İç Mekân Organizasyonu ve Deneyim Tasarımında Kullanılan Haritalama Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Öz

Mimari iç mekân ve kullanıcı etkinliğine yönelik iç görülerin geliştirilmesinde yeni yöntemlerin gerekliliği güncel bir tartışma alanı yaratmıştır. Günümüzde haritalama metodolojisinin sunduğu olanaklar mimari mekân ve deneyim tasarımı için bir köprü işlevi görmektedir. Bu çalışma, bireylerin veya grupların mekâna özgü davranışları, hareketleri ve mekânda nasıl yöneldiği ve deneyimlediği olmak üzere çok sayıda soruya yanıt verebilecek haritalama metodolojilerinin rolünü sistematik biçimde araştırmaktadır. Akademik veri tabanlarında 1960-2024 yıllarını kapsayan yayınlar ayrıntılı bir alan yazın taraması yoluyla incelendiğinde, mevcut literatürde iç mekân organizasyonu ve deneyimin geliştirilmesinde tasarım karar sistemine dahil edilebilir haritalama metodolojilerinin uygulayıcılara tanıtıldığı bir rehber çalışmanın olmadığı görülmüştür. Bulgular, her yöntemin avantajlarını ve potansiyelini vurgulamakta ve uygulayıcılara insan merkezci, teknoloji tabanlı ve yazılım tabanlı olmak üzere üç haritalama yöntemi kategorisi hakkında rehberlik edecek kapsamlı bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Çalışma, geçmişte ve günümüzde kullanılan haritalama metodolojilerinin avantajlarını ve sınırlamalarını değerlendirerek, bunların mekânsal uygulamalara temel katkılarını ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, potansiyel araştırmacıların/tasarımcıların/uygulayıcıların bu metodolojileri karar verme ve tasarım süreçlerine entegre etmelerini sağlayan, karşılaştırmalı modüler bilgi setleri şeklinde mekânsal haritalama metodolojilerini bir araya getiren bir rehber kılavuz önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mekân tasarımı
• mekân analizi
• haritalama yöntemleri
• mimari görselleştirme
• iç mekân deneyimi

Comparative Analysis of Mapping Methods Used in Interior Space Organization and Experience Design

Abstract

The necessity for new methods to gain insights into architectural interiors and user activity has sparked ongoing debate. Today, the possibilities offered by mapping methodologies serve as a bridge between architectural space and experience design. This research systematically explores the role of mapping methodologies in addressing a wide range of questions regarding the spatial behavior and movement of individuals or groups and how they orient themselves within and experience space. Detailed research of publications from academic databases spanning 1960 to 2024 reveals a lack of guidance in existing literature for practitioners on incorporating mapping methodologies into their design decision-making processes to enhance the organization and experience of interior spaces. The findings underline the advantages and potentials of each method, providing a comprehensive framework to guide practitioners on three categories of mapping methods: human centered, technology-based, and software-based. The study evaluates the advantages and limitations of mapping methodologies used in the past and present, revealing their fundamental contributions to spatial applications. As a result, this study proposes a guiding manual that brings together spatial mapping methodologies in the form of comparative modular information sets, enabling potential researchers/designers/practitioners to integrate the simultaneous use of these methodologies into their decision-making and design processes.

Keywords

• Spatial design
• spatial analysis
• mapping methods
• architectural visualization
• interior spatial experience

References

1. Annan, A. P. (2002). GPR—History, Trends, and Future Developments. Subsurface Sensing Technologies and Applications, 3(4), 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020657129590
2. Bafna, S. (2003). Space Syntax: A Brief Introduction to Its Logic and Analytical Techniques. Environment and Behaviour, 35(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502238863
3. Baltsavias, E. P. (1999). A Comparison Between Photogrammetry and Laser Scanning. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 54(2-3), 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2716(99)00014-3
4. Bechtel, R. & Zeisel, J. (1987). Observation: The World Under a Glass. R. B. Bechtel, R. W. Marans, & W. Michelson (Eds.), Methods in Environmental and Behavioral Research (p. 11–40). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
5. Bellman, R. E. (1978). An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence: Can Computers Think?. San Francisco: Boyd & Fraser Publishing Company.
6. Birkert, C. (2009). Personal Meaning Mapping Eine Methode, das Lernen im Museum sichtbar zu machen, Jüdisches Museum, Berlin, retrieved from https://www.dasadortmund.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente_pdf/VA/Tagung_N WBSF/Vortrag_Christiane_Birkert_Personal_Meaning_Mapping.pdf/ (last access: 22.01.2025).
7. Botín-Sanabria, D. M., Mihaita, A., Peimbert-García, R. E., Ramírez-Moreno, M. A., Ramírez-Mendoza, R. A. & Lozoya-Santos, J. J. (2022). Digital Twin Technology Challenges and Applications: A Comprehensive Review. Remote Sensing, 14(6), 1335. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14061335
8. Carter, J. R. (1989). On Defining the Geographic Information System. W. J. Ripple (Ed.), Fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems: A Compendium (p. 3-7). Falls Church, Virginia: ASPRS/ACSM.

