<%BANNER%>

Enclosure as a Function of Height-to-Width Ratio and Scale: Its Influence on User's Sense of Comfort and Safety in Urban...


PAGE 1

1 ENCLOSURE AS A FUNCTION OF HEI GHT-TO-WIDTH RATIO AND SCALE: ITS INFLUENCE ON USERS SENSE OF COMFORT AND SAFETY IN URBAN STREET SPACE By MAJDI M. ALKHRESHEH A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Majdi M. Alkhresheh

PAGE 3

3 To my father and my mother To my wife and my children

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my supervisory committee for their sincere academic support and guidance. My gratitude is extended to Dr. Richard Schneid er, my supervisory committee chair, for his continuous academic support. I thank Dr. Ilir Be jleri, for all the professional, academic and financial support; he has opened new horizons a nd learning opportunities in front of me, and made my academic journey a fruitful one. I am also indebted to Dr. Ruth Steiner for her help and guidance during the development of my resear ch project. I thank Dr. Fazil Najafi for his continuous assistance and advice th at stems from his limitless willi ngness to share his expertise to his students. Outside my doctoral committee, two persons co ntributed profoundly to the development of my way of thinking. I am indebted to Dr. Jose li Mecedo, who guided my first steps to philosophy of inquiry, and to Dr. Paul Zwick, who pr ovided constructive remarks for my research methodology. I thank the Fulbright Program for sponsoring of my first 2 years in the PhD program. I am equally indebted to the University of Mutah in Jo rdan for their financial support during the last 2 years of the program.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......13 LIST OF OBJECTS................................................................................................................ .......16 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .19 Research Purpose............................................................................................................... .....19 Research Significance.......................................................................................................... ...20 Research Problem............................................................................................................... ....20 Urban Streets.................................................................................................................. .21 Enclosure and Ratio.........................................................................................................22 Enclosure and Scale.........................................................................................................24 Research Hypothesis.......................................................................................................25 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................26 Theoretical Constructs......................................................................................................... ...26 Urban Design................................................................................................................... 26 Meaning of the Environment...........................................................................................28 Perception..................................................................................................................... ...29 Urban Scale.................................................................................................................... .30 Urban Space.................................................................................................................... .31 Social, Physical, Behavioral a nd Probabilistic Approaches............................................31 Social approach........................................................................................................31 Physical approach and the picturesque tradition......................................................32 Aesthetic and behavioral approach..........................................................................33 Probabilistic approach..............................................................................................34 Plazas and Streets............................................................................................................3 5 Urban Street................................................................................................................... ..36 Enclosure in Urban Street Space.....................................................................................36 Methodological Strategies...................................................................................................... 38 Environmental Simulation...............................................................................................38 Computer Simulation.......................................................................................................39 Computer Simulation and Method Validity....................................................................39 Cognitive and Psychophysic al Approaches.....................................................................41

PAGE 6

6 3 RESEARCH METHOD.........................................................................................................42 Research Variables............................................................................................................. ....43 Independent Variables.....................................................................................................43 Within-subject independent variables......................................................................43 Between-subjects independent variables..................................................................45 Dependent Variables.......................................................................................................46 Sense of comfort.......................................................................................................46 Sense of safety..........................................................................................................47 Perceived enclosure, perceived height and perceived width....................................47 Research Procedure............................................................................................................. ...48 Existing Context and Control Measures over Potential Confounding Variables............48 Street length..............................................................................................................49 Vacant land plots......................................................................................................50 Set backs...................................................................................................................50 Viewing point...........................................................................................................50 Skyline......................................................................................................................51 Street furniture..........................................................................................................51 Creating 3D Models........................................................................................................52 Extracting Images and on-Screen Survey........................................................................53 Participants Sampling.....................................................................................................55 Coding Data and Statistical Analysis..............................................................................56 4 RESULTS: PERCEIVED ENCLOSURE..............................................................................65 Normal Distribution and Reliability Tests..............................................................................66 Normal Distribution Test.................................................................................................66 Test of Reliability: Simulated vs. Perceived Heights and Widths...................................66 Perceived Enclosure............................................................................................................ ....67 Perceived Enclosure and Within-Subject Vari ables: Height, Width, Ratio and Scale....67 Repeated measures: test of variance.........................................................................67 Ratio association......................................................................................................68 Scale association......................................................................................................69 Height association....................................................................................................69 Width association.....................................................................................................70 Regression analysis..................................................................................................70 Perceived Enclosure and between-Subj ect Variables: Gender, Age, Design Background, Type of living area, Height of buildings in living area, and Width of streets in living area.....................................................................................................71 Gender......................................................................................................................72 Age...........................................................................................................................7 2 Design background...................................................................................................73 Type of living area...................................................................................................73 Height of buildings in living area.............................................................................74 Width of streets in living area..................................................................................74 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........75

PAGE 7

7 5 RESULTS: SENSE OF COMFORT AND SENSE OF SAFETY.........................................84 Relationship of Comfort and Safety.......................................................................................84 Choices Responses for Comfort and Safety...........................................................................84 Rating Responses for Comfort and Safety..............................................................................86 Comfort and Safety and within-Subject Vari ables: Height, Width, Ratio and Scale......86 Repeated measures: tests of variance.......................................................................86 Ratio association......................................................................................................87 Scale association......................................................................................................88 Height association....................................................................................................88 Width association.....................................................................................................89 Regression analysis..................................................................................................89 Comfort and Safety with between-Subj ect Variables: Gender, Age, Design Background, Type of living area, Height of buildings in living area, and Width of streets in living area.....................................................................................................91 Gender......................................................................................................................91 Age...........................................................................................................................9 2 Design background...................................................................................................93 Type of living area...................................................................................................93 Height of buildings in living area.............................................................................95 Width of streets in living area..................................................................................95 Comfort and Safety with Perceived Enclosure................................................................96 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........97 6 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ....114 Experimental Computer Simulation.....................................................................................114 Perceived Enclosure............................................................................................................ ..116 Simulated and Perceived Enclosure..............................................................................116 Perceived Enclosure with Reference to Literature........................................................117 Comfort and Safety............................................................................................................. ..118 Simulated Variables and Sens e of Comfort and Safety.................................................118 Comparison of Comfort and Safety...............................................................................119 Sense of Comfort and Safety with Reference to Literature...........................................120 Theoretical constructs and se nse of comfort and safety.........................................120 Empirical literature and sens e of comfort and safety.............................................122 Demographic Differences and Sense of Co mfort and Safety with Reference to Literature....................................................................................................................1 23 Comfort and Safety and Part icipants Qualitative Input...............................................124 Urban Planning and Design Implications.............................................................................126 Methodological Limitations..................................................................................................130 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................136 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .......136 Connection to Urban Design Theory.............................................................................136 Perceived Enclosure......................................................................................................138

PAGE 8

8 Sense of Comfort and Safety.........................................................................................139 Methodological Notes...................................................................................................142 Recommendations................................................................................................................ .143 APPENDIX A ON-SCREEN SURVEY.......................................................................................................147 B PERCIEVED ENCLOSURE ACROSS DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES.....................153 C WEIGHTED FREQUENCIES OF COMFORT AND SAFETY RESPONSES..................163 D SENSE OF COMFORT AND SAFETY ACROSS DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES....168 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 186 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................190

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1. Height and width levels.............................................................................................. .......58 3-2. Spaces clustered in 9 groups......................................................................................... .....58 3-3. Ratio levels......................................................................................................... ...............58 3-4. Ratio categories..................................................................................................... ............58 3-5. Scale levels......................................................................................................... ...............59 3-6. Scale groups......................................................................................................... ..............59 3-7. Summary of indepe ndent and dependant variables...........................................................59 4-1. Test of skewness a nd kurtosis for normal distribution......................................................77 4-2. Correlations of simulated heights a nd widths with perceived heights and widths.............77 4-3. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosure scores across 42 spaces, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank.........................................................................77 4-4. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosure scores across 9 groups of spaces, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank..............................................................78 4-5. Friedman test of repeated measur es for perceived enclosure scores across 14 ratio categories, sorted by percei ved enclosure mean rank........................................................78 4-6. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosure scores across 3 scale groups, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank.............................................................78 4-7. Ratio correlation.................................................................................................... ............79 4-8. Scale correlation.................................................................................................... ............79 4-9. Height correlation................................................................................................... ...........79 4-10. Width correlation..................................................................................................... ..........79 4-11. Logistic regression model for perceived enclosure...........................................................80 5-1. Correlation of sense of comfort and sense of safety........................................................100 5-2. Friedman test of repeated measures of comfort and safety scores across 42 spaces.......101

PAGE 10

10 5-3. Friedman test of repeated measures for comfort and safety sc ores across 9 groups of spaces......................................................................................................................... ......102 5-4. Friedman test of repeated measur es for comfort and safety scores across 14 ratio categories..................................................................................................................... ....102 5-5. Friedman test of repeated measur es for comfort and safety scores across 3 scale groups......................................................................................................................... ......103 5-6. Ratio correlations................................................................................................... ..........103 5-7. Scale correlations................................................................................................... ..........103 5-8. Height correlations.................................................................................................. ........104 5-9. Width correlations................................................................................................... ........104 5-10. Logistic regression model for comfort............................................................................105 5-11. Logistic regression model for safety...............................................................................105 5-12. Correlations of perceived enclos ure with sense of comfort and safety...........................106 5-13. Influences of independent variables on dependent variables..........................................106 6-1. Qualitative responses................................................................................................ .......133 B-1. Mann-Whitney test for differences in perceived enclosure sc ores of men and women across 3 ratio categories...................................................................................................153 B-2. Mann-Whitney test for differences in perceived enclosure sc ores of men and women across 3 scale groups........................................................................................................15 3 B-3. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of the 3 age groups across 3 ratio categories...................................................................................................153 B-4. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of the 3 age groups across 3 scale groups........................................................................................................15 4 B-5. Mann-Whitney Test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of designer and non designer groups across 3 ratio categories..................................................................154 B-6. Mann-Whitney Test for differences of perceived enclosure scores of designer and non designer across 3 scale groups..................................................................................154 B-7. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the types of living area across 3 ratio categories.............................................................................154

PAGE 11

11 B-8. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the type of living area across 3 scale groups.................................................................................155 B-9. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the height of buildings in the liv ing area across 3 scale groups............................................155 B-10. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the height of buildings in the living area, across simulated heights......................................155 B-11. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to widths of streets in the living area across 3 scale groups................................................................156 B-12. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to widths of streets in the living area acr oss simulated widths............................................................156 C-1. Frequencies of choices for most co mfortable and safest spaces, ranked by weighted frequencies.................................................................................................................... ...163 C-2. Frequencies of choices for le ast comfortable and least safe spaces.................................164 D-1. Mann-Whitney test for differences in comfort and safety scores of men and women across 3 ratio categories...................................................................................................168 D-2. Mann-Whitney test for differences in comfort and safety scores of men and women across 3 scale groups........................................................................................................16 8 D-3. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores of age groups for 3 ratio categories............................................................................................................... ..169 D-4. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort scores of 3 age groups across 3 scale groups......................................................................................................................... ......169 D-5. Mann-Whitney test for differences in comfort and safety scores of designer and non designer groups across 3 ratio categories.........................................................................170 D-6. Mann-Whitney Test for differences in comfort scores of designer and non designer groups across 3 scale groups............................................................................................170 D-7. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the types of living area across 3 ratio categories.............................................................................171 D-8. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the type of living area across 3 scale groups.................................................................................171 D-9. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the height of buildings in the living ar ea across 3 scale groups.......................................................172 D-10. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in co mfort and safety scores relative to the height of buildings in the living ar ea across simulated heights..................................................172

PAGE 12

12 D-11. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in co mfort and safety scores relative to widths of streets in the living area across 3 scale groups................................................................173 D-12. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in co mfort and safety scores relative to widths of streets in the living area acr oss simulated widths............................................................173

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1. Existing context: Main Str eet, Downtown Gainesville, Florida.........................................60 3-2. Street length......................................................................................................... ...............61 3-3. Vacant land plots..................................................................................................... ...........61 3-4. Viewing point. Human-eye le vel from one side of the street.............................................61 3-5. Street furniture...................................................................................................... ..............62 3-6. Texture correction.................................................................................................... ...........62 3-7. Texture mapping....................................................................................................... ..........63 3-8. Facade articulation................................................................................................... ...........63 3-9. Examples of 9 images from th e matrix...............................................................................64 4-1. Correlations of perceived measures with simulated measures...........................................81 4-2. Relationship of pe rceived enclosure and ratio....................................................................81 4-3. Relationship of pe rceived enclosure and scale...................................................................82 4-4. Relationship of perceived en closure and height, cl ustered by width.................................83 4-5. Relationship of perceived encl osure and width, clustered by height.................................83 5-1. Relationship of sense of comfort and safety.....................................................................108 5-2. Comfort and safety relationships with ratio.....................................................................109 5-3. Comfort and safety relationship with scale, for ratio values in the range of (0.5 to 2)....110 5-4. Comfort and safety relations hip with height, clustered by width.....................................111 5-5. Comfort and safety relationshi ps with width, clustered by height...................................112 5-6. Relationship of perceived en closure with both comfort and safety..................................113 6-1. Curve estimation to predic t safety using perceived enclosure.........................................134 6-2. Curve estimation to predict safety using proportions of scene covered by walls.............135 A-1. Survey introductory page.............................................................................................. ...147

