The Preferences of Architecture Students on the Built ... · PDF fileThe Preferences of...

49The Preferences of Architecture Students on the Built Environment

in front of the Hue Citadel.

Pham Manh Hung1 and Assistant Professor Karuna Raksawin, Ph.D.2

Abstract

The aim of this research was to examine the preferences of the respondents to the built environment in front of the Hue Citadel in Vietnam. The study was conducted base on the theories and literatures of environmental perception study and visual preferences. The study was concentrated on the route from a tourist parking-lot to a main entrance of the Hue Citadel. The photographic observation along this area used the digital camera. Fifty photos were carried out and represented for variations of the feature attributes of the environment. The research has obtained the perceptions of the built environment in front of the Hue Citadel base on gathering of preference evaluations with 10 preference scores in the questionnaires to evaluate. Thirty-three participants as architecture students were chosen. The data were analyzed by basic analyses. The results indicated that people prefer

the environment with more vegetation, shading image, well ordered, and systematic spatial

configurations.

Keywords: preferences, architectural student, built environment, Hue citadel

1 Graduate student in Master of Architecture Program, Faculty of Architecture, Chiang Mai University : [email protected] Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture, Chiang Mai University : [email protected]

The Preferences of Architecture Students on the Built

Environment in front of the Hue Citadel

50“เมืองและสภาพแวดลอม” ฉบับที่ 2 : 2555 - 2556

“City & Environment” Vol. 2 : 2012 - 2013

INTRODUCTIONS

Hue is the capital city of Thua Thien Hue province where is located in the central area of Vietnam. Hue has not only beautiful landscape with the sceneries of Ngu Mountain and Huong River3, but also famous of the monuments which were formed under the Nguyen Dynasty period. The complex of monuments of Hue citadel is considered to be the World Cultural Heritage, which is acknowledged by UNESCO. This historical place and important preservation is not only plenty of heritage buildings inside but also is located in centre of city (Figure 1). Nowadays, Hue citadel has an important meaning as the face of Hue.

Figure 1. The Hue Citadel (Source: http://www.map.google.com)

Almost residents in this city come to the citadel by the main entrance named Ngan Gate which is located in front of the Hue Citadel; and the visitors also come to visit this

place by this way. So the environment in front of the Hue citadel plays the role as the face

of the citadel. Therefore, study of the preferences on the built environment in this area is necessary and it can be solved many issues around the perceptions of the people to this area.

3 Ngu Mountain is the short name of a famous mountain in Hue city, in wich the full name of this mountain is Ngu Binh Mountain; and Huong River is the name of the river which is located in the centre of the city. These are also two important factors form the Feng Shui principle for the Hue citadel.



LITERATURE REVIEWS

Visual perception is an ability to interpret the surrounding from visual effect. The study of perception in the environment in front of Hue citadel can evaluate by preference. Environmental perception refers to the subjective ways in which groups and individuals perceive and evaluate their environment. As a subfield of cultural and behavioral geography, environmental perception is not limited to the natural environment; rather, it includes factors such as built structures, customs, values, and other individuals or groups. Thus, studies of environmental perception highlight the discrepancies between individual and group choices based on their perceived environment and their actual environment. To clarify the environmental problems should have a perception of environmental feature attributes.

Environmental perception According to Rapoport (1977), “perception” can be classified into three usages. Firstly, people perceive or experience through all sense modalities which are hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch. It is called environmental perception. Secondly, the term of perception is applied to the environmental cognition. This usage can be understood that when people come to know the environment through information which is not experienced directly, people understand, learn, and apprehend the environment by messages from media and other information systems. Lastly, people evaluate the perceptions in term of preference. The preference can be evaluated the experience and indirectly known environments as advantage or disadvantage, desirable or undesirable, good or bad. This usage accounts for environment evaluation or preference. Rapoport’s categorization shows that perception, cognition, and preference are intertwined process of people’s response to the environment which can explain how the environment is perceived, remembered, and valued (Rapoport, 1976). The study of perception, cognition, and preference are intertwined and it is hard to separate each process. Besides, Ittelson (1973) suggests that environmental perception is including five interrelated levels of response and analysis, which are affect, orientation, categorization, systematization, and manipulation. This complex process involves emotional responses coupled with cognitive judgments relating to the identification and analysis of environmental features as well as an acknowledgement of the interactive nature of the interface between observer and environment. He also purposes that those levels continuously interact and change over time, and are also a function of how an observer chooses to conceptualize the environment under observation.



