a systematic analysis of Japanese detached houses—renowned for their innovative spatial economy—this research investigates the compositional logic and indoor-outdoor connectivity of courtyard systems. It seeks to elucidate how spatial hierarchy (front/central/side) responds to differentiated behavioral scenarios, how material-nature interfaces negotiate between utility and perceptual richness, and how aperture designs shape cognitive and emotional engagement. This investigation aims to yield a transferable, evidence-based framework for integrating high-quality ecological spaces into compact urban dwellings.
1.2. Review of Previous Research and Purpose
Existing studies examining the exterior spaces of contemporary detached houses as courtyards—focusing on their design and relationship with interior functions—have primarily explored specific aspects. For instance, some research has concentrated on courtyard houses as a typology, clarifying the characteristics of atrium arrangements and their connection with living spaces [7]. Others have investigated the spatial configuration of houses with courtyards, analyzing the actual conditions and usage patterns found in these outdoor spaces [8]. Regarding the compositional elements of residential courtyards, particularly planting design, one notable study has analyzed the layout and vegetation characteristics of courtyards in detached houses in Busan, South Korea [9].
Furthermore, previous studies focusing on the interior and exterior spaces of contemporary detached houses have explored various aspects. Some have clarified the compositional characteristics and functional roles of these indoor and outdoor spaces [10,11], while others have examined the spatial demarcation and integration features of what is termed the “architecturalized exterior” in residential design [12]. Additional research has identified the organizational characteristics of living spaces in courtyard houses, both inside and out [13], as well as quantified the physical morphology and spatial continuity/interrelationships in such dwellings [14]. While these studies collectively contribute to our understanding, they primarily address either exterior or interior spatial features in isolation.
In recent years, research on courtyard spatial configurations has increasingly moved beyond traditional typologies toward integrative models addressing environmental comfort, psychological well-being, and spatial functionality. A new framework positions courtyards not merely as esthetic or transitional elements but as multidimensional spatial systems contributing to environmental comfort, spatial arrangement, relaxation, safety, and psychological resilience in residential contexts [15]. Several studies have conducted empirical and simulation-based analyses of courtyard geometries—including orientation, form, height-to-width ratio and aspect ratio—to optimize outdoor microclimate conditions across climates, addressing both cooling and winter comfort [16,17]. Other research employs pixel-level spatial indicators and simulation workflows to identify thresholds for thermally comfortable courtyard designs, enabling data-driven optimization [18]. Comparative studies using space syntax techniques have further revealed how courtyard–interior connectivity configurations influence visibility, spatial integration, and behavioral patterns, offering insights for bridging traditional and contemporary residential designs [19]. Yet, while these studies strengthen the environmental and spatial understanding of courtyard design, the literature incorporating environmental psychology and occupant perception remains more limited, suggesting an opportunity for future interdisciplinary exploration.
However, these existing studies have primarily examined either a single type of courtyard or its relationship with interior functional spaces like living rooms. Research exploring the relationship between courtyards and other functional interior spaces beyond living rooms, or investigating courtyard placement configurations, remains scarce. Furthermore, limited attention has been paid to analyzing the composition of courtyard elements and their relationship with interior spaces. Nevertheless, the positioning of courtyards within the site, their relationship with the full spectrum of interior functions, and the composition of elements within the courtyard—such as plantings and ground surfaces—are fundamentally related to the visual experience and spatial diversity essential to daily living. These aspects are thus considered indispensable to research on residential courtyards.
Building on this understanding, this study focuses on courtyards in contemporary Japanese detached houses. It aims to:
- (1)
- Systematically categorize courtyard placement configurations and the composition of elements (including plantings and ground surfaces) based on examples from architectural journals;
- (2)
- Clarify the relationship between courtyards and interior functional spaces.
The ultimate goal is to interpret these empirical findings through the lens of pattern language theory, aiming to distill a series of transferable design patterns for courtyard integration in high-density residential settings.
2. Research Methods
The study focuses on 72 detached house projects featuring courtyards (as defined in this research), all published between 2015 and 2024 in Shinkenchiku Jutakutokushu (Shinkenchiku-sha Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), a prominent representative of contemporary architectural journalism in Japan. These cases were selected according to the following criteria: exclusion of mixed-use dwellings, site coverage ratios of at least 40%, site areas not exceeding 400 m2 (with special exceptions excluded), and availability of sufficient documentation for comprehensive analysis (Table 1). All the case studies are located in subtropical monsoon or temperate monsoon climate zones, characterized by distinct seasonal variations and abundant precipitation.
In this study, a “courtyard” is defined as an outdoor space with vegetation that is connected to the earth while being open to the external environment from above, excluding extremely small spaces (under 5 m2). The role of courtyard spaces is considered to vary depending on their positioning within the site. For instance, front courtyards typically serve as approach pathways connecting streets to entrances, while central courtyards may function as outdoor living areas. Based on these observations, this study categorizes courtyards as follows: those positioned roadside with pathways traversing them are defined as “front courtyards”; those centrally located and enclosed on three or more sides by buildings or boundary walls are designated “central courtyards”; and all remaining courtyards are classified as “side courtyards”. Using this framework, we extracted and classified all courtyards across the sample cases.
Regarding courtyard typology, the study classified all cases based on the spatial positioning framework to elucidate the morphological characteristics of courtyards. For courtyard-interior relationships, we documented connection configurations via architectural openings across all cases to analyze functional linkages between courtyards and interior spaces. Focusing specifically on living rooms as representative functional zones, we then classified transitional interfaces into sectional typologies using the 72 cases with direct courtyard-living room connections, thereby characterizing their distinctive spatial relationships.
