Kafelerde mekân organizasyonunun kullanıcıların algısal değerlendirmeleri üzerindeki etkisi

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 40 Sayı: 1, 237 - 250, 16.08.2024

Kemal Yıldırım , Menşure Kübra Müezzinoğlu , Necmi Kahraman

https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.1388250

Öz

Daha önce yapılan çalışmalar, kafelerde farklı mekân organizasyonunun kullanıcıların algısal değerlendirmelerini etkileyebileceğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışmada, düzenli, düzensiz ve çok düzensiz mekân organizasyonuna sahip kafelerin fiziksel çevre faktörlerine yönelik katılımcıların algısal değerlendirmeleri analiz edilmiştir. Bu araştırmanın hipotezlerini test etmek kafe mekânlarını, katılımcıların Google Formlarda oluşturulan anket formu uygulaması üzerinden çevrimiçi değerlendirmeleri istenmiştir. Araştırma verileri ayrıntılı bir anket yardımıyla 192 katılımcıdan elde edilmiştir. Anket verilerinin analizine göre, düzenli kafenin fiziksel çevre faktörlerinin düzensiz ve çok düzensiz kafelere oranla çekicilik (çekici, huzur verici ve sıcak), planlama (iyi düzenlenmiş ve iyi planlanmış) ve özgürlük (ferah, toplu, seyrek, büyük, geniş, özgür ve sade) faktörleri için daha olumlu yönde algılandığı tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, düzensiz kafenin de çok düzensiz kafeye göre tüm unsurlar için daha olumlu yönde algılandığı belirlenmiştir. Buna göre, düzensizliğin artış oranına bağlı olarak kafelerin daha olumsuz yönde algılandığı görülmektedir. Diğer taraftan, katılımcıların yaş farklılığının farklı mobilya düzenlemeleri kullanılan kafelerin çevresel faktörlerinin algılanmasında istatistiksel bakımdan etkili olmadığı, fakat katılımcıların meslek, cinsiyet ve eğitim düzeylerindeki farkların değerlendirmede etken kriter olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Elde edilen verilere göre tasarım eğitimi alanların, kadınların ve yüksek eğitimlilerin algısal değerlendirmelerinde daha olumsuz bir yaklaşımda bulundukları belirlenmiştir. Bu araştırma, kafe mekânlarında çoğu zaman karşılaşılan farklı mobilya düzeninin kullanıcıların duyguları üzerinde farklı etkiler uyandırdığını açıkça ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kafe, mekânsal organizasyon, mobilya düzeni, iç mekan tasarımı

Etik Beyan

Selçuk Üniversitesi, Mimarlık ve Tasarım Fakültesi Etik Kurulu tarafından 12.07.2023 tarihli ve 06/03 sayı numaralı etik kurul onayı alınmıştır.

Teşekkür

Araştırma anketlerini gönüllü olarak dolduran değerli katılımcılara, verilerin toplanmasına katkı sağlayan Berkem Güney’e ve renderları hazırlayan CGI Artist Buğra Ergün’e çok teşekkür ederiz.