PAGE 14

14 A-2. Survey page 2; extreme cases.......................................................................................... 148 A-3. Survey page 3. Choices of most comfortable three spaces, most uncomfortable space, most safe three spaces, and most unsafe safe........................................................149 A-4. Survey page 4. Rating comfort, safe ty and enclosure levels and perceived height and width. This page was repeat ed 42 times for each case....................................................150 A-5. Survey page 5. Particip ants reasoning of th eir responses..............................................151 A-6. Survey page 6. Demographic differen ces of gender, age, profession, and nature of living area.................................................................................................................... .....152 B-1. Differences in perceived enclos ure scores of men and women across 14 ratio categories..................................................................................................................... ....157 B-2. Differences in perceived enclosure scores of men and women across 3 scale groups....157 B-3. Differences in perceived enclos ure scores of the 3 age groups across 3 ratio categories..................................................................................................................... ....158 B-4. Differences in perceived enclosure sc ores of the 3 age groups across 3 scale groups...158 B-5. Differences in perceived enclosur e scores of designers and non designers scross 3 ratio categories............................................................................................................... ..159 B-6. Differences in perceived enclosure scores of designers a nd non designers across 3 scale groups................................................................................................................... ...159 B-7. Differences in perceived enclosure scor es relative to the type s of living area across 3 ratio categories............................................................................................................... ..160 B-8. Differences in perceived enclosure sc ores relative to the t ype of living area across 3 scale groups................................................................................................................... ...160 B-9. Differences in perceived enclosure scor es relative to the height of buildings in living area, across 3 scale groups...............................................................................................161 B-10. Differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the height of buildings in living area, across simulated heights..........................................................................................161 B-11. Differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the width of streets in living area across 3 scale groups..............................................................................................162 B-12. Differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the width of streets in living area across simulated widths..........................................................................................162 C-1. Ratio and weighted frequencies of choices......................................................................166

PAGE 15

15 C-2. Scale and weighted frequencies of choices......................................................................167 D-1. Differences of comfort and safety mean ranks of men and women across 3 ratio categories..................................................................................................................... ....174 D-2. Differences in comfort and safety scores of men and women across 3 scale groups......175 D-3. Differences of comfort and safety mean ranks of age groups across 3 ratio categories..................................................................................................................... ....176 D-4. Differences of differences in comfor t and safety scores of 3 age groups across 3 scale groups................................................................................................................... ...177 D-5. Differences in comfort and safety scores of designers a nd non designers across 3 ratio categories............................................................................................................... ..178 D-6. Differences in comfort and safety scores of designers a nd non designers across 3 scale groups................................................................................................................... ...179 D-7. Differences in comfort and safety sc ores relative to the type s of living area across 3 ratio categories............................................................................................................... ..180 D-8. Differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the type of living area across 3 scale groups................................................................................................................... ...181 D-9. Differences in comfort and safety sc ores relative to the height of buildings in the living area across 3 scale groups......................................................................................182 D-10. Differences in comfort scores relative to height of buildings in living area across 7 simulated heights.............................................................................................................1 83 D-11. Differences in comfort and safety cores relative to the widths of streets in the living area across 3 scale groups................................................................................................184 D-12. Differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the widths of streets in the living area across 6 simula ted widths.........................................................................................185

PAGE 16

16 LIST OF OBJECTS Object page 5-1 Probabilities calculator.............................................................................................. .......113

PAGE 17

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ENCLOSURE AS A FUNCTION OF HEI GHT-TO-WIDTH RATIO AND SCALE: ITS INFLUENCE ON USERS SENSE OF COMFORT AND SAFETY IN URBAN STREET SPACE 17 By Majdi M. Alkhresheh May 2007 Chair: Richard Schneider Major: Design, Construction, and Planning Urban street spaces in toda ys cities are merely byproducts of planning and design decisions including buildings heights, density, and transportation regulations. The resulting spaces have 2nd-order functions that impact their user s sense of comfort and safety; among the 2nd-order functions is the sensorial value of enclosure. Lite rature suggests strong relationships between enclosure of urban spaces and users senses. My research examined how height-towidth ratio and scale influence perceived enclosure, and how en closure influences comfort and safety in urban street spaces. Because of methodological difficulties to achieve this goal in real-lif e urban streets, my research used computer-simulated urban street sp aces. Different software packages were used to build the simulated 3D models. A total of 42 di fferent degrees of simulated enclosure were produced and integrated as still images in an on-screen survey. Th e survey involved 83 participants who responded to questions about the degrees of comfort, safety, and perceived enclosure relative to each image. Data were co llected and tested using non-parametric statistical tests of variance, association and regression. My research showed that enclosure has a lin ear association with he ight-to-width ratio and scale of urban street space, and that it has a curv ilinear association with both senses of comfort

PAGE 18

18 and safety. My research found a certain degree of enclosure that satisfies ideal comfort and safety perceptions. This degree of enclosure corresponds to the ratio value of (3/4) and scale value of (1,600 sq. ft). Thresholds of urban stre et ratio and width values were established in my research; below which urban street spaces are not perceived to be comfortable or safe. While my research confirms the relationship between simulated enclosure and perceived enclosure suggested in previous empirical work; it doe s not confirm the suggested linear relationship between perceived enclosure and safety. My rese arch proposes a non-linear relationship instead; where moderate degrees of enclosure correspond to higher levels of comfort and safety, while both high and low degrees of enclosure correspo nd to lower levels of comfort and safety.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Research Purpose Urban design literature suggests that enclos ure in urban street spaces impacts users perceptions of comfort and safety. This literature also suggested th at the value of enclosure is a function of height-to-width ratio, and it proposed ideal ratios for urban street spaces. However, such suggestions are without empirical basis. The purpose of my resear ch is to conduct an empirical investigation on the in fluence of enclosure of urban street space (as a function of height-to-width ratio and scale) on users sense of comfort and safety. The main question of my research is how does enclosure influence users sense of comfort and safety in urban street space? By answering this question, my res earch contributes to space-morphology inquiry, toward integrating users impressions, opinions, a nd needs, relative to enclosure as a function of both ratio and scale, into the theory a nd practice of urban planning and design. Strategies for establishing good physical public spaces, including urban streets, stress the concept of positive urban space promoted in recent urban design literature. The positive urban space is an explicitly eligible and defined space; it is in balance with its defining masses. One major aspect of such balance is what scholars often refer to as enclosure. Enclosure is a perceived sensorial value evoked by spatial com positional characters of ur ban space. It is the degree to which containment is felt as a result of the surrounding defining surfaces (Gar a et al., 2006; Stamps, 2005a; Zacharias, 1999). Knowledge about peoples perception of en closure in urban street space can be transformed into practical planning and design stra tegies and guidelines. Professionals, informed about the influence of enclosure of urban street space on users, will be able to advance policies that are conducive to a balanced degree of enclosure, includi ng connecting values of street

PAGE 20

20 widths, building heights, and buildings setbacks together, to create a perceptually comfortable and safe urban environment for the users. Research Significance The significance of studying enclosure is threef old. First, enclosure relates to sense of comfort, which has an impact on peoples decisi ons in their urban experience. This notion is expressed in numerous theoreti cal bodies of inquiry such as urban design, environmental psychology and visual aesthetics (Carmona et al., 2003; Im, 1984; Isaa cs, 2000; Jacobs, 1993; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Lynch & Hack, 1975; Moughtin, 1992; Nelessen, 1993; Salingaros, 1999; Stamps& Smith, 2002). Second, enclosure relates to safety and survival as expressed in the theory of prospect and refuge (Appleton, 1975; Gibsons, 1979; Stamps, 2005a; Stamps, 2005b). Third, a finding in neurophysiological research indicated a strong rela tionship between certain regions of the brain and the value of space encl osure, such that the response [of the human brain] is reduced if the surfaces in the scene are rearranged so that they no longer define a coherent space (Epstein & Kanwisher, 1998, p. 598). The later was also reported by scholars who investigated enclosure in urban streets (Stamps, 2005a). Research Problem In todays cities, streets compositional variab les of ratio and scale that produce the sense of enclosure are only byproducts of other design and planning c onsiderations. Enclosure may be a byproduct of the morphological ch aracteristics of the original layout of the city, buildingheights standards, or transporta tion planning and engineering stra tegies. Basically, enclosure can be a byproduct of any planning and design decision that has to do w ith the width of the street and the height of the buildings, however, it is se ldom the product of an intentional urban design strategy that involves the three-di mensional perspective of the urba n street, and that relates width

PAGE 21

21 and height together. The street in todays city is designed as twodimensional entity instead of a three-dimensional space. There are few empirical works that studied the ro le of enclosure in urban spaces in general, and in urban street spaces in particular. Wh en faced with decisions concerning heights of buildings, and widths of streets, urban planners and designers need concrete, clear, and practical information about enclosure as an important co mponent in urban space quality. To make the informed decisions in reference to the concep ts expressed above, they need to know how the compositional values of the urban spaces impact users senses of comf ort and safety. To mention one phenomenon of such assertion; Gehl (1987, p. 93), describing new streets, noted that it is as if the planners and architects have a strong tendency, whenever in doubt, to throw in some extra spaces, just in case, reflecting the ge neral uncertainty concerning the proper handling of small dimensions and small spaces. The research problem consists of three aspects; first, streets have not received sufficient space-morphology analysis proportionate to their si gnificance in cities. Second, scholars in urban planning and design literature have suggested diffe rent and, in some cases, conflicting values concerning the recommended ratios for an ideal urban space enclosure. This means that the decisions in urban design concer ning enclosure in urban spaces are mostly based on an intuitive approach. Third, the scale of urban space has not received any empirical investigation as an element that might influence enclosure. Below is an explanation of each aspect of the research problem. Urban Streets Within the boundaries of todays cities, most of the public realm belongs to streets. Streets have the immediate scale above the private dom ain, and in contrast to plazas, they exist everywhere in the urban milieu. Streets are si gnificant because, morphologically, they are the

PAGE 22

22 foundation of the urban pattern. They, socially, br ing people together and provide the physical setting for socioeconomic activities (Jacobs, 1993) they invite more recreation for people than parks (Appleyard, 1981), and they are preferred places for children to play (Whyte, 1980). Streets, culturally, embrace the physical and histor ical identities of an urban area (Ouf, 2001) and provide the first impression a vi sitor has of a community (Nele ssen, 1993). Streets, visually, impact the image of the city and contribute predom inantly to its spatial structure (Carmona et al, 2003). Although streets have these important role s in the public realm, there is not enough research concerning their three-di mensional characteristics. Enclosure and Ratio Literature suggests that users preference of urban space enclosure is an inverted U-shape relationship (Carmona et al., 2003; Jacobs, 1993, Nelessen, 1993). Extreme high values of enclosure evoke claustrophobia and confinement, while extreme lo w values of enclosure evoke discomfort because of lack of psychological shelte r. There are preferred values of enclosure in the middle. There is a lack of empirical work that explain the relationship between the value of enclosure in urban street space (a s a function of ratio of the hei ght of the defining buildings to the width of the street) and the re lated users sense of comfort, safety, and judgment of enclosure itself. Scholars have suggested different, and some times conflicting, positions on preferred enclosure values in urban space. Most of these suggestions stemmed from theoretical constructs (Lynch & Hack, 1975; Bacon, 1967; Jacobs, 1993; Moughtin, 1992; Nelessen, 1993, Carmona et al., 2003). These theoretical c onstructs reported a relations hip between enclosure and the compositional qualities in urban spaces. The most emphasized compositional quality was the ratio of the height of the defining buildings in urban space and the width of that space (R = H/W).

PAGE 23

23 For urban street spaces, these scholars suggested ideal height-to-width ratios of (1:3 to 1:2) (Lynch & Hack, 1975), (1:1) (Alexander et al., 1977), (1:2) (Moughtin, 1 992), (1:2 to 1:1) (Nelessen, 1993), and (2:1 to 2.5:1) (Carmona et al., 2003). They also suggested minimum ratios of (1:1) (Carmona et al., 2003), (1:5) (Nelessen, 1 993), (1:6) (Duany & Plater-Zyberk, 1992) and maximum ratios of 4:1 (Nelessen, 1993). There is a reasonable body of empirical work th at has researched the concept of enclosure in different settings; especially as it relates to interior spaces. However, few empirical inquiries were devoted to enclosure in urban settings in cluding the works of Stamps (2005a), Stamps & Smith (2002) and Im (1983, 1984). An examination of these works called for further investigation. To start with th e earliest, although was concerned onl y with squares, Im (1993) has reported preferred values of hei ght-to-width ratio of (1: 6.7) or (15%) in urban spaces that virtually contradict all urban desi gn literature. Ims study itself states that the desirable range [of height-to-width ratio] needs to be investigat ed further in future research (Im, 1983, p. 95). Methodological limitations in Ims study; such as the range of ratio tested from (1:12.5) to (1:1.2), and the possible confoundi ng variables in the existing site s that were examined, might explain the unexpected result. Stamps & Smith (2002) investigated enclosur e in urban settings by means of presenting stimuli of scenes selected from photographs of Pa risian streets taken in the 1860s. Their work is an important contribution to the question of en closure in urban spaces; nevertheless, there are some methodological caveats. First, to predict en closure, their protocol used the variables of proportions of walls and ground as calculated fr om perspective views. Such variables of proportion of walls and proporti on of ground do not translat e directly into concrete information and do not amount easily to the knowledge of urban designers.

