Perception of Urban Leftover Spaces: A Comparative Study of Built Environment and Non-Built Environment Participants
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Significance of Urban Leftover Spaces and Aesthetics
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Urban Leftover Spaces
‘In-between’ as Leftover Space
2.2. Aesthetic Assessment and Visual Preferences
Difference of Opinions in Perceived Value
2.3. Study Method
- Study One investigates preferences regarding six types of leftover spaces and takes suggestions on design attributes for their enhancement. The data from Study One feed into Study Two, where the most important suggestions are photomontaged into three different options for each type of space.
- Study two looks into people’s aesthetic preferences for the various redesigned images based on the suggestions in Study one to shed light on any change in people’s attitudes.
- Study Three is divided into two parts of design charrette and focus group discussions. To familiarize individuals with the subject and have a more open discussion, this study is done separately with the built environment and non-built environment participants.
2.3.1. Study One: Visual Preference Study (VPS) of Existing Leftover Spaces
2.3.2. Study Two: Visual Preference Study (VPS) of Design Proposal
2.3.3. Study Three: Design Charette and Focus Group Discussions
- How could such spaces enhance usability and visual aesthetics?
- Would it be easy to apply these suggested modifications or to implement the designs?
- What are the most critical aspects that the participants can draw out of the discussion, which could improve the urban leftover spaces?
3. Results
3.1. Findings of Study One
3.2. Findings of Study Two
3.3. Findings of Study Three
4. Analysis and Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rees, W.; Wackernagel, M. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: Measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy. Focus 1994, 6, 121–130. [Google Scholar]
- Shochat, E.; Warren, P.; Faeth, S.; McIntyre, N.; Hope, D. From patterns to emerging process in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2006, 21, 186–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Turok, I.; Mcgranahan, G. Urbanization and Economic Growth: The arguments and evidence for Africa and Asia. Environ. Urban. 2013, 25, 465–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sousa, M. Urban Landscape: Interstitial Spaces. Landsc. Rev. 2009, 13, 61–71. [Google Scholar]
- New York State Department of State. Opportunities Are Waiting to Happen. Local Government and Community Sustainability, Office of Coastal. 2009. Available online: https://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/programs/pdfs/Guidebooks/ab/AbandonedBuildings.pdf (accessed on 13 September 2017).
- Wilkinson, L. Vacant Property: Strategies for Redevelopment in the Contemporary City. 2011. Available online: https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/40778/LukeWilkinson_Vacant%20Property.pdf (accessed on 9 June 2016).
- Evan, G. The built environment and mental health. J. Urban Health 2003, 80, 536–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nasar, J. The Evaluative Image of the City; Sage Publication: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, K.; Burton, E.; Jenks, M. Achieving Sustainable Urban Form; Routledge Press: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Vale, B.; Vale, R. Is the High-Density City the Only Option? In Designing High-Density Cities for Social and Environmental Sustainability; Ng, E., Ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2010; pp. 19–26. [Google Scholar]
- Bolton, R.; Foxon, T. Governing Infrastructure Networks for a Low Carbon Economy: Co-Evolution of Technologies and Institutions in UK Electricity Distribution Networks. Compet. Regul. Netw. Ind. 2011, 12, 02–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Greenberg, M.; Pooper, F.; West, B. The TOADS: A New American Urban Epidemic. Urban Aff. Q. 1990, 25, 435–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sola-Morales, D. Terrain Vague. In Anyplace; Davidson, C., Ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Auge, M. Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, Social Science and Urban; Verso: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Azhar, J. Sustainable Development: A case for Urban Leftover Spaces. In Handbook of Energy and Environmental Security; Asif, M., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- De-Girolamo, F. Living Landscapes: Landscapes for Living Time and Regeneration: Temporary reuse in Lost Spaces. Planum J. Urban. 2013, 27, 68–101. [Google Scholar]
- Azhar, J.; Gjerde, M.; Vale, B. Re-imagining Urban Leftover Spaces. In Smart and Sustainable Cities and Buildings; Roggema, R., Roggema, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Lefebvre, H. The Production of Space, Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, C. A Pattern Language; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Luz, A. Places in-between: The Transit(ional) Locations of Nomadic Narratives. Place Locat. Stud. Environ. Aesthet. Semiot. 2001, 5, 143–165. [Google Scholar]