Regarding the classification of courtyard elements, the presence of living arboreal components plays a significant role in these spaces that bridge human-nature connections. Furthermore, variations in ground surface finishes are considered to influence both the compositional arrangement and functional roles of courtyard vegetation. Through systematic case analysis, this study categorizes courtyard components into two primary dimensions: “arboreal elements” and “ground surface elements.” Given that the presence of a single tree versus multiple trees directly impacts visual experiences and spatial character, arboreal elements were subdivided into: “symbol tree” (featuring a single tree), “group-planted trees” (multiple trees), “shrubs”, and “treeless” (without woody plants) types. Meanwhile, ground surface elements were classified according to material properties: “decking” and “paving” (comprising tiles, concrete, etc.) for walkable surfaces; and non-walkable surfaces, including “soil,” “gravel,” “turf,” and “water basin”.
The analysis of courtyard composition first quantified the area of each courtyard across all cases, stratifying them into large, medium, and small scales using thresholds defined by the minimum and maximum dimensions of adjacent living rooms. Subsequently, compositional elements were inventoried using a multiple-count approach. For arboreal elements, configurations were classified into: “symbol tree-dominant”, “group-planted trees-dominant”, and “shrub-exclusive” based on arboreal elements combinations (“symbol tree-dominant” and “group-planted trees-dominant” were established based on the definitive presence of their respective arboreal elements, irrespective of shrub existence). Ground surfaces were categorized by material function: “walkable surfaces” (paving/decking) and “non-walkable surfaces” (soil/gravel/turf/water basins). These were further stratified by coverage ratio into: “fully walkable” (walkable materials cover the entire or nearly entire ground plane), “partially walkable,” and “fully non-walkable” (complete or near-complete coverage by non-walkable materials) surfaces.
Within the subset of cases featuring living room connections, we then conducted matrix analyses cross-referencing arboreal configurations, ground surface typologies, and sectional transition patterns to examine courtyard-architecture interrelationships. Finally, through layered matrix evaluation integrating all morphological classifications with courtyard positioning and scale, the study elucidated compositional principles governing tree placement strategies and material applications relative to spatial location and dimensions.
The classification of courtyard typologies, spatial relationships, and compositional elements (arboreal morphology, ground surfaces) was independently performed by two trained researchers. To ensure consistency, all cases were initially coded by both researchers, followed by a cross-validation meeting to resolve discrepancies. Cases with conflicting classifications (approximately 12% of total cases) were reviewed by a third senior researcher, and final decisions were made through consensus. A random sample of 20% cases underwent re-evaluation after two weeks, achieving 95% concordance in coding results, confirming the reliability of the classification framework.
Analysis revealed that among 72 cases, 38 featured front courtyards, 32 contained central courtyards, and 47 incorporated side courtyards. By classifying all 72 cases according to courtyard positioning combinations and spatial continuity between courtyards, 16 distinct courtyard configuration typologies with corresponding case counts were established (Figure 1).
These typologies were divided into single-courtyard and multi-courtyard configurations. Single-courtyard arrangements included fundamentally isolated types (e.g., Z, N1, S1 in Figure 1) and types continuous with streetscape (N2, N3, S2). Multi-courtyard configurations comprised: mutually isolated courtyards (A1, ZN1, ZS1, NS1), spatially interconnected courtyards (including A2, ZN2, ZS2, NS2), with some of these interconnected types also extending into the streetscape (ZN2, ZS2, ZS3, NS2). Notably, three dominant typologies emerged: central courtyard-only (13 cases), side courtyard-only (17 cases), and “front + side” combination (20 cases), collectively representing 50 out of 72 cases (50/72).
3. Courtyard-Interior Spatial Relationships
3.1. Functional Integration Between Courtyards and Interior Spaces
Analysis of connections between courtyards and interior spaces via architectural openings revealed that the six interior zones most frequently achieving visual continuity with courtyards were: living rooms, dining rooms, bedrooms, kitchens, bathrooms, and genkan (entrance areas). Figure 2 quantifies the prevalence of these adjacencies, showing living rooms (71 cases), dining rooms (71 cases), and bedrooms (68 cases) appearing in nearly all cases. Kitchens (57 cases) and bathrooms (37 cases) demonstrated courtyard connections in the majority of cases. These patterns indicate that courtyards primarily interface with communal family spaces while simultaneously integrating with daily functional areas, establishing them as outdoor spaces intrinsically interwoven with holistic living patterns.
Notably, the 28 cases featuring visual linkages between genkan and courtyards exemplify designers’ intentional crafting of ceremonial narratives for homecoming. Through framed views at transitional openings, courtyards establish visual guidance that reinforces spatial stratification between exterior and interior realms, thereby naturally directing movement toward the dwelling’s core living zones.
3.2. Living Room-Courtyard Connecting Methods
Further focusing on living rooms as the primary public domain within interior spaces, Figure 3 categorizes cross-sectional connection patterns at living room-courtyard interfaces along with their frequencies. Spatial relationships were initially classified as “same-level” or “different-level” based on level alignment. Eight distinct typologies emerged, including: direct access via full-height openings (“large openings”), visual-only connections through standard fenestration (“small openings”), and transitional connections through balconies (depth ≤ 2 m) or terraces (depth > 2 m).
Analysis reveals that in same-level connections, large openings significantly outnumbered fenestration-only solutions. While most interfaces provided immediate courtyard access, 28 cases employed semi-outdoor transitional spaces (Types III, VI, VII). These findings suggest intentional design strategies to visually expand living spaces through large openings and enhance living quality via semi-outdoor buffers.
Conversely, different-level connections showed reversed proportions, with fenestration dominating over full-height glazing. This indicates a deliberate design approach to frame curated canopy views through conventionally scaled windows, thereby shaping visual experiences from living areas.
