Sky as Landscape: Sky in Landscape Preferences

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی


PhD, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University


Current metropolitan buildings consider windows solely as sources of natural light and rarely provide for favorable views. This paper investigates the favorableness of window view towards the sky. To this end, a literature survey including both cultural and evolutionary approaches indicates that sky is a favorable view per se. A sample of working adults was then selected for survey. Their preference for diverse views was recorded. The results show that view from a window towards the sky is significantly preferred to views to the cityscape and its built elements. After view towards the sky, vistas including the city silhouette as well as the sky are favored. The worst preferred views are those that look at built elements at a close distance.

  1. منابع و مآخذ
  2. . بهار، مهرداد. پژوهشى در اساطیر ایران، تهران: نشر آگاه، 1375
  3. رستگار فسائى، منصور. پیکرگردانى در اساطیر، تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم
  4. . انسانى و مطالعات فرهنگى، 1383
  5. صبرى، رضاسیروس. روند شک لگیرى معمارى منظر، طرح پژوهشى
  6. . دانشکدة معمارى و شهرسازى، دانشگاه شهید بهشتى، 1380
  7. مسعودى نژاد، سپیده. پنجرة آسمان؛ واکاوى اثرات دید به آسمان بر کیفیت
  8. . خانة شهرى، رسالة دکترى معمارى. دانشگاه شهید بهشتى، 1392
  9. منظر در قاب پنجره؛ نقش دید » . مسعودى نژاد، سپیده و رضاسیروس صبرى
  10. مقاله و سخنرانى ایراد ،« به منظر طبیعى در دستیابى به محیط زندگى پایدار
  11. شده در نخستین همایش ملى معمارى و شهر پایدار، دانشگاه شهید رجایى،
  12. . 22-21 آبان ماه 1391
  13. مقررات شهرسازى و معمارى و طرح هاى توسعه و عمران مصوب شوراى
  14. . عالى شهرسازى و معمارى ایران، 1386
  15. مقررات ملى ساختمان، مبحث چهارم: الزامات عمومى ساختمان. دفتر
  16. . تدوین و ترویج مقررات ملى ساختمان. تهران: نشر توسعة ایران، 1387
  17. Appleton, J. The Experience of Landscape, London: Wiley,
  18. Balling J.D. & J.H. Falk. “Development of Visual Preference
  19. for Natural Environments”, in Environment and Behavior,
  20. (1) (1982), pp. 5-28.
  21. Bringslimark, Tina. Psychological Benefits of Nature in the
  22. Indoor Context, PhD dissertation. Norwegian University of
  23. Life Sciences, 2007..
  24. Butler, Darrell L. and Brian L. Steuerwald. “Effects of
  25. and Room size on Window Size Preferences Made in
  26. Models”, in Environments and Behavior. 23 (3) (1991), pp.
  27. -358.
  28. Dubois, M.C. “Effect of Glazing Types on Daylight Quality
  29. in Interiors: Conclusions from three Scale Model Studies”,
  30. in: Y. A. W. d. Kort & W. A. IJsselsteijn & I. M. L. C. Vogels &
  31. M. P. J. Aarts & A. D. Tenner & K. C. H. J. Smolders (Eds.),
  32. Proceedings of Experiencing Light 2009: International
  33. Conference on the Effects of Light on Wellbeing (pp. 86-97).
  34. Eindhoven, the Netherlands: Eindhoven University of
  35. Technology, 2009.
  36. Dubois, M.C. & F. Cantin & K. Johnsen. “The Effect of Coated
  37. Glazing on Visual Perception: A Pilot Study Using Scale
  38. Models”, in Lighting Research and Technology, 39(3) (2007),
  39. pp. 283 -304.
  40. Hartig, T. & A.E.van den Berg & C.M.Hagerhall et al. “Health
  41. Benefits of Nature Experience: Psychology, Social and
  42. Cultural Process”. In: Nilsson, K., et al. Forest, Trees and
  43. Human Health. Dordrecht: Springer Science Business and
  44. Media, 2010.
  45. Hartig, T. & G.W. Evans & L.D.Jamner et al. “Tracking
  46. Restoration in Natural and Urban Field Settings”, in Journal
  47. of Environmental Psychology, 23 (2003), pp. 109-123.
  48. Health Council of the Netherlands. Nature and Health: The
  49. Influence of Nature on Social, Psychological and Physical
  50. Well-being, The Hague, Health Council of the Netherlands/
  51. Dutch Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning,
  52. Kaplan , Rachel. “The Nature of the View from Home:
  53. Psychological Benefits”, in Environment and Behavior, 33(4)
  54. (2001), pp. 507-542.
  55. Kaplan, R. “Employees’ Reactions to Nearby Nature at their
