Li, S and Liu, M (2023) Reasonable kitchen space for urban residences: Based on an investigation in Beijing. Building Research & Information, 51(8), pp. 881-896. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Undersized space in kitchens remains a widespread and enduring problem in urban residences in China. However, no consensus exists on the area a satisfactory kitchen should take up and the causes of an undersized kitchen are still not sufficiently understood. This study examined reasonable spatial indices for kitchen design from the perspective of user satisfaction, based on 80 kitchens selected from multi-family residences in Beijing, People’s Republic of China. Data were collected using on-site measurement and face-to-face questionnaires, including spatial features, household structure, cooking habits, possession of appliances and residents' binary judgement about the kitchen area. Factors associated with residents' kitchen area perception were explored using correlation analysis, while the reasonable design indices were proposed by scatter diagram analysis. This study confirmed the influence of floor space and width of the kitchen and recommends 5.11–6.10 m2 and 1.71–2.00 m as a reasonable scope for the respective dimensions. It also demonstrates that the area requirement increased in families with higher cooking frequency and decreased in youthful households and suggests that the accommodation of the refrigerator and large appliances should be considered in kitchen area allocation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | characteristics of residents; design indices; kitchen area; kitchen in urban residence |
| Index terms: | Beijing, investigation, household, dimension, correlation analysis, questionnaire, user satisfaction, habit, China, face |
| Subjects: | health monitoring assessment and metrics, psychology, health behaviours and lifestyles, client relations, data collection methods, statistical analysis, demography, Geography |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Organizational Design, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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