4. Composition Characteristics of Courtyard
4.1. Area of Courtyards
Courtyard size constitutes a defining characteristic of spatial design. Figure 4 systematically presents the area distribution of courtyards by typology across all case studies. Front courtyards averaged 35 m2, with the 20–30 m2 range predominating (15 of 38 cases). Central courtyards averaged 29 m2, showing the highest concentration in the 10–20 m2 category (11 of 32 cases). side courtyards averaged 41 m2 while demonstrating equal prevalence in both 10–20 m2 and 20–30 m2 ranges (8 cases each among 47 total). Data indicate compact-to-medium scales prevail in front/central courtyards (avg. 35 m2/29 m2), while side courtyards show greater dimensional diversity (avg. 41 m2).
4.2. Arboreal Elements in Courtyards
Analysis of arboreal composition reveals distinct typological patterns across courtyard positions (Figure 5). In front courtyards, symbol trees predominated (21/38), constituting the majority. Central courtyards exhibited comparable representation of symbol trees (16/32) and group-planted trees (15/32), while shrubs appeared most frequently (19/32). Side courtyards showed the strongest prevalence of shrubs (35/47), with group-planted trees (26/47) significantly exceeding symbol trees (8/47). Furthermore, applying the Section 2 classification framework, courtyards were recategorized by dominant arboreal morphology: “symbol tree-dominant”, “group-planted trees-dominant”, and “shrub-exclusive” configurations (Table 2). Front courtyards primarily featured “symbol tree-dominant” arrangements; central courtyards demonstrated near parity between “symbol tree-dominant” and “group-planted trees-dominant” types; side courtyards showed clear dominance of “group-planted trees-dominant” patterns.
4.3. Ground Surface Elements in Courtyards
Analysis of ground surface composition reveals functional differentiation across courtyard typologies (Figure 6). In front courtyards, paving dominated (34 of 38 cases), representing nearly all instances. Central courtyards showed balanced distribution among three main types: paving (12/32), bare soil (12/32), and turf (12/32), with no single material demonstrating prevalence. side courtyards exhibited a clear predominance of non-walkable surfaces, with bare soil (23/47) and turf (19/47) collectively outnumbering walkable materials.
Analysis reveals identical high rates for paved surfaces in front courtyards and non-walkable surfaces in side courtyards, demonstrating their distinct functional attributes: front courtyards primarily facilitate entry circulation, while side courtyards predominantly serve visual/esthetic functions.
4.4. Arboreal Morphology-Living Room Interrelationships
Following the methodology established in Section 2, we categorized arboreal morphology into three typologies: “symbol tree-dominant”, “shrub-exclusive”, and “group-planted trees-dominant”. By cross-referencing these with living room-courtyard connection patterns, we examined the relationship between arboreal characteristics and living spaces in detached houses.
The analytical matrix aligned Section 3’s sectional connection typologies (x-axis) with the three arboreal morphologies (y-axis), revealing six predominant patterns through frequency matrix classification of case frequency concentrations (Figure 7).
Spatial analysis confirmed that configurations a, b, c, and e represent “same level” typologies where courtyards and living rooms share the same level elevation, with type a—characterized by “upper layer protrusion” and “group-planted trees-dominant”—emerging as the predominant pattern (15/72 cases). Conversely, patterns d and f constitute “different level” configurations, among which type d (featuring “small openings” with “group-planted trees-dominant”) demonstrated the highest prevalence (7/72 cases). Across all cases, connectivity between living rooms and “group-planted trees-dominant” configurations proved most frequent, attributable to their proximity to “large opening” which enables curated arboreal vistas. Notably, all “different level” configurations exclusively incorporated “trees” (symbol or group-planted) without “shrub-exclusive” instances, suggesting a deliberate design strategy leveraging vertical tree extension to frame views not only for ground-level spaces but also for elevated living areas.
4.5. Synthetic Analysis of Courtyard Composition by Position and Scale
The study examined courtyards in detached houses through an interlocking analysis of scale and compositional elements. Specifically, as illustrated in Figure 8, a matrix-based comparative analysis was conducted with courtyard position (front/central/side) and ground surface typology on the horizontal axis, while courtyard scale (small/medium/large) and arboreal morphology occupied the vertical axis. This methodology identified frequently recurring configurations: 1 typology for front courtyards, 2 for central courtyards, and 2 for side courtyards, each representing prevalent design configurations across the case studies.
The analysis of front courtyards reveals two predominant characteristics: first, the “partially walkable” ground treatment emerges as the dominant typology, and second, the arboreal compositions exclusively incorporate either solitary or clustered trees, with no instances of “shrub-exclusive” configurations being recorded. Through systematic categorization of courtyard elements, Type A—characterized by medium-scale dimensions combined with “partially walkable” surfaces—stands out as the representative model. The overwhelming prevalence of “partially walkable” surfaces (constituting the majority of cases) fundamentally reflects the dual design intentionality of front courtyards as hybrid spaces that equally prioritize circulation functionality and esthetic contemplation.
The analysis of central courtyards reveals two defining characteristics: first, small-scale configurations emerge as the predominant typology, with “shrub-exclusive” compositions being virtually absent; second, while all ground surface types are represented, non-walkable materials (such as soil and turf) constitute the primary treatment. Systematic categorization identifies Type E (small-scale with “partially walkable” surfaces) and Type F (small-scale with “fully non-walkable” surfaces) as the representative models.
This small-scale predisposition fundamentally reflects the spatial constraints of central courtyards embedded within building volumes, where minimal footprint allocation must simultaneously fulfill critical lighting and ventilation functions for the dwelling. The strategic deployment of both walkable and non-walkable materials manifests the dual design intentionality of these spaces—serving simultaneously as visual focal points for contemplation and functional extensions of living areas.