Kaynakça

• 1. Macht M., Meininger J., Roth, J., The pleasure of eating: A qualitative analysis, Journal of Happiness Studies, 6 (2), 137-160, 2005.
• 2. Taylor S.E., Brown, J.D., Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health, Psychological Bulletin, 103 (2), 193-210, 1998.
• 3. Kutlu R., Çevresel faktörlerin mekân kalitesi ve insan sağlığına etkileri, Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 8 (1), 67-78, 2018.
• 4. Baker J., The role of the environment in marketing sciences: The consumer perspective, The Services Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage, 1986.
• 5. Scott N., Laws E., Boksberger P., The marketing of hospitality and leisure experiences, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 18 (2-3), 99-110, 2009.
• 6. Müezzinoğlu M.K., Analysis of the components affecting the interior styling of franchising cafes, J. Art Arch. Stud., 10 (2), 42-49 2021.
• 7. Dinçer Ö., Mimari mekân organizasyon sürecinde mekansal hemyüzel birleşim ve entegrasyon kavramlarının analizi, Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir, 2005.
• 8. Reinecke J.A., Schoell W.F., Introduction to business: A contemporary view, Hardcover, Allyn & Bacon Inc., U.S.; 4th Revised Edition, 1983.
• 9. Onat E., Mekânsal düzenin kuruluşu ve mimarlıkta tasarlama üzerine kavramsal bilgiler, ADMMA, Ankara, 1982.
• 10. Yıldırım K., Eğitim yapıları ve tasarımı, eğitim yapılarında mekânsal organizasyon ve donatı, PEGEM, Editör: Selda Al Şensoy, Basım sayısı:1, Sayfa sayısı: 650, ISBN:9786050370584, 241-265, 2018.
• 11. Bilgin N., Çeşitli sosyo-kültürel gruplarda eşya sistemleri ve insan eşya ilişkileri, Teknografik Matbaası, İzmir, 1986.
• 12. Hall E.T., The silent language, Anchor Book, Fr. Çev. Le Language Silencieux, 1959.
• 13. Hall E.T., The hidden dimension, Fr. Çev. La Dimension Cachée, Seuil, 1966.
• 14. Evans G.W., Lepore S.J., Schroeder A., The role of architecture in human responses to crowding, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol, 70, 41-46, 1996.
• 15. Peponis J., Wineman J., Spatial structure of environment and behavior, in: Betchel RB, Churchman A, eds. Handbook of Environmental Psychology, 2nd ed. New York, Wiley, 271-291, 2002.
• 16. Wohlwill J.F., Human response to levels of environmental stimulation, Human Ecology, 2, 127-147, 1974.
• 17. Berrlyne D.E., Aesthetics and psychology, New York: Appleton, Century Crafts, 1974.
• 18. Mehrabian A., Russell J., An approach to environmental psychology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1974.
• 19. Aiello J., Human Spatial Behavior, in D. Stokols & I. Altman, Eds., Handbook of environmental psychology, New York: Wiley, 385-504, 1987.
• 20. Baum A., Paulus P.B., Crowding, in D. Stokols & I. Altman, Eds., Handbook of environmental psychology, New York: Wiley, 534-570, 1987.
• 21. Kotler P., Atmospherics as a marketing tool, Journal of Retailing, 49, 48-64, 1973.
• 22. Yıldırım K., The effect of differences in customer characteristics on the evaluation of a store image, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 20 (4), 473-481, 2005.
• 23. Ergün B., Yıldırım K., Hidayetoğlu M.L., The effects of colors used in wall and equipment elements of open offices on perceptual evaluations of users, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 38 (4), 2465-2476, 2023.
• 24. Aksoy Özler K., Hidayetoğlu M.L., Yıldırım K., Effect of wall colors and usage rates on the perception of interior spaces, Gazi University Journal of Science, 36 (3), 965-982, 2023.
• 25. Yıldırım K., Cağatay K., Hidayetoğlu, M.L., The effect of age, gender and education level on customer evaluations of retail furniture store atmospheric attributes, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 43 (8), 712-726, 2015.
• 26. Yıldırım K., Yıldırım Kaya N.N., Olmus F., The effects of indoor plants on customers’ shopping decisions in a restaurant environment, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 48 (12), 1301-1314, 2020.
• 27. Yıldırım K., Müezzinoğlu M.K., İnan B., Yatak odalarında farklı geometrik formların kullanıldığı duvar panellerinin kullanıcıların algısal değerlendirmeleri üzerindeki etkisi, Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 6 (2), 662-675, 2021.
• 28. Wang C., Lu W., Ohno R., Gu Z., Effect of wall texture on perceptual spaciousness of indoor space, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (11), 4177, 2020.
• 29. Coşgun B., Yıldırım K., Hidayetoglu M.L., Effect of wall covering materials on the perception of cafe environments, Facilities, 40 (3/4), 214-232, 2022.
• 30. Bitner M.J., Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees, Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71, 1992.
• 31. Yıldırım K., Güneş E., Yılmaz G.P., The effects of workstation partition heights on employees’ perceptions in open-plan offices, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 21 (2), 148-166, 2019.
• 32. Mihić M., Anić I.D., Kursan-Milaković I., Time spent shopping and consumer clothing purchasing behavior, Ekonomski Pregled, 69 (2), 89-105, 2018.
• 33. Sun T.R., Yazdanifard R., The review of physical store factors that influence impulsive buying behavior, International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 2 (9), 1048-1054, 2015.