PAGE 24

24 Second, because Stamps & Smith (2002) used existing stimuli, some confounding variables like lighting conditions and architectural styles were not controlled. Third, there were possible biases in the viewpoints of the used scen es, as they were not created for the purpose of the experiment. This last caveat was reported in a recently-published work by one of the authors (Stamps, 2005a). Stamps (2005a) investigated the impression of enclosure and safety in urbanscapes. The study used three virtually reconstructed histor ical Greek sites. The experiment was highly sophisticated in terms of control over the va riables, processing of stimuli, and other methodological strategies. No biases in viewi ng angles and no natural confounding variables existed attributable to the reconstruction of th e scenes using CAD. Neve rtheless, all buildings were assigned the same height of 6m (20 ft), which resulted in limited variations in the independent variable p roportion of walls. Enclosure and Scale Enclosure, as suggested in liter ature, is a function of ratio and scale as well. Spaces with the same ratios and different scales do not have the same sense of enclosure. The ratios suggested above are sometimes a ssociated with certain heights and widths, and sometimes are just stated alone. These ratios that are associated with specific recommen ded heights and widths have another unrevealed value; the value of s cale. Obviously, reporting the ratio out of its context means that the scale va lue; indicated by height or wi dth, is either thought of as insignificant, or it is just not calculated. The baseli ne of this argument is that if a height-to-width ratio of 1:2 is recommended to design good urban st reet space, then a height of 10 feet to a width of 20 feet is expected to yield th e same sense of enclosure as, for example, a height of 100 feet to a width of 200 feet, as both of them have the same ratio, which is most likely incorrect.

PAGE 25

25 The scale of the urban street space is an impor tant value that could influence the sense of enclosure. Huge streets are rare ly perceived as a whole entity in the selective phase of human perception, nor are they sensitive to human and intimate scales. Streets with small scale have many advocates; especially those st reets that belong to historical cities (Carmona et al., 2003; Jacobs, 1993). Researchers suggested some embe dded social and functiona l values in scale; small space makes people deal with each other (Jacobs, 1993, p. 15) and facilitate shopping (Moughtin, 1992, p.142), they make it easy for shoppers to move from one side of the street to the other for window shopping. Safety is anothe r embedded psychological value attributed to enclosure; narrowness and enclosure and intima cy bring a feeling of safety (Jacobs, 1993, p. 15). So far, this relationship of enclosure and scale is not investigated, and no works have yet related scale and ratio together as predictors of the sense of encl osure, nor explored the way they both affect each other in the urban space. Research Hypothesis The hypothesis of my research is that differe nt simulated geometric dimensions of urban street spaces will evoke different estimations of enclosure values, and consequently different feelings of comfort and safety. A cause-effect relationship is hypothesize d; wherein change in the values of simulated enclosure will change perceived enclosure, whic h in turn will change sense of comfort and safety. Chapter 2, first, reviews the theoretical cons tructs pertaining to urban design, the meaning of the environment, environmental perception, urban scale, urban space, social and physical meaning of urban space, urban street space, a nd enclosure in urban street space. Second, it reviews previous methodological strategies pertaini ng to the investigation of urban environments using environmental simulation.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This review of literature is composed of two parts; a review of theoretical constructs, organized in nine categories, and a review of met hodological strategies; organized in four categories. In the first part, the epistemological constructs of urban design will be reviewed, followed by a review of meaning of the urban environment to its users, and the way they communicate with it. Since such communication is limited to users subjective faculties, perception will be discussed next. For the reason that the real perception experience happens only at local levels, urban scale is reviewed after perception. Sma ller scales are public spaces just outside our private domains; therefore, urban space will be reviewed next. The dilemma of social vs. physical meanings of urban sp ace and the probabilistic approach will then be reviewed. The role of urban streets and plazas in cities will th en be discussed, while enclosure in urban street space will be reviewed in the final section. In the second part, the four categories pertai ning to methodological stra tegies that establish grounds for the method of the current resear ch will be reviewed. These categories are environmental simulation, computer simulation, computer simulation validity, and cognitive and psychophysical approaches. Theoretical Constructs Urban Design Urban design is defined as the interface between architecture and planning (Moughtin, 1992, p.1). It could be conceived as the design beyond the borders of single land properties. It is involved in the relationship of space and mass entit ies that exist in the public realm and most importantly, buildings, streets and plazas (Carmo na et al., 2003). While urban design started from a primarily aesthetic concern about the arra ngement of buildings in space in a deterministic

PAGE 27

27 manner, it evolved into a multidisciplinary subject concerned with the qual ity of the public realm (Carmona et al., 2003). The term urban design is an action-oriented term (Moudon, 1992, p. 334), and because of the term des ign, it necessarily implies what should be done. While some scholars like Kallus (2001) and Whyte (1980) critici ze this notion Carmona et al. (2003, p. 3) stated that the idea that urban design is about making better places is unashamedly and unapologetically a normative c ontention about what it should be rather than what it is at any point of time. The arguments against the normative approach stem med from the fact that it is based in a moral context. Designers, basing on their intuit ive capacities, produce designs as functions of their moral stand and subjective visions about th e world, and consequent ly, the resulting urban environment may not respond to socio-economic, functional and psycholog ical needs of the users. This happens when designers provide solution without an explanatory component. However, if designers conducted informed decisi ons based in socio-economic, environmental, and cultural contexts, no harm is seen in envisioning what should be done as opposed to what is Moudon (1992, p. 334) describes the dilemm a of the normative approach as a gap between knowledge and action. She asserted that urban designers n eed to pay more attention to substantive research rather than making quick prescriptive inference from it. Moudon (1992) listed 9 substantive research concentr ations pertaining to urban design: Urban history studies; design pr ocess and resulting forms Picturesque studies; visual at tributes of the environment Image studies; peoples perception of the environment Environment-behavioral studies; interact ion between people and their surroundings Place or social studies; environment meaning and symbolism Material culture studies; objects values to society Typology-morphology studies; the impact of two-dimensional geometry of space Space-morphology studies; the impact of three-dimensional space geometry Nature-ecology studies; the relationship between cities and natural environment

PAGE 28

28 These 9 approaches represent different episte mological constructs concerning urban design knowledge. Each of these approaches is either ta king a different philosophi cal stand, or working at a different urban scale. This classification does not imply strict borders between these research approaches because they overlap. My research on enclosure can best be understood in the context of two of the nine overlapping approach es, namely the spacemorphological approach and the environmental-behavioral approach. Meaning of the Environment The decisive prerequisite for building s ubstantive knowledge in urban design is to understand the meaning of the environment for its users. This understanding provides designers and planner with the needed explanatory com ponent. To do that, urban planning and design research needs to examine the relationship of the physical environment and its users; which elements influence emotions, attitudes, prefer ences, and behavior (Rapoport, 1982). From an urban design point of view, the physical environment is a range of designed objects that have multiple meanings. Krampen (1979) noted that the design object has a hyletic dimension; its material aspect, a semantic dimension; its m orphic nature and a functional dimension; its synthetic aspect. The physical environment comm unicates, in addition to the primary functions of design objects, the secondary acquired function of meaning. My resear ch is concerned with the morphic nature or the physi cal form of the environment th at is conveying the secondary meaning. Rapoport (1982, p. 19) explained the communica tion with the environment and noted that physical environment encodes information and users decode them. He stated while people filter this information and interpret it, the actual physical elements gui de and channel these responses. Thus, the meaning of the environment is partially a function of the physical environment. On the other hand, some scholars; like Carmona et al (2003 p. 96), noted that the meaning of the

PAGE 29

29 environment is rooted in the physical environment, however, it is not a property of it, it is a function of our subjective institu tion of it. But it is also asserted by other scholars that there is a certain degree of similarity between the phys ical world and the per ception of it (Zimring & Dalton, 2003). The dilemma whether physical environment is an isolated entity that exists outside our perception or it is only a part of our perception could be reso lved by emphasizing that the communication itself is cognitive, and consequently a perception dimension actually exists. To understand the relationships of a space enclosure and the senses of people who use that space, their perception is unavoidable with in environment-behavioral studies. Perception Perception is a mechanism by which man makes sense of the environment. It is the first step in communication that involves sensing th e environment. Next is cognition; which is encoding it; followed by evaluation, and finally taking action (Rapoport, 1997). Similarly, Carmona et al. (2003) classified this process in to cognitive; acquiring information and storing them, affective; adding our feeling to them, interpretative; associating meaning to them, and evaluative; judging them. Krampen (1979) suggested a different classi fication of the process of perception. Perception starts, first, by the selective phase that is determined by scale, where recipients decide a scale level usually a manageable scale within the cone of vision. Second, there is the synthetic phase where structural or compositional relation s are perceived. Third, there is the analytical phase; where structural or compos itional relations are an alyzed to their components. The selected scale is an important factor that governs how we perceive our surroundings. Humans maximize their acquisition of the information to control th eir navigation globally. They selectively focus

PAGE 30

30 their attention to a local scale, by maximizing th eir local acquisition, a nd start the process of perception, cognition, eval uation and taking action. Urban Scale Researchers classified urban scale into regiona l and local, and suggested that the quality of the urban environment at the local scale is dominat ed by buildings and streets, while the regional scale is concerned with the whole city and beyond (Nichol & Wong, 2004). Researchers also suggested that human scale is a crucial concep t toward understanding how people relate to the environment (Moughtin, 1992; Nelessen, 1993; Nichol & Wong, 2004; Salingaros, 2000; Sternberg, 2000). Gehl (1987) noted that the qua lity of the urban environment depends on the design of individual spaces and their details, even down to the smallest component. Salingaros (2000) asserted that urban environments need strongly connected smaller scales, and loosely connected larger scales. Sternberg (2000, p. 275) combined scale in an integrative concept, he stated as I walk, I react to the scale of a building in relation to the scale of others and to that of my own body, in all their proportionate interrelat ionships, lightening my awareness of self in space." The meaning of the environment is communicat ed primarily at the local scale where the experience materializes. While users are navigating space, it is what relates to human scale that matters the most for them. Some scholars went fa r to suggest that the smallest elements in the environment accessible to users at arm length are those elements that ultimately determine the order in the built environments (Salingaros, 2000) Since the concern of urban designers is the shaping of the environment at scales larger than i ndividual buildings or one plot of land, then it is the smallest scale of urban space directly above the scale of bu ildings and private ownerships that matters the most. It is the line where private and pub lic realms meet.

PAGE 31

31 Urban Space Urban space is the realm where urban life takes place; it is the three-dimensional extension of the world around us, the intervals, distances, and re lationships between people and people, people and things, things and things (Rapoport, 1982, p. 179). Urban spaces such as streets, squares, piazzas and park s are central to our awareness in cityscape; they are the urban designers raw material (Taylor, 1999). Madani pour (1996), drawing on previous work, noted that urban space could be defined in two ways social space, and built space. Social space is the spatial form and the output of social institu tions. Built space is the physical space, its morphology, the way it affects our perceptions, the way it is used, and the meaning it can elicit (Madanipour, 1996, p. 10). Hillier & Hanson ( 1984) emphasized the need for a theory on the relationship between societies and space. Space, al ong this line of thought, is seen as a function of the social structure, and society is s een as a function of the spatial structure. Urban space is the habitat where meaning of the environment is communicated. It is the physical and social extension of our private physi cal and social domains. When we step outside our private domains, we know that we are exercisi ng our desire to communicate as social beings, and we expect other to communicate with us. It is in the urban space that such fundamental human experience takes place. This experience is a social phenomenon mani fested in a physical setting. To what extent social activities and physical setting influence each other is an ongoing debate among scholars. Social, Physical, Behavioral and Probabilistic Approaches Social approach Urban space needs the presence of people for ot her people to join; people attract people (Whyte 1980). Some scholars criticized what they call the abstracted mo rphological reading of urban spaces, and suggest a more subjective a nd social reading (Kallu s 2001). Kallus proposed

PAGE 32

32 taking urban design from merely vi ewing the city as a spatial structure to viewing it as it holds the relationship between space and social process, wherein a city as a spac e of habitation is not ignored. She asserted that the failure of the pos tmodern discourse is caused by the inability to understand urban space as a primary form of habitat. For these scholars, the physical aspect of urban space including its volumetric relationships and visual details is of little relative impor tance (Zacharias, 2001). The basic assumption for advocates of the social meaning of space is that aesthetic, geometric and visual quality of urban space is not significant in comparison to other aspects of urban space; like socioeconomic and functional ones. The antithesis of this position is the picturesque traditio n a line of thought that goes back through Camillo Sittes famous work to ancient cities. Physical approach and the picturesque tradition Cities through history have always incorpor ated aesthetic, geometric relationships, and visual dimension in their designs. As early as the plan of Ur in Mesopotamia, the Hippodamian grid-plan in ancient Greek cities, the principl e of the Cardo and Decumanus in Roman cities, through Pope Sixtus Vs plan for Rome in the 16th century, aesthetic principles of city organization had existed. The tradition was pursued after the medieval era by works like LEnfants plan for the city of Washington in the late 18th century, Haussmanns scheme for Paris and Nashs plan for London in the 19th century (Bacon, 1967; Mumford, 1961). Cities were planned according to the aesthetic qualities of vistas, majestic spatial compositions, ceremonial axes, and monumental buildings. Sitte (1889) emphasized aesthetics principles ; however, he moved another step toward defining long vistas and creating stationary spaces to serve for street intersecti on as virtually closed nodes (Mumford, 1961). Although Sittes appr oach is often critic ized for emphasizing aesthetics values only, some scholars believe th at he is the founder of urban design (Moughtin,

PAGE 33

33 1992). The notion of serial vision promoted by Cullen (1961) considering the urban setting as a series of unfolding views is the basis for the new urbanism notion of positive spaces where spaces are defined using buildings; that is, to design space between buildings. Cullen asserted that a city is not a pattern of streets but a se quence of spaces defined by buildings (Salingaros, 2000). However, there is no evidence that this is true in todays streets. Aesthetic and behavioral approach Researchers still maintain that aesthetic qua lity is a factor of success of urban spaces. However, it is through a behavioral channel that such notion is made. It is not the aesthetic principles of creative design that cities need, nor is it the artistic and architectural composition of mass and void under light. It is rather how those principles are tied to peoples needs. Isaacs (2000) suggested that the urban fo rm is capable of evoking an e ngaging aesthetic experience. It occurs when people enjoy the space and linger in it, maintaining the concept that aesthetic experience is a social phenomenon. Along the same line, Nasar (1990) noted that th e visual quality of the urban environment can evoke emotions of fear, pleasure and exciteme nt, and influence our so cial status. He also stated that the visual quality may influence be havior, in attracting people to pleasant places and repelling them from unpleasant places (Nasar, 1990, p. 41). Carmona et al. (2003) synthesized the earlier literature, and concluded that urban space is an aesthetic en tity and a behavioral setting. Since urban space is the extension of our private physical and social domains, both domains should fit to make a successful space. Fit or misfit between people and urban space can range from safety, to health, to economy, to social connectedness, to aesthetic discomfort because of unattractive urban areas (Marans & Stokols, 1993). The question of how important is the physical-aesthetic dimensi on relative to socio-economic, f unctional and other utilitarian

