ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF OPEN PLACE PERFORMANCE ON USERS' SATISFACTION USING POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2021.161Keywords:
Urban open space, Place attributes, Place satisfaction, Post-occupancy evaluationAbstract
Purpose
The current article aimed to investigate the effects of functional, social, and perceptual performance dimensions of coastal open place environmental attributes on place satisfaction. In this context, it aimed to develop suggestions for increasing the place performance levels in order to improve the place satisfaction.
Design/Methodology/Approach
The general framework of the research design was determined by evaluating the functional, social and perceptual features of the place by the users (using post-occupancy evaluation method) and determining the place performance and place satisfaction. Survey questions within this scope; It is structured under two main headings: functional, social and perceptual features of the place and place satisfaction. Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Participants were randomly selected from the Arsin coastal park users. The surveys were conducted with 243 people on weekdays and weekends.
Findings
The study findings demonstrated that there was a positive and significant correlation between the spatial performance level and place satisfaction using the developed model. It was observed that the environmental factors that affected the place satisfaction included functional, social, and perceptual factors, respectively. It was determined that socio-demographic factors did not affect place satisfaction, while the frequency of occupancy had a positive impact on place satisfaction. Research Limitations/Implications
The present study focused on the functional, social, and perceptual dimensions of environmental properties. Thus, considering the diversity of environmental properties, it could not be claimed that the present study methodology and findings revealed all environmental dimensions that affect satisfaction.
Social and Practical Implications
In the present study, spatial performance data were obtained with post-occupancy evaluation and the factors that affected the satisfaction levels with Arsin Coastal Park (ACP) were investigated. Thus, the present study findings could be considered as very important for urban designers, planners, and administrators.
Originality/Value
There are studies in the literature that evaluated urban open place satisfaction. However, there are no studies that investigated the effects of open place performance criteria on place satisfaction using the post-occupancy evaluation (POE) method.
Keywords: Urban open place, place attributes, place satisfaction, post-occupancy evaluation
Metrics
References
Acar C. (2015) "Kent parkları olarak kıyı dolgu alanlarının değerlendirilmesi; Arsin sahil yolu dolgu alanı çevre ve peyzaj tasarım projesi", Plant Peyzaj ve Süs Bitkiciliği Dergisi, ss.38-47.
Ali, S. M., & Nawawi, A. H. (2006). Factors that influence users’ satisfaction on urban park. Built Environment Journal, 3(2), 42-138.
Amérigo, M., & Aragones, J. I. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of environmental psychology, 17(1), 47-57.
Aydın, D. & Uysal, M. (2009). Mimari program verilerinin mekân performansının değerlendirilmesi yoluyla belirlenmesi (Eğitim Fakültesi Örneği), Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25(1-2), 1-23.
Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of environmental psychology, 19(4), 331-352.
Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place (London).
Canter, D., & Rees, K. (1982). A multivariate model of housing satisfaction. Applied Psychology, 31(2), 185-207.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Needs in public space. na.
Francis, M. (2003). Urban open space: Designing for user needs. Island Press.
Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: using public space. Island press.
Grogan-Kaylor, A., Woolley, M., Mowbray, C., Reischl, T. M., Gilster, M., Karb, R., ... & Alaimo, K. (2006). Predictors of neighborhood satisfaction. Journal of Community Practice, 14(4), 27-50.
Howley, P., Scott, M., & Redmond, D. (2009). Sustainability versus liveability: an investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of environmental planning and management, 52(6), 847-864.
Insch, A., & Florek, M. (2008). A great place to live, work and play: Conceptualising place satisfaction in the case of a city's residents. Journal of place management and development, 1(2), 138-149.
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of environmental psychology, 21(3), 233-248.
Kweon, B. S., Ellis, C. D., Leiva, P. I., & Rogers, G. O. (2010). Landscape components, land use, and neighborhood satisfaction. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(3), 500-517.
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2004). Effect of activity involvement and place attachment on recreationists' perceptions of setting density. Journal of leisure Research, 36(2), 209-231.
Lang, J. (1994). Urban design: the American experience. John Wiley & Sons.
Lang, J. T. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design (p. 205). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Lee, S. M., Conway, T. L., Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Cain, K. L., & Sallis, J. F. (2017). The relation of perceived and objective environment attributes to neighborhood satisfaction. Environment and behavior, 49(2), 136-160.
Lovejoy, K., Handy, S., & Mokhtarian, P. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus traditional environments: An evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighborhoods. Landscape and urban planning, 97(1), 37-48.
Madureira, H., Nunes, F., Oliveira, J., & Madureira, T. (2018). Preferences for urban green space characteristics: A comparat
Mazumdar, S., & Mazumdar, S. (2004). Religion and place attachment: A study of sacred places. Journal of environmental psychology, 24(3), 385-397.
Mumcu, S., Yılmaz, S., & Düzenli, T. (2017). Açık Mekanlardaki Oturma Donatılarının ve Yerlerinin Tasarımına İlişkin Faktörler. İnönü Üniversitesi Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 7(15), 1-16.
Özkan, D. G. (2011). Kentsel Açık Mekanlarda Kullanım Sonrası Değerlendirme: Trabzon Sahil Bandı Örneği (Doctoral dissertation, Yüksek lisans tezi, Peyzaj Mimarlığı bölümü, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon, Türkiye).
Özkan, D. G., Alpak, E. M., Yilmaz, S., Düzenli, T., & Ozbilen, A. (2015). Post Occupancy Evaluation and User Satisfaction in Urban Open Space. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 24(5), 1659-1672.
Özkan, D. G., & Yilmaz, S. (2019). The effects of physical and social attributes of place on place attachment: a case study on Trabzon urban squares. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 13(1), 133-150.
Preiser, W. F. (2001). The evolution of post-occupancy evaluation: Toward building performance and universal design evaluation. Learning from our buildings a state-of-the practice summary of post-occupancy evaluation.
Preiser, W. F. E., & Rabinowitz, H. Z. (1987). E White, ET “Post Occupancy Evaluation”.
Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. R., & White, E. T. (1988). Post Occupation Evaluation. Van NostrandReinhold, New York, London, Melbourne.
Preiser, W. F., & Nasar, J. L. (2008). Assessing building performance: Its evolution from post-occupancy evaluation. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 2(1), 84-99.
Project for Public Spaces (Ed.). (2000). How to turn a place around: a handbook for creating successful public spaces. Project for Public Spaces Incorporated.
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L. D. G., & Weiler, B. (2013a). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling approach. Tourism management, 36, 552-566.
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L. D. G., & Weiler, B. (2013b). Relationships between place attachment, place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviour in an Australian national park. Journal of Sustainable tourism, 21(3), 434-457.
Salama, A. M., & Azzali, S. (2015). Examining attributes of urban open spaces in Doha. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 168(2), 75-87.
Salama, A. (2018). Post-professional Architecture and Academia. Neo-liberalism and the Architecture of the Post Professional Era, 271.
Shehab, N., & Salama, A. M. (2018). The spatiality of segregation: narratives from the everyday urban environment of Gothenburg and Glasgow. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 12(1), 71-90.
Sirgy, M. J. (2010). Toward a quality-of-life theory of leisure travel satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 49(2), 246-260.
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and behavior, 34(5), 561-581.
Whyte, H.W. (2000), How to Turn a Place Around, Projects for Public Space, p. 52, New York, NY.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces.
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest science, 49(6), 830-840.
Zorlu, F. (2008). Kentsel doku-ulaşım sistemi ilişkileri. metu journal of the faculty of architecture, 25(1).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
COPYRIGHT POLICY
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.
6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.
ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning is an OAJ supported by 