• 34. Russell J.A., Mehrabian A., Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions, Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 273-294, 1977.
• 35. Dazkir S.S., Emotional effect of curvilinear vs. rectilinear forms of furniture in interior settings, Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University, Oregon, 2009.
• 36. Sommer R., Wynes M., Brinkley G., Social facilitation effects in shopping behavior, Environment and Behavior, 24, 285-297, 1992.
• 37. Canter D., Wools R., A technique for the subjective appraisal of buildings, Building Science, 5, 187-198, 1970.
• 38. Samuelson D. J., Lindauer M.S., Perception, evaluation and performance in a meat and messy room by high and low sensation seekers, Environment and Behaviour, 8 (2), 291-306, 1976.
• 39. İmamoğlu V., Spaciousness of interiors, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 1975.
• 40. İmamoğlu V., The relation between room organization and spaciousness, Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 2 (2), 205-214, 1976.
• 41. Yıldırım K., Capanoglu A., Cagatay K., Hidayetoglu M.L., Effect of wall colour on the perception of hairdressing salons, JAIC-Journal of the International Colour Association, 7, 51-63, 2012.
• 42. Hidayetoglu M.L., Yildirim K., Akalin A., The effects of color and light on indoor wayfinding and the evaluation of the perceived environment, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32 (1), 50-58, 2012.
• 43. Yıldırım K., Ayalp N., Çağatay K., Effects on users of the seating element types in cafes/restaurants, Gazi University Journal of Science, 30 (4), 15-28, 2017.
• 44. Müezzinoğlu M.K., Hidayetoğlu M.L., Yıldırım K., The effects of the wall colors used in educational spaces on the perceptual evaluations of students, Megaron, 15 (1), 1-12, 2020.
• 45. Müezzinoğlu M.K., Hidayetoğlu M.L., Yıldırım K., The effects of light color temperatures on students' perceptual evaluations in design studios, Color Research and Application, 46 (5), 1006-1018, 2021.
• 46. Lipman A., Propinquity as a factor in social relations: an example and some influences, Cardiff: Welsh College of Advanced Technology (mimeo), 1967.
• 47. Kinch L.J., The effect of furniture arrangements on the social interaction of institutionalized elderly, Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University, Oregon, 1983.
• 48. Holahan C.J., Seating patterns and patient behaviors in an experimental dayroom, Journal of Abnorm Psychol, 80, 115-124, 1972.
• 49. Hershberger R.G., A study of meaning and architecture, J.L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Application, Cambridge University Press, New York, 175-194, 1969.
• 50. Li, K.R., Yang, Y.Q., Zheng, Z.Q., Research on color harmony of building façades, Color Res Appl., 45 (1): 105-119, 2020.
• 51. Gifford R., Hine D.W., Muller-Clemm W., Reynolds D.A.J., Shaw K.T., Decoding modern architecture, Environment and Behavior, 32 (2), 163-187, 2000.
• 52. Llinares C., Montañana A., Astor E.N., Differences in architects and non-architects’ perception of urban design: An application of kansei engineering techniques, Urban Studies Res., 2011.
• 53. Llinares C., Iñarra S., Human factors in computer simulations of urban environment, differences between architects and non-architects’ assessments, Displays, 35 (3), 126-140, 2014.
• 54. Ghomeshi M., Ghomeshi M.N., Jusan M., Identifying the different aesthetic quality of building attributes from architects perspective, Int. J. Modern Eng. Res. (IJMER), 2 (3), 917-919, 2012.
• 55. Malekinezhad F., Chizari H., Lamit H.B., Bin M.S.F.R., A comparative 481 study on designers and non-designers emotion of urban sculptures using affect grid, Life Sci. J., 10 (3), 2056-2063, 2013.
• 56. Baniani M., Yamamoto S., A comparative study on correlation between personal background and interior color preference, Color Res. Appl., 40 (4), 416-424, 2015.
• 57. Boumová I., Zdráhalová J., The apartment with the best floor plan layout: Architects versus non-architects, Critical Housing Anal., 3 (1), 30-41, 2016.
• 58. Ilbeigi M., Ghomeishi M., An assessment of aesthetics in conceptual properties and its relation to complexity among architects and non-architects in residential façade design in Iran, Journal of Buildings and Sustainability, 2 (1), 50-58, 2017.
• 59. Arslan H.D., Yıldırım K., Gülşeker E., Investigation of architect and non-architect participants’ perceptual evaluations on different period mosque facades, Iconarp Int. J. Archit. Plann., 6 (2), 358-370, 2018.
• 60. Yılmaz H., Yıldırım K., Hidayetoglu M.L., The effect of carrier system materials used in an olympic swimming pool on the perceptual evaluations of respondents, Facilities, 40 (9/10), 675-695, 2022.
• 61. Eisler A.D., Eisler H., Yoshida M., Perception of human ecology: Cross-cultural and gender comparisons, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (1), 89-101, 2003.
• 62. Voyer D., Voyer S., Bryden M.P., Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables, Psychological Bulletin, 117 (2), 250, 1995.
• 63. Lindfors P., Berntsson L., Lundberg U., Factor structure of Ryff’s psychological well-being scales in Swedish female and male white-collar workers, Personality and Individual Differences, 40 (6), 1213-1222, 2006.