PAGE 34

34 aspects of urban space is a question of the impor tance of the visual-behavioral dimension in urban space. Considering the behavioral dimensi on, there is a line of re asoning pertaining to the importance of the physical environment that coul d be found in a probabilistic approach promoted by Gehl (1987) in his book Life between Buildings Probabilistic approach The probabilistic approach pulls together the physical approach and the social approach. The physical approach holds that aesthetic and vi sual dimensions of the environment influence the social environment in a deterministic manner, wh ile the social approach holds that there is an insignificant effect of the physical environmen t on the social life. Gehl (1987) proposed a solution for this dilemma. He classified outdoo r activities into three types: necessary; like shopping and going to work, optional; like stopping for a cup of coffee and reading the paper, and social; which is a mixture of necessary a nd optional activities. He argues that when the outside environment is of poor quality, only necessary activities take place, however, when the environment is of high quality, necessary activities will happen with the same frequency as in poor environments, but they tend to linger more because of good physical conditions. Moreover, good physical conditions invite more op tional activities. The social activ ities are, for him, the resultant activities that will also intensify as optional activities intensify. Other scholars have promoted this line of thought, and have maintained that necessary activities will occur regardless of the physical quality, while optional activities will occur only when the environmental quality is good (Isaacs, 2000; Appleyar d, 1981). Moirongo (2002) emphasized that optional activities of human beings happen only in favorable exterior conditions and that these activities are espe cially dependent on exterior ph ysical conditions. This indicates that if urban space quality is poor, only strictly necessary activities will take place. Isaacs (2000, p. 145) noted that physical design is only one of the factors and th at social and economic

PAGE 35

35 issues, urban infrastructure and life-style have much to do with drawing people to a certain urban space, yet, once [people are] in that location, physical design will probably have influence on how they spend their time there, a nd on their attitude toward the place. The essence of this approach is that physical design can influence the social constitution of space in a probabilistic way. The least influenced activities by the physic al setting are necessary activities as they only tend to linger. However, the optional activities are the most sensitive, and depending on the physical setting, they either occu r or do not occur, while the social activities are resultant of both, and consequently are influe nced to the extent that they encompass optional activities. The physical setting that is argued to influen ce other aspects of urba n life in a probabilistic way is the outside extension of our private real m, the immediate urban scale that communicates to us at our human-scale, and the visually percei ved field of information of our choice. It is therefore the three-dimensional urban space, in shapes of plazas and streets. Plazas and Streets It is argued that streets and plazas are the basic elements for organizing cities through the entire history of human settlement (Gehl, 1987). Carmona et al. (2003 p. 147) stated that although positive urban space come in different forms and shapes, there are two main types streets and squares. Evidently, this ar gument is supported by the many ceremonial axes and squares in the history of human settlements; including the Greek Agora, the Roman Forum, the Roman Cardo and Decumanus, and the mediev al and renaissance European plazas and avenues. Scholars in the post modern era, facing the products of the mode rn discourse including new technologies, new materials and new sources of energy in cities, have many problems to deal with. These include sprawl and decentralizat ion of land use (Nelessen, 1993), the vanishing social function of public space (Carmona et al., 2003), the implementation of the traffic control

PAGE 36

36 schemes rather than the townscape schem e (Appleyard, 1981, p. 277), the large and impersonal nature of outdoor spaces, the disappear ance of streets and squares, and the general ambiguity concerning the appropriate handling of small dimensions and small spaces (Gehl, 1987). Although plazas have played a major role in creating a social aren a for urban dwellers through history, in todays cities, it is the street that shapes thei r experience and communicates to them more often. Unfortunately, Cullens (1961) concept of serial vision is inapplicable, and todays streets are linear elements with no termina tion, and segmentation of the street into more stationary places is rare. It is evident that most of our city sp aces belong to streets, and many scholars have pointed out the significant role of the street in todays ur ban setting (Appleyard, 1981; Carmona et al., 2003; Jacobs, 1993; Moughtin, 1992; Nelessen, 1993). Urban Street It is important to distinguish the difference be tween the term road and the term street. While road indicates movement and destination and implies a journey, street maintains this definition too, but it exhibits an additional attribute of running in urban areas between two rows of buildings and has an enclosed three-dime nsional space (Moughtin, 1992). (Carmona et al., 2003 p. 147) define the street as a linear th ree-dimensional spaces enclosed on opposite sides by buildings. Enclosure in Urban Street Space When streets, as a type of urban spaces, and by the definitions mentioned above, have to be enclosed by two rows of buildings, it becomes r easonable to conclude th at their attribute of enclosure is of a great importance in contributing to the quality of city space. Previous research suggested that the ratio of the height of the de fining surfaces to the widt h of the street is an

PAGE 37

37 important predictor for the degree of enclosure (Alexander et al., 1977; Carmona et al., 2003; Im, 1983; Lynch & Hack, 1975; Moughtin, 1992; Nelessen, 1993). Enclosure implies the impression of safety. The correlation between perceived safety and enclosure is strong; r = .82 (Stamps, 2005a, p. 121). (Jacobs, 1993, p. 15) suggested the same relationship and stated that na rrowness and enclosure and intimacy bring a feeling of safety. Safety implication of enclosure is derived fr om the prospect and refuge theory. Previous research suggested that vision is related to survival instincts in humans; such that one needs to see the enemies and not to been seen by them; an unimpeded opportunity to see is called a prospect whereas an opportunity to hide is called a refuge (Stamps, 2005a, p. 105). The baseline of this theoretical conception is that humans even when not endangered, have a cognitive capacity that is synchronized to recogni ze spatial regions as safe or not safe. Drawing on previous literature, Carmona et al (2003 p. 141) noted that the ideal street must be a completely enclosed unit! The more on es impressions are confined within it, the more perfect will be its tableau: one feels at ease in a space where the gaze cannot be lost in infinity. This notion was suggested in litera ture, especially in the aesthetic discourse; it asserts that streets needs to be enlivened with nodes, and certain breaks should take place to create sequential units of cognition; however this is not the case in curren t street systems. The pattern of todays streets yields to the functional and utilitarian con cepts of connectivity, as suggested by the New Urbanism movement. Unlike plazas that have an additional aspect of enclosure called openness, which is the relationship of length to width, streets do not. Most street spaces today have only two geometric dimensions that contribute to the sense of enclosure, namely height and width.

PAGE 38

38 Methodological Strategies Since actual urban environments have numerous variables that could predict their qualities, it is virtually impossible to conduct a test of cause-effect relationshi p without risking the presence and influence of conf ounding or hidden variables. B ecause empirical inquiries need more controlled testing conditions, the use of computer-simulated environments has proved to be helpful, where the independent variables can be manipulated to measure users responses. Environmental Simulation Our world is a perceived world; we know it th rough our perceptual capacities. Even when we experience our real surroundings, and lear n about our environments, we do that with certain simulation capacities. Kaplan (1993 p. 62) noted that humans can and do act on the basis of very incomplete information. The less complete the information around us, the more room for our capacity to reconstruct reality into so mething we know and understand. Kaplan (1993, p. 61) also noted that much of what we know is learned from something other than actual place and therefore involved some form of simulation. Our imaginative capacities allow us to picture, for example, a city we never visited, and a house we never entered. Simulating real worlds, then, is a tool to support an already existing human ability to visualize the environment even if it is not really here. Simpson (2001, p. 361) supports this theoretical approach and stated realistic simulated images cut across traditional cognitive boundaries and reach those who may not be as adept at processing more abstract two-dimensional imagery. Environmental simulation is defined as the creation of a desired set of physical and operational conditions in a controlled process or setting through a combin ation of graphic and mental images, technical assumptions, and direct experience (Clipson,1993, p. 24). It involves the production of an image as close as possible to a real setting, th e introduction of these

PAGE 39

39 representations to pros pective users, and the collection of their judgment (Bosselmann, 1993, 1998). Environmental simulation in urban design co uld be categorized fr om a methodological point of view into applied and experimental. A pplied simulation is used to support planning and design processes including assessing future deve lopment, user participation, and training. Experimental environmental simulation, on the other hand, is for urban planning and design research; which involves inquiring, testing hypo theses, and building th eories (Ozel, 1993). These hypotheses are about environmental influen ce on users responses, which will be used to assess relationships expected to happen in real settings (Marans & Stokols, 1993). Computer Simulation There are different ways that are used to si mulate urban environments including sketches, scale models, photographs, videos and computer simulations (Marans & Stokols, 1993). The use of computer simulations allows for the production of as many variables as needed, and as many levels of manipulation as needed, with less tim e and money. Because of the speed of data processing and high storing capabilities, computer simulation is one of the most feasible means that could be used to learn about certain phenomenon in the urban environment (Ozel, 1993; Simpson 2001; Zacharias, 2001). Computer Simulation and Method Validity Some scholars have expressed doubts about validity of computer simulation in representing real-life situations, especially social ones that may not yield to simulation, rendering the whole process ineffective. This calls for an external validity or social validity where simulation should be able to represent social en vironments. However, it is also suggested that this validity is only necessary in community deci sion-making contexts than for validating the scientific rigor of investigations (Marans & Sto kols, 1993, p. 16); especially if the scientific

PAGE 40

40 rigor needs to isolate the social variables from the physical variables, such as the case of my research. Some scholars suggested that it is even bette r to use simulation than the real context. Kaplan (1993, p. 77), basing this claim on previo us research, noted that the understanding or working knowledge of a building provided by the simulation techniques was actually more useful than that provided by the visit to the building itself. The internal validity of environmental simulation in research and hypot hesis-testing purposes has been discussed by scholars as the reason why simulation is used in the first place. For possible confounding variables, scholars noted that using simulation in experiment al procedures decreases the likelihood of respondents being biased by extr aneous variables (Marans & Stokols, 1993). Kaplan (1993) using the same argument, talks about the internal validity of simulation of Berkley Simulation Project, and pointed out that familiarity had a strong impact in real-life settings than in simulation. Realism is an important factor in creating valid simulation. Because urban environments are sophisticated phenomena, r ealism in creating simulation for these environments is proportionately difficult. It is only by determinin g the purposes of the simulation are we able to approach certain levels of realism. Previous re search suggested that re alism is the technical accuracy where the simulated environment is re ndered with high quality and close resemblance to reality, (Karjalainen & Tyrainen, 2002, p. 15). Bosselmann (1993, p. 284, 285) noted that realism was established in the Berkeley Simula tion Laboratory where simulated environments yielded the same responses as the real ones. Wh ile applied simulations need the highest possible degree of realism, experimental simulations have a degree of realism corresponding to the main purpose of the experiment; which is not necessarily the highest.

PAGE 41

41 Cognitive and Psychophysical Approaches Since environmental simulation should be ba sed on the purpose of the research, it is convenient to explain two models of simulation that relate to my research the cognitive model and the psychophysical model. The cognitive m odel involves asking respondents about their impression of a certain subjective value of the environment. Respondents have more interpretive power over the stimuli. The inquiry concerning how simulated enclosure relates to perceived enclosure, for example, needs to use of this model. The psychophysical m odel, on the other hand, assumes respondents as passive recipients. Wh en there is a need to know how enclosure influences comfort, for example, it is necessary to use the psychophysical model (Karjalainen & Tyrainen 2002). This chapter reviewed urban design literatu re covering 9 theoretical and 4 methodological concepts pertaining to urban streets. The theoreti cal part presented episte mological constructs of urban design, meaning of the urban environment to its users, percepti on, urban scale, urban space, the dilemma of social vs. physical meanin gs of urban space, the probabilistic approach, urban streets vs. plazas and enclosure. The methodological part presented environmental simulation, computer simulation, comput er simulation validity, and cognitive and psychophysical approaches. Chapter 3 explains the method of my research It states the res earch independent and dependent variables and their measurement scales. It presents the research procedure; including exiting context and control measures taken to eliminate potential confounding variables, creating the three-dimensional models, extracting images from the three-dimensional models, on-screen survey, participant sampling and survey im plementation, and collecting the data upon participants responses.

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHOD My research is mainly concerned with measuring the influence of simulated enclosure, as a function of the independent variables of height -to-width ratio and scal e on users sense of comfort, sense of safety and perceived enclosure. It explores, as well, the potential influences of demographic differences (gender, age, design background, type of living area, height of buildings in living area, and width of streets in living area) on use rs sense of comfort, sense of safety and perceived enclosure in urban streets. To achieve cont rol over the different potential confounding variables that exist in the real-life urban st reets, three-dimensional computer models were created to simulate urban street spaces and to allow for manipulating the independent variables of the street space. An exiting area in Downtown Gainesville, Florida was selected to serve as a real-life reference for the simulation. A segment of the ma in street with a length of 2500 ft, 20 urban blocks was digitized, and extruded into 3D ge ometric models. Texture were collected and applied to the 3D models. A total of 42 stimuli were extracted as images from the models and integrated into an on-screen su rvey to collect responses of pe rceived enclosure, comfort and safety. This chapter explains the research method; first it presents independent and dependent variables. Second, it presents the research procedur es; including controlli ng the existing urban context, three-dimensional models, extracting im ages and integrating them into an on-screen survey, and finally collecti ng and coding response data.

