Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Students’ Assesment of Environmental Conditions in University Buildings – The Research Report

Angelika LASIEWICZ-SYCH
Angelika LASIEWICZ-SYCH
   | 02. März 2022
Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment's Cover Image
Über diesen Artikel
Vorheriger Artikel
Nächster Artikel
Zitieren
Online veröffentlicht: 02. März 2022
Seitenbereich: 41 - 53
Eingereicht: 08. Feb. 2018
Akzeptiert: 04. Dez. 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/acee-2018-053
Schlüsselwörter
© 2018 Angelika Lasiewicz-Sych published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1.

Chart of the average number of marked “hang-out places” for individual buildings [1]
Chart of the average number of marked “hang-out places” for individual buildings [1]

Figure 2.

Average number of “liked/favourite” places [1]
Average number of “liked/favourite” places [1]

Figure 3.

Exemplary aggregate behavioural maps showing places of “activity/ remaining in a place” (black), “favourite” places (red) and “disliked” places (blue) for two selected floors (+2, +3) of B1 building
Exemplary aggregate behavioural maps showing places of “activity/ remaining in a place” (black), “favourite” places (red) and “disliked” places (blue) for two selected floors (+2, +3) of B1 building

Figure 4-5.

Examples of the most liked places in buildings under study: (4) drawing room in the building of FA CUT (B2) and (5) the corridor with sofas in the Faculty of Psychology (B5) [1]
Examples of the most liked places in buildings under study: (4) drawing room in the building of FA CUT (B2) and (5) the corridor with sofas in the Faculty of Psychology (B5) [1]

Figure 6.

An example of a space syntax analysis – map of the most “integrated” spaces in the building plan (B1 – level 3rd and 4th of the building). The presented plans differ with the arrangement of left end of the corridor which is sub-divided with a glass door and furnishing (on the 3rd floor). It makes a spatial model more complexed and discriminated offering more opportunities for individual behaviour (spaces described as “8/3”, “9/3” and “10/3”).
An example of a space syntax analysis – map of the most “integrated” spaces in the building plan (B1 – level 3rd and 4th of the building). The presented plans differ with the arrangement of left end of the corridor which is sub-divided with a glass door and furnishing (on the 3rd floor). It makes a spatial model more complexed and discriminated offering more opportunities for individual behaviour (spaces described as “8/3”, “9/3” and “10/3”).

Figure 7–8.

Examples of favourite places in building B1: (7) the place on the edge of the most possible integrated space (in floor +3) as related to space-syntax and behavioral analysis (shown in Fig. 3 and 6); (8) favourite area in front of B1
Examples of favourite places in building B1: (7) the place on the edge of the most possible integrated space (in floor +3) as related to space-syntax and behavioral analysis (shown in Fig. 3 and 6); (8) favourite area in front of B1

Figure 9–11.

An example of one of the most liked places in building B4 as related to space syntax analysis (B4 - floor +4)
An example of one of the most liked places in building B4 as related to space syntax analysis (B4 - floor +4)

Summary of the number of places marked on the building plans

Building “Hang-out” places “Favourite” places “Disliked” places “Important” places Sum of “places”
MEAN MODE MEAN MODE MEAN MODE MEAN MEAN
B1 3.29 3 (N = 12) 2.15 1 (N = 23) 2.25 1 (N-22) 0.71 8.4
B2 5.91 3, 4 (N = 9) 2.89 2 (N = 10) 2.16 1 (N = 13) 1.05 12.02
B3 6.51 5 (N = 9) 3.27 2. 3. 4 (N = 8) 2.05 0 (N = 12) 1.1 12.9
B4 6.71 2, 8 (N = 4) 3.35 1 (N = 8) 2.39 1 (N = 13) 0.74 13.19
B5 6.44 3 (N = 4) 3.25 2 (N = 6) 1.94 1 (N = 16) 1.13 12.25

Aggregate adjective list describing the buildings with respect to “positivity” factor and “content” factor

POS NEU NEG TOTAL
B1 Shape and size 1 23 0 24
Form 11 19 8 38
Performance 12 1 14 27
General impressions 14 13 34 61
TOTAL 38 56 56 150
Mean number of words 0.73 1.08 1.08 2.89
T/N (N1=52) 25. 3% 37.35% 37.35% 100%
B2 Shape and size - 13 2 15
Form 28 2 1 31
Performance 15 - 7 22
General impressions 30 6 20 56
TOTAL 73 21 30 124
Mean number of words 1.59 0.46 0.65 2.7
T/N (N2=44) 58.87% 16.94% 24.19% 100.00%
B3 Shape and size 0 16 1 17
Form 18 7 2 27
Performance 5 0 30 35
General impressions 25 22 19 66
TOTAL 48 45 52 145
Mean number of words 1.17 1.09 1.27 3.53
T/N (N3=41) 33.11% 31.03% 35.86% 100.00%
B4 Shape and size 0 19 0 19
Form 14 25 0 39
Performance 17 0 5 22
General impressions 24 23 7 54
TOTAL 55 67 12 134
Mean number of words 1.77 2.16 0.39 4.32%
T/N (N4=31) 41.04% 50.00% 8.96% 100.00%
B5 Shape and size 0 1 1 2
Form 1 0 5 6
Performance 1 0 6 7
General impressions 10 10 27 47
TOTAL 12 11 39 62
Mean number of words 0.75 0.69 2.44 3.88
T/N (N5=16) 19.35% 17.75% 62.90% 100.00%

The emotional engagement with places – “positivity” is a measure of the mean number of favourite places and positive associations with the buildings

Building FP: Favourite places MEAN POS: Positive associations NEG: Negative associations NEU: Neutral associations POS-A: POS/ POS+NEU+NEG POSITIVITY POS-A + FP/10
B1 2.15 13 23 44 0.16 0.375
B2 2.89 22 27 36 0.25 0.54
B3 3.27 14 12 39 0.21 0.54
B4 3.35 13 4 40 0.22 0.55
B5 3.25 17 18 8 0.39 0.72
eISSN:
1899-0142
Sprache:
Englisch
Zeitrahmen der Veröffentlichung:
4 Hefte pro Jahr
Fachgebiete der Zeitschrift:
Architektur und Design, Architektur, Architekten, Gebäude
Zeitschrift RSS Feed