Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Students’ Assesment of Environmental Conditions in University Buildings – The Research Report Cover

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

Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment
Volume 11 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)
By: Angelika LASIEWICZ-SYCH  
Open Access
|Mar 2022

Figures & Tables

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” placesSum of “places”
MEANMODEMEANMODEMEANMODEMEANMEAN
B13.293 (N = 12)2.151 (N = 23)2.251 (N-22)0.718.4
B25.913, 4 (N = 9)2.892 (N = 10)2.161 (N = 13)1.0512.02
B36.515 (N = 9)3.272. 3. 4 (N = 8)2.050 (N = 12)1.112.9
B46.712, 8 (N = 4)3.351 (N = 8)2.391 (N = 13)0.7413.19
B56.443 (N = 4)3.252 (N = 6)1.941 (N = 16)1.1312.25

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

POS NEU NEG TOTAL
B1Shape and size1230 24
Form11198 38
Performance12114 27
General impressions141334 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%
B2Shape and size-132 15
Form2821 31
Performance15-7 22
General impressions30620 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%
B3Shape and size0161 17
Form1872 27
Performance5030 35
General impressions252219 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%
B4Shape and size0190 19
Form14250 39
Performance1705 22
General impressions24237 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%
B5Shape and size011 2
Form105 6
Performance106 7
General impressions101027 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
B12.151323440.160.375
B22.892227360.250.54
B33.271412390.210.54
B43.35134400.220.55
B53.25171880.390.72
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/acee-2018-053 | Journal eISSN: 2720-6947 | Journal ISSN: 1899-0142
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 41 - 53
Submitted on: Feb 8, 2018
Accepted on: Dec 4, 2018
Published on: Mar 2, 2022
Published by: Silesian University of Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
Architecture,
Behavioural Mapping,
Environment,
Questionnaire-Based Research,
University Buildings,
Space Syntax Analysis
Related subjects:
Architecture and design,
Architecture,
Architects, buildings

© 2022 Angelika LASIEWICZ-SYCH, published by Silesian University of Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 11 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)Next article