PAGE 43

43 Research Variables Independent Variables There are two sets of independent variables in my research. The first set is independent variables that were simulated by computer models relative to the geometric characteristic of the urban street space. These independent variable s are space variables or within-subjects variables. The within-subjects in dependent variables are those va riables that held data across stimuli like ratio of height to width. The s econd set contained the demographic or betweensubjects independent variables. The between-subjects independent variables are those variables that hold data across participants like gender. Within-subject independent variables The research used two within-subjects indepe ndent variables; height-to-width ratio and scale. These two variables are functions of the height and width of the simulated space. The height, denoted by (H) is the average height of the defining buildings of the street space, measured from ground to the highest point in the vertical defining wall. Width, denoted by (W), is the width of the street measur ed from the face of the buildings on one side of the street to the face of the buildings on the other side. Height and width together produc e different values of height-to-width ratio and scale. Width measurement scale. Nelessen (1993) recommended wi dths for urban streets as 20 ft for the alley, 64 ft for the main streets, and 86 ft for the boulevard. A revi ew of major cities of the world using Google Earth revealed that widths of major urban streets can go up to 110 ft in New York, 100 ft in Chicago, 100 ft in Austin, 90 ft in LA, 74 ft in London, 74 ft in Amsterdam, 85 ft in Rome, 120 ft in Berlin, 120 ft in Tokyo, 90 ft in Baghdad, and 110 ft in Cairo. The average street driving lane is 10 ft (Godley et al., 2004; Chandra & Kumar, 2003), and the minimum sidewalk width is 5 ft (FHWA, 2005).

PAGE 44

44 Based on these figures, a width of 20 ft one lane and two sidewalks for the minimum value of the width scale, and a width of 130 ft 12 lanes and two sidewalks for the maximum value of the width scale were used. Initially, an interval of 10 ft was decided to increment the width scale; however an interval of 10 ft is intangible at the upper levels of the width scale. Consequently, instead of using scale levels of 20 ft, 30 ft, 40 ft and so on, it was found more convenient to use the 6 width leve ls of 20 ft, 30 ft, 40 ft, 60 ft, 90 ft, and 130 ft. This eliminated unnecessary levels of width and reduced the number of levels to more manageable ones, (Table 3-1). Height measurement scale. It was assumed that the minimum value of the height scale is 15-20 ft, which is the height of a typical ground floor. The maximum value of the height scale was decided based on the maximum value of ratio that the research needed to include. A maximum ratio was decided to go beyond what lite rature has reported. Therefore, it was found suitable to use a maximum ratio of 6:1. Since my research used a maximum street width of 130 ft; thus the maximum height was 6 x 130 = 780 ft, or 78 floors. However, each street width had a maximum height corresponding to the maximum ra tio, which meant a maximum height of 120 ft for the width of 20 ft, 180 ft for the width of 30 ft, 240 ft for the width of 40 ft and so on. Gehl (1987) suggested that above the fifth floor, things and even ts are out of touch with the ground level. Since the difference of narrow interval s in the upper levels of the height scale is insignificant; that is, the difference between floor number 70 and 71, for example, is assumed to be minimal as perceived by respondents, it was deci ded to use height cate gories of 20 ft, 30 ft, 40 ft, 60 ft, and divide the remaini ng distance above the sixth floor into three equal intervals at heights H5, H6, and H7. A matrix of 42 spaces has resulted form the 7 variations of height and the 6 variation of width, (Table 3-1).

PAGE 45

45 Groups of spaces. The matrix of (6 x 7 = 42 spaces) wa s clustered into (3 x 3 = 9) groups of spaces. While the matrix of 42 spaces is conven ient for analysis of association, the 9 groups were convenient for analysis of variance, (Table 3-2). Ratio measurement scale Inheriting from the aforemen tioned variation of width and height, the height-to-width ratio, henceforth called rati o, (R) = H/W, varied in the range of a minimum value of 20/130 or (0.15) to a maxi mum value of 780/130 or (6.00), producing a total of 42 different ratio levels, (Table 3-3). The re sulting 42 different ratios were clustered into 14 categories; pertaining to the ranges of 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 1, 3/2, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, (Table 3-4). Scale measurement range (scale) The range of the scale va riable, (Sc) = H W was varied in the range of a minimum value of (20 ft 20 ft) or 400 sq. ft, to a maximum value of (780 ft 130 ft) or 101,400 sq. ft, (Table 3-5). It was necessary to select three groups of small scale (low, narrow), medium scale (medium (H), medium (W), and large scale (high, wide) for variance analysis. This selection reduced the effect of ratio and provided a clear scale variation, (Table 3-6). Between-subjects independent variables The research used six between-subject in dependent variables; gender, age, design background, type of living area (urban, suburban a nd rural), height of bui ldings in living area, and width of streets in living area. These variab les were included to test for the influence of demographic and experience differences on percepti on of dependent variables of comfort, safety and perceived enclosure in urban street space. Participants were students and employees from the University of Florida based on a convenience sample. The sample size was 83 pa rticipants (mean age = 29.8 and standard deviation = 8.8); 64% were men (53 men, mean age = 29.6 and standard deviation = 8.5) and

PAGE 46

46 36% were women (30 women, mean age = 30, st andard deviation = 9.3). For design background variable, 52 (63%) of the part icipants had no design backgrou nd, while 30 (37%) had design background. For the type of living area, (45.1%) of the part icipants live in urban areas, (46.3%) live in suburban areas, and (8.5%) live in rural areas. Th e distribution of the pa rticipants as for the average height of buildings in their living area wa s (41%) for to 2 floors, (22.9%) for to 4 floors, (15.7%) for to 6 floors, (10.8%) for to 7 floors, and (9.6%) for over 10 floors. The distribution of the participants as for the average width of streets in their living area was (43.4%) for to 2 lanes, (48.2%) for to 4 lane s, (7.2%) for to 6 lanes, and (1.2%) for to 10 lanes. Dependent Variables My research used five dependent variables; sense of comfort (C), sense of safety (S), perceived enclosure (EP), perceived height (HP) and perceived width (WP). Sense of comfort Literature suggested a strong relationship be tween enclosure and f eeling comfortable in urban spaces. Alan Jacobs envisioned successful urban spaces as livable, safe and comfortable (Jacobs, 1993). Alexander et al. (1977) tied comfor t to enclosure for streets, they reported it should be noted that pedestrian streets which seem most comfortable are the ones where the width of the street does not exceed the height of the surrounding buildings (Alexander et al., 1977, p. 178). The Essex design guide suggested that a ratio of 1:1 is the minimum for comfortable space, and a ratio of 1:2.5 is the maximum that can be tolerated (Moughtin, 1992). Drawing on the prospect and refuge theory, se nse of comfort was found to be an excellent measure of the theorys notion concerning enclosure. The theory ties enclosure to aesthetic appreciation and feeling of comfort at the higher levels for huma n needs. A preference variable is

PAGE 47

47 reasonable too, nevertheless, to ask how comf ortable is this space? would help respondents envision being in the space, but to ask how do you prefer this space?, could be understood as how do you like it as an image?; risking responde nts separation from the scene. The variable sense of comfort is considered from the ps ychophysical model. Therefore, enclosure was predicted without directing re spondents attention to it. Sense of comfort measurement scale. A six-point Likert scale was used to collect responses for sense of comfort. The scale consisted of six levels on an ordinal scale. Respondents rated comfort level from (1) thr ough (6); where (1) is the lower level of comfort or the least comfortable and (6) is the higher level of comfort or the most comfortable. Sense of safety In contrast to sense of comfort, sense of safe ty is related to the basic level of human need. The prospect and refuge theory suggests a str ong relationship between enclosure and sense of safety. It was useful to examine sense of safe ty and enclosure and compare the results to sense of comfort and enclosure to unde rstand this connection between them. It was also important to test the suggested relationship th at empirical literature reported so far (Stamps, 2005a). Similar to sense of comfort, the variable sense of sa fety is considered from the psychophysical model. Sense of safety measurement scale. A six-point Likert scale was used to collect responses for sense of safety. The scale consisted of six le vels on an ordinal scale. Respondents rated safety level from (1) through (6); where (1 ) is the lower level of safety or the most unsafe and (6) is the higher level of safety or the safest. Perceived enclosure, perceived height and perceived width The three dependent variables perceived encl osure, perceived height, and perceived width are from the cognitive model. The purpose of including perceived enclosure is to test the validity of the simulated enclosure, and to be able to relate to previous empirical literature that

PAGE 48

48 used perceived enclosure only. Scholars have us ed cognitive variables as both dependent and independent for visual communication expe rience (Heft & Nasar 2000; Stamps, 2005a). Perceived enclosure was used as both dependent a nd independent variable in my research. Ratio and scale were used to predict perceived enclosure, while perceived enclosure was used to predict comfort and safety. The purpose of includi ng perceived heights and widths is to test to what extent are the simulated height and the simulated width of the streets perceived by respondents as assumed by the research which is a reliability test. Measurement scales of perceived enclosu re, perceived height, and perceived width. A six-point Likert scale was used to collect respon ses for perceived enclosure. The scale consisted of six levels on an ordinal scale. Respondents rated perceived enclosur e level from (1) through (6); where (1) is the lower level of enclosure or the most open, and (6) is the higher level of enclosure or the most closed. Interval scales were used to collect responses for perceived height and perceived width. Respondents estimated height and widths in feet. Both independent and dependent variables are su mmarized in (Table 3-7). Research Procedure The procedure for my research had of five phase s. First, selecting an existing environment to serve as a context for the computer simula tion and conducting control measures over potential external confounding variables, se cond, creating three-dimensional (3D) models of 42 different height and width combinations, th ird, extracting 42 still images pertaining to the desired viewing point, and integrating them in to an on-screen survey, four th, sampling participants and conducting the survey, and fifth, collecting and codi ng data and conducting stat istical analysis Existing Context and Control Measures over Potential Confounding Variables A street section with 10 segments, a length of 2500 ft, and a width of 60 ft, was selected from Main Street in Downtown Gainesville, Florid a. This section was used as a real-life context

PAGE 49

49 to serve as a reference when constructing all cont extual elements that are not varied. The street section is intersected by 9 perpe ndicular streets, creating 20 blocks on both sides of the street. Blocks areas vary from 45, 500 to 113, 000 sq. ft, with an average of 75, 000 sq. ft. The widths of the perpendicular streets vary with values of 25 ft, 50 ft, and 60 ft, (Figure 3-1). Sizes of urban block and shapes were maintained, and real textures were extracted from the existing buildings and used in the 3D models. Some of the street elements that were simulated for the context of my research had potential effects on the independent variables. These elements influe nce the perception of enclosure and some measures were taken to modi fy them accordingly. These elements are street length, vacant land plots, viewing point, skylin e, and street furniture. The way these elements were modified is explained below. Street length This element is about what street length would better serve the purpose of the simulation. Scholars analyzed segments of streets, repor ted streets of certain lengths, and sometimes suggested the ideal segment length. The acceptabl e walking distance for most people could be considered a determining factor, as it was noted that it should be about 400 to 500 meters (1,300 to 1,600 ft) (Gehl, 1987; Nelessen, 1993). Mought in (1992) noted that an elegant and wellproportioned street is 300 m l ong by 30 m wide (984 ft 98 ft) and three-storey high (Moughtin, 1992). Based on the above suggestions; an optimum street length of 1000 to 1,600 ft with 4-6 segments was initially decided to be used in my research, (Figure 3-2A). However, such a length did not satisfy all different conditions of the ma nipulation of the independent variables wider streets needed more length to be portrayed pr operly using the same vi ewing point. It was found that a street length of 2500 ft with 10 segments was more appropriate to maintain enough

PAGE 50

50 information and allow for wider streets to be displayed in the same manner as narrower ones, (Figure 3-2B). Vacant land plots Vacant land plots, mainly surface car parking, were expected to influence the sense of enclosure in urban street spaces because they break the continu ity of the building wall that defines the street, (Figure 3-3A). My research maintained a continuous wall on both sides of the street. Vacant plots in the real -life street were filled with buildings, and a zero setback was maintained along both sides of the street. Additio nal buildings were given modified textures from existing ones. Widths of building footprints facing the street were maintained above 100 ft, which allowed for varying the heights of the building realistically, (Figure 3-3B). Set backs Although at heights approximately twice the wi dth of the street, a set back should take place as suggested by the legacy of American skyscraper tradition (Willis, 1986), this study did not integrate setbacks. If setbacks were included, th ey have to vary with the width of the street which could have resulted in a confounding variable. It is logical to expect that less sense of enclosure could be predicted by including setbacks, however, su ch comparisons are beyond the scope of my research. Viewing point My research was limited to the pedestrians viewing point. The viewing point was at human-eye level, taken from one sidewalk of th e street. This viewing point was selected to capture one view of the space that reveals the nature of its en closure, and it was maintained constant at all levels of inde pendent variables, (Figure 3-4). Other viewing points; like views from vehicles, bicycles and other operated mode s of movements were be yond the scope of my research. This viewing point was captured in the fo rm of still images to be used as stimuli.