- Azhar, J.; Gjerde, M. Rethinking the Role of Urban in-between Spaces, Journal of Architectural Science Review. In Proceedings of the ASA Conference Proceedings, Adelaide, Australia, 7–9 December 2016; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Doron, G. The derelict land and the Elephant. Field J. 2006, 1, 10–23. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, S. Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process; E&FN Spon.: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Lynch, K. The Image of the City; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1960. [Google Scholar]
- Tversky, B.; Agrawala, M.; Heiser, J.; Lee, P.; Hanrahan, P.; Phan, D.; Stolte, C.; Daniel, M. Cognitive design principles: From cognitive models to computer models. In Model Based Reasoning in Science and Engineering; Magnani, L., Ed.; King’s College: London, UK, 2006; pp. 227–247. [Google Scholar]
- Stamps, A. Psychology and Aesthetics of the Built Environment; Kluwer Academic Publishers Group: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ulrich, S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment, behaviour and the natural environment. Hum. Behav. Environ. 1983, 6, 85–125. [Google Scholar]
- Cerosaletti, C.; Loui, A. Measuring the Perceived Aesthetic Quality of Photographic Images. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience, San Diego, CA, USA, 29–31 July 2009; pp. 47–52. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia-Domenech, S. Urban Aesthetic and Social function of actual Public Space: A desirable balance. Theor. Empir. Res. Urban Manag. 2015, 10, 54–65. [Google Scholar]
- Habe, R. Public Design Control in American Communities: Design Guidelines/Design Review. Town Plan. Rev. 1989, 60, 195–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasar, J. Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environ. Behav. 1994, 26, 377–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Sanoff, H. Visual Research Methods in Design; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Hartig, T.; Staats, H. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2006, 26, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maron, R.; Spreckelmeyer, K. Meaning of overall Architecture Quality: A component of building evaluation. Environ. Behav. 1982, 14, 652–669. [Google Scholar]
- Groat, L. Contextual compatibility in Architecture: An issue of personal taste? In Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications; Nasar, J., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 120–253. [Google Scholar]
- Nasar, J.; Devlin, K. The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of “high” versus “popular” residential architecture and public versus architecture judgments of same. J. Environ. Psychol. 1989, 9, 333–334. [Google Scholar]
- Montanana, A.; Llinares, C.; Navarro, E. Architects and non-architects: Differences in perception of property design. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2013, 28, 273–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssens, J. Facade colours not just a matter of personal taste. Nord. Arkit. 2001, 2, 17–21. [Google Scholar]
- Gjerde, M. Street Perceptions: A Study of Visual Preferences for New Zealand Streetscapes. Ph.D. Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, G.; Gifford, R. Archiects predict Lay Evaluations of Large Contemporary Buildings: Whose conceptual properties? J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krueger, R.; King, J. Involving Community Members in Focus Groups; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Veale, A. Creative methodologies in Participatory Research with Children. In Researching Children’s Experience: Approaches and Methods; Greene, S., Hogan, D., Eds.; Sage Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2005; pp. 253–272. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.; Clark, P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Stem, D.; Noazin, S. The effects of a number of objects and scale positions on graphic position scale reliability. In AMA Educators’ Proceedings; Lusch, R.E., Ed.; Marketing Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 1985; pp. 370–373. [Google Scholar]
- Lennertz, B.; Lutzenhiser, A. The Charette Handbook; American Planning Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Calder, B. Focus Groups and the Nature of Qualitative Marketing Research. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camaghi, J. Diverse Methods for Research and Assessments of College Students; ACPA publications: Boston, MA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, J. ‘The use of focus groups for clinical research’. In Doing Qualitative Research; Crabtree, B.F., Miller, W.L., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1999; pp. 109–124. [Google Scholar]
- Krueger, R. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- King, N.; Horrocks, C. Interviews in Qualitative Research; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Kitzinger, J. Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995, 311, 299–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Krueger, R.; Casey, M. Participants in a Focus Group. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. pp. 63–84. Available online: https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/24056_Chapter4.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2018).