Analysis of side courtyards reveals several distinctive patterns: First, large-scale side courts and “fully walkable” surfaces are virtually nonexistent. The choice between solitary trees versus clustered plantings shows clear scale dependency—larger courtyards predominantly adopt group-planted arrangements, while smaller specimens tend toward solitary trees or even “shrub-exclusive” compositions. Systematic classification identifies four representative typologies: Type B (small-scale with “fully non-walkable” surfaces), Type C (medium-scale with “fully non-walkable”), Type D (medium-scale with “partially walkable”), and Type G (small-scale with “partially walkable”).
Notably, similar to central courtyards, the strategic combination of walkable and non-walkable materials in these side spaces demonstrates their dual purpose as both contemplative viewing areas and functional outdoor living spaces.
Furthermore, Table 3 systematically presents the quantitative distribution of case studies corresponding to each combination of arboreal morphology and ground surface typology as illustrated in Figure 8. Quantitative analysis reveals distinct patterns in material-vegetation pairings: among all “symbol tree-dominant” courtyards, the combination with “partially walkable” surfaces demonstrates the most pronounced prevalence. Conversely, “group-planted trees-dominant” courtyards show significant co-occurrence with both “partially walkable” and “fully non-walkable” ground treatments. This distribution suggests fundamental functional differentiations—symbol tree configurations predominantly facilitate outdoor living spaces through their balanced material composition, whereas group-planted arrangements simultaneously accommodate active use areas and contemplative viewing spaces, reflecting a dual-purpose design strategy in Japanese residential landscapes.
The composition of residential courtyards demonstrates distinct spatial hierarchies: Front courtyards employ balanced “partially walkable” ground treatments that simultaneously accommodate circulation needs and preserve the poetic viewing experience inherent to traditional Japanese entrance sequences. Central courtyards develop a bifunctional approach, mediating between shakkei (borrowed scenery) esthetics and contemporary outdoor living requirements through precise vegetation-surface ratios that ensure both spatial efficiency and environmental quality. Side courtyards evolve adaptive strategies tailored to their unique positioning, negotiating privacy demands, service functions, and landscape values while implementing scale-dependent vegetation arrangements that regulate microclimate and visual permeability. This systematic variation across front-central-side courtyards ultimately represents a contemporary interpretation of Japanese residential design’s mastery in organizing limited sites—where utilitarian rationality and spatial poetics become indivisible.
5. Conclusions
5.1. Research Findings
This study moves beyond descriptive cataloging to synthesize the empirical data into a series of interrelated, evidence-based design patterns. These patterns articulate how spatial configurations of courtyards serve distinct human needs and translate traditional concepts of nature into operational design logic for high-density contexts. The findings are organized into a tripartite framework, where each pattern is defined by its core problem, spatial strategy, and experiential outcome.
First, the Front Courtyard as A Transitional and Ceremonial Filter pattern addresses the problem of creating a buffer between the public street and the private interior. The predominant strategy employs a “partially walkable” ground surface (e.g., stepping stones through gravel or turf) combined with a singular ‘symbol tree’. This configuration negotiates the need for circulatory function with the creation of a contemplative visual prelude, effectively mitigating urban sensory overload and establishing a cognitive boundary that enhances the psychological transition into the domestic realm.
Second, the Central Courtyard as A Light-Well and Spatial Extension pattern solves the problem of bringing natural light, ventilation, and a sense of spatial expansiveness into the heart of a compact dwelling. The optimal strategy utilizes a small-scale, introverted volume, predominantly finished with “non-walkable” surfaces (soil, turf, gravel) and often incorporating a mix of trees and shrubs. When coupled with large interior openings, this pattern functions as a biophilic core, maximizing daylight penetration and creating a visually restorative “borrowed scenery” that dissolves the boundary between inside and outside.
Third, the Side Courtyard as A Private Microclimatic Regulator pattern manages the dual demands of privacy and environmental modulation in tight lateral spaces. The strategy is inherently adaptive: larger side courtyards employ “group-planted trees” to form a visual and climatic buffer, while smaller ones utilize “symbol trees” or “shrub-exclusive” plantings for spatial economy. The prevailing use of “non-walkable” or “partially walkable” surfaces supports this role, fostering a mini-ecosystem that enhances privacy perception, regulates humidity and temperature, and provides ever-changing natural vistas for adjacent interior spaces.
Crucially, these patterns do not operate in isolation but form a systemic hierarchy within a site. The living room, as the primary communal hub, consistently interfaces with these courtyards through “large openings” that frame curated views of “group-planted trees”, creating vertically stratified visual experiences. This orchestration of patterns—transitional, core, and adaptive—provides a replicable matrix for designing human-centered ecological units. It demonstrates a sophisticated architectural language that transforms the abstract ideal of “miniaturized nature” into a tangible, functional reality that actively supports inhabitants’ well-being (Table 4).
The three patterns distilled in this study resonate profoundly with Christopher Alexander’s concept of a “pattern language” for resolving recurring problems in the built environment [20]. Our work provides concrete, empirical cases from contemporary high-density Japanese residences for this theoretical framework, and elaborates on the specific implementation strategies and evolution of classic patterns such as “Transition”, “Light”, and “Garden” under extreme site constraints.