PAGE 51

51 Previous studies have shown the reliability of using still images (Stamps, 1999 & Heft & Nasar, 2000). Concerning validity of using image s timuli, previous research reported that on-site vs. photographs stimuli and color slides vs. comput er-generated stimuli have correlated strongly at r .83 (Stamps, 1999, p. 736). Concerning stat ic vs. dynamic representations, it was found that static displays, contrary to expectati ons, were significant in stimulating response of preference than dynamic displays (Heft & Nasar, 2000). Skyline Stamps (1999) reported that buildings skyline predicts users preference for buildings. It was necessary to maintain this component consta nt within a range of optimum levels across all buildings on both sides of the street. Roof lines were kept straight, and, for each stimulus, a random variation between adjacent buildings was us ed. The range of variation was 1 to 4 ft and was applied in the parapet walls. It is importa nt to emphasize that, although the skyline varied across adjacent buildings in the same stimulus, it was not varied across stimuli. Street furniture As my research depends enormously on perceptio n of scale, clues of scale should exist to the extent that they do not have the potential to bias responses. Thes e clues of scale were introduced by representation of peopl e and the use of a real textures and material from the site. In contrast, although trees are important elements in urban streetscape, they play a major role in defining spaces and manipulating enclosure, so they were not included in the models. Because the dependent variables comfort and safety were to be investigated as predicted from enclosure values only, the presence of realistically modeled sidewalks, lanes, and cars have a profound confounding influence. It was decided to reduce that influence by providing simple clues about the width of the street with gray neutral material, (Figure 3-5).

PAGE 52

52 Creating 3D Models All 20 blocks, the street segment, and th e closest segments of the intersecting perpendicular streets were digitized in ESRI ArcMapTM software based on an aerial image of the city. The two-dimensional shape file was exported to AutoDesk VIZ software using DXF format. In AutoDesk VIZ, four initial 3D models were cr eated; a ground model, a ground-floor model, a typical floor model, and a parapet wa ll model. Ground floors were extruded to a height of 16 ft, typical floors to 10 ft, a nd parapet walls extrusion ranged from 1 to 4 ft. All empty plots were filled, and a straight conti nuous street wall was maintained. In the context of simulating urban environmen ts, real site photos were used to produce a realistic simulation. Texture mapping (the appli cation of real photos on modeled geometries) is an inexpensive technique that proved to be succes sful in conveying the de sired level of details (Shoide, 2000). Texture mapping is preferred in urban environm ents because high degree of realism can be achieved with smaller file sizes compared to geometric detailing. An average of 3 pictures was taken for each segment facing the main street. Weather conditions were observed to insure sufficient sun light, a digital camera was used with a storage capacity of 60 megabytes, and a map was prepared to keep track of photos and the corresponding faades. A reasonable high image resolution was used to allow for more flexibility in the photoediting process, even though this resolution would ha ve to be reduced later before application to the geometries; a minimum of 640 480 pixels was used as an initial im age resolution. The time needed to collect the textures for all segmen ts was 4 hours taken from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Adobe Photoshop software was used to prepare the images for texture mapping. The photo-editing session had three steps; correction of perspective effect, removing obstacles, and optimizing image sizes. Correction of perspective e ffect was done by editing the image so that its orthographic depiction was restor ed and real dimensions and proportions of the faades were

PAGE 53

53 reconstructed. Removing obstacles involved rem oving trees, shrubs, cars and any other street elements that hide portions of the faade in the original photo. Optimizing image sizes involved reducing the sizes of the images to an optimum value that preserves good image resolution, while maintaining manageable file size. A value of 100 pixels for each floor was found to be convenient for such purpose, (Figure 3-6). Each corrected image was divided into three parts corresponding to the faade levels of ground floor, typical floor and parapet wall. Textures were then applied to 3D models in AutoDesk VIZ, (Figure 3-7). Since the viewing point is at human-eye leve l; it was found that more details should be added because, at the level of the ground floor a nd closer to the camera, texture mapping was not enough. Therefore, the initial 3D model was ex ported using 3DS format to SketchUp @ Last software, which, in contrast to AutoDesk VIZ, allows for direct edit ing on the surfaces of faades after texture application. Faade fe nestrations, awnings, window hoods, and cornices were articulated, (Figure 3-8). Next, a total of 42 3D models were created relevant to a matrix of (7 x 6); a height variation of 7 leve ls, and a width variation of 6 levels. Extracting Images and on-Screen Survey. Each of the resulting 3D models was then e xported to a convenient software package with a powerful rendering capacity, namely Bryce 5.5 in DAZ software. The camera setting for the desired view was at human-eye level with an FOV of 46.72, and shadows were automatically generated after setting a virtual sun from sout h-east direction; which simulated 10:00 AM. A total of 42 different images were extracted from the models to be integrated in an on-screen survey, (Figure 3-9). The on-screen survey was designed to coll ect information about the aforementioned independent and dependent variable that are f unctions of either participant perceptions or demographic differences. Mi crosoft Visual Basic 6.0 was used to design 6 pages to be

PAGE 54

54 displayed for participants. The first page wa s an introductory page, where participant are introduced to the research concept and informed about what they are expected to do. In this page, as well, participants were asked to enter th e number that was assigned to each one of them, (Figure A-1). The second page displayed the 4 most extreme cases of the 42 space images; lowest and narrowest, lowest and widest, high est and narrowest, and highest and widest. The purpose of this page was to help participant calibrate their judgment by comprehending the maximum values of the height a nd width scales, (Figure A-2). For participant perceptions of comfort and safety, two methods were used to collect participant responses. First, the choices responses; where participan ts were asked, in the third page of the survey, to select the most comf ortable three spaces, and the most uncomfortable single space. Similarly, and in the same page, they were asked to select th e safest three spaces, in addition the most unsafe single space. Participan ts were asked to do that by browsing all 42 different cases by clicking on a button relative to each case. Upon clicking on one button, the relative image was displayed in an area designa ted for the images in the interface. When participants arrived at a decision, they simply dragged and drop the selected image into an empty box designated for that exact response, (Figur e A-3). These responses were called choices responses to able to distinguish them from the second set of responses which were called ratings responses. Second, in the fourth page of the survey, two questions were asked for each individual image relative to level of comfort and level of safety. While choices responses were collected for frequencies of choices of each case, rating resp onses were collected for case-by-case rating of images that were arranged in a random order. In addition, this page included three more questions for each individual image. These thr ee questions were about perceived enclosure,

PAGE 55

55 perceived height and perceived width. A total of five questions were in cluded in this page. A radio-button ordinal scale was provided for the fi rst three questions of comfort, safety and enclosure, and two text boxes were provided for th e last two questions of perceived height and perceived width. In the estimation part, participan ts were given the choice to either enter their estimations using feet or meters, (Figure A-4). In the fifth page, participants responded to questions about their own persp ective of why some spaces are more comfortable than others, and some are safer than others, (Figure A-5). The last page was about demographic information of gender, age, design b ackground, type of living area; urban, suburban, or rural, heights of build ings and widths of streets in the living area, (Figure A-6). Participants Sampling A total of 100 packages were prepared to be handed to potential participants. Each package contained one CD of the digital survey material, namely, an execution file and a folder that contained all 42 images. In addition, the packag e contained an incentive of $6.00, participant number note, and two copies of the form of consent. Using convenience sampling, each participant was approached individually and brie fed shortly about the nature of the survey. A total of 84 participants from stude nts and employees of the Univers ity of Florida have agreed to participate in the survey. Upon thei r initial approval, par ticipants were given the survey package, where they signed one copy of the consent form Because each participant response was to be collected in a text file that will write itself on his or her c:\ drive, they were asked, upon the completion of the survey, to email the file to the researcher. The 84 students and employees who accepted to participate responded during a period of two months. Only one response was found to be u nusable because the survey was not completed. The total number of participants ( n ) whose answers were ultimately coded was 83 participants.

PAGE 56

56 Coding Data and Statistical Analysis Each of the 83 participants entered 42 res ponses for each dependent variable. The total observations for each response were 83 x 42 = 3,486. All observations were organized into two different working files; a participants file, and a spaces file. The data in the participants file were coded so that n = 83, and was used for analysis of repeated measures and between-subject variance. The spaces file, on the other hand, was created by aggregating the within-subject variables and using the mean ranks where ( n = 42), and was used for analysis of association and regression for within-subject variables. Analysis of variance, association and regr ession were carried out using the following groups and categories of spaces clustered to se rve the purpose of different types of tests: For analysis of spaces variance, 42 spaces were used; each was identified by its height, width and ratio by the format space (H, W, R). Fo r example, a space with a height of 20 ft, a width of 20 ft, and a ratio of 1, wa s identified as space (20, 20, 1). For analysis of space groups variance, 9 space groups were used; each groups of spaces was identified by the format group (Height, Width). For example, group (Medium (H), Medium (W)) is the centra l group of the 9 space groups. For analysis of ratio association, 14 ratio categories were used; each ratio category was identified by the ratio value that the category clustered around, in the fo rmat of ratio (R). For example, the category of ratios (0.88 to 1.25) was identified as ratio (1). For analysis of ratio variance, 3 ratio groups were used; (1/6 to 1/ 3), (1/2 to 2), and (3 to 6). For scale analysis of association, 19 spaces ; which satisfy the condition (0.5 <= R<=2). For scale analysis of variance, 3 scale groups were used; each scale group was identified in the format of scale group (scale). For exam ple the smallest group was identified as scale group (small). My research used 5 types of st atistical tests; non parametric Freidman tests were used to examine differences of repeated measures, non parametric Mann-Whitney U tests and KruskalWallis tests were used to examine differences or variance, Spearman correlation coefficient (rho)

PAGE 57

57 for ordinal association tests were used to examine correlations, a nd logistic regression tests were used to predict dependent variable s using independent variables. This chapter presented the research method. It presented first independent and dependent variables, then it presented the research procedur e pertaining to existing ur ban context, the threedimensional models, extracting images and inte grating them into an on-screen survey, and collecting and coding response data. Chapter 4 pr esents the results of statistical analysis concerning the influence of independent variables on perceived enclosure.

PAGE 58

58 Table 3-1. Height and width levels. Width (ft) W1: 20 W2 : 30 W3 : 40 W4 : 60 W5 : 90 W6 : 130 H1: 20 20 : 20 20 : 30 20 : 40 20 : 60 20 : 90 20 : 130 H2: 30 30 : 20 30 : 30 30 : 40 30 : 60 30 : 90 30 : 130 H3: 40 40 : 20 40 : 30 40 : 40 40 : 60 40 : 90 40 : 130 H4: 60 60 : 20 60 : 30 60 : 40 60 : 60 60 : 90 60 : 130 H5: varied 80 : 20 100 : 30 120 : 40 160 : 60 220 : 90 300 : 130 H6: varied 100 : 20 140 : 30 180 : 40 260 : 60 380 : 90 540 : 130 Height (ft) H7: varied 120 : 20 180 : 30 240 : 40 360 : 60 540 : 90 780 : 130 Table 3-2. Spaces clustered in 9 groups Width (ft) W1 : 20 W2 : 30 W3 : 40 W4 : 60 W5 : 90 W6 :130 H1: 20 H2: 30 Low, Narrow Low, Medium(W) Low Wide H3: 40 H4: 60 Medium(H), Narrow Medium(H), Medium(W) Medium(H), Wide H5: varied H6: varied Height (ft) H7: varied High, Narrow High, Medium(W) High, Wide Table 3-3. Ratio levels. Width (ft) W1 : 20 W2 : 30 W3 : 40 W4 : 60 W5 : 90 W6 :130 H1: 20 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.33 0.22 0.15 H2: 30 1.50 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.33 0.23 H3: 40 2.00 1.33 1.00 0.67 0.44 0.31 H4: 60 3.00 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.67 0.46 H5: varied 4.00 3.33 3.00 2.67 2.44 2.31 H6: varied 5.00 4.67 4.50 4.33 4.22 4.15 Height (ft) H7: varied 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Table 3-4. Ratio categories Width (ft) W1 : 20 W2 : 30 W3 : 40 W4 : 60 W5 : 90 W6 :130 H1: 20 1 2/3 1/2 1/3 1/5 1/6 H2: 30 3/2 1 3/4 1/2 1/3 1/4 H3: 40 2 3/2 1 2/3 1/2 1/3 H4: 60 3 2 3/2 1 2/3 1/2 H5: varied 4 3 3 3 2 2 H6: varied 5 5 4 4 4 4 Height (ft) H7: varied 6 6 6 6 6 6

PAGE 59

59 Table 3-5. Scale levels Width (ft) W1 : 20 W2 : 30 W3 : 40 W4 : 60 W5 : 90 W6 :130 H1: 20 400 600 800 1200 1800 2600 H2: 30 600 900 1200 1800 2700 3900 H3: 40 800 1200 1600 2400 3600 5200 H4: 60 1200 1800 2400 3600 5400 7800 H5: varied 1600 3000 4800 9600 19800 39000 H6: varied 2000 4200 7200 15600 34200 70200 Height (ft) H7: varied 2400 5400 9600 21600 48600 101400 Table 3-6. Scale groups Width (ft) W1 : 20 W2 : 30 W3 : 40 W4 : 60 W5 : 90 W6:130 H1: 20 H2: 30 Small H3: 40 H4: 60 Medium H5: varied H6: varied Height (ft) H7: varied Large Table 3-7. Summary of independe nt and dependant variables. Independent variables Type Dependent variables Type Within-subject (space) Psychophysical Height to width ratio R Ordinal Comfort C Ordinal Scale SC Ordinal Safety S Ordinal Between-subjects (demographic) Cognitive Gender Nominal Perceived enclosure EP Ordinal Age Interval Perceived Height HP Interval Design Background Nominal Perceived Width WP Interval Type of OAL Nominal Height of buildings in AOL Interval Width of streets in AOL Interval

PAGE 60

60 A B Figure 3-1. Existing context: Main Street, Downtown Gainesville, Florida. A) Site aerial image. B) Example of context architecture.

PAGE 61

61 A B Figure 3-2. Street length. A) Length of 1320 ft. B) Length of 2500 ft. With wider streets, there was a need to double the length of the simulated street. A B Figure 3-3. Vacant land plots. A) Existing em pty land plots. B) Empty plots filled. Figure 3-4. Viewing point. Human-eye le vel from one side of the street.

