Erbil City Built Heritage and Wellbeing: An Assessment of Local Perceptions Using the Semantic Differential Scale
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Perceiving Built Heritage and Wellbeing
3. Measuring Perception
3.1. Hypothesis Development
3.2. Case Study
3.3. Participants and Procedure
4. Discussion
4.1. High-Quality Heritage Buildings
4.2. Contrasting Buildings
4.3. Comparing Perceptions
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix B
References
- Pirkovic, J. Understanding the Convention into Challenging actions for Member States. In Heritage and Beyond; Council of Europe Publishing: Strasbourg Cedex, France, 2009; pp. 23–27. [Google Scholar]
- Fairclough, G. New Heritage Frontiers. In Heritage and Beyond; Council of Europe Publishing: Strasbourg, France, 2009; pp. 29–41. [Google Scholar]
- Vinas, S.M. Contemporary theory of conservation. Stud. Conserv. 2002, 47, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, K. The shift toward values in UK heritage practice. In Values in Heritage Management: Emerging Approaches and Research Directions; Avrami, E., Macdonald, S., Mason, R., Myers, D., Eds.; Getty Trust: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2019; pp. 66–82. [Google Scholar]
- Serageldin, M. Preserving the historic urban fabric in a context of Fast-paced change. In Historic Cities: Issues in Urban Conservation; Cody, J., Siravo, F., Eds.; Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2019; Volume 8, pp. 175–184. [Google Scholar]
- Matero, F. Preface. In Managing Change: Sustainable Approaches to the Conservation of the Built Environment 4th Annual US/ICOMOS International Symposium Organized by US/ICOMOS, the Graduate Program in Historic Preservation of the University of Pennsylvania, and the Getty Conse; Teutonico, J.M., Matero, F., Eds.; J. Paul Getty Trust: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2001; pp. vii–viii. [Google Scholar]
- Fairclough, G. Cultural landscape, sustainability, and living with change? In Managing Change: Sustainable Approaches to the Conservation of the Built Environment 4th Annual US/ICOMOS International Symposium Organized by US/ICOMOS; Teuton-ico, J., Matero, F., Eds.; J. Paul Getty Trust: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Roders, A.P. Cultural heritage management: Power, values and identity. Antiquity 2014, 88, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Bazazzadeh, H.; Nadolny, A.; Attarian, K.; Najar, B.S.A.; Safaei, S.S.H. Promoting Sustainable Development of Cultural Assets by Improving Users’ Perception through Space Configuration; Case Study: The Industrial Heritage Site. Sustain. J. Rec. 2020, 12, 5109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Napier, A.D. Cultural Contexts of Health and Well-Being Culture Matters: Using a Cultural Contexts of Health Approach to Enhance Policy-Making; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- WHO; UNESCO. Third Expert Group Meeting on Cultural Contexts of Health and Wellbeing; World Health Organization; Regional Office for Europe: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Lawless, J.W. Finding human well-being in Historic Urban Landscapes. In The Routledge Handbook on Historic Urban Landscapes in the Asia-Pacific; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 313–325. [Google Scholar]
- Darabi, H.; Behbahani, H.I.; Shokoohi, S. Perceptual buffer zone: A potential of going beyond the definition of broader preservation areas. J. Cult. Heritage Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 10, 271–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ICOMOS. Erbil Citadel (Republic of Iraq); ICOMOS: Paris, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- SPA. Planning and Building Regulations for the Buffer Zone of Erbil Citadel: UNESCO, HCECR, Erbil Governorate, Italy Easy Understandable Format; SPA: Erbil, Iraq, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; World Heritage Committee; Forty Second Session’s Adopted Decisions; UNESCO: Manama, Bahrain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. “Factors Affecting the Property,” Erbil Citadel. State of Conservation. 2019. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3712 (accessed on 15 February 2021).
