Investigating the Application of the Concept of ‘Affordance’ in the Design and Evaluation of the Built Environment

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

1 PhD Candidate, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Isfahan University of Art

2 Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University

3 Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Isfahan University of Art

Abstract

There are numerous concepts in the field of environmental psychology that deal with the interaction of the structure of the environment and human behavior. One of the most applicable concepts to the design of environments is the concept of “affordance” which originates from ecological psychology and has been widely used in various design disciplines, i.e., industrial design and product semantics. In architecture, however, the concept is not yet clear or explicit as regards how to be applied to the different phases of architectural design (planning, design, post-occupancy evaluation…). The successful application of affordances in other design fields hints that by defining and adjusting the relationship between designers, users, and built environments, the concept could help increase the efficiency and success of architectural projects. The theoretical background of the concept of affordance along with other key concepts in ecological psychology and architectural design, such as niche, form and function, and agency, are discussed in this paper. The research uses an inductive analysis method to develop a conceptual framework. It is evident that further research is proposed for a more precise application of affordances through the different phases of architectural design

Keywords

References

  1. Alexander, C. & A. Anninou & G. Black & J. Rheinfrank.
  2. “Toward a Personal Workplace”, in Architectural Record
  3. Interiors, (Mid-September 1987), pp. 131-141.
  4. Alley, T.R. “Organism-environment Mutuality Epistemics,
  5. and the Concept of an Ecological Niche”, in Synthese, 65(3)
  6. (1985), pp. 411-444.
  7. Bardenhagen, E. & S. Rodiek. “Affordance-based
  8. Evaluations that Focus on Supporting the Needs of Users”,
  9. in Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9(2)
  10. (2016), pp. 147-155.
  11. Chemero, A. “An Outline of a Theory of Affordances”, in
  12. Ecological Psychology, 15(2003), pp. 181-195.
  13. Gaver, W.W. “Technology Affordances”, in S. P. Robertson,
  14. G. M. Olson & J. S. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI
  15. Heft, H. “Affordances and the Body: An Intentional Analysis
  16. of Gibson’s Ecological Approach to Visual Perception”, in
  17. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, 19(1)(1989), pp.
  18. -30.
  19. _______ . “The Development of Gibson’s Ecological
  20. Approach to Perception”, in Journal of Environmental
  21. Psychology, 8 (4)( 1988), pp. 325-334.
  22. Kim, Y.S. & M.K. Kim & S.W. Lee & C.S. Lee & C.H. Lee &
  23. J.S. Lim, “Affordances in Interior Design: A Case Study of
  24. Affordances in Interior Design of Conference Room Using
  25. Enhanced Function and Task Interaction”, in ASME 2007
  26. International Design Engineering Technical Conference
  27. & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
  28. IDETC/CIE 2007, Las Vegas, ASME: 10, 2007.
  29. Koutamanis, A. “Buildings and Affordances”, in J. S. Gero
  30. (Ed.), in Design Computing and Cognition, New York:
  31. Springer, 2006, pp. 345-364.
  32. ________ . “In Search of Architectural Affordances”,
  33. GOTO Conference: What Affordance Affords. Germany:
  34. Darmstadt, 2013.
  35. Krippendorff, K. & R. Butter. “Product Semantics: Exploring
  36. the Symbolic Qualities of Form”, in Innovation, 3 (2) (1984),
  37. pp. 4-9.
  38. Krippendorff, K. “On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts
  39. or on the Proposition that ‘‘design is making sense (of
  40. things)’’”, in Design Issues, 5 (2) (1989), pp.9-38.
  41. Maier, J.R.A. & G.M. Fadel & D. Battisto. “An Affordancebased
  42. Approach to Architectural Theory, Design and
