HOW TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF VIEW OUT THROUGH THE WINDOW?

HOW TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF VIEW OUT THROUGH THE WINDOW? Szybińska Matusiak, Barbara Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, NORWAY e-mail: barbara.matusiak@ntnu.no ABSTRACT This paper describes a study of the quality of the view out carried out in Trondheim, Norway, in 2013. About 100 subjects were visited in their respective working environments. The subjects were asked to evaluate the quality of the view out from their typical sitting-working position on the scale: not satisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent. The view that the subject evaluated was documented by taking pictures from his/her eye-position in the window direction. The analysis of the collected material enabled the establishing of quality descriptors for outside view, e.g. width and depth of the view, number of layers, environmental information, composition, content and quality of landscape. The paper proposes also threshold values of the descriptors for the respective quality levels. Keywords: View, Window, Quality, Evaluation criteria. 1. BACKGROUND Research proves the general preference for windows and daylight. One of the most important reasons why people appreciate windows is the possibility of keeping contact with the outside world. For people staying inside, a typical window satisfies fundamental human needs for visual information about place, time and weather conditions as well as about activities outside the building. Even a very small prison-like window may give a feeling of having contact with the outside world, something which also contributes to the feeling of safety. Research also shows that the quality of the view is important; studies carried out by Steven Kaplan and Ulrich Roger showed that a nice view toward greenery increases positive feelings like love and friendliness; it can improve concentration and may even speed up recovery time after injury in hospitals. Research confirms that most people have preferences for a certain view types, e.g. natural view is preferred over a view towards man-build environment. It is not surprising that apartments with the nicest views are the most expensive; and that the most powerful employees in large companies have often offices at top floors with the best possible, sometimes panoramic view. 2. VIEW QUALITY DESCRIPTORS In spite of the tacit agreement about the importance of the quality of the view from the window, the evaluation criteria of the view quality that may be found in scientific literature is sparse. The typical advice regarding how to provide a good view is that the view should have three layers: a layer of the ground, the landscape and the sky. The newest study on the topic of view quality SZYBINSKA MATUSIAK, B. HOW TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF THE VIEW FROM THE WINDOW? carried by Hester Hellinga and Bruin-Hordijk proposes using a projection method and concludes, among other things, with recommendations for the minimum width of the window(s) for a sufficient, good and excellent view. Expressed with the view angles from the view point of an observer, the minimum values are respectively: 13°, 27° and 54°; horizontal plane. 3. METHOD AND PROCEDURE The study aiming at examination of people’s preferences for windows and outside view and at development of view quality criteria has been carried out at the campus of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in 2013. Up till this day 97 subjects have been visited at their working places. We aim at visiting and interviewing about 200 subjects. The subjects were asked to evaluate the quality of the view from their typical sitting position on the scale: not satisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent. 3.1. Participants The participants were predominantly NTNU’s employees and students. They were from different nationalities and cultural backgrounds; the Norwegians were the largest group. The gender was 48% male and 52% female participants. The age of the subjects ranged between 26 and 70 years old. 3.2. Experimental Procedure All subjects were visited at their respective work places. The procedure started with a short interview containing, among others, the following questions: 1. How important is it for you to have a window nearby your working place? - Important - Not important - no preference If it is important, why? - Daylight - View - Natural vent. - Other reasons? 2. How large windows do you prefer at home? - Living room: from very large to very small - Bathroom: from very large to very small 3. What do you prefer to look at through the window at your work place? - Water (landscape elements) - Mountains - Greenery - Cultivated landscape - Urban landscape - Human activities 3.3 View Quality categories The crucial question about the quality of the view was the next step in the procedure. 