According to Lynch (1960), perception and evaluation of urban environments is a two-way process. Environmental images arise as a result of this two-way process and these images. Lynch asserts comprise three components: identity, structure and meaning. Identity has to do with the notion that each environmental image is a separate entity and distinct from other environmental image. Structure relates to the spatial and relational patterns inherent in an environmental image. Meaning relates to the practical or emotional meaning that the environmental image holds for the observer. Lynch (1960) identified five key elements that contributed to a particular city’s identity: landmarks, paths, districts, edges, and nodes.

Visual preference

Study on visual preference is often found in the studies of environmental perception. This literature is also mentioned to solve the topics of the research. Regarding to this, Rapoport (1977) suggests that, visual preference deals with an evaluation of the environment

perceived through direct senses of environmental perception as well as media and memory of environmental cognition. There is a dichotomy between two parts of preference which are cognitive mediated and direct and immediate (Kaplan, 1987, 21). Visual preference is considered a product of the interactions between people and environment or a response of people to environment stimuli. Visual preference shares characteristics of aesthetic response, involves the process of stimulus seeking, selection,

processing, and response to stimuli (Im, 1983). The variables of visual preference are including

physical, abstract, symbolic, or individual variables (Im, 1987; 1983). The physical magnitudes of the environment such as color, size, form, texture, area, and perimeter and the basic properties are referred by the physical variables. They have been

focused by designers to their characteristics and can be contributed to design approaches

aiming at the visually pleasing environment. Complexity, congruity, and novelty are main factors of abstract variables, which have been the focus of visual preference studies because they are conceptualized characteristics of physical environment. Thus, visual preferences

are an evaluation of the perceived environment and help the designers to develop visually pleasing products as perceived by viewers.

Visual preference and the built environment’s characteristics Peterson (1967) and Im (1987) confirm the relationship between visual preference

and the built environment’s characteristics. Peterson (1967) shows that physical attributes can affect the desirability of the visual appearance of the residential environment. Im (1987)



proposes that visual preference can be affected by physical variables, including texture, color, and shape of space components, as well as ratios among various dimensions. It can be understood that visual preference is a dependent variable, the built environment’s characteristic is an independent variable, and the requirement of the built environment’ characteristics for achieving a desirable level of visual preference.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

In case of this study, the preferences of the built environment were acquired at the area around the main entrance of the citadel, on the route from the tourist parking-lot to the Ngan Gate (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Main entrance of the Hue Citadel

The method employed in this study for the assessment of the urban landscape quality is referred to as psychophysical. This method achieves a compromise between expert-

based and perception-based methods, combining public perception surveys and statistical analysis of the data gathered in order to identify visual components determining the public



perception (Schafer et al., 1969; Daniel, 2001; Arriaza et al., 2004). Surveys are utilized to gather public preferences for scenes portrayed in photographs. The use of photographs to elicit scene evaluations has been successfully accomplished and tested by numerous studies, which include the comparison of results of photo-based and on-site ratings (Schafer and Brush, 1977; Schuttleworth, 1980; Law and Zube, 1983; Stewart et al., 1984; Hull and Stewart, 1992; Stamps, 1990; Bernaldez et al., 1998). Base on the research design that was mentioned above, the methodology of the study was conducted following steps as the strategy of research.

