Scientific background impact on aesthetic perception in residential environments

Authors

  • Ayman Najib Tomah (Maayah) Balqa Applied University

Downloads

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51461/issn.2309-3072/77.2213

Keywords:

scientific background, aesthetic perception, residential environments, Factor Analysis, architecture and design, assessment

Abstract

This study focuses on examining the aesthetic preferences of students from different academic backgrounds in residential environments. The purpose of the study was to identify liked and disliked aesthetic characteristics among student groups with different academic backgrounds. The research involved students from various academic backgrounds, including the Departments of Architectural, Civil, Electrical Engineering, and the Department of Arabic Language. The study employed an appropriate factor analysis method to accurately assess the aesthetic quality. The study found that students’ academic backgrounds significantly affect their aesthetic sense. Architecture students have a strong ability to evaluate works of art and engineering projects effectively. Some aesthetic characteristics, such as movement, harmony, and simplicity, are preferred across all student groups, while others, such as excessive complexity and rigidity, are disliked. The research also suggests that designers should consider the preferences of different resident groups when creating environments. Furthermore, the study found that most student groups, except for architecture students, exhibit great admiration for Western architectural styles with contemporary, non-traditional characteristics. Overall, the study provides new insights into the aesthetic preferences of students in residential environments and identifies visually desirable and undesirable attributes that most students agree upon.

How to Cite

Tomah (Maayah), A. N. (2023). Scientific background impact on aesthetic perception in residential environments. Project Baikal, 20(77), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.51461/issn.2309-3072/77.2213

Published

2023-10-29

Issue

Section

refereed articles

References

Barker, R. G. (2020). Sensory perception, cognition, and interpretation: An evolutionary synthesis. Psychology Press.

Brady, E., & Prior, J. (2020). Environmental aesthetics: A synthetic review. People and Nature, 2(2), 279-295. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10089

Broadbent, J. (2019). Architecture and Meaning. In S. S. Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Anthropology (pp. 1-4). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14589-1_600-1

Caldas, L. G., Turk, A. Z., & Gero, J. S. (2018). Architectural design and procedural thinking: A potential role for computational design aids. Design Studies, 54, 193-222.

Cervinka, R., Röderer, K., Hefler, E., & Schwab, M. (2016). Nature’s restorative powers: A study on the effects of nature sounds on mood and cognitive performance. Environmental Sciences, 13(4), 463-475.

Ferrari, G., & Johansson, M. (2022). Aesthetic judgments of architecture. In The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of the Arts (pp. 284-297). Routledge.

Fleming, W. (2017). Arts and ideas. Cengage Learning.

Gibson, E. J. (2015). An ecological approach to perceptual learning and development. Oxford University Press.

Gifford, R. (2017). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Optimal Books.

Groat, L. N., & Wang, D. (2016). Architectural research methods. John Wiley & Sons.

Hair J. F., Black W. C., Babin B. J., Anderson R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Herzog, T. R., Hoenig, R., & Levine, A. B. (2019). Aesthetic preferences and the environment. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology.

Lang, J. (2017). Creating architectural theory: The role of behavioral sciences in environmental design. Routledge.

Poon, S. (2020). Deconstructing Sustainability Perceptions: Investigating Technological Innovation-Environmental Interaction in Green Buildings and the Influence of Architectural Design. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 8(1), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v8.n1.621

Small, K. (2007). Social Dimensions of Community Festivals: An Application of Factor Analysis in the Development of the Social Impact Perception (SIP) Scale. Event Management, 11(1-2), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599508783943219

Spence, C. (2020). Senses of place: architectural design for the multisensory mind. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00243-4

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.

Tomah, A. N. (2012). Visual privacy in residential areas: Amendment of building regulations. Urban Design and Planning, 165(1), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.2012.165.1.43

Ulrich, R. S. (2017). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In J. E. Davis (Ed.), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Volume 2 (pp. 3-32). Oxford University Press.

Veilleux, C. C., Dominy, N. J., & Melin, A. D. (2022). The sensory ecology of primate food perception, revisited. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 31(6), 281-301. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21967