- Jasim, A.; Hanks, L.; Borsi, K. When Marginalising the Role of Local Participation in Heritage Conservation Policies: Evidence from Erbil Citadel. Athens J. Tour. 2020, 7, 17–40. [Google Scholar]
- Khayat, M.A.B.; Khaznadar, B.M.A. Erbil City’s Traditional and Vernacular Architecture Disastrous Status. ZANCO J. Pure Appl. Sci. 2016, 28, 429–436. [Google Scholar]
- Baper, S.Y. The Role of Heritage Buildings in Constructing the Continuity of Architectural Identity in Erbil City. Int. Trans. J. Eng. Manag. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2018, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- McFayden, L. Outer worlds inside. In Constructing Monuments, Perceiving Monumentality & The Economics of Building Theo-retical and Methodological Approaches to the Built Environment; Brysbaert, A., Klinkenberg, V., Garcia-M, A.G., Vikatu, I., Eds.; Sidestone Press: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 87–102. [Google Scholar]
- Bott, S.E. The measurement of meaning-Psychometrics and sense of place. In Human-Centered Built Environment Heritage Preservation; Theroy and Evidence-Based Practice; Wells, C.J., Stiefel, B.L., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 45–66. [Google Scholar]
- Mason, R. Assessing the Values of Cul-tural Heritage. In Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices; De La Torre, M., Ed.; The J. Paul Getty Trust: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 5–30. [Google Scholar]
- Mallgrave, H.F. The Architect’s Brain: Neuroscience, Creativity and Architecture, 1st ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. The experienced psychological benefits of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 256–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, T.H.M.; Kesten, J.M.; López-López, J.A.; Ijaz, S.; McAleenan, A.; Richards, A.; Gray, S.; Savović, J.; Audrey, S. The effects of changes to the built environment on the mental health and well-being of adults: Sys-tematic review. Health Place 2018, 53, 237–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujiwara, D.; Cornwall, T.; Dolan, P. Heritage and Wellbeing; English Heritage: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Mouratidis, K. Rethinking how built environments influence subjective well-being: A new conceptual framework. J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 2017, 11, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mouratidis, K.; Hassan, R. Contemporary versus traditional styles in architecture and public space: A virtual reality study with 360-degree videos. Cities 2020, 97, 102499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, G.W.; Kantrowitz, E.; Eshelman, P. Housing quality and psychological well-being among the elderly popula-tion. J. Gerontol. Psychol. Sci. 2002, 57, 381–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Auclair, E.; Fairclough, G. Theory and Practice in Heritage and Sustainability between Past and Future; Routledge Studies in Culture and Sustainable Development: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Power, A.; Smyth, K. Heritage, health and place: The legacies of local community-based heritage conservation on social wellbeing. Heal. Place 2016, 39, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chi, C.G.; Cai, R.; Li, Y. Factors influencing residents’ subjective well-being at World Heritage Sites. Touris 2017, 63, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajapakse, A. Exploring the Living Heritage of Galle Fort: Residents’ Views on Heritage Values and Cultural Signifi-cance. J. Herit. Manag. 2018, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lalli, M. Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 1992, 12, 285–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, S. Past environments and past stories in human effectiveness and wellbeing. In Changing Paradigms; Hardie, G., Moore, R., Sanoff, H., Eds.; School of Design, North Carolina State University: Oklahoma, OK, USA, 1989; pp. 223–228. [Google Scholar]
- Sjölm, J. Heritagisation, Re-Heritagisation and De-Heritagisation of Built Environments: The Urban Transformation of Kiruna, Sweden; Lulea University of Technology: Kiruna, Sweden, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Rollero, C.; De Piccoli, N. Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ICOMOS. The Venice Charter 1964; ICOMOS: Venice, Italy, 1965. [Google Scholar]
- ICOMOS. The Nara Document on Authenticity (1994); ICOMOS: Nara, Japan, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. Vienna Memorandum; UNESCO: Vienna, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. The Hangzhou Declaration Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies; UNESCO: Vienna, Italy, 2013; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- ICOMOS. The Charter of Krakow 2000: Principles for Conservation and Restoration of Built Heritage; Bureau Krakow: Krakow, Poland, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Taher Tolou Del, M.; Sedghpour, B.S.; Tabrizi, S.K. The semantic conservation of architectural heritage: The missing values. Heritage Sci. 2020, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jokilehto, J. A history of Architectural Conservation, 2nd ed.; Reed Elsevier: Kent, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Lynch, K. What Time Is This Place? 1st ed.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Silva, K. Mapping meaning in the city image: A case study of Kandy, Sri Lanka. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 2019, 28, 229–251. [Google Scholar]