5.2. Research Contributions
The core contributions of this study lie in:
(1) Providing a systematic framework that transcends isolated typological studies: By establishing a position-based (front/central/side) hierarchical courtyard system and revealing the precise matching relationships between each tier’s unique functional orientations (transitional symbolism/light-spatial extension/privacy-microclimate regulation) and their constituent elements (vegetation morphology, paving types, scale) as well as interface designs (aperture dimensions, transitional spaces), this study overcomes previous research limitations that focused on singular courtyard forms or quantitative metrics. It provides both a structured analytical framework and empirical evidence for understanding courtyards as “systemic ecological units” that integrate architecture, nature, and user experience.
(2) Decoding synergistic design principles for experience optimization under high-density constraints: The research uncovers critical design synergies such as “partial paving balancing circulation and ceremonial symbolism” (front courtyards), “compact unpaved surfaces with large openings maximizing daylight efficiency and spatial perception” (central courtyards), and “scale-adaptive vegetation clusters regulating microclimate and privacy” (side courtyards). These position-and-function-based elemental syntax principles offer transferable design methodologies and concrete strategies for creating high-experience-value “minimal-footprint ecological spaces” through meticulously coordinated material-vegetation-spatial interfaces in extremely constrained sites (as demonstrated by our case studies).
(3) Empirically validating operational pathways for cultural concept translation: Through analyzing specific strategies like “symbol trees as visual anchors” (front), “introverted courtyards embedding miniaturized nature” (central), and “adaptive vegetation creating private oases” (side), the study clearly demonstrates how Japanese residential design transforms traditional Eastern nature philosophies (e.g., “mountain retreat within the city”) into an actionable tripartite spatial language. This translation model—grounded in functional differentiation and precise elemental matching—provides innovative, adaptable solutions for global high-density cities facing acute ecological pressures and mental health demands, enabling the design of residential environments that simultaneously achieve ecological performance, psychological restoration, and cultural identity.
(4) Dialoguing with and Validating Foundational Design Theory: This study establishes a profound connection between its empirical findings and the seminal work of Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern Language [20]. We not only validate the enduring relevance of its core principle—those patterns resolve recurring problems within a context—but more significantly, extend and enrich this theoretical system by contributing a set of new, evidence-based sub-patterns and their compositional rules for ‘miniature courtyards in high-density contexts,’ thereby advancing design theory.
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
This research has several inherent limitations that warrant acknowledgment. Firstly, since the case studies were exclusively selected from leading architectural design journals, the sample inherently reflects a bias toward architecturally ambitious, high-budget projects. Consequently, the findings demonstrate applicability primarily to this elite, design-oriented subset and may not fully represent the broader spectrum of “mass-market detached homes” in Japan. The pursuit of novelty and esthetic excellence in such publications may also overlook more mundane yet functionally effective vernacular or traditional patterns that have evolved over time, which are often better documented in foundational works like Alexander’s A Pattern Language.
Secondly, the methodological approach relies on visual coding and classification based on published drawings and photographs. Despite rigorous cross-validation among researchers, this process inevitably involves a degree of subjective interpretation, particularly in categorizing arboreal morphology and ground surface coverage. Furthermore, the analysis does not quantitatively account for the influence of Japan’s regional climatic variations (e.g., snowfall in Hokkaido vs. subtropical climate in Okinawa) on design choices, which likely impacts material selection, vegetation types, and spatial planning.
Future research should pursue two complementary directions: (1) quantifying the neurophysiological and perceptual impacts of these design patterns using empirical methods (e.g., EEG, eye-tracking); and (2) further integrating these empirical findings with architectural theory, particularly by testing their alignment with and potential to extend established pattern language frameworks, while also validating their socioeconomic applicability in broader housing markets.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, Y.S.; methodology, Y.S.; validation, Y.S. and L.L.; formal analysis, K.Z.; data curation, A.W. and K.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.S. and L.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.S. and L.L.; visualization, A.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research is supported by “The Cultivation project Funds for Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture” (X25004), and “BUCEA Talent Pyramid Cultivation Program” (JDYC20220801).
