Material environment in transitional spaces: theoretical approaches and methodological directions
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/mla.2025.24278Abstract
This article examines the role of material elements of the physical environment in the formation of transitional spaces, with particular attention to their impact on spatial perception and practical use. A review of the literature reveals that the materiality of transitional zones is often overlooked in architectural research, even though these spaces are increasingly recognized as significant components of the contemporary urban environment. The text also outlines the main methodological challenges encountered in systematically investigating the influence of the physical environment on the user‘s spatial experience.
Article in English.
Daiktinė aplinka pereinamosiose erdvėse: teoriniai požiūriai ir metodologinės kryptys
Santrauka
Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas materialiųjų daiktinės aplinkos elementų vaidmuo jungiamųjų erdvių formavimo procese, ypatingą dėmesį skiriant jų poveikiui erdvės suvokimui ir praktiniam naudojimui. Literatūros analizė rodo, kad pereinamųjų zonų materialumo aspektas architektūros tyrimuose dažnai lieka paraštėse, nors šios erdvės vis labiau išryškėja kaip reikšmingi šiuolaikinės urbanistinės aplinkos komponentai. Tekste taip pat išskiriami pagrindiniai metodologiniai iššūkiai, su kuriais susiduriama siekiant sistemiškai tirti daiktinės aplinkos įtaką vartotojo erdvinei patirčiai.
Reikšminiai žodžiai: daiktinė aplinka, pereinamoji erdvė, medžiagiškumas, erdvės suvokimas, vartotojo patirtis, architektūrinė artikuliacija, aplinkos psichologija.
Keywords:
physical environment, transitional space, materiality, spatial perception, user experience, architectural articulation, environmental psychologyHow to Cite
Share
License
Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Askarizad, R., Rafieian, M., & Emamgholi, L. (2024). The application of space syntax to enhance sociability in public urban spaces: A systematic review. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 13(7), Article 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi13070227
Boulton, J. (2018). Materialising the city: Urban textures and rhythms. Birkhäuser.
Carles, J. L., Smith, A., & Martínez, R. (2024). A multisensorial approach to urban space. Journal of Urban Design.
Dovey, K., & Pafka, E. (2020). What is walkability? The urban DMA. Urban Studies, 57(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018819727
Franck, K. A., & Stevens, Q. (2007). Loose space: Possibility and diversity in urban life. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203799574
Jiang, B., & Liu, C. (2020). Street-based topological representations and analyses for predicting traffic flow in GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 23, 1119–1137. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810701690448
Kim, S., & Brown, R. (2021). Pedestrians’ outdoor thermal comfort: A study in varying urban morphologies. Science of the Total Environment, 769, Article 152143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152143
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture. Rizzoli.
Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Perakaki, R., & Sinou, M. (2024). Sensory mapping in urban voids. In Proceedings of Changing Cities VI.
Pittaluga, P. (2020). Pioneering urban practices in transition spaces. City, Territory and Architecture, 7, Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-020-00127-6
Redjem, M., & Mazouz, S. (2022). Spatial and social interaction in medieval mosques: A morphological analysis using space syntax. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.10.005
Seamon, D. (2018). Life takes place: Phenomenology, lifeworlds and place making. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351212519
Sheng, Q., Wan, D., & Yu, B. (2021). Effect of space configurational attributes on social interactions in urban parks. Sustainability, 13, Article 7805. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147805
Tabassum, M. (2024). Understanding urban green spaces through lenses of sensory experience: A case study of neighborhood parks in Dhaka. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 31(2), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/17458927.2024.2392960
Tahroodi, M., & Ujang, N. (2022). Evaluating attractivity and visit frequency: Application of space syntax in urban squares. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(1), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2020.09.002
Tornaghi, C. (2023). Public space and community engagement in post-pandemic cities.
Wang, W., Smith, J., & Lee, Y. (2025). From non-place to user-generated space: Spatial qualities in placemaking. Urban Planning, 10(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.9063
Yeshayahu, Y. (2024). Interaction between the built environment and pedestrians: A behavioral mapping study. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 51(2), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083231177699
Zhang, C., & Berger, C. (2023). Pedestrian behavior prediction in dynamic urban environments. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 24(5), 12345–12356. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2023.3281393
Zumthor, P. (2006). Atmospheres: Architectural environments – surrounding objects. Birkhäuser.
View article in other formats
CrossMark check
Published
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.