9. Casali, J. G. (2012). Sound and Noise: Measurement and Design Guidance. G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (p. 638–672). New York: Wiley and Sons.
10. Chaillou, S. (2019). ArchiGAN: A Generative Stack for Apartment Building Design, NVIDIA Corporation, retrieved from https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/archigan-generative-stack-apartment-building-design/ (last access: 22.01.2025).
11. Christidou, D. (2020). Social Meaning Mapping as a Means of Exploring Visitors Practices in the Museum. Visitor Studies, 23(2), 162-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2020.1773708
12. Corner, J. (1999). The Agency of Mapping: Speculation, Critique and Invention. D. Cosgrove (Ed.), Mappings (p. 213–252). London: Reaktion Books.
13. Danielsson, C. (2005). Office Design: Applying Lynch's Theory on Office Environments. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning, Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 4, 69-79. https://arkitekturforskning.net/na/article/view/168/131
14. Davies, M. (2011). Concept Mapping, Mind Mapping and Argument Mapping: What are the Differences and Do They Matter?. Higher Education, 62(3), 279-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6
15. Decker, D. (2001). GIS Data Sources. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
16. Do, T. L. P., Sanhae, K., Hwang, L. & Lee, S. (2024). Real-Time Spatial Mapping in Architectural Visualization: A Comparison among Mixed Reality Devices. Sensors, 24(14), 4727. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24144727
17. Eastman, C. M., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. & Liston, K. (2011). BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modelling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
18. Egels, Y. & Kasser, M. (2001). Digital Photogrammetry. London: CRC Press.
19. Goodfellow, I. J., Bengio, Y. & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning: Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning Series. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
20. Groover, M. P. & Zimmers. E. W. (1984). CAD/CAM: Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing. USA: Prentice Hall International Editions.
21. Hanson, J. (1998). Decoding Homes and Houses. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. He, S. (2018). From Beautiful Maps to Actionable Insights: Introducing kepler.gl, Uber’s Open Source Geospatial Toolbox, Uber Blog, retrieved from https://www.uber.com/en-AU/blog/keplergl (last access: 22.01.2025).
23. Hess, W., Kohler, D., Rapp, H. & Andor, D. (2016). Real-Time Loop Closure in 2D LIDAR SLAM. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (p. 1271-1278). Stockholm, 16-21 May 2016.
24. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is The Machine. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Hovestadt, L., Hirschberg, U. & Fritz, O. (2020). Atlas of Digital Architecture: Terminology, Concepts, Methods, Tools, Examples, Phenomena. Switzerland: Birkhauser.
26. Khanzode, K. C.A. & Sarode, R.D. (2020). Advantages and Disadvantages of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: A literature Review. International Journal of Library and Information Science, 9(1), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GV5T4
27. Kraus, K. (2000). Photogrammetry, Volume 1, Fundamentals and Standard Processes. Köln: Dümmler.
28. Krokstad, A., Strom, S. & Sørsdal, S. (1968). Calculating The Acoustical Room Response by The Use of A Ray Tracing Technique. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 8(1), 118–125. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022460X68901983
29. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2553248
30. Li, Y. & Nielsen, P. V. (2011). Commemorating 20 Years of Indoor Air: CFD and Ventilation Research. Indoor Air, 21(6), 442-453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2011.00723.x
31. Loosli, E. (2024). LIDAR vs. Photogrammetry: What Sensor to Choose for a Given Application, LIDAR Drone, Wingtra, retrieved from https://wingtra.com/drone-photogrammetry-vs-lidar/ (last access: 30.12.2024).
32. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Massachusetts, Cambridge: Harward University Press.
33. Mace, V., Gramegna, S. M. & Biamonti, A. (2023). Experience is Learning: The Piazza Grace Case Study. D. Jones, N. Borekci, V. Clemente, J. Corazzo, N. Lotz, L. M. Nielsen, L. Noel (Eds.), The 7th International Conference for Design Education Researchers, 29 November - 1 December, Londra, Birleşik Krallık, 1-11.
34. Major, M. D., Penn, A. & Hillier, B. (1997). The Question Does Compute: The Role of the Computer in Space Syntax. Proceedings Volume 3 of the First International Space Syntax Symposium, University College London, UCL, April, 42.01-42.07.