- Gifford, R.; Steg, L.; Reser, J.P. Environmental Psychology. In IAAP Handbook of Applied Psychology; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 440–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Landry, C. The Art of City Making, 1st ed.; Earthscan: London, UK; Sterling VA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Brysbaert, A. Constructing monuments, perceiving monumentality: Introduction. In Constructing Monuments, Perceiving Monumentality & The Economics of Building; Brysbaert, A., Klinkenberg, V., Garcia-M., A.G., Vikatu, I., Eds.; Side-Stone Press: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 21–47. [Google Scholar]
- Kesebir, D.; Diener, E. In Defence of Happiness: Why Policymakers Should Care about Subjective Well-Being. In Capa-bilities & Happiness, 1st ed.; Bruni, L., Comin, F., Pungo, M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 60–80. [Google Scholar]
- Vigano, F.; Grossi, E.; Blessi, G.T. Well-Being in Alpine Space: How Subjective Determinants Determinants Affect Ur-ban and Rural Areas. A Case Study Analysis in South Tyrol, Italy. Urban Stud. Public Adm. 2018, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mourato, S.; Mazzanti, M. Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage: Evidence and Prospects. In Assessing Values in COnservation Planning: Methoidological Issues and Choices; De La Torre, M., Ed.; The J. Paul Getty Trust: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 51–76. [Google Scholar]
- Mouratidis, K. Built environment and social well-being: How does urban form affect social life and personal relation-ships? Cities 2018, 74, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osgood, C.E.; Suci, G.J.; Tannenbaum, P.H. The Measurement of Meaning; University of Illinois: Urbana, IL, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Russell, J.A.; Pratt, G. A Description of the Affective Quality Attributed to A Description of the Affective Quality At-tributed to Environments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 38, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haynu, K. Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas after dark areas after dark. J. Environ. Psychol. 1997, 17, 301–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanyu, K. Visual Properties and Affective Appraisals in Residential Areas in Daylight. J. Environ. Psycl. 2000, 20, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nejad, K. Emotional Effect of Curvilinear Forms in Interior Design; Texas University: Austin, TX, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, H.; Lin, S. Affective appraisal of residents and visual elements in the neighborhood: A case study in an estab-lished suburban community. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 101, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perovic, S.; Kurtovic, N. Visual Perception of Public Open Spaces in Niksic. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 68, 921–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sanoff, H. Visual Research Methods in Design; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Khayat, M.A.B. Formal characteristics of vernacular architecture in Erbil city and other Iraqi cities. Iraq J. Archit. Plan. 1997, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Negami, H.R.; Mazumder, R.; Reardon, M.; Ellard, C.G. Field analysis of psychological effects of urban design: A case study in Vancouver. Cities Health 2019, 6, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perović, S.K.; Šestović, J.B. Creative Street Regeneration in the Context of Socio-Spatial Sustainability: A Case Study of a Traditional City Centre in Podgorica, Montenegro. Sustain. J. Rec. 2019, 11, 5989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hong, J.Y. Jeon, J.Y. Landscape and Urban Planning Influence of urban contexts on soundscape perceptions: A struc-tural equation modeling approach. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 141, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape; ICOMOS: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Silva, A.T.; Roders, A.P. Cultural Heritage Management and Heritage (Impact) Assessments. In Proceedings of the Joint CIB W070, W092 & TG72 International Conference on Facilities Management, Procurement Systems and Public Private, Partnership, Cape Town, South Africa, 3–6 March 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ibrahim, R.; Sabah, M.; Abdelmonem, M.G. Authenticity, Identity and sustainability in post-war Iraq. J. Islam. Archit. 2014, 3, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Almukhtar, A. Place-identity in historic cities; The case of post-war urban reconstruction in Erbil, Iraq. In Urban Heritage along the Silk Roads; A Contemporary Reading of Urban Transformation of Historic Cities in the Middle East and Beyond; Arefian, F.F., Hossein, S., Moeini, I., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 121–136. [Google Scholar]
- Rapoport, A. The Meaning of the Built Environment; The University of Arizona Press; Beverly Hills; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Shakir, M. The selection of case studies: Strategies and their applications to IS case studies. Res. Lett. Inf. Math. Sci. 2002, 3, 191–198. [Google Scholar]
- Bonaiuto, P.; Giannini, A.M.; Biasi, V. Perception theories and the environmental experience. In Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues; Bonnes, M., Lee, T., Bonaiuto, M., Eds.; Ashgate: London, UK, 2003; pp. 95–136. [Google Scholar]
- Satellite Map. 2021. Available online: https://satellites.pro/Iraq_map#36.183331,44.011930,15 (accessed on 1 February 2021).
