Methods for Quality Assessment of Window View

Barbara Szybinska Matusiak (), Filomena Russo, Mandana Sarey Khanie, Natalia Sokol, Christina Hemauer, Klaus Martiny, Carlo Volf, Siegrun Appelt, Natalia Giraldo Vasquez and Aicha Diakite-Kortlever
Additional contact information
Barbara Szybinska Matusiak: Faculty of Architecture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7034 Trondheim, Norway
Filomena Russo: Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PX, UK
Mandana Sarey Khanie: Institute for Environmental Design and Engineering (IEDE), The Bartlett, Faculty of the Built Environment, University College London, London WC1H 0NN, UK
Natalia Sokol: Faculty of Architecture, Gdansk University of Technology, 80-233 Gdansk, Poland
Christina Hemauer: Independent Researcher, 8004 Zurich, Switzerland
Klaus Martiny: Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark
Carlo Volf: Regional Hospital, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Siegrun Appelt: Independent Researcher, 1070 Vienna, Austria
Natalia Giraldo Vasquez: International Centre for Indoor Environment and Energy, Department of Environmental and Resource Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
Aicha Diakite-Kortlever: Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Technical University of Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany

Land, 2024, vol. 13, issue 12, 1-34

Abstract: This paper summarises findings from two workshops evaluating a series of views in various settings by an interdisciplinary group of experts. In the first one (Trondheim, June 2022), ten experts visited and assessed views from nine rooms. In the second one (Lausanne, June 2023), eleven experts assessed window views from four spaces. The workshops’ main objective was to develop and test multi-method assessments of window views. During both workshops, participants completed a survey that included close and open-ended questions about the perceived quality of the room and the view. Participants also measured lux level, took photographs, made hand drawings of the view, and answered a questionnaire about their mood and the environmental conditions in the room. After the workshop, point-in-time daylight simulations were performed for the visited rooms. The paper describes, compares, and recommends the use of the aforementioned methods depending on the type and complexity of the view, and the space, the evaluators’ professional background, and the type of collected data. It also discusses the overlap of the methods and estimates the preparation time, time spent on site, and the amount of work after the visit. Finally, it recommends the use of the tested methods depending on the application.

Keywords: window view; view quality assessment; explorative approach; quantitative evaluation; qualitative evaluation; freehand drawing; photography; VAS (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q15 Q2 Q24 Q28 Q5 R14 R52 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/12/2090/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/12/2090/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:12:p:2090-:d:1536631

Access Statistics for this article

Land is currently edited by Ms. Carol Ma

More articles in Land from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().