4. Chapter IV: Hypotheses: PAISAJE SENTIDO a concept, an attitude, and an alternative methodology for an Integral Landscape Experience based on multi-sensory design
From the review of the theories and methodologies of landscape perception in the previous chapters, the analysis, diagnosis, and experimentation applied through the Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - (LSPE) and the Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - (LEVT), the importance of the process of perception during the landscape experience is evident. However, it was verified how the external spatial qualities that act as stimuli have the capacity to awaken sensations and emotions that allow a greater or lesser connection of the human being with its environment. The analysis also shows the direct relationship between hapticity and the level of involvement, the level of participation and therefore the intensity of the landscape experience. This indicates the importance of implementing elements that involve and activate the senses of proximity in the elements used in the space. Considering the above, this chapter presents PAISAJE SENTIDO or ‘‘MEANINGFUL LANDSCAPE’’ in English as a conceptual and methodological proposal that consolidates the principles of Integral Landscape Experience and Multisensory Design to contribute to the construction of a new narrative around landscape studies and possible applications in planning processes. First, PAISAJE SENTIDO is introduced as a concept for an Integral Landscape Experience, accompanied by a short theoretical review of Multisensory. Followed by the consolidation of MULTI-SENSORY DESIGN CRITERIA (MSDC), as the third tool that summarizes the multisensory experience for each of the sense systems and can be implemented as part of any planning process. Some examples of border disciplines that make use of Multisensory design as an applied practice are also presented. As part of the closure, PAISAJE SENTIDO as a toolbox for multisensorial and integral landscape experiences is presented as the synthesis of the three tools developed in the different chapters throughout the Experiential-creation research. And finally, PAISAJE SENTIDO as an attitude and a decision of constant openness that allows us to recognize the body as territory and the senses as windows that weave relationships between the interior and exterior landscape.
108
109
4.1 Paisaje Sentido and Multisensory Design as a concept for an Integral Landscape Experience
that constant multimodal interaction is processed through the brain by nature.’’ (Oviatt, 2017)
PAISAJE SENTIDO as a concept focuses on promoting dialogues between the experience of the interior landscape (understood as emotions, thoughts, individual reflections) and the experience of the exterior landscape through spaces, elements, textures, materials that open the window to the exploration of the senses. PAISAJE SENTIDO evokes new experiences that activate curiosity, reconnect with playfulness to experience the environment. To generate these dialogues, it is necessary to offer possibilities that activate the body and integrate the senses into the experience of the landscape. By designing for all the senses MULTISENSORY DESIGN is implemented to strengthen the experience of landscape in different scales and contexts. According to Raane (2019) Multisensoriality is understood as the combination of at least two sensory systems or two sensory modalities in a sequence. For example, touching involves two modalities: haptic and visual. ‘‘Multisensory processes can be multimodal if they involve the motor and sensory system at the same time.’’ (Raane, 2019). Thus, the concept of the multisensory not only integrates the two phases within the process of landscape perception, the interrelation with the physical environment which in turn integrates bodily sensations and interpretation, but also strengthens and intensifies the experience of the landscape in the combination of two or more senses in addition to movement. At the same time Pallasma (2005) delves into the interrelationship between the sense systems during experience. ‘‘The senses as seekers, extensions of the sense of touch. They define the interaction between the skin and the environment: between the opaque interiority of the body and the exteriority of the world.’’ (Pallasma, 2005). The senses of proximity and distance described in Gibson’s Theory correspond and complement each other. ‘‘Vision reveals what touch already knows. Touch as the unconscious of sight. Our eyes caress distant surfaces, contours and edges and the unconscious tactile sensation determines the pleasantness and unpleasantness of the experience. The distant and the near are experienced with the same intensity and merge into a coherent experience.’’ (Gibson, 1966) In his book Pallasma (2005) also deepens on the multisensory experience ‘‘the eye collaborates with the body and the rest of the senses.’’ (Pallasma, 2005). It is in this correspondence between interiority and exteriority, where the body through the multisensory has the capacity to integrate and strengthen its experience. ‘‘One’s sense of reality is strengthened and articulated through constant interaction.’’ (Pallasma, 2005). For this reason, the environment, and the stimuli it offers to the body play a vital role in the formation of perception and experience. ‘‘Architecture strengthens the existential experience, one’s sense of being in the world, and this constitutes fundamentally a strengthened experience of the self.’’ (Pallasma, 2005) This highlights the role of the senses in the design and planning process to create and guide different types of experiences in the environment. In life, in design and in architecture, human experiences are multi-sensory while human system evaluates the environment with visual, auditory, olfactory, basic orienting, and the haptic system.’’ (Gibson, 1966). ‘‘One of the key reasons to design multi-sensory systems is that human brains have been developed to support the multisensory perception and 110
Figure 34. Paisaje Sentido and multisensory design as a concepto for an Integral Landscape Experience. (Ruiz, 2021)
111
4.1.1 MULTI-SENSORY DESIGN CRITERIA (MSDC): practices & experiences from border disciplines In Raane’s work Designing for Multi-sensory Experiences in the Built Environment he mentions how multi-sensory design (MSD) focuses on user’s sensory perception, i.e., the experience of product, service, or a system and in this case could also apply to the architectural or urban space itself, which resonates from the personal multi-sensory response. So, ‘‘the intentional design of experience is more likely successful when being aware of the transferred message on every sensory channel’’ (Schiferstein, 2011). According to him, multi-sensory appliances can stimulate perception and create stronger experiences than unimodal sensations. Simultaneously, it is important to mention that multi-sensory design enhances functional product possibilities such as supporting, protecting, replacing, and above all extending user capabilities as well as increasing the desirability of the product. ‘‘The richness of the experience is dependent on the number of sensory modalities’’ Schiferstein, H. (2011). and in the event where ‘‘at least two sensory signals are activated, the outcome of the signals can produce a response which is stronger compared to the sum of each unimodality.’’ (Oviatt, 2017) Some border disciplines have implemented multisensory design into their practices. The Figure 35 is a compilation of examples that apply an active involvement of the body and senses to offer an integral landscape experience. These include, for example, healing gardens as therapeutic landscapes: forest therapy or land art. They share basic principles such as the implementation of sensory and haptic qualities in the design, working with plants or natural elements, and finally invite interaction between humans and the environment through paths that combine stillness and movement. These basic principles consolidate and evoke a sense of place, a sense of belonging, of reciprocity. Accordingly, these multisensory landscape experiences are references that emphasize the sensory system and integrate it into the environment. At the same time they evidence the possibility of implementing these basic principles in designs and planning processes focused on weaving a relationship with the territory with the dynamics that compose it to evidence and strengthen the reciprocal relationship between the human and the non-human, which is healing for both. Based on those references and the conclusions of Raane’s work on multisensory design, the following graph was designed as a tool that summarizes the multisensory experience for each of the sense systems. Here, the main concepts and the corresponding variables in the haptic, visual, olfactory, auditory experience and the basic experience of orientation within the multi-sensory design are presented. Those variables are suggested to be implemented as MULTI-SENSORY DESIGN CRITERIA (MSDC) to design or to improve an integral landscape experience in any context or as part of any planning process. The tool (MSDC) is divided into visual, auditory, haptic, taste-olfactory, and basic-orienting experience. In the inner circle, the concepts corresponding to each of the sensory experiences according to Raane (2019) are consolidated. In the outer circle certain variables related to each sensory experiences are mentioned that can be implemented in the design or planning process. The idea is that at least two types of sensory experiences are combined to classify it as multisensory design. (See Figure 36) 112
Figure 35. Multisensory applied practices as Integral Landscape Experiences (Ruiz, 2021)