Visual survey and photographic collection This research studies the built environment in front of the Hue Citadel through evaluating the environment stimuli in this area. The visual survey of environment was carried out as an observation on the area of the route from the tourist parking-lot to the main entrance of the citadel by digital camera. All photos were captured in a landscape format consistently with previous studies (Hull and Steward, 1992; Wherrett, 2000; Rogge et al., 2007). All pictures were taken at eye level within 180o and without any vertical tilting of the camera. The photographic survey was conducted at the same period of day with very similar light conditions (Bernasconi et al., 2008). Pictures were captured along pedestrian paths for various scenes that include the environmental stimuli. Eighty-three photos were taken base on above mentions, which are represented to reflect for the images of the environment in front of Hue citadel and named the series in sequence from 01 to 83. (Figure 3)



(a)

Figure 3. Eighty-three photos were captured from the visual survey (a: photos from 01 to 45)



(b)Figure 3. (Continued) Eighty-three photos were captured from the visual survey (b: photos from 46 to 83)



For narrowing the number of photographs, photograph categorization is executed to find out the pictures that represent for the environment in this area to investigate. The exception process is base on their characteristics that didn’t reflect the environmental stimuli. It can be rejected due to the view of perspective is too far or the feature attributes are not clear or enough. For example, the photo below (photo number 27) only has sky, greenery, and the yard which are too much percentage of the picture area (Figure 4). The motorbike parking is only temporary feature due to the shadow of the tree; and some other features are not clear.

Figure 4. Example of the exception photo (photo number 27)

Regarding to the reasons on the former photo, thirty-three photos were reduced to, those are 01, 02, 08, 11, 13, 15, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35, 37, 39, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56,

57, 58, 59, 61, 69, 71, 71, 74, 80, 81, 82, and 83. Thus, the preference of fifty remaining

photographs, which are represented for the built environment in front of the Hue Citadel, was carried out.

Questioning Response to the built environment in front of the citadel can be realized by many

groups of people. Firstly, it should be mentioned with the expert groups which are designers (Lynch, 1960; Rapoport, 1976). Another group is included the residents who live in the area that the environment is being studied. In the research, the environment was studied at the

site as a famous destination for tourists, so the objective perceptions of the group as the



tourists are focused. This study selected the group of local architecture students as the expert group for gathering the preferences. The questionnaire was designed, in which the main part uses Likert-Scale (Sommer and Sommer, 2002) with 10 scores. In studies that focus on preference for objects or environments, the construct is generally represented by the variable like-dislike (Caivano & Rimoldi, 1996; Herzog, 1992; Kaplan & Herbert, 1992; Tannenbaum & Osgood, 1952). The preference of each picture is evaluated through rating the score from 1 to 10 with rating 1 for the least preference and 10 for the most preference as followings (Figure 5).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10dislike like

Figure 5. Design of preference scores of each photo in the survey questionnaire

The study aims to test the preferences of all photos in field of environment, which are taken in the area study (50 selected photos). Participants of the study were thirty-eight architectural students (Yamane, 1967) who are considered as the respondents with partly expert evaluation in this field. The survey was carried out in a class room with showing the picture by projector. Each slide was shown within 15 seconds and the respondents gave the score of preference on the questionnaire by themselves. The results are obtained in the next part.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Base on the basic analysis, the results of total preference scores of 50 photos order from 97 to 259. The photo-41 has the highest preference score with 259 scores is considered

as the most preference; the photo-22 has the lowest preference score with 97 scores is considered as the least preference (Figure 6 & Figure 7).



Base on above results, this study chose the least preference and the most preference

picture to evaluate the preference of the respondents. Discussions of characteristics of environment in the photos can solve how the respondents prefer to. Im (1983) suggests that visual preference is considered a product of the interaction of the responders and environment or the response to the environment stimuli. This includes a complex interaction of affective and cognitive responses to environmental stimuli (Kaplan,

Figure 6. Results of preference scores of fifty selected photos through the survey

(a) Photo-22 (b) Photo 41

Figure 7. The least preference picture (a) and the most preference picture (b)



1987; Nasar, 1994; Rapoport, 1977; Ulrich, 1983; Zajonc & Marcus, 1982). In this study, the built environment stimuli, those are considered as the environmental feature attributes, are the environmental characteristics of the pictures such as: vegetation; shading; the buildings (shophouses); skyline; images of commercial activities (goods); electric equipments, advertising sign, vehicle parking; and the others in visible senses. These characteristics are affected to the visual preference (Peterson, 1967; Im, 1987).

