[ Architectural/Urban Planning and Design ]
Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering - Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.479-485
ISSN: 1346-7581 (Print) 1347-2852 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Sep 2016
Received 04 Oct 2015 Accepted 11 Jul 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.15.479

Physical Element Effects in Public Space Attendance

Olavo Avalone Neto*, 1 ; Sinwon Jeong2 ; Jun Munakata3 ; Yushi Yoshida4 ; Takahiro Ogawa4 ; Shinji Yamamura5
1Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Architecture, Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University Japan
2Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Tokyo University of Science Japan
3Professor, Department of Architecture, Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University Japan
4Senior Consultant, Nikken Sekkei Research Institute Japan
5Principal Consultant, Nikken Sekkei Research Institute Japan

Correspondence to: *Olavo Avalone Neto, Ph.D. Candidate, Chiba University, Nishi-Chiba Campus, Faculty of Engineering, Bld. 10, 3F, 1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage Ward, Chiba City, Chiba Prefecture, 263-8522, Japan Tel: +81-80-3383-0072 E-mail: avalone@gmail.com


This paper seeks to determine which physical elements of privately owned public spaces affect users' impressions, which characteristics of these elements are noticed, and what impressions they cause. The study is based on a caption evaluation and semantic differential survey of 12 public spaces in the center of Tokyo. Ten participants were surveyed for each space, and 1494 of the obtained entries were analyzed. The semantic differential survey was then cross-referenced with density measures to evaluate the effect of physical elements' densities on participants' impressions.

It was found that the physical elements that caught users' attention were greenery, street furniture, the building, the sidewalk and the space itself. From all of the elements, tree coverage density was the best predictor of desire to stay and rest activities in the space. A logistic regression analysis of each activity by tree density is also provided.


behavior, public space, caption evaluation, semantic differential, impression


  • Akamine, R., Funahashi, Kunio, Suzuki, T., Kita, M. and Li, B. (2003) A Study on Use of Open Spaces at Osaka Amenity Park (OAP) and in its Neighborhood. Journal of Architectural Planning, AIJ, 566, pp.71-79.
  • Architectural Institute of Japan - AIJ (2011) Survey Design for Housing and Urban Design. 1st ed. Tokyo: Ohmsha.
  • Brown, G. & Gifford, R. (2001). Architects predict lay evaluations of large contemporary buildings: whose conceptual properties? Journal of Environmental Psychology 21, pp.93-99.
  • Devlin, K. (1990) An examination of architectural interpretation: architects versus non-architects. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7, pp.235-244.
  • Devlin, K. & Nasar, J. L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: some preliminary comparisons of 'high' versus "popular" residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, pp.333-334.
  • Fujita, S. & Ito, K. (2006). A Study on Public Open Space from the viewpoint of the pedestrian traffic. Architectural Institute of Japan, AIJ, pp.355-356.
  • Hershberger, R. G. (1969) A study of meaning and architecture. EDRA 1, pp.86-100.
  • Hubbard, P. (1996). Conflicting interpretation of architecture: an empirical investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, pp.75-92.
  • Imamoglu, Ç. (2000) Complexity, liking and familiarity: architecture and non-architecture Turkish students' assessments of traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, pp.5-16.
  • Kakutani, H. (2005) A Study on constituent element and perception of public open space. Analysis with cases that applied the system of comprehensive planning in Hiroshima City. Research Reports of the School of Engineering, Kinki University, 39, pp.101-107.
  • Koga, T., Taka, A., Munakata, J., Kojima, T., Hirate, K. and Yasuoka, M. (1999) Participatory research of townscape, using 'caption evaluation method': studies of the cognition and the evaluation of townscape, Part 1. Journal of Architectural Planning and Environmental Engineering, AIJ, 517, pp.79-84.
  • Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport, MLIT. (2003) Introduction of Urban Land Use Planning System in Japan. Available at www.mlit.go.jp/english. Retrieved in 2015.08.04.
  • Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meaning of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21, pp.235-257.
  • Nasar, J. L. & Purcell, T. (1990). Architect Knowledge Structure and Aesthetic Response to Single Family Houses. In Culture-Space-History: Proceedings 11th International Conference of the IAPS. IAPS. Ankara, Turkey: METU Faculty of Architecture.
  • Smithsimon, G. (2008) Dispersing the Crowd. Bonus Plazas and the Creation of Public Space. Urban Affairs Review, 43 (3), pp.325-351.
  • Stamps, A. E. (1991) Comparing preferences of neighbors and a neighborhood design review board. Environment and Behavior, 23, pp.618-629.
  • Tanaka, F. & Kikata, J. (2008) Research on Urban Landscape and Public Space by the Caption Evaluation Method – Case Study on Kagoshima City. Architectural Institute of Japan Research Paper, 47 (3), pp.221-224.
  • Tsuchida, H. & Tsumita, H. (2005) Analysis on Liking of Place for Taking a Rest and Waiting – A study on urban public space (Part 2). Journal of Architectural Planning, AIJ, 596, pp.59-66.
  • Wilson, M. A. (1996) The socialization of architectural preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, pp.33-44.
  • Yazdanfar, S. A., Heidari, A. A., Aghajari, N. (2015) Comparison of architects' and non-architects' perception of place. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 170, pp.690-699.