Identification, visualization, and evaluation of a restoration-supportive built environment. Fischl, G. & Gärling, A. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 25:254--269, 2008. 3
Identification, visualization, and evaluation of a restoration-supportive built environment [link]Paper  abstract   bibtex   
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there would be any difference between preconceptualizations and a narrative-based visualization of a restoration-supporting built environment. The first study involved 100 subjects including architects, laypersons, and students. Subjects were given a narrative describing attention fatigue and were then asked to write down what an ideal restorative built environment could look like. A modified version of Brunswik's lens model served as a frame of analysis for identifying restorative components from the narratives. Thirteen major distal and proximal cue categories were identified and ranked to determine the most frequently mentioned combined cues, such as construction elements (i.e., light wall, high ceiling, wooden floor, large window, and open door), soft furniture, bright lighting, and airy ambiance. The combined cues were then visualized by using an applied segmentation technique and CAD. The second study involved 119 laypersons and consisted of an evaluation of the above-mentioned visualization scenario by using the perceived restorativeness scale and an alternative restoration-supportive built environment scale. This study revealed that architects', laypersons', and students' individual pre-conceptualizations of an ideal restoration-supportive built environment may not fully correspond to the concept of a research-based design scenario, which here was intended to represent a universal restoration-supportive built environment for the general public. Copyright © 2008, Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc. Chicago, IL, USA. All Rights Reserved.
@article{fischl_identification_2008,
	title = {Identification, visualization, and evaluation of a restoration-supportive built environment},
	volume = {25},
	shorttitle = {Identification, visualization, and evaluation of a restoration-supportive built environment},
	url = {http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-55849131814&partnerID=40},
	abstract = {The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there would be any difference between preconceptualizations and a narrative-based visualization of a restoration-supporting built environment. The first study involved 100 subjects including architects, laypersons, and students. Subjects were given a narrative describing attention fatigue and were then asked to write down what an ideal restorative built environment could look like. A modified version of Brunswik's lens model served as a frame of analysis for identifying restorative components from the narratives. Thirteen major distal and proximal cue categories were identified and ranked to determine the most frequently mentioned combined cues, such as construction elements (i.e., light wall, high ceiling, wooden floor, large window, and open door), soft furniture, bright lighting, and airy ambiance. The combined cues were then visualized by using an applied segmentation technique and CAD. The second study involved 119 laypersons and consisted of an evaluation of the above-mentioned visualization scenario by using the perceived restorativeness scale and an alternative restoration-supportive built environment scale. This study revealed that architects', laypersons', and students' individual pre-conceptualizations of an ideal restoration-supportive built environment may not fully correspond to the concept of a research-based design scenario, which here was intended to represent a universal restoration-supportive built environment for the general public. Copyright © 2008, Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc. Chicago, IL, USA. All Rights Reserved.},
	journal = {Journal of Architectural and Planning Research},
	author = {Fischl, G. and Gärling, A.},
	year = {2008},
	note = {3},
	keywords = {Indoor environment, zuPazi},
	pages = {254--269}
}
Downloads: 0