Public Space Design Effect on Users' Perceptions, Impressions and Intended Activities

Abstract

This study investigates how changes in the amount of three elements commonly manipulated in public space designtrees, bushes and seats-affect users' perceptions, impressions and intended behavior on privately owned public open spaces-POPOS. The study uses simulated immersive virtual environments presented with a head-mounted display. Potential users evaluated several design variations of four different POPOS of Tokyo, Japan, using 21 different semantic differential and two rating scales. The effects of tree cover ratio, tree height, bushes ratio and seating ratio in five intended activities, nine impressions and six physical scales are described, as well as the relationship between different scales. The effects on willingness to pay and stay duration are also provided. The study's results exhibited a positive effect of seat and tree cover ratio across several scales. Bushes ratio and tree height had minor effects on some scales, as did the interactions between tree cover ratio and tree height and between tree and seating ratio. No interaction was found between tree height and seating ratio. Increasing seating ratio increased willingness to pay and stay duration. Differences among sites are discussed.

Tree Cover Ratio Effects on Users’ Perceptions, Impressions and Suitability Judgment for Different Activities in Privately Owned Public Spaces

“…This study expands the results of a previous study (AVALONE NETO et al, 2017) that first investigated the presence or absence of an effect from TCR and of interactions with tree height and seating ratio on twenty-three measurement scales: five related to the environments perceived suitability for different activities, nine related to impressions of the environment, seven related to the perception of it, one related to peoples' willingness to pay for goods (a cup of coffee or tea), and one related to peoples' willingness to stay in the environment.…”

“…Increased TCR had a definite effect on suitability for the Read activity, but no effect could be observed for Eat/drink or Wait activities (in agreement with Avalone Neto et al, 2017). A small effect in Stay and Rest activities was also observed in the present study, but not in Avalone Neto et al (2017). Since the improvement of perceived suitability was small for these two activities, it could only be observed at more considerable differences of TCR (e.g., 5% and 50%) but not at minor (e.g., 20% and 40%) ratio differences, as tested by Avalone Neto et al (2017), when the effects seem to be negligible (Figure 2).…”

“…Increased TCR had a definite effect on suitability for the Read activity, but no effect could be observed for Eat/drink or Wait activities (in agreement with Avalone Neto et al, 2017). A small effect in Stay and Rest activities was also observed in the present study, but not in Avalone Neto et al (2017).…”

“…The present study expands the range of TCR from 5% to 50%, investigates the effects at higher and lower ratios, and possible interactions with the environment scale. It utilizes the same methodology adopted in Avalone Neto et al (2017) for practical and comparative purposes.…”

“…There is still the question of whether preferable environments will improve visitability, prolong users' stay or stimulate any specific activity. Other research has asked more designcentered questions such as whether or not it enhances visitability (ABDULKARIM; NASAR, 2013) or for which activity is the environment suitable (AVALONE NETO, et al, 2017).…”