Vegetation Greenery is one of built environmental elements, which is different among two photos. Photo-41 is responded in term of environment as the most preference with a big amount of vegetation.

While looking at the photos, participants perceived the vegetation and they evaluated through their experiences of the vegetation’s functions with the environment. The role of vegetation in landscape is claimed in many studies (Rogge et al., 2007; Wolf, 2004; Herzog et al., 2000; Coeterier, 1996; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1983; Purcell and Lamb, 1984). According to

Ulrich (1986), liking for urban scenes is usually increased when trees and other vegetation are presented. Views of nature, compared to most urban scenes lacking natural elements such as trees, appear to have more positive influences on emotional and physiological states. The

benefits of visual encounters with vegetation may be greatest for individuals experiencing stress or anxiety. His research demonstrates that responses to trees and other vegetation can be linked directly to health, and in turn related to economic benefits of visual quality (Ulrich, 1986). People perceive green spaces in terms of certain dimensions, some of which

are more important and preferred compared to others with respect to helping people recover

from stress (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2010).

Unlike the photo-41, in the photo-22, the vegetation is only one or a few small trees which are existed among the picture with a hot climate sense. Lacking of green tree in the images of photo-22 may be one of reasons made the participants feeling hot and

dazzling. The larger green canopy and higher percentage greenery can protect and against the heat from the sunshine. Base on those functions of greenery in urban environment, the participants prefer the photo-41 as the most is also the answer for the preferences of people to the vegetation. The large green canopy from the big tree in the picture of photo-41 has made more positive

feeling to the responders due to their experience of greenery’s roles. The greenery causes a cooler sense below the sunshine of a tropical area as Hue city.



The results reveal that, people prefer the greenery in term of environmental response and their evaluations are entirely based on the environmental perceptions. The preferences of built environment increase in correlating with increase of the greenery in the environment. In other words, people prefer more vegetation to less vegetation in urban and it should be better with the big trees and large greenery canopy.

Shading

Besides, in the photo-41, the environment is also appeared with most shading, while the photos-22 are lacking in shading, especially, the shadow of outdoor space. This is one of elements that affects to the respondents’ cognition. In the area of study, almost shading is due to the canopy of the big tree. Nevertheless, the shadow from the trees makes the outdoor spaces looking cool, but the shading indoors causes the buildings looking darker (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Differences in shading element among two photos of the environment in front of the Hue Citadel



Shading is one of feature attributes in landscape and urban design. Many studies have investigated about the decrement of temperature due to the shading (Papadakis et al., 2001; Porta-Gándara et al., 2009). Shading refers to the effect of shadows cast upon adjacent areas by proposed structures. Consequences of shadows upon land uses may be positive, including cooling effects during warm weather, or negative, such as the loss of natural light necessary for solar energy purposes or the loss of warming influences during cool weather. However, the shading in this case may effects to the participants in the experienced evaluation of the climate of visiting in a tropical country. The shadow of the big tree can protect and reduce the heat from the sunshine and make the activities of the human are more advantageous. The results of preferences of environment aesthetic are more increasing following to the amount of shading in the pictures. Thus, people prefer more outdoor shading in the environmental landscape, particularly the shading as shadow of the vegetation.