2 SZYBINSKA MATUSIAK, B. HOW TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF THE VIEW FROM THE WINDOW? Please, evaluate the quality of the view from your sitting position at your working place. Subjects could choose between four categories: insufficient, sufficient, good and excellent. To help participants in choosing the most adequate category, the following comments were given: ƒ Insufficient I feel really uncomfortable having that bad outside view, ƒ Sufficient I wish I could have a nicer/better view ƒ Good I do not complain, I do not boast of it neither, the view is OK ƒ Excellent I am proud of the view from my window(s) The view that the subject evaluated was documented by taking picture(s) from his/her eyeposition in the window direction using the digital reflex camera Canon EOS300D.. 4. RESULTS As the project is not finished yet, only preliminary results are presented in this paper. 4.1 Interview All but one of the subjects said that it is very important to have a window nearby the work place. Both the daylight (70%) and the possibility for a view out (61%) were given as the most important reasons why. Most subjects answered that they prefer large or very large windows in the living room and middle sized ones in bathrooms. On the questions about the prevailing view-elements (question 3) the answers were: Water (90%), greenery (83%), mountains (63%), cultivated landscape (45%), urban landscape (16%) and human activities (9%). 4.2 Evaluation of the quality of the view The evaluation process shows considerable differences between subjects. It seems that a similar view may be evaluated as satisfactory or good, alternatively as good or excellent, depending on the person. The views that were evaluated as insufficient all had an urban character (toward a monotonous building) and, typically, had minimum one of the following features: -very narrow, -very short distance to an opposite façade, -missed one or two layers. In some cases the composition of the view was very poor, e.g. the view was dominated by an undesired element (protruding façade wall, container). Subjects having such view complained that they can only in a very limited degree follow the activities outside. On the other hand, the views evaluated as excellent are characterized by a nice composition and a diverse content with landscape elements of high aesthetic quality (e.g. beautiful buildings or trees). Many of them are views stretching to the horizon. Nearly all excellent views had three layers; the width of the transparent part of a window was 54° or larger and the distance of the view was larger than 50m. The preliminary proposal for quality descriptors and their threshold values for each view quality category is specified in table 1. 3 SZYBINSKA MATUSIAK, B. HOW TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF THE VIEW FROM THE WINDOW? Table 1. Window-view parameters and their threshold values. DESCRIPTOR Width of view window(s) Distance of the view INSUFFISIE NT < 13° < 6m SUFFISIENT GOOD EXCELLENT > 13° > 27° > 54° >6m > 12 m > 50 m Number of layers: ‐ sky ‐ landscape (both urban and nature) ‐ ground only sky or only ground landscape layer is included minimum to layers are included all layers are included Environmental information: ‐ location (orientation regarding water, food, heat, sunlight, escape routes, destination) ‐ time (environmental conditions which relate to our innate biological clocks) ‐ weather (need for clothing, need for shelter, heating/cooling, opportunities for sunbath) ‐ nature (the presence of trees, bushes plants, insects, birds and other animals) ‐ people (the presence of people and their activities) Content and quality of landscape: ‐ urban low quality, as e.g. toward concrete walls, parking plot, etc. ‐ urban middle quality, ‐ urban high quality, e.g. an attractive square or with attractive elements as e.g. historical buildings, fountains, sculptures, etc. ‐ natural/rural low quality, as e.g. monotonous rural landscape ‐ natural/rural middle quality ‐ natural/rural high quality, e.g. varied and including beautiful elements as lakes, well‐ shaped trees/bushes, time and weather time weather and location time, weather, location and one of: nature and people all Natural/rur al ‐low or urban middle Natural/rur al ‐middle or urban high Natural/rur al ‐high or urban high Poor balance but at least the central part of the view is free from undesired elements. Good balance and the central part of the view is free from undesired elements. Very good balance and the view is free from undesired elements. Composition: ‐ poor balance between landscape elements, e.g. more than ½ of the view is toward one dominating element ‐ good balance ‐ very good balance between landscape elements, urban low Poor balance and/or the central part of the view is dominated by undesired elements. 4 SZYBINSKA MATUSIAK, B. HOW TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF THE VIEW FROM THE WINDOW? Picture. 1. Subject no. 60: insufficient view Picture. 2. Subject no. 57: sufficient view Picture. 3. Subject no. 5: good view Picture. 4. Subject no. 41: excellent view Figure 1. Examples of views from four quality categories. Examples of views from the respective categories are shown in figure 1. The study will continue during 2013. The final conclusions will be formulated at the end of the year. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of Ida Margrete Høgmo, who carried out most of the interviews and thanks colleges and students from NTNU for the cooperative attitude. REFERENCES ARIËS, M. B. C., VEITCH, J. A., & NEWSHAM, G. R. (2007). Physical and psychological discomfort in the office environment Proceedings of the Light and Health Research Foundation (SOLG) Conference (pp. 45-49). Eindhoven, the Netherlands: SOLG ARIES, M.B.C., VEITCH, J.A., NEWSHAM, G.R., Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort, Accepted Manuscript, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2010 BINER, P. M., BUTLER, D. L., FISCHER, A. R., & WESTERGREN, A. J. (1989). An arousal optimization model of lighting level preferences: An interaction of social situation and task demands. Environment and Behavior, 21(1), 3-16. BRUIN-HORDIJK, G.J. de, (2011). Visual comfort for seniors – Proceedings Velux Symposium Lausanne. 5 SZYBINSKA MATUSIAK, B. HOW TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF THE VIEW FROM THE WINDOW? CHRISTOFFERSEN, J., JOHNSEN, K., PETERSON, E., & Hygge, S. (1999). Post-occupancy evaluation of Danish office buildings Proceedings of the 24th Session of the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage, Warsaw, Poland (Vol. Vol. 1, pp. 333-337). Vienna, Austria: CIE Central Bureau. CHRISTOFFERSEN, J & JOHNSEN, K 2000, 'Daylighting and window design. Post occupancy studies in environments', Light & Lighting, vol. 19, s. 31-33 CUTTLE, C. (1983). People and windows in workplaces Proceedings of the People and Physical Environment Research Conference (pp. 203-212). Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Works and Development. FARLEY, K.M.J., VEITCH, J.A. (2001). A Room with a View; a Review of the Effects of Windows on Work and Well-being, Ottawa: Institute for Research in Construction; Report No.: RR136. HEERWAGEN, J. H., & HEERWAGEN, D. R. (1986). Lighting and psychological comfort. Lighting Design + Application, 16(4), 47-51. HELLINGA H. IJ, de BRUIN-HORDIJK, G.J. A New Method for the Analysis of Daylight Access and View Out. Proceedings Lux Europe 2009 HELLINGA, H.IJ and de BRUIN-HORDIJK, G.J. Assessment of daylight and view quality: a field study in office buildings. Proceedings CIE Wiener 2010 KAPLAN, R., KAPLAN, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press KAPLAN, R, The Nature of the View from Home: Psychological Benefits, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2001, p. 507 – 542 KEIGHLY, E.C, Visual requirements and reduced fenestration in office buildings — A study of window shape, Building Science, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1973, p. 311-320 KEIGHLY, E.C, Visual requirements and reduced fenestration in offices — A study of multiple apertures and window area, Building Science, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1973, p. 321-331 KIM, J.J., WINEMAN, J. (2005). Are Windows and Views Really Better? A Quantitative Analysis of the Economic and Psychological Value of Views, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Lighting Research Center, New York: Daylight Dividend Program. LAM W.M.C. Perception and lighting as formgivers for architecture. McGraw-Hill, Inc. (1977). MARKUS, T.A. (1967). The function of windows - A reappraisal, Building Science, 2 (2), 97121 TUAYCHAROEN, N. (2006). The Reduction of Discomfort Glare from Windows by Interesting Views, PhD thesis, School of Architecture, University of Sheffield TUAYCHAROEN, N., TREGENZA, P.R., View and discomfort glare from windows, Lighting Research and Technology, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2007, p. 185-200 ULRICH, R.S., Natural Versus Urban Scenes: Some Psychophysiological Effect, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 13, No. 5, 1981, p. 523-556 VEITCH, J. A., & GIFFORD, R. (1996). Assessing beliefs about lighting effects on health, performance, mood, and social behavior. Environment & Behavior, 28(4), 446-470. VEITCH, J. A., HINE, D. W., & GIFFORD, R. (1993). End-users' knowledge, beliefs, and preferences for lighting. Journal of Interior Design, 19(2), 15-26. 6