- Farbstein, J.; Wener, R.E.; McCunn, L.J. Planning the built environment. In Research Methods for Environmental Psychology; Gifford, R., Ed.; Wiley-Balckwell: Pondicherry, India, 2016; pp. 221–247. [Google Scholar]
- Erbil Population. 2020. Available online: https://www.citypopulation.de/en/iraq/admin/arbīl/1701__arbīl/ (accessed on 18 January 2020).
- Trobia, A. Cronbach’s Alpha. In Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods; Paul, J.L., Ed.; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008; Volume 1–2, pp. 168–169. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, H.; Qiu, L.; Fu, X. Toward Cultural Heritage Sustainability through Participatory Planning Based on Investigation of the Value Perceptions and Preservation Attitudes: Qing Mu Chuan, China. Sustain. J. Rec. 2021, 13, 1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variates | Variables | References |
---|---|---|
Qualitative Variables | Complex–simple Harmonious–discordant Imaginative–unimaginative Varying–monotonous Novel–common Dynamic–static Ordered–disordered Clean–dirty Rational–irrational | [19,57,66] |
Heritage-Value Variables | Identarian–non-identarian Useful–useless Authentic–fake Symbolic–non-symbolic Valuable–worthless Proud–shameful Attached–detached | [23,39,41,45,67,68,69,70] |
Affective-Evaluative Variables | Stimulating–sedate Impressive–unimpressive Interesting–uninteresting Peaceful–disruptive Intimate–distant Pleasant–unpleasant Safe–unsafe Comfortable–uncomfortable Happy–unhappy Beautiful–ugly Positive–negative Like–dislike Satisfied–unsatisfied Desirable–undesirable | [19,29,56,57,59,61,62,64] |
Category | Descriptions | Visual Qualities | Code |
---|---|---|---|
High-quality Heritage Buildings | Buildings are of distinguished heritage interest, architectural quality, and cultural significance. | Displaying outstanding typological and architectural features (volume and façade composition, decoration, materials, and building techniques). Moreover, showing a relevant degree of authenticity and integrity. | A1–6 |
Contrasting Building | Modern buildings of which the typological and architectural features contrast with the traditional and historic architecture. They do not conform to the surrounding urban pattern and represent a visual intrusion in the historic urban fabric. | Architectural features are contrasting to the surrounded buildings. | B1–6 |
Case Category A | ||
A1 | A2 | A3 |
A4 | A5 | A6 |
Case Category B | ||
B1 | B2 | B3 |
B4 | B5 | B6 |
High-quality Heritage Buildings | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variates | Architects (n = 197) | Non-Architects (n = 217) | Mann–Whitney U | ||||
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||
Qualitative Variables | Complex–simple | −0.43 | 1.29 | 0.29 | 0.89 | 0.00 | ** |
Harmonious–discordant | 1.14 | 0.93 | 0.12 | 0.83 | 0.00 | ** | |
Imaginative–unimaginative | 0.18 | 1.22 | 0.23 | 0.85 | 0.99 | - | |
Varying–monotonous | −0.42 | 1.30 | 0.44 | 0.89 | 0.00 | ** | |