- Gifford, R.; Hine, D.; Muller-Clemm, W.; Shaw, K. Why architects and laypersons judge buildings differently: Cognitive properties and physical bases. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 2000, 19, 131–148. [Google Scholar]
- Kohlleppel, T.; Bradley, J.; Jacob, S. A Walk through the Garden: Can a Visit to a Botanic Garden Reduce Stress? HortTechnology 2002, 12, 489–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Planning Tank Learn about Tactical Urbanism. Happy, Healthy and Sustainable Human Settlements. Available online: http://planningtank.com/urbanisation/learn-tactical-urbanism (accessed on 13 February 2017).
- Pfeifer, L. The Planner’s Guide to Tactical Urbanism. Master’s Thesis, McGill School of Urban Planning, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R.; Wendt, J. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Percept. Psychophys. 1972, 12, 354–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Type of Leftover Space | Image Options * | BE Participants | NBE Participants | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Liked | Neutral | Disliked | Liked | Neutral | Disliked | ||
Space underneath a building | Option A | 63% | 25% | 13% | 83% | 9% | 8% |
Option B | 13% | 32% | 55% | 28% | 40% | 32% | |
Option C | 18% | 32% | 50% | 31% | 43% | 26% | |
Space in front of a building | Option A | 71% | 24% | 5% | 81% | 16% | 3% |
Option B | 68% | 14% | 19% | 71% | 19% | 10% | |
Option C | 55% | 35% | 10% | 59% | 33% | 7% | |
Space at the back of a building | Option A | 45% | 40% | 15% | 56% | 33% | 11% |
Option B | 0% | 50% | 50% | 22% | 27% | 50% | |
Option C | 89% | 11% | 0% | 88% | 6% | 6% | |
Space enclosed by buildings on three sides | Option A | 42% | 53% | 5% | 43% | 40% | 17% |
Option B | 0% | 47% | 53% | 29% | 38% | 33% | |
Option C | 89% | 5% | 6% | 85% | 8% | 8% | |
Space enclosed by buildings on two sides | Option A | 37% | 37% | 26% | 35% | 38% | 27% |
Option B | 95% | 5% | 0% | 88% | 6% | 6% | |
Option C | 26% | 47% | 26% | 39% | 35% | 26% | |
Space on the rooftop of a building | Option A | 89% | 5% | 6% | 88% | 11% | 1% |
Option B | 21% | 53% | 26% | 34% | 37% | 29% | |
Option C | 44% | 33% | 22% | 46% | 31% | 23% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Azhar, J.; Gjerde, M.; Vale, B.; Asif, M. Perception of Urban Leftover Spaces: A Comparative Study of Built Environment and Non-Built Environment Participants. Architecture 2022, 2, 231-244. https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture2020013
Azhar J, Gjerde M, Vale B, Asif M. Perception of Urban Leftover Spaces: A Comparative Study of Built Environment and Non-Built Environment Participants. Architecture. 2022; 2(2):231-244. https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture2020013
Chicago/Turabian StyleAzhar, Jasim, Morten Gjerde, Brenda Vale, and Muhammad Asif. 2022. "Perception of Urban Leftover Spaces: A Comparative Study of Built Environment and Non-Built Environment Participants" Architecture 2, no. 2: 231-244. https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture2020013
APA StyleAzhar, J., Gjerde, M., Vale, B., & Asif, M. (2022). Perception of Urban Leftover Spaces: A Comparative Study of Built Environment and Non-Built Environment Participants. Architecture, 2(2), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture2020013