Other spatial configurations

According to Hershberger (1992), the forms, colours and spatial configurations of the built environment that may influence overall aesthetic response; and, due to the variation among such elements. Im (1987) also proposes that visual preference can be affected by physical variables, including texture, color, and shape of space components, as well as ratios among various dimensions. In this research, those elements are occurred differently in each photo. In the photo-41, the buildings (shophouses) are not high and quite systematic with

one storey only. Meanwhile the photo-22 contents the images of the shophouses with lacking of identities: difference of the height and the width among each of shophouses; uneven skyline; and inhomogeneous number and height of storey. In addition, in the photo-41, the image of sidewalk is occurred that can be used for almost the walk-way; the sidewalk in

the photo-22 is employed for commercial activities (goods and advertising sign) or vehicles

parking. Public equipment such as traffic signals, telephone boxes, moving public toilet, electric poles, also affect to the environmental perceptions. These elements is impeded

the viewing of the responder while observing the landscape. The buildings and the goods of shophouses in this area cannot be appeared clearly because of the obstacle of those elements. Besides, the sky in the photo-41 is almost hidden by the canopy of the trees, but it seems to be drawn by the electric lines in the photo-22. And the environmental



has responded with fewer preferences with the image of the electric lines on the sky. The characteristic as commercial activity also causes the troubles with its attributes such as goods and advertising signs. Types of goods and numerous of form of advertising signs make the spatial configuration of built environment is different in each photograph. Other spatial configurations are commercial activity and their settings including restaurant, guesthouse, and tourism service office. The respondents evaluate these features with less preferences than when those are disorder and unsystematic.

Figure 9. The spatial configuration of the environment in front of Hue citadel

Thus, from the results analysis and the descriptions of the elements of form and spatial configurations above, the study extracts that the participants respond to environmental

attributes as forms and spatial configurations in this area base on cognizing through the photos and they give less preference with inhomogeneous buildings and unclear viewing.



CONCLUSIONS

The research has obtained the perceptions on the built environment in front of the Hue Citadel base on gathering of preference evaluations. The preferences to the environment have carried out to investigate through surveying the people’s evaluations follow to 10 scales. Area of study was limited on the route from a tourist parking-lot to a main entrance of the Hue Citadel; and the participants were chosen are the local architecture students. The results of this study reveal that respondents prefer environment with more vegetation and shading image. Besides, spatial configurations of the environment also influence to the

respondents’ preference. People prefer a neat and clear space for the environment; buildings and its attributes which have strong identity; and the public service equipments should be used and adjusted in its right functions and place.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank all of our participants as the students from the Faculty of Architecture, University of Sciences (Hue University, Vietnam), for their time and feed-back.



REFERENCES

Arriaza, M., J. F. Canas-Ortega, J. A. Canas-Madueno and P. Ruiz-Aviles. (2004). “Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes.” Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 115-125.

Bernaldez, F. G., J. P. Ruiz, J. Benayas and R. P. Abello, (1998). “Real landscapes versus photographed landscapes: Preference dimensions.” Landscape Res. 13: 10-11.

Bernasconi, C., M. P. Strager, V. Maskey and M. Hasenmyer. (2008). “Assessing public

preferences for design and environmental attributes of an urban automated transportation

system.” Journal of Lanscape and Urban Planning 90: 155-167.

Caivano, J. L., L. Rimoldi. (1996). “The meanings of color in Argentina.” In Colour report:

Colour and psychology F50. Proceedings of the 7 Interim Meeting, 161-163. Edited

by L. Sivik. Gothenburg: Scandinavian Colour Institute AB.

Coeterier, J. F. (1996). “Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch

landscape.“ Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning 34: 27-44.

Daniel, T. C. (2001). “Whiter scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st

century.“ Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning 54: 267-281.

Grahn, P. and U.K.Stigsdotter (2010). “The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of

urban green space and stress restoration.” Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning

94 (3-4): 264-275.

Hershberger, R.G. (1992). “A study of meaning and architecture.” In Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and application. Edited by J. L. Nasar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herzog, T. R. (1992). “A cognitive analysis of preference for fi eld-and-forest environments.”

In Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and application. Edited by J. L. Nasar.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herzog, T. R., E. J. Herbert, R. Kaplan and C. L. Crooks (2000). “Cultural and developmental comparison of landscape perceptions and preferences.“ Environ. Behav. 32(3): 323-346.

Hull, R. B. and W. P Stewart (1992).“Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments.“ Journal

of Environmental Psychology 12: 101-114.

Im, S. B. (1983).“Visual preference in enclosed urban space: An exploration of a scientifi c approach to environmental design.“ Environment and Behavior 16, 2: 235-262.