In this way PAISAJE SENTIDO as a concept for an Integral Landscape Experience proposes during the design and planning process the review and implementation of at least two sense systems along with the corresponding MULTI-SENSORY DESIGN CRITERIA (MSDC). This as an invitation and opportunity to strengthen and increase the intensity of the landscape experience. PAISAJE SENTIDO focuses on the senses and the body as tools to discover and connect with the environment in an active way. ‘‘The interaction between the body and the surrounding environment is multimodal in nature since it happens through multiple different kinds of multisensory information whereas passive behaviors often involve only one sensory modality making them unisensory.’’ (James, Vinci-Booher, & Munoz-Rubke, 2017)
ning to apply in landscape design.PAISAJE SENTIDO as a toolkit for multisensorial and integral landscape experiences with the purpose to understand but mostly to feel the landscape qualities to design integral more sensitive spaces and landscape experiences to connect humans and its environment. It also presents an alternative to complement conventional or quantitative landscape analysis methodologies. (See Figure 37)
The multisensory experience in PAISAJE SENTIDO can for example strengthen tactile features to activate self and environmental awareness and at the same time create feelings of belonging, security, or intimacy with the place. These combined with visual elements that promote relevant information as a guide for use in the space generate a more intense landscape experience. Another possibility is to play with auditory, haptic, or smell information to create specific atmospheres or inform the user of the area’s mood. ‘‘The benefit of focusing on the totality of multi-sensory messages helps to create a holistic and seamless experience that includes both hedonic and pragmatic properties. The design cannot shape users’ prior experiences and emotions, but it can provide the best possible setting to guide the current experience in the desired direction. A systematic repetition of the most prominent setting can affect conscious user perception and affect experience on reflective level (cumulative UX) and become meaningful.’’ (Raane, 2019)
4.2 PAISAJE SENTIDO: a toolbox, an applied methodology for an Integral Landscape Experience in planning processes From the review of a wide range of landscape concepts, theories of perception from different disciplines that accompany architecture, landscape and planning processes in the previous chapters, a set of applied tools were developed along this experiential research. PAISAJE SENTIDO is presented also a toolbox, an artifact for the analysis, diagnosis, and experimentation for an Integral Landscape Experience. This compilation of applied tools is composed by THE LANDSCAPE SENSORIAL PERCEPTION EXPERIMENT - (LSPE) focused on the analysis and diagnosis of the perception process during a tour in a specific landscape; followed by THE LANDSCAPE EXPERIENCE VALUATION TOOL - (LEVT), in urban daily micro-landscapes focused on the diagnosis of the landscape experience based on a series of variables applied to spatial qualities, sensory interaction and the level of affectivity in a specific place that measure the intensity of the landscape experience. This tool can be used as a basis for the design, improvement, or intervention of urban and landscape projects. And finally, the MULTI-SENSORY DESIGN CRITERIA (MSDC). focused on the experience of each of the sensory systems as an invitation to the disciplines related to city plan114
Figure 36. Multisensory Design Criteria based on Ranne’s work. (Ruiz, 2021)
115
4.3 PAISAJE SENTIDO as an attitude: weaving the interior and the exterior landscape Reconnecting with our senses is a reconnection with our humanity. PAISAJE SENTIDO as an attitude proposes to reclaim the connection with the wild, the inner landscape, with the deep intuition of the being that is waiting within everyone’s reach, in the micro-landscapes, the daily experiences. PAISAJE SENTIDO allows us to question what we perceive and what we don’t. It invites us to unlearn and train our senses again to remember the freedom to feel, to touch, to hear, to smell and to taste again. Regaining our attention and our power to explore with curiosity that outer landscapes brings us back to our needs as humans. PAISAJE SENTIDO invites us to recognize the body as our own territory is means to open ourselves to rewrite new stories by reappropriating our own human experience. PAISAJE SENTIDO invites us to re-alive architecture and the city as a laboratory of regenerative experiences, as a playground of micro-landscapes as possibilities and active interventions for exploration, involvement, and participation, capable of regenerating our perspective and way of weaving the city and the individual and collective landscape. In emotional states, sensory stimuli seems to drift from the more refined to the more archaic senses, from sight to hearing, touch to smell, and light to shadow. A culture that seeks to control its citizens is likely to promote the opposite direction of interaction, away from intimate individuality and identification toward a public and distant detachment. Thus, PAISAJE SENTIDO integrates the interior and the exterior landscape by designing spaces to reactivate, strengthen and intensify the human experience based on the body and the senses and make them part of their own territory.