PAGE 62

62 A B Figure 3-5. Street furniture. A) Lanes, sidewalks and median are realistically represented. B) Reduced realism; neutral material. A B Figure 3-6. Texture correction. A) Original image. B) Corrected image.

PAGE 63

63 Figure 3-7. Texture mapping A B Figure 3-8. Facade articulation. A) Before faade articulation. B) After faade articulation.

PAGE 64

64 A B C D E F G H I Figure 3-9. Examples of 9 images from the matrix A) 20ft x 20ft. B) 20ft x 30ft. C) 20ft x 40ft. D) 30ft x 20ft. E) 30ft x 30ft. F) 30ft x 40ft. G) 40ft x 20ft. H) 40ft x 30ft. I) 40ft x 40ft. 20x20 20x 3 0 20x 4 0 3 0x20 3 0x 3 0 3 0x 4 0 4 0x20 4 0x 3 0 4 0x 4 0

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS: PERCEIVED ENCLOSURE My research used 42 images of simulated ur ban street spaces that were extracted from three-dimensional computer models, designed to investigate the influence of enclosure, as a function of ratio and scale of urba n street spaces, on users sense of comfort, sense of safety and perceived enclosure. Each of the 83 participants responded to all 42 images, resulting in a total of 3,486 observations for each dependent variable. Consequently, for analysis of variance of between-subject variables, n was 83, and for analysis of asso ciation and regression of withinsubject variables, n was 42. This chapter reports results from variance, asso ciation and regression st atistical analysis of the dependent variable perceived enclosure. Anal ysis of variance answers the question; whether or not there was a difference in perceived en closure responses for the different groups and categories of the independent variables. Analysis of associations answers the question; how does the magnitude of perceived enclosure change, an d in what direction, when the magnitudes of independent variables change. Regression analys is answers the question; which independent variables are best predictors of perceived enclosure. Before presenting result of pe rceived enclosure, results from tests of normal distribution and reliability will be reported first. The nor mal distribution test was used to decide the appropriate type of statistical analysis to be used in my research. The reliability test was conducted to examine whether simulated dimensions are actually perceived as designed, which examines the validity of the simulation method.

PAGE 66

66 Normal Distribution and Reliability Tests Normal Distribution Test It was necessary to first decide whether to use parametric or nonparametric statistical analysis in my research. To use parametric statistics; including T-test, ANOVA, Pearson correlation coefficient (r), etc., dependent vari ables should be normally distributed. If this condition is violated, equivale nt nonparametric analysis s hould be used including; MannWhitney U test, Friedman test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Spearman correlation coefficient (rho), etc. Dependent variables of perceived enclosure, comf ort, and safety were not normally distributed based on the rule that skewness and kurtosis, di vided by their standard errors, should not exceed 5.5 for dependent variables to be considered normally distributed (Morgan & Griegro, 1998; Pallant, 2001), (Table 4-1). Normal distribut ion conditions were vi olated; therefore only nonparametric tests were used in my research. Test of Reliability: Simulated vs. Perceived Heights and Widths Reliability tests were conducted for the comput er simulation method used in my research. Using this test, it can be established that heig hts and widths of the simulated spaces of urban street spaces are actually perceived by particip ants as assumed by the simulation. For simulated heights with perceived heights, a strong positive correlation was found at rho = +0.904, = 0.01, n = 3,486. The alternative hypothesis, H1: simulated heights are strongly associated with estimated heights, was supported. For simulated widths with estimated widths a strong positive corre lation was found at rho = +0.771, = 0.01, n = 3,486. The alternative hypothesis, H1: simulated widths are strongly associated with estimated widths, was supported. These findings indicated that, for purposes of conveying the differences in the magnitudes of urban space dimensions to participants, the computer simulation method that was used in my re search is reliable, (Table 4-2), (Figure 4-1).

PAGE 67

67 Perceived Enclosure The influence of both sets of independent va riables on the dependent variable perceived enclosure will be discussed. The influences of within-subjects independent variables of height, width, ratio and scale, on perceived enclosure are discussed first, followed by influences of between-subjects independent variab les of gender, age, design b ackground, type of living area, height of buildings in living area, and width of street s in living area. Perceived Enclosure and Within-Subject Variab les: Height, Width, Ratio and Scale Repeated measures: test of variance Friedman test for repeated measures on an ordinal scale was conducted four times for analysis of perceived enclosure for the 42 spaces the 9 groups of spaces, the 14 ratio categories, and the three scale groups. For the 42 spaces, the test was conducted to an swer the question whether or not there was a difference in perceived enclosure scores across th e 42 spaces. The test result was significant, P = 0.000, n = 83, df = 41. The alternative hypothesis, H1: there is a difference in perceived enclosure responses across the 42 spaces, was supported. The highest perceived enclosure mean rank (37.59) was received by space (120, 20, 6), the 2nd highest perceived enclosure mean rank (34.14) was for space (180, 30, 6), and the 3rd highest perceived enclosure mean rank (33.82) was for space (140, 30, 4.67). The lowest perceived enclosure mean rank (4.97) was for space (20, 130, 0.15), (Table 4-3). To account for randomness caused by the large sa mple of 3,486 observations, the 9 groups of spaces were tested. Friedman test was used to answer whether or not there was a difference in sense of perceived enclosure scores across thes e 9 groups. The test result was significant, P = 0.000, n = 83, df = 8. The alternative hypothesis, H1: there is a difference in perceived enclosure responses across the 9 spaces groups, was supporte d. The highest perceived enclosure mean

PAGE 68

68 rank of (8.41) was received by group (High, Narr ow), the lowest perceived enclosure mean rank (1.31) was for group (Low, Wide), (Table 4-4). For categories of ratio, the test re sult was significant (P = 0.000, n = 83, df = 13), the alternative hypothesis, H1: there is a difference in perceive d enclosure responses across the 14 ratio categories, was supported. High ratios of 5 and 6 received the highest perceived enclosure mean rank, while low ratios of 1/6 and 1/5 receiv ed the lowest perceive d enclosure mean ranks, (Table 4-5). For scale groups, the test resu lt was significant, P = 0.000, n = 83, df = 2, the alternative hypothesis, H1: there is a difference in perceived encl osure responses acro ss the 3 scale groups, was supported. The scale group (Large), receive d the highest rank (2.22); followed by group scale (Small), with a mean rank of (2.16). The le ast mean rank (1.62) was received by the group scale (Medium), (Table 4-6). It should be noted here that with the 3 scale groups, the ratio variable is in effect; this is explained more in the coming tests of association. In other words, without controlling for ratio, scal e does not have a significant in fluence on perceived enclosure. Ratio association There was a high significant positive correlati on between perceived enclosure and ratio at rho = 0.84; the relationship was linear. When th e correlation was conducted after controlling for scale, a higher positive correlati on resulted at rho = + 0.936, (Table 4-7), (Figure 4-2). There was strong statistical evidence to conc lude that as ratio increases, pe rceived enclosure increases. This result means that the dependent variable per ceived enclosure can be used as independent variable, as suggested in chapte r 3, where dependent variables like comfort and safety can be examined in relation to it.

PAGE 69

69 Scale association Perceived enclosure and scale were correlated without controlling for ratio, no significant correlation was found; rho =.049. Af ter statistically controlling fo r ratio, a negative over all significant correlation was found at rho = 0.683. When selecting only cases which satisfy the condition (0.5 <= R<=2), no significant correlatio n was found. When the cases with ratio range of (1 to 2) were selected, perceived enclosure co rrelated negatively with scale at rho = -0.620, (P = 0.03, n = (12*83)). Selecting cases with only ratio value of (6) revealed a higher negative correlation between perceived enclosure a nd scale at rho = -0.943, (P = 0.005, n = (6*83)), (Table 4-8), (Figure 4-3). There was enough statisti cal evidence to conclude that, by controlling for ratio, perceived enclosure decreases as scale increases. There was evidence that the scale variable can predict perceived en closure only when ratio variable is controlled, which rendered the scale variable as a function attached to ratio and can not operate alone. Height association There was a statistically significant positive correlation between perceived enclosure and height; rho = +0.508, (P = 0.001, n = 42*83). However, when a partial correlation was conducted between perceived enclosure and height controlling for width, the correlation was higher; rho =.774, and when the correlation was conducted for spaces at width levels of (20 to 30 ft), the correlation was at rho =.75, (P = 0.001, n = 15*83), at width levels of (40 to 60 ft) the correlation was at rho =.921, (P = 0.000, n = 14*83), and at width levels of (90 to 130 ft) the correlation was at rho =.898, (P = 0.000, n = 13*83), (Table 4-9), (Figure 4-4) It can be concluded that perceived enclosure increases as height increases and that height is a better predictor of perceived enclosure after contro lling for width, and that height has the highest influence on perceived enclosure at widt h range of (40 to 60 ft).

PAGE 70

70 Width association There was a statistically significant negative correlation between perceived enclosure and width in general; rho = 0.677, (P = 0.000, n = 42*83). However, when a partial correlation was conducted between perceived enclosure and widt h controlling for height, the correlation was stronger; rho = -.858, and when the correlation wa s conducted for spaces at height levels of (20 to 30ft), the correlation was at rho = 0.965, ( P = 0.001, n = 10*83), at height levels of (40 to 60 ft) the correlation was at r ho = 0.989, (P = 0.000, n = 11*83), and at width levels of (> 60 ft) the correlation was at rho = -.881, (P = 0.000, n = 18*83), (Table 4-10), (Figure 4-5). There is enough evidence to conclude that perceived encl osure decreases as width increases, and that width is a better predicto r of perceived enclosure after contro lling for height, and that width has the highest influence on perceived enclos ure at height range of (40 to 60ft). Regression analysis Logistic regression predicts the presence of a dependent variable based on independent variables (Morgan & Griegro, 1998; Pallant, 2001); it allows for the prediction of a discrete outcome of success (e.g., comfortable) or failur e (e.g., uncomfortable). Logistic regression was used to predict the presence of closedness base d on within-subjects independent variables. The dependent variable perceived encl osure was recoded into two binary values of 0 and 1, where 0 represents the absence of closedness, and 1 repr esents the existence of closedness. Perceived enclosure scores of 1 and 2 were recoded into 0; perceived enclosure sc ores of 5 and 6 were recoded into 1, while perceived enclosure scores of 3 and 4 were not included. The total number of selected cases was 1949. Ratio, scale, height, and width variables were a ll fitted in the model, and they were able to estimate 87.63% of responses correctly. Since thes e variables are all functions of height and width, it was logical to reduce the number of va riables to the minimum that could predict the

PAGE 71

71 same percentage that the complete model pred icted. Since ratio had the highest estimation capacity among the 4 variables, 3 tests were cond ucted combining ratio with each of the other 3 variables. The tests results revealed that ratio and scale estimated 86.4% of the responses, ratio and height estimated 86.4% as well, while ratio a nd width estimated the same percentage that the full model estimated, 87.63%. Based on that, it was decided to include only ratio and width in the final model. It is important to note that the notion of scale is still included, but represented by width combined with ratio; i.e., for each ratio and width values there is only one scale value. What supported this decision is that it is more pr actical to report the relationship as a function of ratio and width as indicator of s cale, instead of ratio and scale. The model is significant (P = .000, n = 1949, Cox & Snells Pseudo R2 = .522), (Table 411). The probability that a space of ratio (R) and width (W) will be perceived as closed or not can be calculated using the constant and the B values reported in the re gression model, (Eq. 4-1). For example, if a space has a ratio of 1, and a width of 20 feet, then P(Ep) = 0.717, and if a space has a ratio of 6 and a width of 40 feet, then P(PE) = 0.986. A calculator was created where ratio and width values can be input and probabi lity of closedness can be obtained. ) .0309 0 .5716 0 3.5799 ( ) (1 1W R Epe P (4-1) Perceived Enclosure and between-Subject Variables: Gender, Age, Design Background, Type of living area, Height of buildings in living area, and Width of streets in living area. For this analysis, the 3 ratio categories and the 3 scale gr oups were used to examine differences of perceived enclosure of differe nt demographic groups. In addition, perceived enclosure scores of different demographic gr oups for the 42 spaces were extracted and were correlated.

PAGE 72

72 Gender A non parametric test; namely Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine whether men and women differ in terms of their perceived enclosure. For the 3 ratio categories, although women have higher perceived enclosure mean ranks for higher ratios than men, the test result was not statistically significant. The null hypot hesis, H: women and men have the same perceived enclosure across the 3 ratio categories, could not be rejected, (Table B-1), (Figure B1). For the 3 scale groups, there was no statistica lly significant differen ce, the null hypothesis, H: men and women have the same perceived en closure across the 3 scale groups, couldnt be rejected, (Table B-2), (Figure B-2). The correla tion between perceived enclosure scores of men and women, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .97, (P = .000, n = 42), which indicates a high level of consensus Age Age was recoded into three categories; (< 24), (25 to 31), and (< 31) for the purposes of variance analysis. Kruskal-Wallis test, which is a non-parametric test of variance for variables that have more than two levels, was conducted to test the difference in perceived enclosure responses of the 3 age groups. For ratio categorie s, although the older two groups tended to have higher perceived enclosure than the youngest gr oup for higher ratios, the test result was statistically insignificant. The null hypothesis, H: the 3 age groups have the same perceived enclosure scores across the 3 rati o categories) couldnt be rejected, (Table B-3), (Figure B-3). For scale groups, the test result was statistically insignificant, the null hypothesis, H: the 3 age groups have the same perceived enclosure scores across the 3 scale groups, couldnt be rejected, (Table B-4), (Figure B-4). The range of correlations between perceived enclosure

PAGE 73

73 scores of the 3 age groups, for the 42 spaces was at rho = .97 to .98, (P = .000, n = 42), which indicates a high level of consensus. Design background A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to exam ine the variance in perceived enclosure responses of designers and non designers. The test result was statistically insignificant. The null hypothesis, H: designers and non designers have th e same sense of perceived enclosure scores across the 3 ratio categories, couldnt be rejected, (Table B-5), (Figure B-5). For scale groups, the test result was statisti cally insignificant. The null hypothesis, H: designers and non designers have the same sense of perceived enclosure scores across the 3 scale groups, couldnt be rejected, (Table B-6), (F igure B-6). The correlation between perceived enclosure scores of designers and non designers, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .97, (P = .000, n = 42), which indicates a high level of consensus. Type of living area Kruskal Wallis test was conducted to examin e the difference in perceived enclosure responses between inhabitants of the three types of living area; ur ban, suburban and rural. The test result was statis tically insignificant. The null hypothesis, H: inhabitants of the three types of living area have similar perceive d enclosure across the 3 ratio cat egories, couldnt be rejected, (Table B-7), (Figure B-7). For scale groups, the test result was statisti cally insignificant. The null hypothesis, H: inhabitants of the three types of living area have similar perceived enclosure across the 3 scale groups, couldnt be rejected, (Table B-8), (Fi gure B-8). The range of correlations between perceived enclosure scores of inhabitants of th e 3 types of living area, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .94 to .96, (P = .000, n = 42), which indicates a high level of consensus.