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Nishizawa, F. On Courtyard Houses: Their Intimate Spaces; Sagami Shobo: Tokyo, Japan, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Nakamura, H.; Amasaki, H. Creating Landscapes: Modern Landscape Architecture and Traditional Japanese Gardens; Showado: Tokyo, Japan, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Norberg-Schulz, C. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture; Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press: Wuhan, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Abbas, S.; Okdeh, N.; Roufayel, R.; Kovacic, H.; Sabatier, J.M.; Fajloun, Z.; Abi Khattar, Z. Neuroarchitecture: How the Perception of Our Surroundings Impacts the Brain. Biology 2024, 13, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duhoki, K.; Gülten, A. The integrated design of neuroarchitecture for human well-being: A Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2025, 11, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maier, J.R.A.; Fadel, G. An affordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice. Des. Stud. 2009, 30, 393–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murata, R.; Negayama, A.; Yasuda, K. Furnishing of Courtyards and Connection with Living Rooms in Contemporary Japanese Courtyard Houses. J. Archit. Plan. Trans. AIJ 2012, 77, 1365–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mori, R.; Oka, M. A Study on Architectural Form and Composition of the Court House. Summ. Tech. Pap. Annu. Conv. AIJ Chugoku 2004, 27, 581–584. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, Y.; Fujii, E. A Consideration of the Composition and the Plantings of the Garden in Urban Readjusted Residential Area of Pusan, Korea. Landsc. Res. Jpn. 1991, 55, 313–318. [Google Scholar]
- Okamura, K.; Okawa, J.; Sakamoto, K. Composition of Urban Contemporary Japanese Houses by Arrangement and Connection of Exterior Spaces: Architectural Composition of Contemporary Japanese Houses in Terms of Relation Between Interior and Exterior (2). J. Archit. Plan. Trans. AIJ 2002, 552, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawakita, T. The Arrangement of the Exterior Space and the Interior Space in the Houses Published in 1990 Designed by Japanese Architects. J. Archit. Plan. Trans. AIJ 1997, 497, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsukamoto, Y.; Hanjo, A.; Sakamoto, K. Articulated Exterior in Japanese Contemporary Houses: A Study on Architectural Composition of the House. J. Archit. Plan. Trans. AIJ 1995, 470, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murata, R.; Nagano, T.; Yasuda, K. The Arrangement and Openness of Outdoor Spaces in Contemporary Japanese Courtyard Houses. J. Archit. Plan. Trans. AIJ 2011, 661, 569–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matsumoto, M.; Hattori, M.; Taniguchi, M. The Characteristic Analysis and Spatial Typology of Urban Court-Houses: A Study on Spatial Composition of Japanese Contemporary Houses. J. Archit. Plan. Trans. AIJ 2001, 547, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sadat, S.; Taher Tolou Del, M.; Tabrizi, S.K. Designing residential courtyards in the built environment: Key factors shaping well-being and open space quality. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2025; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azimi, Z.; Shafaat, A. Proposing design strategies for contemporary courtyards based on thermal comfort in cold and semi-arid climate zones. Build. Environ. 2024, 266, 112150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Z.; Zheng, X.; Li, X. Optimal design strategy of traditional courtyard based on performance and data-driven method-A case study of Yanshen ancient town, China. Front. Archit. Res. 2025, 14, 1168–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, R.; Fang, X.; Brown, R.; Liu, S.; Zhao, H. Establishing a link between complex courtyard spaces and thermal comfort: A major advancement in evidence-based design. Build. Environ. 2023, 245, 110852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karimimoshaver, M.; Gholami, S.; Samavatekbatan, A.; Baharipoor, N. Adaptive comparison of the connectivity of courtyards with the main living spaces in traditional and contemporary houses with the approach of space syntax: A solution to improve the position of the courtyard in new houses. Space Ontol. Int. J. 2024, 51, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, C.; Ishikawa, S.; Silverstein, M. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1.
Courtyard configuration typologies, where the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts.
Figure 1.
Courtyard configuration typologies, where the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts.
Figure 2.
The visual connection relationship between interior functions and courtyards.
Figure 3.
Connection patterns between the living room and courtyards, where the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts. The “treeless” cases were excluded from this figure.
Figure 3.
Connection patterns between the living room and courtyards, where the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts. The “treeless” cases were excluded from this figure.
Figure 4.
Courtyard area distribution by position.
Figure 5.
Arboreal elements in courtyards, where the numbers represent the quantity of relevant cases and the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts.
Figure 5.
Arboreal elements in courtyards, where the numbers represent the quantity of relevant cases and the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts.
Figure 6.
Ground surface elements in courtyards, where the numbers represent the quantity of relevant cases and the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts.
Figure 6.
Ground surface elements in courtyards, where the numbers represent the quantity of relevant cases and the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts.
Figure 7.
Connection between arboreal morphology and living room, where the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts. The “treeless” cases were excluded from this figure.
Figure 7.
Connection between arboreal morphology and living room, where the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts. The “treeless” cases were excluded from this figure.
Figure 8.
The compositional features of the courtyard, where the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts. The “treeless” cases were excluded from this figure.
Figure 8.