Figure 37. Paisaje Sentido. As a toolkit for multisensorial and integral landscape experiences (Ruiz, 2021)
116
117
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION The review of landscape theories and perception allows understanding landscape as a transdisciplinary term composed of different layers that interweave and overlap with each other. The landscape is a fabric loaded with symbols, textures, colors, sensations, individual and cultural memories in the body or in a territory. The landscape is a skin in constant transformation, and we do not see it, but it is the skin with which we perceive the world. Unfortunately, the paradigm of visual hierarchy has remained during the last decades and has marked our current society, wheter Nicola Di Croce (2016) calls ‘‘human dominant perspective’’. The problem stems from the deep desire to control nature, our own nature. This has its roots in separation and duality between human-nature; mind-body; inner-outer. Architecture and city planning processes were services that evolved as an Industry based on consuming land and ressources. The concept of aesthetic is still missunterstood because just the physical and material qualities are important, instead of the sensual, the spiritual, the everyday, the sublime, the world of the living. The hierarchy of sight is increasingly inclined to strengthen the perception of landscape and nature as a mere distant, temporary, and static image, that is just ‘’out there’’. This leads not only to disconnection from the body and the devaluation of the other senses on an individual scale, but also to maintain and replicate that model in city planning processes. For instance, in an urban landscape the senses are negatively overloaded in an unconscious way. Whereas in natural or semi-natural landscapes the senses are also positively overloaded in an unconscious way. Human beings are unaware of or have forgotten the benefits of this active interaction with the environment. This evidences the need to balance this tendency and offer spaces that encourage to unlearn the conditioning or behavioral patterns. that from the urban strengthen the visual primacy and prevent having an active role in the landscape experience. With these facts in mind, it is a challenge for the new generation of professionals immersed in planning and landscape studies to recognize the significant tendency to design spaces where physical spatial qualities that respond to the primacy of the visual are predominant. For this reason, it is relevant to rethink the city model, to understand the importance of redefining the landscape experience from an integral point of view. This means redirecting the focus to propose new strategies and tools that first respond to individual and cultural preferences and needs based on the reciprocity between the individual, the community, and the environment. Understanding these as part of a whole fabric that we call: landscape. Secondly, to develop strategies that within the planning open spaces to discover, experience and strengthen the role of the senses to take an active role in the experience of the landscape to begin to balance this paradigm of sensory hierarchy. It is necessary to recognize the great responsibility of architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture in implementing the landscape perception process in the conceptualization and design project phases. There it is possible to focus on providing stimuli beyond the visual. Begin to prioritize within this process the importance of designing for body involvement in space. which leads to new sensory embodied experiences, new sensations, emotions, and reactions that at the same time and gradually establish connections with the place, generate a sense of identity and belonging.
118
Designing for all the senses means giving back humanity to spaces in cities. It means providing spaces to leave the automatic mode and encourage other types of responses, to create new stories, to have dialogues about our sensations, emotions and memories lived in each place. Implementing a more sensitive design that goes beyond the visual through textures, colors, materials, forms. It invites to activate the curiosity to perceive, discover, inhabit and experience the space in an active way. This research, through a combination of theoretical and experimental aspects, consolidates the concept of PAISAJE SENTIDO. On the one hand, as a proposal that integrates the principles of Integral Landscape Experience and Multisensory Design to contribute to the construction of a new narrative around landscape studies and possible applications in planning processes. Implementing multisensory design involves recognizing beyond the physical qualities of the environment and including experiential and interactive that contain sensory information ready to create, strengthen identity with the place. On the other hand, PAISAJE SENTIDO consolidates and offers a set of tools that can be applied in different processes and planning phases to highlight the importance of design for all the senses for an Integral Landscape Experience. Understanding this as the interrelation of the physical-spatial factors of the environment, sensory integration, affective and subjective perception in each context that seek to intensify the experience through the activation of curiosity, mystery, involvement and thus influence the affective interaction with the place. The importance of having tested the tools is highlighted: LANDSCAPE SENSORY PERCEPTION EXPERIMENT (LSPE), Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - (LEVT) and MULTI-SENSORY DESIGN CRITERIA (MSDC) in different phases of the research as individual, shared and collective practice. Likewise, the implementation is encouraged and made available to be gradually complemented and modified in different scenarios, planning and community building processes. Lastly, PAISAJE SENTIDO also covers an attitude and a decision of constant openness that allows us to recognize the body as territory and the senses as windows that weave relationships between the interior and exterior landscape. At the same time PAISAJE SENTIDO invites us to relive architecture and the city as a laboratory of regenerative experiences, as a playground of micro-landscapes as possibilities and active interventions for exploration, involvement, and participation, capable of regenerating our perspective and way of weaving the city and the individual and collective landscape. To conclude, beyond the academic results of this research, the analyses, the tests, the methodologies, the