Novel–common | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.03 | 0.92 | 0.00 | ** | |
Dynamic–static | −0.42 | 1.27 | 0.06 | 0.90 | 0.00 | ** | |
Ordered–disordered | 1.04 | 0.95 | 0.24 | 0.86 | 0.00 | ** | |
Clean–dirty | 0.15 | 1.33 | −0.24 | 0.80 | 0.00 | ** | |
Rational–irrational | 0.73 | 0.90 | 0.21 | 0.74 | 0.00 | ** | |
Mean | 0.33 | 0.64 | 0.15 | 0.48 | 0.01 | ** | |
Heritage-value Variables | Identarian–non-identarian | 1.71 | 0.52 | 0.68 | 0.91 | 0.00 | ** |
Useful–useless | 0.28 | 1.32 | 0.29 | 0.83 | 0.32 | - | |
Authentic–fake | 1.73 | 0.48 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.00 | ** | |
Symbolic–non-symbolic | 1.74 | 0.49 | 0.79 | 0.96 | 0.00 | ** | |
Valuable–worthless | 0.79 | 1.38 | 0.84 | 0.94 | 0.25 | - | |
Proud–shameful | 1.45 | 0.62 | 0.48 | 1.20 | 0.00 | ** | |
Attached–detached | 1.09 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | ** | |
Mean | 1.26 | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.74 | 0.00 | ** | |
Affective-evaluative Variables | Impressive–unimpressive | 0.54 | 1.29 | 0.28 | 0.89 | 0.00 | ** |
Interesting–boring | 1.03 | 1.03 | 0.23 | 0.91 | 0.00 | ** | |
Peaceful–disruptive | 1.38 | 0.62 | −0.06 | 0.83 | 0.00 | ** | |
Intimate–distant | 1.37 | 0.62 | 0.25 | 0.80 | 0.00 | ** | |
Pleasant–unpleasant | 0.99 | 0.81 | 0,13 | 0.86 | 0.00 | ** | |
Safe–unsafe | 0.26 | 1.51 | −0.33 | 0.88 | 0.00 | ** | |
Beautiful–ugly | 1.18 | 0.78 | 0.25 | 1.00 | 0.00 | ** | |
Comfortable–uncomfortable | 0.33 | 1.27 | −0.13 | 0.77 | 0.00 | ** | |
Stimulating–sedate | 0.01 | 1.30 | 0.17 | 0.89 | 0.14 | - | |
Happy–unhappy | 0.91 | 0.80 | 0.02 | 0.93 | 0.00 | ** | |
Positive–negative | 0.91 | 0.74 | 0.20 | 0.80 | 0.00 | ** | |
Satisfied–unsatisfied | 1.04 | 0.81 | −0.19 | 1.00 | 0.00 | ** | |
Desirable–undesirable | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.40 | 0.92 | 0.00 | ** | |
Like–dislike | 1.39 | 0.70 | 0.16 | 1.03 | 0.00 | ** | |
Mean | 0.88 | 0.39 | 0.09 | 0.53 | 0.00 | ** |
Contrast Buildings | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variates | Architects (n = 197) | Non-Architects (n = 217) | Mann–Whitney U | ||||
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||
Qualitative Variables | Complex–simple | 0.38 | 1.31 | 0.12 | 0.88 | 0.02 | ** |
Harmonious – discordant | −0.22 | 1.19 | 0.49 | 0.94 | 0.00 | ** | |
Imaginative–unimaginative | −0.25 | 1.32 | 0.41 | 1.01 | 0.00 | ** | |
Varying–monotonous | 0.81 | 1.23 | 0.14 | 0.75 | 0.00 | ** | |
Novel–common | −0.65 | 1.05 | −0.10 | 0.78 | 0.00 | ** | |
Dynamic–static | 1.22 | 0.90 | 0.42 | 0.83 | 0.00 | ** | |
Ordered–disordered | 0.72 | 1.18 | 0.21 | 0.80 | 0.00 | ** | |
Clean–dirty | −0.68 | 1.33 | 0.24 | 0.86 | 0.00 | ** | |
Rational–irrational | 0.27 | 1.06 | 0.79 | 0.99 | 0.00 | ** | |
Mean | 0.17 | 0.71 | 0.30 | 0.56 | 0.18 | - | |
Heritage-value Variables | Identarian–non-identarian | 0.63 | 1.25 | 0.36 | 0.93 | 0.00 | ** |
Useful–useless | −0.10 | 1.09 | 0.41 | 0.90 | 0.00 | ** | |
Authentic–fake | −0.23 | 1.12 | 0.33 | 0.87 | 0.00 | ** | |