The compositional features of the courtyard, where the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts. The “treeless” cases were excluded from this figure.
Table 1.
Basic information of cases.
| No. | Basic Information | Court Position and Area | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case Name | Date of Completion | Location | Site Area (m2) | Building Density (%) | Front (m2) | Central (m2) | Side (m2) | |
| 01 | House in Ibaraki | Mar. 2015 | Osaka | 303.18 | 42.27 | 26 | 93.7 | |
| 02 | Light Court House for Mr.&Mrs.S | Mar. 2015 | Hyogo | 239.71 | 59.91 | 12.9 | 24.7 | |
| 03 | House O | May. 2015 | Tokyo | 274.36 | 42.25 | 22.6 | 105.1 | |
| 04 | U HOUSE | Jul. 2015 | Chiba | 184.77 | 47.53 | 41 | ||
| 05 | House Garden | Aug. 2015 | Tokyo | 119.01 | 41.74 | 36.7 | ||
| 06 | NERIMA HOUSE | Aug. 2015 | Tokyo | 109.12 | 42.53 | 24.8 | ||
| 07 | N-House | Aug. 2015 | Tokyo | 147.90 | 49.98 | 26.8 | 13.7 | |
| 08 | House in Kosakall | Aug. 2015 | Osaka | 340.84 | 51.53 | 9.1 | 68.2 | |
| 09 | North Garden House | Dec. 2015 | Nara | 132.89 | 64.14 | 20.8 | 22.9 | |
| 10 | House in Kohoku | Dec. 2015 | Kanagawa | 204.86 | 59.87 | 22.5 | ||
| 11 | JI-TEI | May. 2016 | Aichi | 248.94 | 51.02 | 53.8 | ||
| 12 | House at Tsukuba | Aug. 2016 | Ibaraki | 181.05 | 47.94 | 56.9 | 9.3 | |
| 13 | House in Toyota | Oct. 2016 | Aichi | 320.59 | 48.99 | 13 | ||
| 14 | Curved House in Kaminoge | Dec. 2016 | Tokyo | 113.63 | 56.81 | 15.2 | 12.4 | 6.6 |
| 15 | House in Yukuhashi | Mar. 2017 | Fukuoka | 334.85 | 46.49 | 83.3 | ||
| 16 | House in Ushita | Apr. 2017 | Hiroshima | 182.65 | 56.26 | 13.2 | 10.1 | |
| 17 | House in Anjo | May. 2017 | Aichi | 222.77 | 49.09 | 42.3 | 8.5 | |
| 18 | Kawagoe Machiya | May. 2017 | Saitama | 70.19 | 55.70 | 8.1 | 6.2 | |
| 19 | House of Light and Shadow | Jun. 2017 | Tokyo | 237.10 | 40.82 | 22.5 | 69 | |
| 20 | Gable Roof House | Jun. 2017 | Kyoto | 228.92 | 45.59 | 19.5 | 18.24 | 25.6 |
| 21 | House in Tsurunosato | Jul. 2017 | Shiga | 323.76 | 44.99 | 8.9 | 82.1 | |
| 22 | House in Higashinada | Jul. 2017 | Hyogo | 235.58 | 54.33 | 54.9 | ||
| 23 | House in Yao | Aug. 2017 | Osaka | 298.82 | 59.78 | 56 | 86.3 | 36 |
| 24 | House in Ogikubo | Aug. 2017 | Tokyo | 263.99 | 44.97 | 42.5 | ||
| 25 | House in Kumamoto Tatsuta | Aug. 2017 | Kumamoto | 215.14 | 45.00 | 59.5 | ||
| 26 | House in Yakumo | Jan. 2018 | Tokyo | 261.05 | 49.97 | 24.8 | 53.4 | |
| 27 | House for a Germanist | May. 2018 | Tokyo | 169.13 | 47.67 | 16.8 | 19.9 | |
| 28 | House of NEI | Jun. 2018 | Chiba | 154.30 | 48.67 | 24 | 33 | |
| 29 | Loop Terrace | Jul. 2018 | Hyogo | 144.45 | 59.19 | 34.6 | ||
| 30 | THINK House | Jul. 2018 | Ibaraki | 229.50 | 48.54 | 55 | 13.5 | |
| 31 | House in Tsuji | Aug. 2018 | Hyogo | 267.26 | 46.85 | 42.9 | 29.2 | |
| 32 | Sakai House | Oct. 2018 | Tokyo | 214.30 | 53.44 | 44 | ||
| 33 | House in Miyake | Jun. 2019 | Nara | 345.43 | 52.14 | 48.5 | ||
| 34 | House in Furuichi | Jul. 2019 | Osaka | 267.97 | 43.06 | 80.8 | 29.2 | 12.1 |
| 35 | House in Funabashi | Aug. 2019 | Chiba | 330.58 | 49.98 | 100.4 | ||
| 36 | House in Koishikawa | Aug. 2019 | Tokyo | 266.02 | 44.65 | 28 | 78 | |
| 37 | The Metaphor on the Topography | Aug. 2019 | Fukuoka | 252.28 | 48.38 | 82.5 | 6.8 | |
| 38 | House in Minami Ogikubo | Nov. 2019 | Tokyo | 228.46 | 42.89 | 27.5 | 54.9 | |
| 39 | Akimoto House | May. 2020 | Aichi | 149.88 | 43.83 | 63.8 | 40.5 | |
| 40 | House in Komae | Jun. 2020 | Tokyo | 175.63 | 42.44 | 43.7 | ||
| 41 | Chocolate Cornet | Jan. 2021 | Gifu | 202.55 | 47.37 | 41.3 | 9.8 | |
| 42 | Rural House | Feb. 2021 | Mie | 248.61 | 50.44 | 17.3 | ||
| 43 | House in Nakagusuku | Mar. 2021 | Okinawa | 336.69 | 49.97 | 19.7 | 78 | |
| 44 | House in Kichiloji | Jul. 2021 | Tokyo | 162.30 | 48.03 | 23.5 | 21 | |
| 45 | House with Descended Garden | Aug. 2021 | Aichi | 278.47 | 42.73 | 52.5 | ||
| 46 | TANABATA-House | Aug. 2021 | Tokyo | 120.50 | 40.52 | 30.5 | ||
| 47 | Daikou House | Sep. 2021 | Aichi | 158.95 | 53.26 | 12.4 | ||
| 48 | Block Wall and NLT | Dec. 2021 | Osaka | 124.32 | 54.24 | 14.6 | ||
| 49 | House in Yanakacho | Jan. 2022 | Gunma | 377.07 | 44.86 | 64 | 35.7 | |
| 50 | House in Nakamachi | Mar. 2022 | Tokyo | 129.52 | 49.13 | 17.8 | 21.5 | |
| 51 | Flat House in Nerima | Aug. 2022 | Tokyo | 230.19 | 41.25 | 53.6 | 14.4 | 27.8 |
| 52 | Cedar Louver House | Sep. 2022 | Tokyo | 179.51 | 41.33 | 69.6 | ||
| 53 | LOAM | Nov. 2022 | Tokyo | 239.92 | 58.91 | 42.4 | ||
| 54 | Primal House | Feb. 2023 | Tokyo | 198.97 | 49.11 | 47.1 | 67.8 | |
| 55 | House on a Hill | Feb. 2023 | Tokyo | 337.96 | 49.99 | 36.5 | 34.7 | 37.5 |
| 56 | House in Nishi-muko | Feb. 2023 | Kyoto | 104.77 | 49.05 | 26.4 | 8.8 | |
| 57 | Mr.& Mrs. Morishita’s Residence | Mar. 2023 | Chiba | 253.66 | 50.06 | 29.3 | ||
| 58 | House with Polygonal Courtyard | Mar. 2023 | Aichi | 216.29 | 46.63 | 32.3 | 17.2 | |
| 59 | Garden and House in Kurume | Jun. 2023 | Fukuoka | 190.31 | 43.52 | 27.5 | ||
| 60 | House on the Hill | Jul. 2023 | Kanagawa | 103.96 | 48.37 | 27.5 | ||
| 61 | House with an Inner Garden | Aug. 2023 | Tokyo | 172.08 | 65.70 | 16.2 | ||
| 62 | House in Suehiro | Aug. 2023 | Aichi | 270.02 | 64.93 | 29.4 | 27.6 | |
| 63 | Large Eave | Oct. 2023 | Tokyo | 248.33 | 50.97 | 46.5 | ||
| 64 | House K | Nov. 2023 | Saga | 202.45 | 46.20 | 19.5 | ||
| 65 | House in Hatagaya | Jan. 2024 | Tokyo | 157.52 | 55.48 | 26.7 | 18.7 | |
| 66 | House in Ekiya | Mar. 2024 | Hiroshima | 371.74 | 43.99 | 35.6 | ||
| 67 | Metastable House | Mar. 2024 | Chiba | 239.78 | 45.59 | 86.1 | ||
| 68 | Tochi-in Temple’s House | May. 2024 | Kyoto | 100.01 | 49.88 | 18.8 | 15 | |
| 69 | HANROJl House | Aug. 2024 | Aichi | 140.67 | 49.37 | 28 | ||
| 70 | House in Susono | Aug. 2024 | Shizuoka | 358.00 | 42.51 | 58.5 | 35.8 | |
| 71 | Little Village | Aug. 2024 | Tokyo | 160.74 | 51.81 | 26.2 | ||
| 72 | Sekiguchi House | Nov. 2024 | Tokyo | 100.16 | 57.66 | 14.6 | ||
Note: The courtyard areas were calculated by the authors based on the scale and dimensional annotations provided in the floor plans.
