The Nonvisual Legibility and the Coherence of Space: A New Theoretical Framework with Examples of Its Implementation in Empirical Research
Abstract
The legibility and coherence of space are informative qualities as they facilitate the understanding and exploration of the environment. They also function as categories in architectural and urban design theory, as well as environmental psychology. The approaches of those disciplines, including their contemporary continuations, evolved from Lynch (1960) and are based solely on the visual qualities of the environment.
In this article, I argue that relying only on the visual scope of human-environment relations is insufficient for inferring the user’s perception of the environment as legible and coherent and evaluating design solutions from the users’ perspectives. The proposed revised theoretical framework combines architecture and urban
design perspectives with environmental psychology and broadens concepts of legibility and coherence. The revised framework combines the visual scope of the legibility and coherence with other aspects of human-environment relations by referring them to multisensory perspective, social and spatial functioning, levels
and characters of stimulation, and affective appraisal of the environment.
To show how we can address this broadened approach to legibility and coherence in empirical research, I present two examples of experimental research using bimodal research materials. They present how nonvisual qualities contribute to legibility and coherence and how they can be measured (tested) during the data-driven evidence-based design process. The first experiment investigates the relationship between the qualities of soundscapes and the social functioning of users. The second covers the tactile and haptic dimensions and their connections with blind and visually impaired users’ spatial functioning.
Keywords
legibility; coherence; nonvisual perception; experiment; user-centered design
References
Alexander, C. (2002). The nature of order: The process of creating life. Taylor & Francis.
Alexander, C., Neis, H., Anninou, A., & King, I. F. (1987). A new theory of urban design (Vol. 6). Oxford University Press New York.
Allen, G. L. (1999). Spatial abilities, cognitive maps, and wayfinding, bases for individual differences in spatial cognition and behavior. In R. G. Golledge (Ed.), Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes (pp. 46–80). Baltimore, London: The John Hopkins University Press.
Altman, I. (1992). A transactional perspective on transitions to new environments. Environment and Behavior, 24(2), 268–280.
Altman, I., & Rogoff, B. (1987). World views in psychology: Trait, interactional, organismic, and transactional perspectives. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–40). New York: Wiley.
Baggs, E., & Chemero, A. (2018). Radical embodiment in two directions. Synthese, 1–16.
Bogucka, Z. (2011). Partycypacja w kształtowaniu przestrzeni miejskiej – psychologiczne spojrzenie na spójność przestrzeni w relacji do potrzeb wszystkich jej użytkowników: szczególny przypadek osób niewidomych. In K. Guranowska-Gruszecka (Ed.), Miasto zwarte, miasto rozproszone. Materiały ogólnopolskiej konferencji Doktorantów Wydziałów Architektury (pp. 113–120). Warszawa: Wydział Architektury Politechniki Warszawskiej.
Bogucka, Z. (2012). Choose the easiest path: comparison of urban design for ease of cognitive mapping by blind persons. Conference UD2012, Oslo, June 11–13 2012.
Bogucka, Z. (2013). Design process: a role of soundscape perception in spatial ambience evaluation. Envisioning Architecture: Design, Evaluation, Communication; 11th Conference of the European Architectural Envisioning Association. Milan, September 25–28, 2013.
Bogucka, Z. (2018). Nie-wizualne determinaty spójności i czytelności środowiska wybudowanego w kontekście relacji człowieka ze środowiskiem. Wytyczne do projektowania i ewaluacji przestrzeni miejskiej (PhD thesis). Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture.
Böhme, G. (2017). The aesthetics of atmospheres. New York, London: Taylor & Francis.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Chelkoff, G. (2008). Ambience formers in built environment: An experimentation with sound and motion. In Sensory urbanism proceedings 2008, January 8th and 9th, 2008 University of Strathclyde, Glasgow (UK) (pp. 38–46). Glasgow, UK: The Flaneur Press.
Çalışkan, O., & Mashhoodi, B. (2017). Urban coherence: A morphological definition. Urban Morphology, 21(2), 123–141.
Dalton, R., & Bafna, S. (2003). The syntactical image of the city: A reciprocal definition of spatial elements and spatial syntaxes. In 4th international space syntax symposium. London.
Diamond, D. M., Campbell, A. M., Park, C. R., Halonen, J., & Zoladz, P. R. (2007).
The temporal dynamics model of emotional memory processing: A synthesis on the neurobiological basis of stress-induced amnesia, flashbulb and traumatic memories, and the yerkes-dodson law. Neural Plasticity. doi: 10.1155/2007/60803
Dolański, W. (1954). Czy istnieje „zmysł przeszkód” u niewidomych? Warszawa: PWN.
Evans, G. W., & Cohen, S. (1987). Environmental stress. In I. A. D. Stokols (Ed.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 571–610). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Fiebig, A., Jordan, P., & Moshona, C. C., (2020). Assessments of Acoustic Environments by Emotions – The Application of Emotion Theory in Soundscape. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3261.
Gibson, J. (1979/1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Gohari, H. (2019). Structural analysis of the elements of lynch’s image of the city based on space syntax. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 172(4), 141–158.