  56. Workplace: The Wild and the Tame”, in Landscape Urban
  57. Planning, 82 (1-2) (2007), pp. 17-24.
  58. Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen Kaplan. The Experience of
  59. Nature: A Psychological Perspective, New York: Cambridge
  60. University Press, 1989.
  61. Kaya, Naz and Feyzan Erkip. “Satisfaction in a Dormitory
  62. Building: The Effects of Floor Height on the Perception of
  63. Room Size and Crowding”, in Environment and Behavior, 33
  64. (2001), pp. 35- 53.
  65. Kellert, S.R. and E.O. Wilson. The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island
  66. Press, Washington, DC, 1993.
  67. Lamb, R. J., & A.T. Purcell. “Perception of Naturalness and its
  68. Relation to Vegetation Structure”, in Landscape and Urban
  69. Planning, 19 (1990), pp. 333–352.
  70. Lohre, V.I. & C.H. Pearson-Mims. “Responses to Scenes
  71. with Spreading Rounded, and Conical tree Forms”, in
  72. Environment and behavior, 38 (2006), pp. 667–688.
  73. Nasar, J.L. “Urban Design Aesthetics: The Evaluative
  74. Qualities of Building Exteriors”, in Environment and
  75. Behavior, 26 (1994), pp. 377–401.
  76. Nordh, Helena. Restorative Components of Small Urban
  77. Parks, PhD dissertation. Norwegian University of Life
  78. Sciences, 2011.
  79. Olmsted, F.L. Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns,
  80. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press, 1870.
  81. Orians, G.H. “An Ecological and Evolutionary Approach
  82. to Landscape Aesthetics”, in E.C. Penning-Rowsell & D.
  83. Lowenthal (Eds.) Landscape meanings and values. London:
  84. Allen and Unwin, 1986, pp. 4–25.
  85. Orians, G.H. “Habitat Selection: General Theory and
  86. Applications to Human Behavior”, in J.S. Lockard (Eds.) The
  87. Evolution of Human Social Behavior, New York: Elsevier,
  88. , pp. 49–66.
  89. Ozdemir, Aydin. “The Effect of Window Views’ Openness
  90. and Naturalness on the Perception of Rooms’ Spaciousness
  91. and Brightness: A Visual Preferences Study”, in Scientific
  92. Research and Essays, 5 (16) (2010), pp. 2275-2287.
  93. Parsons, R. “The Potential Iinfluences of Environmental
  94. Perception on Human Health”, in Journal of Environmental
  95. Psychology, 11(1991), pp. 1–23.
  96. Pineault, N. & M.C. Dubois. “Effect of Window Glazing Type
  97. on Daylight Quality: Scale Model Study of a Living Room
  98. under Natural Sky”, in Leukos, 5(2) (2008), pp. 83 -99.
  99. Stamps, Arthur E.. “Mystery of Environmental Mystery:
  100. Effects of Light, Occlusion, and Depth of View”, in
  101. Environment and Behavior, 39 (2) (2007), pp. 165-197.
  102. Tennessen, C. M. and B.Cimprich.. “Views of Nature: Effects
  103. on Attention”, in Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15
  104. (1995), pp. 77-85.
  105. Ulrich R.S. “Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural
  106. Environment. Behavior and the Natural Environment”, in
  107. I. Altman & J.F. Bourassa (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural
  108. Environment, New York: Plenum, 1983, pp. 85–125.
  109. Ulrich R.S. & R.F. Simons & B.D. Losito & E. Fiorito & M. Miles
  110. & M. Zelson. «Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural
  111. and Urban Environments», in Journal of Environmental
  112. Psychology, no. 11(1991), pp. 201-203.
  113. van den Berg, A.E. & S.L.Koole and N.Y. van der Wulp.
  114. “Environmental Preference and Restoration: (How) are
  115. they Related?”, in Journal of Enviornmental Psychology, 23
  116. (2003), pp. 135-146.
  117. Veitch, Jennifer A. and Anca D. Galasiu. The Physiological
  118. and Psychological Effects of Windows, Daylight, and View
  119. at Home: Review and Research Agenda, Ottawa: National
  120. Research Council of Canada, 2012.
  121. Wilson, E. O. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
  122. Press, 1984.
  123. World Health Organization. “The World Health Report
  124. ”, in Mental Health: New Understanding, New Hope.
  125. Geneve, 2001.
  126. ( وبگاه مرکز آمار ایران (دست یابى در 10 اردیبهشت 1391
  128. وبگاه سازمان هواشناسى کشور/