theories that accompanied me during this time and all the authors with whom I spoke through books, I would like to highlight one of the most important conclusions that I found along the way: the importance of letting yourself go with your intuition, of giving it space and starting to take the time every day to listen to it. It is also good sometimes not to know where to go, to start walking aimlessly to learn to trust it and oneself. This intuition is experienced and recognized through the senses, as windows that weave worlds. Connecting with the senses with the body to appropriate them to recover our own territory that belongs to us and that we have been forgetting. When we lose contact with sensoriality, to a certain extent we do not know ourselves and we perceive only a part of the experience. Let this be a personal invitation to take an active role in inner listening, in touch and taste as territories apparently unknown because we have stopped exploring them, but which belong to us. 119
Additional experiment: Paisaje Sentido as a virtual experience A Workshop as an immersive experience was designed or the regen.era International event organized by Design Science Studio from May 21 to May 1. In which the invitation was made to participate in a virtual tour into the inner landscape as an opportunity to bring awareness through the sensory system. This as an attempt to share the tool in digital spaces and evaluate the possibility of integrating other formats. Participants are invited to a virtual walk as a landscape experience guided by a recording of soundscapes to evoke sensations and bringing awareness in the innner and outer landscape as an example of an Integral Landscape Experience. The objective of this space is to evaluate the same variables of the LSPE through an immersive experience guided by a recording of a couple of soundscapes to evoke sensations that activate curiosity and playfulness, that allow us to feel interconnectedness with our environment as an example of an Integral Landscape Experience. For more information: https://www.designscience.studio/regenerarising
Further research This thesis focuses on the integration of the senses into the landscape experience through experimentation and exploration to be applied in architecture, landscape architecture and planning processes. While the research conducted in this study was built upon a theoretical framework of landscape perception theories. The role of sensory stimuli related to space qualities in natural, seminatural and urban spaces and user experience should be further studied with participants who do not have knowledge related to field since it could reveal further information about subconscious sensory signals and their effect on understanding how a place is perceived and inhabited. Secondly, the set of tools could be applied in multiple contexts and formats. It is a way to keep the experimentation active and the tools could be constantly tested and improved. The landscape sensorial experience might alter significantly when it occurs simultaneously with multiple people. This-co-experiences affectedby different layers as culture, location, natural contitions should be studied in wide study groups. As suggestion, it could be offered as a private design process, as a public participation process to community building in multicultural environments, as an academic exercise with a group of students or professors. But also, it could migrate into a workshop or an immersive experience in a virtual format shared in different platforms. Thirdly, studying more deeply the reviewed references of multisensory applied experiences in living spaces (therapeutic gardens, healing landscapes) as an opportunity to connect with experts in weaving ‘inner and outer landscapes’. It could expand mutual collaboration and contribute to complement a new narrative of landscape perception. The results of how the integration of the senses into the landscape experience applied in our living spaces improves the human health and the interconectedness feeling within the environment could be part of the following steps into the landscape perception studies.
120
121
References
Archer, B. (1995). “The Nature of Research”, en Coffi design. Interdisciplinary Journal of Design Battarbee, K., & Koskinen, I. (2005). Co-experience: User experience as interaction. CoDesign, 1(1), pp. 5-18. doi: 10.1080/15710880412331289917 Bertrand, G. (1968). Global paysage et géographie physique: esquisse methodologique. Révue de Géographie des Pyrenées et Sud-Ouest. Toulouse. Besse, J.M. (2006). Las cinco puertas del paisaje. Ensayo de una cartografía de las problemáticas paisajeras contemporáneas. https://www.academia.edu/5552624/Las_cinco_puertas_del_paisaje Bouvier, N. (2001). Journal d’Aran et d’autres lieux, Payot. París Bucher, A. (2018). Topology: Essay Landscape Theories in Transition. Landscape Theory in Design. Journal of Landscape Architecture, 13, 82 - 83. Burckhardt, L. (1980). Design Ist Unsichtbar. Entwurf, Gesellschaft und Pädagogik. Martin Schmitz Verlag., engl. version in: Lucius Burckhardt Writings (2012), p. 153ff
Dicks, B. (2014): Action, experience, communication: three methodological paradigms for researching multimodal and multisensory settings. Qualitative Research 14(6): 656–674 Di Croce, N (2016): Audible Everyday Practices as Listening Education. Università Iuav di Venezia DIS, I. (2009). Ergonomics of human system interaction-part 210: Human-centered design for interactive systems. International Standardization Organization (ISO). Switzerland Escobar, A. (2014): Sentipensar con la tierra: nuevas lecturas sobre desarrollo, territorio y diferencia. -Medellín: Universidad Autónoma Latinoamericana UNAULA Flade, A. (2010). Natur – Psychologisch betrachtet. Bern 2010 Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Island Press, Washington DC. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Westport, Greenwood press. Ginzburg, C. (1995). SPURENSICHERUNG. DIE Wissenschaft aud der Suche nach sich selbst. Berlin
Burckhardt, L. (2006). Warum ist Landschaft schön? Die Spaziergangswissenschaft
Girot C.; FREYTAG, A; KIRCHENGAST, A; DUNJA, R. (2013): Landscript 3: Topology, Topical Thoughts on the Contemporary Landscape
Saikaly, F. (2005). Approaches to design research: Towards the designerly way. Paper presented at the sixth international conference of the European Academy of Design (EAD06), University of the Arts, Bremen, Germany
Goethe, J. W. von (2002): Goethe y la Ciencia, selección de textos e introducción de Jeremy Naydler. Madrid: Ediciones Siruela.
