The use of biometric monitoring allow researchers insight into the processing of environmental data by our central nervous systems. As a result we can determine precisely which stimuli cause arousal or draw our attention. This technology is used widely by commercial interests but is not commonly used to improve the public realm. Our authors hope to change this.
LINK
Vertical urbanisation is perceived as necessary to accommodate a growing population but is associated with severe risks for human well-being. It requires a profound understanding of how archi-tectural designs can ensure visually readable and liveable environments before it has been built. How-ever, current digital representation techniques fail to address the diverse interests of non-experts. Emerging biometric technologies may deliver the missing user information to involve (future) inhabit-ants at different stages of the planning process. The study aims to gain insight into how non-experts (visually) experience 3D city visualizations of designed urban areas. In two laboratory studies, univer-sity students were randomly assigned to view a set of the same level of detail images from one of two planned urban area developments in the Netherlands. Using eye-tracking technology, the visual behav-iour metrics of fixation count and duration and general eye-movement patterns were recorded for each image, followed by a short survey. The results show how visual behaviour and perception are remark-ably similar across different detail levels, implying that 3D visualizations of planned urban develop-ments can be examined by non-experts much earlier in the design process than previously thought.
DOCUMENT
The coronavirus pandemic highlighted the vital role urban areas play in supporting citizens’ health and well-being (Ribeiro et al., 2021). In times of (personal) vulnerability, citizens depend on their neighbourhood for performing daily physical activities to restore their mental state, but public spaces currently fall short in fulfilling the appropriate requirements to achieve this. The situation is exacerbated by Western ambitions to densify through high-rise developments to meet the housing demand. In this process of urban densification, public spaces are the carriers where global trends, local ambitions and the conditions for the social fabric materialise (Battisto & Wilhelm, 2020). High-rise developments in particular will determine users’ experiences at street-level. Consequently, they have an enduring influence on the liveability of neighbourhoods for the coming decades but, regarding the application of urban design principles, their impact is hard to dissect (Gifford, 2007).Promising emerging technologies and methods from the new transdisciplinary field of neuroarchitecture may help identify and monitor the impact of certain physical characteristics on human well-being in an evidence-based way. In the two-year Sensing Streetscapes research study, biometric tools were tested in triangulation with traditional methods of surveys and expert panels. The study unearthed situational evidence of the relationship between designed and perceived spaces by investigating the visual properties and experience of high-density environments in six major Western cities. Biometric technologies—Eye-Tracking, Galvanic Skin Response, mouse movement software and sound recording—were applied in a series of four laboratory tests (see Spanjar & Suurenbroek, 2020) and one outdoor test (see Hollander et al., 2021). The main aim was to measure the effects of applied design principles on users’ experiences, arousal levels and appreciation.Unintentionally, the research study implied the creation of a 360° built-environment assessment tool. The assessment tool enables researchers and planners to analyse (high-density) urban developments and, in particular, the architectural attributes that (subliminally) affect users’ experience, influencing their behaviour and perception of place. The tool opens new opportunities for research and planning practice to deconstruct the successes of existing high-density developments and apply the lessons learned for a more advanced, evidence-based promotion of human health and well-being.ReferencesBattisto, D., & Wilhelm, J. J. (Eds.). (2020). Architecture and Health Guiding Principles for Practice. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Gifford, R. (2007). The Consequences of Living in High-Rise Buildings. Architectural Science Review, 50(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2007.5002 Hollander, J. B., Spanjar, G., Sussman, A., Suurenbroek, F., & Wang, M. (2021). Programming for the subliminal brain: biometric tools reveal architecture’s biological impact. In K. Menezes, P. de Oliveira-Smith, & A. V. Woodworth (Eds.), Programming for Health and Wellbeing in Architecture (pp. 136–149). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003164418 Ribeiro, A. I., Triguero-Mas, M., Jardim Santos, C., Gómez-Nieto, A., Cole, H., Anguelovski, I., Silva, F. M., & Baró, F. (2021). Exposure to nature and mental health outcomes during COVID-19 lockdown. A comparison between Portugal and Spain. Environment International, 154, 106664. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106664 Spanjar, G., & Suurenbroek, F. (2020). Eye-Tracking the City: Matching the Design of Streetscapes in High-Rise Environments with Users’ Visual Experiences. Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture (JoDLA), 5(2020), 374–385. https://gispoint.de/gisopen-paper/6344-eye-tracking-the-city-matching-the-design-of-streetscapes-in-high-rise-environments-with-users-visual-experiences.html?IDjournalTitle=6
MULTIFILE