Table 2.
Arboreal morphology in Courtyards, where the numbers represent the quantity of relevant cases and the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts. The “treeless” cases were excluded from this table.
Table 2.
Arboreal morphology in Courtyards, where the numbers represent the quantity of relevant cases and the numbers in parentheses indicate the corresponding case counts. The “treeless” cases were excluded from this table.
| Category | Symbol Tree-Dominant | Shrub-Exclusive | Group-Planted Trees-Dominant |
|---|---|---|---|
| Front Court (36) | 21 | 0 | 15 |
| Central Court (32) | 16 | 1 | 15 |
| Side Court (46) | 9 | 11 | 26 |
Table 3.
Combination of arboreal morphology and ground surface typology, where the numbers indicate the corresponding case counts.
Table 3.
Combination of arboreal morphology and ground surface typology, where the numbers indicate the corresponding case counts.
| Morphology | Fully Walkable | Partially Walkable | Fully Non-Walkable | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symbol Tree-dominant | 8 | 23 | 15 | 46 |
| Shrub-exclusive | 1 | 5 | 6 | 12 |
| Group-planted Trees-dominant | 2 | 32 | 22 | 56 |
| Total | 11 | 60 | 43 | 114 |
Table 4.
A Tripartite Pattern Language for Courtyard Design in High-Density Dwellings.
| Pattern Name and Core Problem | Spatial and Elemental Strategy | Primary Function and Outcome | Applicable Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Front Courtyard as a Transitional and Ceremonial Filter To create a psychological buffer between the public street and the private interior, mitigating urban sensory overload. |
| Negotiates circulation and ceremony. Creates a contemplative visual prelude that establishes a cognitive boundary, enhancing the psychological transition into the home and fostering domestic tranquility. | High-density urban entry sequences where space is limited but a sense of arrival is crucial. |
| 2. Central Courtyard as a Light-Well and Spatial Extension To bring natural light, ventilation, and a sense of spatial expansiveness into the core of a compact dwelling. |
| Optimizes daylight and dissolves boundaries. Functions as a biophilic core, maximizing light penetration and creating a visually restorative “borrowed scenery” that extends the perceived living space. | The heart of a compact plan, serving as the primary source of light and nature for interior communal spaces (e.g., living room, dining area). |
| 3. Side Courtyard as a Private Microclimatic Regulator To manage the dual demands of visual privacy and environmental modulation in tight lateral spaces. |
Small: Symbol tree or shrubs
| Regulates microclimate and enhances privacy. Forms a visual buffer and a mini-ecosystem that improves perceptions of privacy, regulates humidity/temperature, and provides dynamic natural views. | Narrow lateral sites, spaces requiring service access, or areas where privacy from neighbors is a primary concern. |
Note: This table synthesizes the predominant design patterns derived from the case study analysis. These patterns are not mutually exclusive and can be hierarchically combined within a single site to form a cohesive, multi-functional courtyard system that addresses complex urban living challenges.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Sun, Y.; Wang, A.; Zheng, K.; Li, L. Research on the Configuration and Composition Characteristics of Courtyards in Japanese Independent Residential Works: A Case Study of Projects from 2015 to 2024. Buildings 2025, 15, 3253. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15183253
AMA Style
Sun Y, Wang A, Zheng K, Li L. Research on the Configuration and Composition Characteristics of Courtyards in Japanese Independent Residential Works: A Case Study of Projects from 2015 to 2024. Buildings. 2025; 15(18):3253. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15183253
Chicago/Turabian StyleSun, Yanchen, Anzhuo Wang, Keke Zheng, and Luyang Li. 2025. "Research on the Configuration and Composition Characteristics of Courtyards in Japanese Independent Residential Works: A Case Study of Projects from 2015 to 2024" Buildings 15, no. 18: 3253. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15183253
APA StyleSun, Y., Wang, A., Zheng, K., & Li, L. (2025). Research on the Configuration and Composition Characteristics of Courtyards in Japanese Independent Residential Works: A Case Study of Projects from 2015 to 2024. Buildings, 15(18), 3253. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15183253
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