Böhme, G. (1995): Atmosphäre als Grundbegriff einer neuen Aesthetik. In: Atmosphäre. Essays zur neuen Ästhetik. Frankfurt Bouvier, N. (1990). Journal d’ Aran et D’autres Lieux. Carlson, A. (1979). “Appreciation and the Natural Environment”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, núm. 37, p. 267-276. Corbin, A. (2001). L’homme dans le paysage. Council of Europe Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Spatial Planning Division Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural. (2000). European Landscape Convention and reference documents. https://www.iflaeurope.eu/assets/docs/European_Landscape_Convention-Txt-Ref_en.pdf_.pdf Cramer, K. (1998). Artikel. ‚‘Erleben‘‘. In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Darmstadt Csordas, J. (1994). Embodiment and Experience: The Existential Ground of Culture and Self. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. xii + 294 pp., contributors, illustrations, notes, references, index. 122
Hahn, A. (2012): Erlebnislandschaft - Erlebnis Landschaft? Atmosphären im architektonischen Entwurf. Architekturen – Band 13. Hall, E. T. (1968), Proxemics, University of Chicago, Chicago. Hard, G. (1970). Die Landschaft der Sprache und die Landschaft der Geographen. Semantische und forschungslogische Studien. In: GeographishesInstitut der Universität Bonn. Colloquium Geographicum. Band 11. Bonn Hassenzahl, M. (2011). User experience and experience design. The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction, 2. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profle/Marc_ Hassenzahl/publication/259823352_User_Experience_and_Experience_Design/links/56a7352d08ae997e22bbc807/User-Experience-and-Experience-Design.pdf Heiddeger, M. (1977). The Age of the World Picture. Hekkert, P., & Schiferstein, H. N. J. (2008). Introducing product experience. Product experience. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 1-8. doi: 10.1016/B978-008045089-6.50003-4 Howes, D. (1991) (ed.) The Varieties of Sensory Experience: A Source book in the Anthropology of 123
the Senses, Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press Humboldt, v. A. (1986). Ansichten der Natur. Hrsg. v. Adolf Meyer-Abich. Reclams Universal-Bibliothek Band 2948 Ingegnoli, V. (2002): Landscape Ecology: A Widening Foundation Copertina rigida – Edizione Inglese. Jackson, J. B. (1951). The Need of Being Versed in Country Things. In: Landscape Vol.1. Jackson, J. B. (1984). Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. Yale university Press Jackson, J. B. (1995). A Sense of Place, a Sense of Time. Design Quarterly, 164, 24–27. https://doi. org/10.2307/4091350 James, K., Vinci-Booher, S., & Munoz-Rubke, F. (2017). The impact of multimodal-multisensory learning on human performance and brain activation patterns. The Handbook of Multimodal-Multisensor Interfaces, Volume 1: Foundations, User Modeling, and Common Modality Combinations. New York, NY, USA, Association for Computing Machinery and Morgan & Claypool, pp. 51-94. doi: 10.1145/3015783.3015787
Misch, G. (1994): Der Aufbau der Logik auf dem Boden der Philoshopie des Lebens. Göttinger Vorlesungen über Logik und Einleitung in die Theorie des Wissens. Freiburg u. München Montagu, A. (1986). Touching: the human significance of the skin.Harper & Row. New York. versión española. El Tacto: la importancia de la piel en las relaciones humanas. Paidós, Barcelona. 2014 Nogué J. (1992). Turismo, percepción del paisaje y planificación del territorio. Instituto de Estudios Turísticos D.G. de Política Turística Nogué, J. (2007). “El paisaje como constructo social”, en Joan Nogué (ed.). La construcción social del paisaje. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva, p. 11-24. Nogué, J. (2010) Paisatge, territori i societat civil. València: Edicions 3i4. Nogué, J. (2014) Sentido del lugar, paisaje y conflicto. Universitat de Girona. Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=658202&site=ehost-live&authtype=sso&custid=ns192260
Jung, C.G. (1980). Zugang zum Unbewussten, in: Franz, M.L. von: Der Mensch uns seine Symbole. Olten und Freiburg.