35. Malchaire, J. (2001). Sound Measuring Instruments. In Occupational Exposure to Noise: Evaluation, Prevention and Control. Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Dortmund, 125-140.
36. Mann, S., Furness, T.A., Yuan, Y., Iorio, J. & Wang, Z. (2018). All Reality: Virtual, Augmented, Mixed (X), Mediated (X, Y), and Multimediated Reality. ArXiv, 8. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.08386
37. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge. Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A. & Kishino, F. (1994). Augmented Reality: A Class of Displays on the Reality-Virtuality Continuum. Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, SPIE, 2351, 282-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.197321
38. Novak, J. & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning How to Learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Novak, J. D. & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them (Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008). Pensacola Florida: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
40. Okedu, K. E., Oyinna, B. C., Diemuodeke, E. O., Colak, I., & Kalam, A. (2024). Multicriteria GIS-based Assessment of Biomass Energy and Hydropower Potentials in Nigeria. Measurement: Sensors, 33, 101243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measen.2024.101243
41. Overholt, K., Weinschenk, C. & Madrzykowski, D. (2014). Simulation of a Fire in a Hillside Residential Structure - San Francisco, CA (NIST Technical Note 1856). Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
42. Paradiso J. A. & Landay, J. A. (2009). Guest Editors Introduction: Cross-Reality Environments. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 8, 3, 14-15. https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MPRV.2009.47
43. Peterson, M. P. (2003). Maps and the Internet. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.
44. Pickles, J. (2003). A History of Spaces: Cartographic Reason, Mapping and the Geo-Coded World. London: Routledge.
45. Regrebsubla, N. (2016). Determinants of Diffusion of Virtual Reality. Almanya: Grin Verlag.
46. Rohloff, I. K., Psarra, S. & Wineman, J. (2009). Experiencing Museum Gallery Layouts through Local and Global Visibility Properties in Morphology: An inquiry on the YCBA, the MoMA and the HMA. Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, School of Architecture, Stockholm, KTH, June 8-11, 94:1-94:14.
47. Singh, M., Fuenmayor, E., Hinchy, E. P., Qiao, Y., Murray, N. & Devine, D. (2021). Digital Twin: Origin to Future. Applied System Innovation, 4(2), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi4020036
48. Sommer, R. & Sommer, B. (2002). A Practical Guide to Behavioral Research: Tools and Techniques. New York: Oxford University Press.
49. Tao, F., Zhang, H., Liu, A. & Nee, A. Y. C. (2019). Digital Twin in Industry: State-of-the-Art. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 15(4), 2405-2415. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2018.2873186
50. Thrun, S. (2007). Simultaneous Localization and Mapping. M. E. Jefferies, W. K. Yeap (Eds.), Robotics and Cognitive Approaches to Spatial Mapping (p. 13-41). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, Vol 38.
51. Tröndle, M., Greenwood, S., Kirchberg, V. & Tschacher, W. (2012). An Integrative and Comprehensive Methodology for Studying Aesthetic Experience in the Field: Merging Movement Tracking, Physiology, and Psychological Data. Environment and Behavior, 46(1), 102-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512453839
52. URL-1. Art Graphique and Patrimoine, Jumeaux Numériques, retrieved from https://artgp.fr/prestations-de-mesures/jumeaux-numeriques (last access: 22.01.2025).
53. Verdonck, L., Launaro, A., Vermeulen, F. & Millett, M. (2020). Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey at Falerii Novi: A New Approach to the Study of Roman Cities. Antiquity, 94(375), 705–723. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.82
54. Vijayalakshmi, S. R. & Muruganand, S. (2018). Wireless Sensor Networks. Amerika Birleşik Devletleri: Mercury Learning and Information.
55. Wu, X., Xu, K. & Hall, P. (2017). A Survey of Image Synthesis and Editing with Generative Adversarial Networks. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 22(6), 660–674. https://doi.org/10.23919/TST.2017.8195348
56. Wunderlich, F. M. (2008). Walking and Rhythmicity: Sensing Urban Space. Journal of Urban Design, 13(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800701803472
57. Yoshimura, Y., Girardin, F., Carrascal, J. P., Ratti, C. & Blat, J. (2012). New Tools for Studying Visitor Behaviours in Museums: A Case Study at the Louvre. M. Fuchs, F. Ricci, L. Cantoni (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism (p. 391-402). Vienna: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1142-0_34.