A NUMERICAL MODELING OF SPACE-USER RELATIONS IN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL STRUCTURES

Öz

This paper aims at analyzing space-user relations in complex multi-storey structures in the light of integration and connectivity measures derived from space syntax technique. A complex structure, Suleyman Demirel University Hospital which represents an unknown for its users, was taken as the sampling area. Considering hospital circulation spaces under scope the research was realized in three stages. The first stage was spatial analysis of accessibility patterns by using space syntax measures. The second stage was behavioral analysis for determining impacts of behavioral variables observed. And the final stage was cognitive analysis to review impacts of variables in space cognition. In the research stages, the analyses of routes reached during open and directed explorations with own data of space were compared throughout behavioral analyses. As per cognitive analyses, the data obtained from the maps of cognition were compared to the data of space. Conclusions suggest that the areas with high integration and connectivity are determined as key factors of learning and gathering knowledge in the space; these factors are even of great significance particularly in learning local space information. It is envisaged that users have preferred the areas with high connectivity and integration whenever they felt lost in the space.

MEKAN-KULLANICI İLİŞKİLERİNİN HASTANE ÖRNEĞİNDE SAYISAL OLARAK MODELLENMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışma; çok katlı kompleks yapılarda “space syntax” ölçümleri ışığında mekan-kullanıcı ilişkilerini değerlendirerek yürütülmüştür. Bu amaçla kullanıcısı için bir bilinmeyeni ifade eden hastane yapısı örneklem alanı olarak seçilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında hastane dolaşım mekanları dikkate alınarak 3 aşamada yürütülmüştür 1) Mekanın analizi; Erişilebilirlik dokusunun analizi 2)Davranışsal analiz; Gözlenen davranışsal değişkenlerin etkilerinin ortaya konması 3) Bilişsel analizler; Mekansal bilişteki değişkenlerin etkilerinin incelenmesi. Çalışmada space syntax kullanılarak mekanın erişilebilirlik dokuları analiz edilmiş, davranışsal analizler boyunca mekanın kendi verileri ile açık keşif ve yönlenmiş keşif sırasında elde edilen rotaların analizleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Bilişsel analizlerde ise; biliş haritalar üzerinden elde edilen verilerle mekanın kendi verileri karşılaştırılmıştır. Bütünleşme ve bağlantılığı yüksek alanlar, mekandaki öğrenme ve bilgilenme sürecinde önemli bir faktör olarak karşımıza çıkmış olup, özellikle lokal bilgi mekanın öğrenilmesinde önemli bir faktör olarak görülmüştür. Kullanıcıların mekanda kaybolduğunu hissettiği anlarda hem bütünleşme hem de bağlantılığı yüksek alanları tercih ettiği ve bu alanları çizimlerine yansıttığı izlenmiştir.

Kaynakça

1. Bechtel, R. B., 1997. An Introduction, Environment and Behavior, Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
2. Boulding, Kenneth E., 1956. The Image. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. p. 150- 151.
3. Chang, D, & Penn, A. (1998). Integrated multilevel circulation in dense urban areas: the effect of multiple interacting constraints on the use of complex urban areas. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25, 507-538.
4. Ching, F. D. K., 2002. Mimarlık, Biçim, Mekan ve Düzen, YEM Yayın, İstanbul.
5. Downs, R., ve Stea, D., 1973. Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Sapatial Behavior. Chicago: Aldrine.
6. Evans, G., 1980. Cognitive Mapping and Architecture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 474-478.
7. Foley, J.E. ve Cohen, A.J., 1984. Working Mental Representations of the Environment, Environment & Behavior, 16, 713-729.
8. Goodall, B., 1985. Dictionary of Human Geography. Penguin Reference Books, London.

9. Haq, S., 2001. Complex Architectural Settings: An Investigation of Spatial and Cognitive Variables Through Wayfinding Behavior”, Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture, College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology.
10. Haq, S., Girotto, S., 2003. Ability and Intelligibility:Wayfinding and Environmental
11. Cognition in the Designed Environment, Proceedings, 4th International Space Syntax
12. SymposiumLondon.http://www.scribd.com/doc/6707721/Ability-and
13. IntelligibilityWayfinding-and-Environmental-Cognition-in-the-Designed
14. Environment 14.01.2008.
15. Hart, R. A. ve Moore, G., 1973. The Development of Spatial Cognition: A Review, In R. M.
16. Downs & Stea (Eds), Image and Environment (pp. 246-288). Chicago: Adline Publishing Company.
17. Hillier, B., Hanson, J., Peponis, J. Hudson, J. ve Burdett, R., 1983.Space Syntax: a different urban perspective, The Architects Journal, 178(48), pp 48-63 London,.
18. Hillier, B., Hanson, J. ve Graham, H., 1987. Ideas are in things: an application of the space syntax method to discovering house genotypes. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, vol-14, p. 363-385.
19. Hillier, B., 1993. Specifically Architecture Theory, Harvard Architecture Review, vol 9, pp.8 27.
20. Hillier, B., 1996. Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
21. Hillier, B. ve Hanson, J., 1984. The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
22. Kaplan, S., 1973. Cognitive Maps in Perception and Thought. In R. Downs & Stea (Eds), Image and Environment: Cognitive Mappings and Spatial Behavior. Chicago:Adline.
23. Kaplan, S., 1976.Adaptation Structure, and Knowledge. In G. T. Moore ve R. G. Golledge
24. (eds), Environmental Knowing (pp.32-45) Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinsen ve Ross.
25. Lawson, B., 2005. The Language of Space, Architectural Press, Oxford, UK.
26. Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, çev. Donald Nicholson-Smith.
27. Lemprecht, B., 1996, The Gap Between Desing and Healing?, Metropolis, Vol:77, 123.
28. Lynch, K. 1960. Image of the City, the M.I.T. Press, Cambridge.
29. Moore, G. T. ve Golledge, R. G., 1976. Environmental Knowledge Theories, Research and Methods: Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc.
30. Peponis, J., Hadjinikolaou, E., Livieratos, C. ve Fatouros, D.A., 1989.The Spatial Core of Urban Culture, Ekistics, 334/335, pp43-55.
31. Peponis, J., Zimring , C. ve Choi, Y.K., 1990. Finding the Building in Wayfinding, Environment and Behavior, 22, no.5, 555-590.
32. Proshansky H.M., Ittelson, W.H., Rivlin, L.G. (1970). The Environmental Psychology of the
33. Psychiatric Ward. In Proshansky, H.M., Ittelson, W.H., Rivlin, L.G. (Eds.). Environmental
34. Psychology: Man and His Physical Setting, pp. 419–439. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
35. Read, S., 1999. Space Syntax and Dutch City, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 1999, Vol.26, pp.251-264, Pion, Brondesbury.
36. Tuan, Y. F., 1975. Images and Mental Maps, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 65/2: 205-213.
37. Turner, A. (2004) Depthmap 4: a researcher's handbook. Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London: London, UK.