Oviatt, S. (2017). Fundamentos teóricos de las interfaces y sistemas multimodales. The Handbook of Multimodal-Multisensor Interfaces, Volume 1: Foundations, User Modeling, and Common Modality Combinations. ACM y Morgan & Claypool, pp. 19-50. doi: 10.1145/3015783.3015786
Jüngst, P. (1984): Innere und äussere Landschaften. Zur Symbolbelegung und emotionalen Besetzung von räumlicher Umwelt. URBS ET REGIO. Gesamthochschulbibliothek, Kassel
Pallasma, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin. Architecture and the senses. Wiley-Academy, Chinchester (West Sussex).
Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. (1978). Humanscape: Environments for people. Duxbury (Div. of Wadsworth), Belmont, Calif.
Palmer, J.F. and Hoffman R.E. (2001): Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning. Volume 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01692046(01)00133-5.
Kaplan, S. (1979). Concerning the power of content identifying methodologies. In Assessment of amenity resource values. T.C. Daniel and E.H. Zube, (eds.) USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Station (in press). Kaplan, R. (1973). Predictors of environmental preference: Designers and “clients.” In Environmental design research. W.F.E. Preiser, (ed.) p. 265-274. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pa. Knox, P. and Marston, S. (2003). Places and regions in global context: Human Geography. Leuner, H. (1980). Grundlinien des katathymen Bilder aus neuerer Sicht. In: Leuner, H.: Kathathymes Bilerleben. Ergebnisse in theorie und Praxis. München. Lyotard. J.F. (1998): Lo inhumano (charlas sobre el tiempo), Buenos Aires, Editorial Manantial. Merlau-Ponty, M. (2000). Fenomenología de la Percepción. Península, Barcelona 124
Pink, S. (2009) Doing Sensory Ethnography, London: Sage Pinkola, C. (1992). Women Who Run With the Wolves, Porteous, J.D. (1996). Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics and Planning. London; New York: Routledge Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2015). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction (4th ed.). Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Raane, J. (2019). Designing for Multi-sensory experiences in the Built Environment. Collaborative and Industrial Design. Department of Design. Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture Russel, J.A. / Ward, L.M / Pratt, G. (1981). Affective Quality Attributed to Environments: A Factor Analytic Study. Environmental and Behavior 125
Schild, M. (2004): Gehend vestehen. Spaziergangswissenschaft. Privatgrün. Kunst im privaten Raum: 55 Interventionen / Schrebgarten, Katalog zur Austellung. Schiferstein, H. (2011). Multi sensory design. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design. ACM, pp. 361-362. doi: 10.1145/2079216.2079270 Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2079270 Schmitz, H. (1981): Der Gefühlsraum. System der Philoshopie. Dritter Band: Der Raum. ZweiterTeil: Der Gefühlsraum. Bonn Schmitz, H. (1969). System der Philosophie III/2: Der Gefühlsraum, Bonn. Schmitz, H. (1998): Der Leib, der Raum, die Gefühle. Ostfildern. Simmel. G. (1913). Philosophie der Landschaft. Die Güldenkammer 3 Simmel, G. (1957). Philosophie der Landschaft. In: Simmel, G. Brücke und Tor. Essays des Philosophen zur Geschichte, Religion, Kunst und Gesellschaft. Landmann, M. Stuttgart Stippl, H. (2013): Essay: Der Promenadologische Spaziergang. In Weishaar, B. Spazierganfswissenschaft in Praxis. Formate in Fortbewegung. Jovis Verlag. 2013 Tallafa, M. (w.Y). Ensayo Paisaje y Sensorialidad: Teoría y paisaje II: Paisaje y emoción. El resurgir de las geografías emocionales Téari, S. (2021). Personal Ecologies, Autumn Trail. Foresta Collective Tessin, W. (2004): Gestalt oder Geschehen? Anmerkungen zu einer Freiraumästhetik des Performativen. Unveröventliches Manuskrip, 2004. Tuan Yi-Fu. (1974): Topophilia: A study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values. Turner, Margaret Kemarre (2010). Iwenhe Tyerrtye - what it means to be an Aboriginal person Weber, A. (2018): Indigenialität. – Berlin: Nicolai Publishing & Intelligence. Weber, A. (2014): Lebendigkeit: Eine erotische Ökologie. Kösel-Verlag
Figures
Figure 0. Experiential-creation research. Metholodogy. (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 1. Guide to read the graphics related to the reviewed landscape perception theories. (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 2. The five landscape Gates by Besse. (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 3. Ocularcentrism. The hierarchy of sight (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 4. Perception & Topophilia by Tuan. (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 5. Senses of proximity and senses of distance by Hall. (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 6. Three phases of the perceptual process by Nogué. (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 7. Aesthetic thinking & Perception process by Welsch (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 8. Three phases of the perceptual process by Welsch. (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 9. Psycology of perception. Methodology by Kaplan. (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 10. Landscape and Sensoriality. (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 11. Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - LSPE (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 12. Development of the Strategy for the LSPE + Results (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 13. Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - Individual practice (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 14. Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - Shared practice (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 15. Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - Collective practice (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 16. Email with the steps for the LSPE - virtual practice (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 17. Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment - Virtual practice (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 18. Percepton process + Variables involved into an Integral landscape experience (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 19. Experience external factors by Hahn (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 20. Adjectives to environmental description by Russel, Ward, Pratt,(Ruiz, 2021) Figure 21. Affective environment evaluation by Russel, Ward, Pratt, (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 22.Variables used in the Landscape Experience Valuation Tool (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 23. Case scenarios, experiences, interventions where the LEVT was applied. (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 24. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Nordsee, Germany (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 25. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Prinzessingarten, Berlin Germany (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 26. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Grieschicherplatz, Berlin Germany (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 27. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Martinistrasse. Bremen, Germany (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 28. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Barcelona, Spain (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 29. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Middle Pader River. Paderborn, Germany (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 30. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Market square. Paderborn, Germany (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 31. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Tiger and Turtle. Duisburg, Germany (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 32. Landscape Experience Valuation Tool - Forestwalk. Höxter, Germany (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 33. Microlandscapes as daily experiences. (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 35. Multisensory applied practices as Integral Landscape Experiences (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 36. Multisensory Design Criteria based on Ranne’s work. (Ruiz, 2021) Figure 37. Paisaje Sentido. As a toolkit for multisensorial and integral landscape experiences (Ruiz, 2021)
Images
All photographs are taken by the author.
Weidinger, J. (2014). Atmosphären Entwerfen. TU Berlin. Fachgebiet Landschaftsarchitektur Entwerfen Objektplanung Welsch, W. (1995): Ästhetisches Denken. Universal Bibliothek Zumthor, P. (2006): Atmosphären. Architektonische Umgebungen. Die Dinge um mich herum.
126
127
Appendices
Appendix 1. Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment (LSPE) - Tool #1
128
Appendix 2. Landscape ExperiencesValuation Tool (LEVT) - Tool #2
129
Appendix 3. Multisensory Design Criteria (MSDC) - Tool #3
130
Appendix 4. E-mail: Invitation to participate into the Landscape Sensorial Perception Experiment (LSPE)
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
‘‘A landscape that stimulate our senses is a door to the soul ’’. (Barbero Obaid, 2021)
Eidesstattliche Versicherung Hiermit versichere ich, Darell Katherine Ruiz Álvarez, an Eides statt, dass ich die vorliegende Master-Thesis ohne fremde Hilfe angefertigt und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel benutzt habe. Alle Teile, die wörtlich oder sinngemäß einer Veröffentlichung entstammen, sind als solche nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen kenntlich gemacht. Die Arbeit wurde noch nicht veröffentlicht oder einer anderen Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt.
Ort, Datum Darell Katherine Ruiz Álvarez
156