 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Cristiana Cellucci1 and Teresa Villani2
Full-Text PDF
XML 99 Views
DOI:10.17265/1934-7359/2024.05.001
1. Department of Architecture and Arts, IUAV University of Venice, Venice 2196, 30123, Italy
2. Department of Planning, Design, and Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00185, Italy
In the context of use of large museum centers, numerous national and international methodological experiments show that the wayfinding project must consider the needs of both habitual users (user-centered design) and local communities (design for communities) and the importance of environmental protection (eco-design) as a priority interest of the community. This “double target”, “user-centered” and “environment-centered” can be applied during the selection process of materials to be used in the project. With respect to these possibilities, this contribution intends to present the results of research focused on material characterization of the reception and distribution spaces of large museum centers. This characterization is based on use of sensory materials and aims to evaluate their impact on the usability and sustainability of wayfinding systems. The paper directed towards a proposal for organization of integrated information on new generation so-called smart materials; within the design of a wayfinding system, these can balance the aesthetic-perceptual and performance and environmental impact, in order to allow designers to make informed decisions oriented towards inclusion and sustainability. The study was addressed by conducting two phases of systematic literature and library review of materials. The investigations conducted led to achievement of a first research result which consists in the identification of a “standard sheet” for the mapping and cataloging of the materials used for wayfinding. The “standard sheet” allows organizing the information on smart, sensorial, and eco-friendly materials, balancing the aesthetic-perceptive component with the performance on the environmental impact along the entire life cycle in a circular perspective. This tool could guide designers towards an environmental communication project oriented towards sustainability and is effective for usability and wayfinding.
Wayfinding, eco-friendly materials, sensory materials, user-centered design, eco-design, innovative museum.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 18 (2024) 207-217 doi: 10.17265/1934-7359/2024.05.001
[1] Falk, J. H., and Dierking, L. 2004. The Contextual Model of Learning. Reinventing the Museum, edited by G. Anderson. Lanham: AltaMira Press, pp. 139-42.
[2] Falk, J. H. 2005. “Free-Choice Environmental Learning: Framing the Discussion.” Environmental Educational Research 11: 265-80.
[3] Silver, H. 2015. “The Contexts of Social Inclusion.” Accessed 8 April 2024. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2641272.
[4] Lynch, K. 1964. The Image of the City (2rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[5] MIBACT. 2018. Annex 1 of the Circular DG-MU 26 of 2018: Plan for the Elimination of Architectural Barriers (P.E.B.A.). Roma: MIBACT.
[6] New Bauhaus EU Program. “Beautiful | Sustainable | Together.” Accessed 8 April 2024. https://new-european-bauhaus.europa.eu/index_en.
[7] UNESCO World Conference. 2023. “Cultural Heritage in the 21st Century.” Naples 27-29 November.
[8] Cetorelli G., and Guido, M. R. 2017. Cultural Heritage for All. Usability, Recognisability, Accessibility, Valorization Notebooks 4. Rome.
[9] Marmocchi, P., Dall’Aglio, C., and Zannini, M. 2004. Educate Life Skills. How to Promote Psycho-Social and Affective Skills according to the World Health Organization. Trento, Italy: Erickson, pp. 1-314.
[10] Hooper-Greenhill, E. 2007. “Measuring Learning Outcomes in Museums, Archives, and Libraries: The Learning Impact Research Project (LIRP).” International Journal of Heritage Studies 10 (2): 151-74.
[11] Carmosino, C. 2023. “The Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by C. Smith. Cham: Springer. Accessed 8 April 2024. https://aedon.mulino.it/archivio/2013/1/carmosino.htm.
[12] Da Milano, C., and Sciacchitano, E. 2025. Guidelines for Communication in Museums: Internal Signs, Captions and Panels. Rome: MiBACT.
[13] Brunelli, D. 2010. Guidelines Produced by the Tuscany Region: Eco-Design for Temporary Exhibitions. Accessed 8 April 2024. https://www.regione.toscana.it/documents/10180/320308/Eco-design+per+gli+allestimenti+temporanei/.
[14] Stylianou-Lambert, T., Boukas, N., and Christodoulou-Yerali, M. 2023. “Museums and Cultural Sustainability: Stakeholders, Forces, and Cultural Policies.” Int. J. Cult. Policy 20: 566-87.
[15] Andersen, S. C., Larsen, H. F., Raffnsøe, L., and Melvang, C. 2019. “Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) as a Competitive Parameter within Sustainable Buildings and Building Materials.” In Proceedings of IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth and Environmental Science, p. 323. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012145.
[16] Zuo, H. 2010. “The Selection of Materials to Match Human Sensory Adaptation and Aesthetic Expectation in Industrial Design.” METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 27 (2): 301-19.
[17] Vezzoli, C., and Manzini, E. (2008) Design for Environmental Sustainability. London: Springer.
[18] Akin, F., and Pedgley, O. 2016. “Sample Libraries to Expedite Materials Experience for Design: A Survey of Global Provision.” Materials and Design 90: 1207-17.
[19] Passini, R. 1984. Wayfinding in Architecture. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
[20] Bitgood, S. 2009. “When Is ‘Museum Fatigue’ Not Fatigue?” Curator: The Museum Journal 52 (2): 193.
[21] Saskia, K., Standfest, M., Bielik, M., Schneider, S., König, R., Donath, D., and Schmitt, G. 2017. “From Real to Virtual and Back: A Multi-method Approach for Investigating the Impact of Urban Morphology on Human Spatial Experiences.” In The Virtual and the Real in Planning and Urban Design, edited by C. Yamu, A. Poplin, O. Devisch, and G. De Roo. Zurich: Routledge, pp. 151-69.
[22] Wang, Z., Sundin, L., Murray-Rust, D., and Bach, B. 2020. “Cheat Sheets for Data Visualization Techniques, CHI 20.” In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Accessed 8 April 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376271.
[23] Arthur, P., and Passini. 1992. Wayfinding: People, Signs, and Architecture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
[24] Norman, D. A. 2011. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Korea: Hakjisa.
[25] Pazzaglia, F., and De Beni, R. 2001. “Strategies of Processing Spatial Information in Survey and Landmark-Centred Individuals.” European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 13 (4): 493-508.
[26] Davis, R. L., Therrien, B. A., and West, B. T. 2008. “Cue Conditions and Wayfinding in Older and Younger Women.” Res. Gerontol. Nurs. 1: 252-63.
[27] Vilar E., Rebelo, F., and Noriega, P. 2014. “Indoor Human Wayfinding Performance Using Vertical and Horizontal Signage in Virtual Reality.” Hum. Fact. Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 24: 601-15.
[28] Vilar E., Rebelo, F., Noriega, P., Teles, J., and Mayhorn, C. 2015. “Signage versus Environmental Affordances: Is the Explicit Information Strong Enough to Guide Human Behavior during a Wayfinding Task?” Hum. Fact. Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 25: 439-52.
[29] Brownell, B. 2010. Transmaterial 3. A Catalog of Materials That Redefine Our Physical Environment. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
[30] Tucci, F. 2014. Involucro, Clima, Energia. Qualità bioclimatica ed efficienza energetica in architettura nel progetto tecnologico ambientale. Roma: Altralinea.
[31] Benoît, C.; Revéret, J.P.; Parent, J.; Mazijn, B.; Griesshammer, R.; Méthot, A.L.; Hébert, J.; Weidema, B.; Norris, G. 2008 “Development of the Social Life Cycle Assessment Code of Practice: An international effort within the Life Cycle Initiative”. Second International Seminar on Society and Materials. Nantes: SAM2.