• 64. Hunter L.M., Hatch A., Johnson A., Cross‐national gender variation in environmental behaviors, Social Science Quarterly, 85 (3), 677-694, 2004.
• 65. Dodd-McCue D., Wright G.B., Men, women, and attitudinal commitment: The effects of workplace experiences and socialization, Human Relations, 49 (8), 1065-1091, 1996.
• 66. Fraser J., Hodge M., Job satisfaction in higher education: Examining gender in professional work settings, Sociological Inquiry, 70 (2), 172-178, 2000.
• 67. Kim J., Dear R., Candido C., Zhang H., Arens E., Gender differences in office occupant perception of indoor environmental quality, Build. Environ., 70, 245-256, 2013.
• 68. Akalın A., Yıldırım K., Wilson C., Saylan, A., Users’ evaluations of house façades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness, Open House International, 35 (1), 57-65, 2010.
• 69. Imamoglu C., Complexity, preference and familiarity: Architecture and nonarchitecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house facades, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20 (1), 5-16, 2000.
• 70. Dubé L., Morgan M.S., Trend effects and gender differences in retrospective judgments of consumption emotions, Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (2), 156-162, 1996.
• 71. Yildirim K., Ayalp N., Aktas G.G., Hidayetoglu M.L., Consumer perceptions and functional evaluations of cash desk types in the clothing retail context, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 42 (6), 542-552, 2014.
• 72. Ayalp N., Yildirim K., Bozdayi M., Cagatay K., Consumers’ evaluations of fitting rooms in retail clothing stores, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 44 (5), 524-539, 2016.
• 73. Joyce M.L., Lambert D.R., Memories of the way stores were and retail store image, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 24, 24-33, 1996.
• 74. Holbrook M.B., Schindler R.M., Age, sex, and attitude toward the past as predictors of consumers’ aesthetic tastes for cultural products, J Mark Res., 31 (3), 412-422, 1994.
• 75. Yıldırım K., Akalın A., Problems related to the dimensions of curved areas in the main living rooms of apartment housing, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 26 (1), 70-87, 2009.
• 76. Yıldırım K., Hidayetoğlu M.L., Şen A., Farklı mimari biçimlerdeki kafe/pastane mekânlarının kullanıcıların algı-davranışsal performansı üzerine etkisi, Politeknik Dergisi, 10 (3) 295-301, 2007.
• 77. İmamoğlu V., The effect of furniture density on the subjective evaluation of spaciousness and estimation of size of rooms, In R. Kuller (ed.) Architecture Psychology, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden Hutchinson and Ross Inc. 341-352, 1973.
• 78. Yıldırım K., Akalin A., Hidayetoglu M.L., The effects of the store window type on consumers’ perception and shopping attitudes through the use of digital pictures, Gazi University Journal of Science, 20 (2), 33-40, 2007.
• 79. Qiu W., Yuille A., UnrealCV: Connecting computer vision to unreal engine, In Computer Vision–ECCV 2016 Workshops: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 8-10 and 15-16, 2016, Proceedings, Part III 14 (pp. 909-916), Springer International Publishing, 2016.
• 80. Regia-Corte T., Marchal M., Cirio G., Lécuye A., Perceiving affordances in virtual reality: influence of person and environmental properties in perception of standing on virtual grounds, Virtual Reality, 17 (1), 17-28, 2013.
• 81. Banaei M., Ahmadi A., Yazdanfar A., Application of AI methods in the clustering of architecture interior forms, Front. Archit. Res., 6 (3), 360-373, 2017.
• 82. Banaei M., Ahmadi A., Gramann K., Hatami J., Emotional evaluation of architectural interior forms based on personality differences using virtual reality, Fron. Archit. Res., 9 (1), 138-147, 2000.
• 83. Wolbers T., Hegarty M., What determines our navigational abilities? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 (3), 138-146, 2010.
• 84. Wallet G., Sauzéon H., Larrue F., N’Kaoua B., Virtual/real transfer in a large-scale environment: Impact of active navigation as a function of the viewpoint displacement effect and recall tasks, Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 1-7, 2013.
• 85. Cha S.H., Koo C., Kim T.W., Hong T., Spatial perception of ceiling height and type variation in immersive virtual environments, Building and Environment, 163, 2019.
• 86. Latini A., Di Giuseppe E., D'Orazio M., Immersive virtual vs real office environments: A validation study for productivity, comfort and behavioural research, Building and Environment, 230, 109996, 2023.
• 87. Abd-Alhamid F., Kent M., Bennett C., Calautit J., Wu Y., Developing an innovative method for visual perception evaluation in a physical-based virtual environment, Building and Environment, 162, 106278, 2019.
• 88. Savavibool N., Moorapun C., Effects of colour, area, and heighton space perception, Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 2 (6), 351-359, 2017.
• 89. Cronbach L.J., Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 16 (3), 297-334, 1951.
• 90. Gökbulut N., Yildirim K., Effects on students’ perceptual performance of the densities of drawing table in design studios, Online Journal of Art and Design, 6 (4), 168-182, 2018.