The role of visual preferences in architecture views


Since the biggest part of the human relationship with environments occurs through visual sense, the interests and wills of humans in seeing environment and architecture are important. In fact, these interests give personal or individual aspects of architecture. The role of these visual interests and mental judgments of architecture audience is very important, such that architecture has become a function of the visual preferences of the audience. Therefore, realizing these preferences is important to form architecture and ignoring them results in not providing the desired architecture condition for the audience or the required motivations for producing useful mental images to meet the basic needs of the audience. Accordingly, this study addresses the role of visual preferences in the formation of environment architecture? And which factors in this environment affect this concept? Thus, this study aims to describe the visual preferences paradigm in architecture in order to examine its different aspects in relation to human and environmental behaviors and determine the effective factors, so This study was conducted using Bourdieu’s “distinction theory” and the nature of sensory judgment with the help of field studies and descriptive analysis a number of audiences of 62 different residential environments. As a result of this research, natural, memorable, evocative environments along with the combination of open and closed spaces have shown the most visual preferences of the person towards architecture that the mental images of the person with cultural roots have been very effective in judging architecture views.

Keyword : visual preferences, sensory-emotional needs, sensory judgments

How to Cite
Amini, A. A., & Adibzadeh, B. (2020). The role of visual preferences in architecture views. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 44(2), 122-127.
Published in Issue
Sep 24, 2020
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Abkar, M., Kamal, M. S., Maulan, S., & Davoodi, S. R. (2011). Determining the visual preference of urban landscapes. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(9), 1991−1997.

Acar, C., Kurdoglu, B., Kurdoglu, O., & Acar, H. (2006). Public preferences for visual quality and management in Kaçkar Mountains National Park (Turkey). The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 13(6), 499– 512.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

Bulut, Z. Y., & Yilmaz, H. (2009). Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 154, 459−468.

de la Fuente Suárez, L. A. (2016). Towards experiential representation in architecture. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 40(1), 47–58.

Dunning, D., & Balcetis, E. (2013). Wishful seeing: how preferences shape visual perception. Association for Psychology Science, 22(1), 31−37.

Falahat, M., & Shahidi, S. (2010). Nature and its role in architectural design. Journal of Honar-HA-YE-ZIBA, 42(2), 37−46.

Gjerde, M. (2017). Informing design review: Discussion of the findings of a visual preference study in New Zealand. Procedia Engineering, 198, 562−569.

Gronow, J. (2003). Sociology of taste (3th ed.). Taylor & Francis Ltd, Routledge.

Hensel, M., Menges, A., & Hight, C. (2009). Space reader: heterogeneous space in architecture (1ed.). John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Herrmann, F. (1991). Heideggers grundprobleme der phänomenologie. Klostermann.

Howes, D. H., & Solomon, R. L. (1950). A note on McGinnies’ Emotionality and perceptual defense. Psychological Review, 57, 229−234.

Junker, B., & Buchecker, M. (2008). Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85, 141−154.

Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481−563). Oxford University Press.

Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: the role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Lederman, S. J., Klatzky, R. L., Chataway, C., & Summers, C. D. (1990). Visual mediation and the haptic recognition of twodimensional picture of common objects. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 54−64.

Pico, R. (2018). The planetary garden. Where natural and human intertwine. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 42(1), 70−79.

Porteous, J. D. (1996). Environmental aesthetics, ideas, policy and planning. Routledge.

Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: a nonverbal communication approach. Sage Publication.

Schultz, T. W. (1971). Investment in human capital: The role of education and of research. The Free Press.

Simonic, T. (2003). Preference and perceived naturalness in visual perception of naturalistic landscapes. Zbornik Biotehniłke Fakultete Univerze Ljublj Kmet, 81(2), 369−387.

Townsend, C., & Kahn, B. E. (2014). The visual preference heuristic: The influence of visual versus verbal depiction on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 993−1015.

Wilson, E. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Harvard University Press.

Wolfe, J. M., Kluender, K. R., Levi, D. M., Bartoshuk, L. M., Herz, R. S., Klatzky, R., Lederman, S. J., & Merfeld, D. M. (2009). Sensation & perception. Sinauer Associates Inc.

Zumthor, P., Padgett, L., Oberli, M., & Schelbert, C. (2006). Thinking architecture. Walter de Gruiter Gmb H Publisher.