Golledge, R. G. (1999). Human wayfinding and cognitive maps. In R. G. Golledge (Ed.), Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes (pp. 5–45). London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Golledge, R. G., & Stimson, R. J. (1997). Spatial behavior: A geographic perspective. New York, London: Guilford Press.
Heft, H. (1997). The relevance of gibson’s ecological approach to perception for environment-behavior studies. In G. T. Moore & W. Marans (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 4, pp. 72–108). New York: Plenum.
Henshaw, V. (2013). Urban smellscapes: Understanding and designing city smell environments. London: Routledge.
Hillier, B. (2007). Space is the machine (electronic edition). London: Space Syntax.
Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holl, P., S. (n.d.). Questions of perception: Phenomenology of architecture. San Francisco: William Stout Publishers.
ISO. ISO 9241-210: 2010 ergonomics of human system interaction-part 210: Humancentred design for interactive systems, Pub. L. No. ISO 9241-210: 2010 (2010). Switzerland: International Standardization Organization (ISO).
James, G. A. (1982). Tactual perception: A source-book. In E. F. W. Shiff (Ed.) (pp. 334–363). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jiang, B. (2012). Computing the image of the city. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on informatics and urban and regional planning (pp. 111–121). University College Ghent, Ghent.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 3–32.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182.
Koseoglu, E., & Onder, D. E. (2011). Subjective and objective dimensions of spatial legibility. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1191–1195.
Koseoglua, E., & Camas, V. M. (2016). Examining interaction of city legibility and sense of security. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(6), 82–87.
Kuryłowicz, E., Bogucka, Z. (2011). How to investigate and improve the legibility of urban projects to make them understandable for blind people? Contribution of Social and Behavioural Sciences Methods to Design for All Approach. Journal of Biourbanism, 1, 41–58.
Long, Y. (2008). The relationships between objective and subjective evaluations of the urban environment: Space syntax, cognitive maps, and urban legibility (PhD thesis). North Carolina State University.
Long, Y., Baran, P. K., & Moore, R. (2007). The role of space syntax in spatial cognition. In Proceedings of the sixth international space syntax symposium, Istanbul, Turkey.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press.
Mahdzar, S. S. S., & Safari, H. (2014). Legibility as a result of geometry space: Analyzing and comparing hypothetical model and existing space by space syntax. Life Science Journal, 11(8), 309–317.
Metz, D. H. (2000). Mobility of older people and their quality of life. Transport Policy, 7(2), 149–152.
Moulay, A., Ujang, N., & Said, I. (2017). Legibility of neighbourhood parks as a predicator for enhanced social interaction towards social sustainability. Cities, 61, 58–64.
Mulligan, C. G. (2004). Urban quality of life and public policy: A survey. Contributions to Economic Analysis, 266, 729–802.
Nasar, J. L. (1988). Environmental aesthetic. Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Pallasmaa, J. (2012). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses. John Wiley & Sons.
Passini, R. (1996). Wayfinding design: Logic, application and some thoughts on universality. Design Studies, 17(3), 319–331.
Perez-Gomez, A. (1999). Hermeneutics as discourse in design. Design Issues, 15(2), 71–79.
Porteous, J. D. (1996). Environmental aesthetics. Ideas, politics and planning. London-New York: Routledge.
Preiser, W., & Smith, K. H. (2011). Universal design handbook (second edition). McGraw-Hill.
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.Rproject.org/.
Rodaway, P. (1994). Sensuous geographies: Body, sense and place. New York: Routledge.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178.
Russell, J. A. (1988). Affective appraisal of environments. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and application (pp. 120–130). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 311–322.
Russell, L. J. A. (1989). A cross-cultural study of a circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 848–856.
Russell, W., J. A. (1981). Affective quality attributed to environments: A factor analytic study. Environment and Behavior, 13(3), 259–288.
Salingaros, N. A. (1998). Theory of the urban web. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 53–71.
Salingaros, N. A. (2000). Complexity and urban coherence. Journal of Urban Design, 5(3), 291–316.
Santos, L. R., & Gendler, T. (2014). Knowing is half the battle. Edge. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25436.
Schafer, R. M. (1977). The tuning of the world. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Schumacher, P. (2012). The autopoiesis of architecture. A new agenda for architecture (Vol. II). John Wiley & Sons.
Shiff, W., & Foulke, E. (1982). Tactual perception: A source-book. (E. F. W. Shiff, Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Stamps, A. E. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 1–16.
Thibaud, J. (2011). The sensory fabric of urban ambiances. Senses and Society, 6(2), 203–215.
Thomas, R. (2010). Architectural and urban atmospheres. In D. Sauter, C. Hogertz, M. Tight, R. Thomas, & D. Zaidel (Eds.), PQN final report – part b4: Documentation – measuring walking (pp. 53–68). Cheltenham, UK: WALK21.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1974). Human adaptation to levels of environmental stimulation. Human Ecology, 2(2), 127–147.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18(5), 459–482.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Copyright Owners of the submitted texts grant the Reader the right to use the pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution-Share-Alike (CC BY-SA). The user can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose.
1. License
The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
2. Author’s Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.
If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".
ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).
3. User Rights
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
4. Co-Authorship
If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.