Symbolic–non-symbolic | 0.38 | 1.04 | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.00 | ** | |
Valuable–worthless | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.71 | 0.90 | 0.02 | ** | |
Proud–shameful | −0.11 | 1.08 | 0.27 | 0.91 | 0.00 | ** | |
Attached–detached | 0.13 | 1.23 | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.00 | ** | |
Mean | 0.23 | 0.83 | 0.57 | 0.63 | 0.00 | ** | |
Affective-evaluative Variables | Impressive–unimpressive | −0.29 | 1.45 | 0.86 | 1.00 | 0.00 | ** |
Interesting–boring | −0.89 | 1.10 | 0.06 | 0.75 | 0.00 | ** | |
Peaceful–disruptive | −0.96 | 1.08 | 0.12 | 0.83 | 0.00 | ** | |
Intimate–distant | −0.91 | 1.15 | 0.42 | 0.88 | 0.00 | ** | |
Pleasant–unpleasant | 0.73 | 1.12 | 0.00 | 0.81 | 0.00 | ** | |
Safe–unsafe | 1.35 | 0.92 | 0.62 | 0.79 | 0.00 | ** | |
Beautiful–ugly | 1.07 | 1.15 | 0.20 | 0.90 | 0.00 | ** | |
Comfortable–uncomfortable | −0.71 | 1.20 | 0.02 | 0.80 | 0.00 | ** | |
Stimulating–sedate | 0.21 | 1.15 | 0.37 | 0.78 | 0.04 | ** | |
Happy–unhappy | 0.42 | 0.94 | 0.44 | 0.96 | 0.45 | - | |
Positive–negative | −0.86 | 1.24 | 0.15 | 0.93 | 0.00 | ** | |
Satisfied–unsatisfied | 0.37 | 1.30 | 0.41 | 0.86 | 0.96 | - | |
Desirable–undesirable | 0.62 | 1.20 | 0.49 | 0.84 | 0.05 | - | |
Like–dislike | −0.20 | 1.10 | 0.58 | 0.93 | 0.00 | ** | |
Mean | −0.01 | 0.69 | 0.34 | 0.51 | 0.00 | ** |
Category | Variate Correlations | Architects (n = 197) | Non-Architects (n = 217) | Significance Difference (p) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
High-quality buildings | Qualitative variables and affective-evaluative variables | 0.695 ** | 0.717 ** | 0.66 | - |
Heritage-value variables and affective-evaluative variables | 0.665 ** | 0.794 ** | 0.00 | ** | |
Heritage-value variables and qualitative variables | 0.373 ** | 0.605 ** | 0.00 | ** | |
Contrasting Buildings | Qualitative variables and affective-evaluative variables | 0.912 ** | 0.829 ** | 0.00 | ** |
Heritage-value variables and affective-evaluative variables | 0.918 ** | 0.632 ** | 0.00 | ** | |
Heritage-value variables and qualitative variables | 0.839 ** | 0.562 ** | 0.00 | ** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sektani, H.H.J.; Khayat, M.; Mohammadi, M.; Roders, A.P. Erbil City Built Heritage and Wellbeing: An Assessment of Local Perceptions Using the Semantic Differential Scale. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3763. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073763
Sektani HHJ, Khayat M, Mohammadi M, Roders AP. Erbil City Built Heritage and Wellbeing: An Assessment of Local Perceptions Using the Semantic Differential Scale. Sustainability. 2021; 13(7):3763. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073763
Chicago/Turabian StyleSektani, Hawar Himdad J., Mahmood Khayat, Masi Mohammadi, and Ana Pereira Roders. 2021. "Erbil City Built Heritage and Wellbeing: An Assessment of Local Perceptions Using the Semantic Differential Scale" Sustainability 13, no. 7: 3763. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073763