Im, S. B. (1987).“Optimum W/H ratios in enclosed spaces: The relationship between visual

preference and the spartial ratio.“ The Journal of Architecture and Planning Research 4, 2: 134-148.

Ittelson, W. H. (1973). Environment and cognition. New York: Seminar Press.



Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. (1983). Cognition and environment. Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.

Kaplan, R. and E. J. Herbert. (1992).“Familiarity and preference: A cross-cultural analysis.” In Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and application. Edited by J. L. Nasar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, S. (1987).“Aesthectics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective.“ Environment and Behaviour 19: 3-32.

Law, C. S. and E. H. Zube (1983).“Effects of photographic composition on landscape perception.“ Landscape Res. 8: 22-23.

Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nasar, J. L. (1994).“Urban dsign aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors.“

Environment and Behaviour 26 (3): 377-401.

Papadakis, G., P. Tsamis and S. Kyritsis. (2001).“An experimental investigation of the effect

of shading with plants for solar control of buildings.” Journal of Energy and Buiding:

831-836.

Peterson, G. L. (1967). “A model of preference: Quantitative analysis of the perception of the

visual appearance of residential neighborhoods:” Journal of Regional Science 7: 19-31.

Porta-Gándarab, M. A., V. M. Gómez-Mu˜noz and J. L Fernándezc. (2009). “Effect of tree

shades in urban planning in hot-arid climatic regions.” Journal of Landscape and Urban

Planning 94 (2010): 149-157.

Purcell, A. T. and R. J. Lamb. (1984). “The prediction of scenic beauty from landscape content

and composition.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 4: 7-26.

Rapoport, A. (1976). “Environmetal cognition in cross-cultural perspective.” In Environmental

knowing. Edited by G. T. Moore and R. G. Golledge. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson

& Ross.

Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: Toward a man-environment approach to

urban form and design. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Rogge, E., F. Nevens and H. Gulinck. (2007). “Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders:

Looking beyond aesthetics.” Landscape Plan 82: 159-174.

Schafer, E. L., J. F. Hamilton and E. A. Schmidt. (1969). “Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model.” J. Leisure Res. 1: 1-19.

Schafer Jr., E. L., R. O. Brush (1977). “How to measure preferences for photographs of natural

landscapes.” Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning 4: 237-256.Schuttleworth, S. (1980). “The evaluation of landscape quality.” Landscape Res. 5: 14-20.

Sommer, R. and B. Sommer. (2002). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques. Oxford: Oxford University Press.



Stamps, A. E. (1990). “Use of photographs to simulate environments: Ameta-analysis.” Percept. Mot. Skills 71: 907-913.

Stewart, T. R., P. Middleton, M. Downton and D. Ely. (1984). “Judgment of photographs vs. fi eld observation in studies of perception and judgment of visual environment.” Journal Environmental Psychology 4: 283-302.

Tannenbaum, P. H. and C. E Osgood. (1952). Effect of color on the meanings of advertised products. Cited in C. E.Osgood, G. J. Suci and P. H. Tannenbaum. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Ulrich, R. S. (1983). “Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment.” In Human

behaviour and environment: Vol. 6. Behaviour and the natural environment. Edited by

I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill. New York: Plenum Press.

Ulrich, R. S. (1986). “Human responses to vegetation and landscapes.” Landscape and urban

planning Vol. 13: 29-44.

Wherrett, J. R. (2000). “Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques.”

Landscape Res. 25: 76-96.

Wolf, K. L. (2004). “Trees and business district preferences: A case study of Athens.” Georgia,

U. S. J. Arboricult 30: 336-346.

Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis. New York: Harper and Row.

Zajonc, R. B. and H. Marcus. (1982). “Affective and cognitive factors in preferences.” Journal

of Consumer Research 9 (2): 123-131.

The Preferences of Architecture Students on the Built ... · PDF fileThe Preferences of...

Documents

Transcript of The Preferences of Architecture Students on the Built ... · PDF fileThe Preferences of...