  43. Practice”, in Design Studies, 30(4) (2009), pp. 393-414.
  44. Mohammadi, M. & G.-J. Pepping, & M.R. Saghafi & H.
  45. Nadimi. “The Need for an Affordance-based Evaluation
  46. Framework for Architectural Design”, in J.A. Weast-Knapp
  47. & G.-J. Pepping (Eds.), Studies in Perception and Action XVI.
  48. New York: Taylor & Francis. 2017, pp. 89-92.
  49. Norman, D.A. The Psychology of Everyday Things, New York:
  50. Basic Books, 1988.
  51. ________ . “Affordance, Conventions & Design”, in
  52. Interactions, 6(3) (1999), pp. 38-42.
  53. ________ . The Design of Everyday Thing, New York:
  54. Doubleday Inc., 2002.
  55. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems:
  56. Reaching through Technology, New York: ACM Press, 1991,
  57. pp. 79-84.
  58. Gibson, J.J. “Notes on Affordances”, in E. Reed, & R. Jones
  59. (Eds.), Reasons for Realism: The Selected Essays of James J.
  60. Gibson, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982, pp. 401– 418.
  61. ________ . “The Theory of Affordances”, in R. Shaw & J.
  62. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward
  63. an Ecological Psychology, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  64. Associates. 1977, pp. 67-82.
  65. ________ . The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
  66. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1979/1986.
  67. ________ . The Senses Considered as Perceptual System,
  68. Boston: Houghton, 1966
  69. Reed, E.S. “An Outline of a Theory of Action Systems”, in
  70. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14 (1982), pp. 98-134.
  71. ________ . “Applying the Theory of Action Systems to the
  72. Study of Motor Skills”, in O. Meijer, & K. Roth (Eds.), Studying
  73. Complex Motor Skills: The Motor-action Controversy,
  74. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 1988b, pp. 45-86.
  75. ________ . “The Intention to Use a Specific Affordance: a
  76. Framework for Psychology”, in R. Wozniak, & K. Fisscher
  77. (Eds.), Development in Context: Acting and Thinking in
  78. Specific Environments, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  79. Associates, 1993, pp. 45-75.
  80. ________ . Encountering the World: Toward an Ecological
  81. Psychology, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996,
  82. pp. 45-75.
  83. ________ . James J. Gibson and the Psychology of Perception,
  84. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1988.
  85. Smith, B. & A. Varzi. “The Niche”, in Noûs, 33(2) (1999), pp.
  86. -238.
  87. Tweed, C. “Highlighting the Affordances of Designs, Mutual
  88. Realities and Vicarious Environments”, in B. De Vries & J. Van
  89. Leeuwen & H. Achten (Eds.), Computer Aided Architectural
  90. Design Futures, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001, pp. 681-696.
  91. ________ . “Exploring the Affordances of Telecare-related
  92. Technologies in the Home”, in Michael Schillmeier, & Miquel
  93. Domenech (Eds.), New Technologies and Emerging Spaces of
  94. Care, Farnham: Ashgate, 2010, pp. 57-76.
  95. You, H., & K. Chen. “Applications of Affordance and
  96. Semantics in Product Design”, in Design Studies, 28(1)
  97. (2007), pp. 57-76, pp. 23-38.
  98. Warren, W.H. “Constructing an Econiche”, in J. Flach, P.
  99. Hancock, J. Caird & K. Vicente (Eds.), Global Perspectives
  100. on the Ecology of Human-Machine System, Hillsdale, NJ:
  101. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1995, pp. 210-237.
  102. ________ . “Perceiving Affordances: Visual Guidance of Stair
  103. Climbing”, in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
  104. Perception and Performance, 10(5) (1984), pp. 683-703.
  105. Withagen, R. & H. De Poel & D. Araujo & G.-J. Pepping.
  106. “Affordances Can Invite Behavior: Reconsidering the
  107. Relation between Affordances and Agency”, in New Ideas in
  108. Psychology, 30 (2012), pp. 250-258.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 June 2018
  • Revise Date: 27 January 2021
  • Accept Date: 31 December 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics