Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회지)

The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparative Study on the Spatial Sense of Interior and Exterior Spaces

실내와 실외의 공간감 비교 연구

  • Yoo, Mi-Kyoung (Landscape Workshop Saii) ;
  • Im, Seung-Bin (Dept. of Landscape Architecture & Rural System Engineering, Research Institute for Agriculture & Life Sciences, Seoul National University)
  • 유미경 ((주)경관공작소 사이) ;
  • 임승빈 (서울대학교 조경.지역시스템공학부)
  • Received : 2012.08.27
  • Accepted : 2012.10.22
  • Published : 2012.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In contemporary times, "environmental designers" need to consider both exterior and interior aspects because of the growing trend in dissolution between exterior and interior spaces. To quantify "spatial sense" which serves as the standard for environmental design, this study has asked 63 subjects to evaluate 15 interior and 14 exterior spaces. The "spaciousness (small-large)", "openness(closed-open)", "warmness(warm-cold)", "brightness(bright-dark)", "softness(soft-hard)", "spatial intimacy" and "frequency of visit" were adopted as variables of spatial sense. Through the analysis of these variables, this study could gain the difference between spatial sense for exterior and interior environments, quantify the spatial sense that physically and psychologically appropriates to human beings. The result of this study can be summarized as follows: Twice the amount of spaciousness was observed between the interior and exterior spaces. And the standard on intimate space is established with W/H ratio of 5.71 and high Window/Wall Area ratio in the interior and an area of 3,800m2 and a W/H ratio of 5.57 in exterior. The difference between the spatial sense in the interior and exterior space is mostly dependent on the psychological sense. The increase of physical size caused by the interior space to be perceived as cold, dark and hard psychologically, but exterior space to be perceived as warm, bright and soft. Psychological senses, especially softness, affect spatial intimacy to the greatest extent among the given variables. As the psychological senses for interior spaces were largely independent from the given space's size and perceptive senses, the size of the interior space, which exhibited spatial intimacy, could not be deduced. In comparison to this, due to the high dependency between the psychological senses for exterior spaces and the given space's size and perceptive senses. The study also showed that interior and exterior spaces have relatively different spatial sense and physical standards. Such research results are predicted to provide applicable standards for environmental designers for exterior and interior spaces in the future.

현대 도시의 실내와 실외의 경계는 모호해짐과 동시에 서로 융합되고 있다. 이러한 공간이 점차 증가함에 따라 환경 설계가들에게는 실내와 실외공간에 대한 통합적 사고와 이에 따른 공간 설계의 기준이 요구되고 있다. 설계의 기준이 되는 공간에 대한 감각(공간감)을 정량화하기 위해 본 연구에서는 63명의 실험자들이 서울대학교 캠퍼스 내 실내 15곳, 실외 14곳을 평가하도록 하였다. 평가어휘는 크기감(좁은-넓은), 개방감(폐쇄적인-개방적인), 온도감(따뜻한-차가운), 밝기감(밝은-어두운), 경연감(부드러운-딱딱한), 공간친밀도, 방문빈도였으며, 이를 통해 실내 외 공간감의 차이를 파악할 수 있었다. 연구결과를 요약하면 실내 외 크기감의 차이는 약 2배로 나타났으며, 실내 외 친밀한 공간의 기준은 실내에서 W/H비가 약 5.71이면서 창문면적/입면적의 비율이 높은 공간으로, 실외에서 넓이 $3,800m^2$와 W/H비 5.57정도의 공간으로 정할 수 있었다. 실내 외 공간감의 차이는 심리적 감각에 의해 주도되는데, 실내에서는 규모가 커질수록 차갑고 어두우며, 딱딱하게 느낀 반면 실외에서는 따뜻하고 밝으며 부드럽게 인식하였다. 또한 실내의 심리적 감각은 공간의 규모와 지각에 크게 영향 받지 않았기 때문에 친밀한 공간을 파악하기 어려웠으나, 실외의 심리적 감각은 규모와 지각에 관계되었으므로 친밀한 공간의 크기와 비율을 알 수 있었다. 연구를 통해 실내와 실외의 공간감은 서로 상대적인 차이를 가지며, 물리적인 기준 또한 다르다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 이와 같은 연구결과는 향후 실내 혹은 실외공간 설계 시 환경설계가들에게 유용한 기준이 될 것으로 기대한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ashihara, Y.(1970) Exterior Design in Architecture. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
  2. Boyce, P. R. and C. Cuttle(1990) Effect of correlated colour temperature on the perception of interiors and colour discrimination performance. Lighting Research and Technology 22(1): 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/096032719002200102
  3. Cochran, C. D., W. D. Hale and P. Hissam(1984) Personal space requirements in indoor versus outdoor locations. Journal of Psychology 117: 121-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1984.9923667
  4. Correy, A.(1983) Visual Perception and Scenic Assessment in Australia, IFLA Yearbook. pp. 181-189.
  5. Epstein, R. and N. Kanwisher(1998) A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature 392: 598-601. https://doi.org/10.1038/33402
  6. Franz, G., M. von der Heyde and H. Bülthoff(2003) An empirical approach to the experience of architectural space in VR. Retrieved from http://www.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/publications/pdfs/pdf2232.pdf
  7. Garling, T.(1970a) Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms III: A relation between judged depth and size of space. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 11: 124-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1970.tb00726.x
  8. Gärling, T.(1970b) Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms IV: The relation of judged depth to judged size of space under different viewing conditions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 11: 133-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1970.tb00727.x
  9. Hayward, S. C. and S. S. Franklin(1974) Perceived openness-enclosure of architectural space. Environment and Behavior 6: 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657400600102
  10. Im, S.(1984) Visual preferences in enclosed urban spaces: An exploration of a scientific approach to environmental design. Environment and Behavior 16(2): 235-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916584162005
  11. Im, S.(1987) OptimumW/H ratios in enclosed spaces: The relationship between visual preference and the spatial ratio. Journal of Architectural & Planning Research 4(2): 134-148.
  12. Inui, M. and T. Miyata(1973) Spaciousness in interiors. Lighting Research and Technology 5(2): 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/096032717300500205
  13. Kaye, S. M. and M. A. Murray(1982) Evaluations of an architectural space as a function of variations in furniture arrangement, furniture density, and windows. Human Factors 24: 609-618. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088202400511
  14. Lynch, K.(1962) Site Planning. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. pp. 192-194.
  15. Martyniuk, O., J. E. Flynn, T. J. Spencer and C. Hendrick(1973) Effect of environmental lighting on impression and behavior, eds, Architectural Psychology, Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. pp. 51-63.
  16. Moore, C. and G. Allen(1976) Dimensions. NewYork: McGraw-Hill. pp. 18-19.
  17. Park, Byoung-Chul., Jun-Ho Chang, Yu-Sin Kim, Jae-Weon Jeong and An-Seop Choi(2010) A study on the subjective response for corrected colour temperature conditions in a specific space. Indoor and Built Environment 19(6): 623-637. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X10383472
  18. Rea, M. S. and J. P. Freyssinier(2010) Color rendering: Beyond pride and prejudice. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Col Res Appl 35(6): 401-409. https://doi.org/10.1002/col.20562
  19. Sadalla, E. K. and D. Oxley(1976) The perception of room size: The rectangularity illusion. Environment and Behavior 16: 291-306.
  20. Sitte, C.(1945) The art of Building Cities. Charles T. Stewart(Trans), New York: Reinhold.
  21. Spreiregen, P. D.(1965) Urban Dsign: The Architecture of Towns and Cities. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 74-75.
  22. Stamps, A. E.(2003) Permeability and environmental enclosure. Perceptual and Motor Skills 96: 1305-1310. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2003.96.3c.1305
  23. Stamps, A. E.(2005) Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety, and enclosure. Environment and Behavior 37(5): 587-619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505276741
  24. Stamps, A. E.(2007a) Evaluating spaciousness in static and dynamic media. Design Studies 28: 535-557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.01.001
  25. Stamps, A. E.(2007b) Mystery of environmental mystery: Effects of light, occlusion, and depth of view. Environment and Behavior 39(2): 165-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506288053
  26. Stamps, A. E.(2009) On shape and spaciousness. Environment and Behavior 41(4): 526-548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508317931
  27. Stamps, A. E.(2010) Effects of permeability on perceived enclosure and spaciousness. Environment and Behavior 42(6): 864-886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509337287
  28. Stamps, A. E.(2011) Effects of area, height, elongation, and color on perceived spaciousness. Environment and Behavior 43(2): 252-273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509354696
  29. Stamps, A. E. and V. V. Krishnan(2006) Spaciousness and boundary roughness. Environment and Behavior 38(6): 841-872. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506288052
  30. Stamps, A. E. and S. Smith(2002) Environmental enclosure in urban settings. Environment and Behavior 34(6): 781-794. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391602237246
  31. Thiel, P., E. D. Harrison and R. S. Alden(1986) The perception of spatial enclosure as a function of the position of architectural surfaces. Environment and Behavior 18(2): 227-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916586182005