A study on factors influencing the spatial oppressiveness in small courtyard spaces within university residential areas

Huang, L and Cao, Y (2025) A study on factors influencing the spatial oppressiveness in small courtyard spaces within university residential areas. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 21(4), pp. 589-602. ISSN 1745-2007

Abstract

A number of obstacles in terms of the growing demand for residential spaces for students in China's education industry. Changing urban development patterns often lead to densely populated, unpleasant university residential neighborhood, posing threats to the well-being of university personnel. This study addresses the limitations of past research, focusing on a real campus's enclosed high-rise student apartment courtyard. Using three key design variables (courtyard area, building height and ground-level interface transparency), 27 sample scenarios were developed for psychological experiments. The findings indicate that while visual scene complexity has minimal impact on oppression to confined environments, building exposure and sky visibility do. People's perception of openness is determined by building exposure, sky visibility, and visual complexity. Higher visual complexity and greater sky visibility enhance the sense of openness. Satisfaction is primarily influenced by sky visibility. The study also conducts a multiple linear regression of spatial and psychological indicators and discusses the tolerance threshold for spatial oppressiveness and the spatial oppressiveness under various spatial types of samples.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: high-rise buildings; multiple linear regression; solid angle; spatial oppressiveness; university residential courtyard
Index terms: transparency, courtyard, urban development, residential area, building height, satisfaction, complexity, China, exposure, high-rise building, well-being, experiment, personnel
Subjects: project delivery, data collection methods, mental health and wellbeing, systems engineering, professional development, management, public and environmental health, zoning, construction type, building performance, Geography, urban design, architectural elements
Topics: Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology, Research Practice, Information Management, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Human Resources
Descriptive scope: 3 PCE

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here