PAGE 74

74 Height of buildings in living area The dependent variable height of buildings in the living area was recoded into 4 categories to 2 floors, to 4 floors, to 6 floors, and >6 floors. This variable was analyzed using the scale groups and the simulate d heights. Kruskal Wallis test was conducted to examine the difference in perceived enclosure re sponses between the four groups. The test result was statistically insignificant. The null hypothesis, H: inhabitants of areas with different heights of buildings have the same perceived enclosur e across the 3 scale groups couldnt be rejected, (Table B-9), (Figure B-9). For simulated heights, the simulated height range of (30 to 60 ft) received significantly lower perceived enclosure mean ranks by those who live in buildings higher than (6 floors) than those who live in buildings with lowe r heights. The alternative hypothesis, H1: height of buildings, that people are accustomed to, influences perceived enclosure at simulated heights of (30 to 60 ft), was supported, (Table B-10), (Figur e B-10). Nevertheless, th e range of correlations between perceived enclosure scores of inhabitants of areas that have the 4 heights of buildings, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .92 to.97, (P = .000, n = 42), which indicates a high level of consensus. Width of streets in living area The variable width of st reets in the living area was recoded into 3 categories to 2 lanes, to 4 lanes, and >4 lanes. There was no si gnificant difference between perceived enclosure scores relative to the three levels of the independent variable width of streets in th e living area. The null hypothesis, H: width of streets, that people are accustomed to, does not influence perceived enclosure at all scale groups, wa s not rejected, (Table B-11), (Figure B-11). For the simulated widths, the test revealed no significant differences between perceived enclosure scores, relative to the 3 levels of width of streets in the living area, at all simulated

PAGE 75

75 width levels. The null hypothesis, H: width of streets, that people ar e accustomed to, does not influence perceived enclosure at all simulated width levels, was not rejected, (Table B-12), (Figure B-12). The range of correlations between perceived enclosure scor es of inhabitants of areas that have the 3 widths of streets, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .95 to.98, (P = .000, n = 42), which indicates a high level of consensus. Summary The simulated heights of urban street spaces us ed in the method of my research correlated with participants perceived he ights at (rho = 0.904), and simu lated widths correlated with perceived widths at (rho = 0.771) Simulated heights and widths are actually perceived by people as designed. These findings strengthen the prem ise that such computer simulation method is reliable for purposes of conveying geometric and spatial information of urban streets spaces for participants in an experimental setting. There is a difference in perceived enclosure re sponses across different urban street spaces. Space (120, 20, 6) was rated as the most enclos ed spaces, while space (20, 130, 0.15) was rated as the most open one. Ratio influences perceived en closure; high ratios of (5 and 6) received the highest perceived enclosure mean ranks, while low ratios of (1/6 and 1/5) received the lowest perceived enclosure mean ranks. Perceived enclosure has a high positive correlation with ratio (rho = 0.84); as ratio value increases, perceived enclosure increases. There is a difference in perceived enclosure responses acros s different scales of urban stre et spaces. Controlling for ratio, there is a negative correlation between perceived encl osure and scale (rho = 0.683); as scale value increases, perceive d enclosure decreases. There is a difference in perceived enclosure responses across different heights of urban street spaces. Controlling for width, there is a high positive correlation between perceived enclosure and height (rho =.774); as height increases, perceived enclosure increases. There is

PAGE 76

76 also a difference in perceived en closure responses across different widths of urban street spaces. Controlling for height, there is a high nega tive correlation between pe rceived enclosure and width (rho = -.858); as width increases, percei ved enclosure decreases. The probability that a space ratio (R) and width (W) will be perceived as comfortable or not, can be calculated using the constant and the B values reported in the regressi on model using the equation (4-1). Except for height of buildings in living area, which influences perceived enclosure at simulated heights of (30 to 60 ft), all demogra phic variables of gender, age, design background, living area, and width of streets in living area do not influenc e perceived enclosure of urban street spaces. Perceived enclosur e has correlated, within all dem ographic groups, in the range of (.92 to .98), which indicates a clear consen sus between different demographic groups on perceived enclosure. Chapter 5 will present results of the statisti cal analysis for the two dependent variables sense of comfort and sense of safety. The high correlation between these two variables suggests minimal differences between them. It would be us eful to report results of comfort and safety together. Findings from statisti cal analysis of repeated meas ures, variance, association and regression, will be reported similar to percei ved enclosure analysis in this chapter.

PAGE 77

77 Table 4-1. Test of skewness and kurtosis for normal distribution. Perceived enclosure Comfort level Safety level N Valid 3486.00 3486.00 3486.00 Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00 Skewness 0.033 0.317 0.326 Std. error of skewness 0.041 0.041 0.041 Kurtosis 0.961 0.643 0.580 Std. error of kurtosis 0.083 0.083 0.083 Table 4-2. Correlations of simulated heights a nd widths with perceive d heights and widths Height Width Spearmans rho Perceived height rho 0.904** Perceived width rho 0.771** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 N 3486 3486 **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-3. Friedman test of repeated measures of perceived enclosure scores across 42 spaces, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank. Space Mean rank Space Mean rank Space(120,20,6) 37.59 Space(60,40,1.5) 23.24 Space(180,30,6) 34.14 Space(220,90,2.44) 23.00 Space(140,30,4.67) 33.82 Space(780,130,6) 22.58 Space(100,20,5) 33.70 Space(540,130,4.15) 19.46 Space(240,40,6) 33.07 Space(300,130,2.31) 18.74 Space(40,20,2) 32.19 Space(40,40,1) 17.14 Space(60,20,3) 31.65 Space(60,60,1) 16.53 Space(30,20,1.5) 31.34 Space(40,60,0.67) 16.49 Space(100,30,3.33) 29.82 Space(20,30,0.67) 16.21 Space(80,20,4) 29.24 Space(30,30,1) 15.77 Space(540,90,6) 28.97 Space(60,90,0.67) 15.64 Space(20,20,1) 28.73 Space(30,40,0.75) 14.14 Space(180,40,4.5) 27.78 Space(20,40,0.5) 13.75 Space(360,60,6) 27.37 Space(30,60,0.5) 13.61 Space(20,20,1) 26.24 Space(40,90,0.44) 9.73 Space(120,40,3) 25.16 Space(30,90,0.33) 8.38 Space(60,30,2) 24.20 Space(20,60,0.33) 8.07 Space(260,60,4.33) 23.66 Space(40,130,0.31) 5.90 Space(380,90,4.22) 23.65 Space(30,130,0.23) 5.36 Space(160,60,2.67) 23.58 Space(20,90,0.22) 4.98 Space(40,30,1.33) 23.39 Space(20,130,0.15) 4.97 Friedman test N 83 Chi-Square 567.839 df 41 Asymp.Sig. 0.000

PAGE 78

78 Table 4-4. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosure sc ores across 9 groups of spaces, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank. Group Mean Rank Friedman test Group(High, Narrow) 8.41 N 83 Group(Medium(H), Narrow) 6.98 Chi-Square 509.928 Group(High, Medium(W)) 6.66 df 8 Group(Low, Narrow) 6.06 Asymp.Sig. 0.000 Group(High, Wide) 5.51 Group(Medium(H), Medium(W)) 4.46 Group(Low, Medium(W)) 3.07 Group(Medium(H), Wide) 2.55 Group(Low, Wide) 1.31 Table 4-5. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosur e scores across 14 ratio categories, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank. Ratio Mean Rank Friedman test 5 13.15 N 83 6 12.21 Chi-Square 858.301 2 10.69 df 13 1 1/2 10.61 Asymp.Sig. 0.000 3 10.27 4 9.57 1 8.36 2/3 6.86 3/4 6.07 1/2 5.45 1/3 3.78 1/4 2.79 1/5 2.66 1/6 2.54 Table 4-6. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosur e scores across 3 scale groups, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank. Scale group Mean rank Friedman test Large scale 2.22 N 83 Small scale 2.16 Chi-Square 18.735 Medium scale 1.62 Df 2 Asymp.Sig. 0.000

PAGE 79

79 Table 4-7. Ratio correlation. Ratio Spearmans rho All values Ctrl. for scale Perceived enclosure rho 0.840** 0.937** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 N 42 42 **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-8. Scale correlation. Scale Spearmans rho All ratios Ctrl. for ratio For 0.5 <= R<=2 For R = 6 Perceived enclosure rho 0.049 0.937** 0.620* 0.943** Sig.(2-tailed) 0.757 0.000 0.032 0.000 N 42 12 12 6 *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-9. Height correlation. Height Spearmans rho All widths Ctrl. for width For W = 20 to 30 For W = 40 to 60 For W = 90 to 130 Perceived enclosure rho 0.508** 0.774** 0.748** 0.921** 0.898** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 N 42 15 14 13 **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-10. Width correlation. Width Spearmans rho All heights Ctrl. for heights For H = 20 to 30 For H = 40 to 60 For H > 60 Perceived enclosure rho 0.677** 0.858** 0.965** 0.989** 0.881** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 42 13 11 18 **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 80

80 Table 4-11. Logistic regression model for perceived enclosure. Logistic regression model -2 Log Likelihood Goodness of Fit 1258.637 5766.163 Cox & Snell R^2 Nagelkerke R^2 0.522 0.522 Chi-Square df Significance Model Block Step 1440.048 1440.048 1440.048 2 2 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 Classification for perceived enclosure, the cut value is .50 Predicted 0 1 Observed 0 1 Percent correct 0 0 846 168 83.43% 1 1 73 862 92.19% Overall 87.63% Variables in the equation Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig R Exp(B) Ratio Width Constant 0.5716 0.0309 3.5799 0.0280 0.0022 0.2636 417.7694 201.6351 184.3899 1 1 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3925 0.2720 1.7711 0.9696

PAGE 81

81 Height540 360 260 220 160 120 80 40 20 Perceived height50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 A Width130 90 60 40 30 20 Perceived width40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 B Figure 4-1. Correlations of per ceived measures with simulated measures. A) Simulated heights correlated with perceived hei ghts (rho = +0.993). B) Simulated widths correlated with perceived widths (rho = +0.986). Ratio5 3 3/2 3/4 1/2 1/4 1/6 Perceived enclosure40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Figure 4-2. Relationship of per ceived enclosure and ratio.

PAGE 82

82 A Scale39000 15600 5200 3600 2400 1200 400 Perceived enclosure40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Scale19800 3600 1800 1200 800 400 Perceived enclosure30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 B C Scale39000 3600 1800 1200 800 400 Perceived enclosure40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Scale101400 48600 21600 9600 5400 2400 Perceived enclosure40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 D Figure 4-3. Relationship of percei ved enclosure and scale. A) Pe rceived enclosure and scale for all ratio values. B) Perceived enclosure and sc ale; selecting cases with ratio values of (0.5 to 2). C) Perceived enclosure and scale; selecting cases with ratio values of (1 to 2). D) Perceived enclosure and scale; sele cting cases with ratio values of (6).

PAGE 83

83 Height361-780 181-360 61-180 60 40 30 20Perceived Enclosure40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Width 20 30 40 60 90 130 Figure 4-4. Relationship of perceived encl osure and height, clustered by width. Width130 90 60 40 30 20Perceived Enclosure40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Height20 30 40 60 61-180 181-360 361-780 Figure 4-5. Relationship of perceived encl osure and width, clustered by height.

PAGE 84

84 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS: SENSE OF COMFORT AND SENSE OF SAFETY This chapter reports results from variance, asso ciation and regression st atistical analysis for both dependent variables sense of comfort and sense of safety. Results of statistical analysis for the influence of both sets of independent vari ables on both dependent variables are presented. Influences of within-subjects independent vari ables of height, width, ratio and scale, are presented first, followed by influences of between -subjects independent vari ables of gender, age, design background, type of living area, height of bu ildings in living area, a nd width of streets in living area. Relationship of Comfort and Safety The relationship between sense of comfort and sense of safety will be reported first. Then, the influence of all independent variables on bo th dependent variables, sense of comfort and sense of safety, will follow. The latter will be pres ented in two folds; first, a descriptive overview pertaining to choices re sponses, second, a thorough statistica l analysis pertaining to ratings responses of each individual space. The two dependent variables of comfort and sa fety were correlated using Spearmans rank correlation coefficient (rho). The test result revealed high positive correlation of the mean ranks of the two variables at (rho = 0.96, P = .000, n = 42), (Table 5-1), (Fig ure 5-1). Based on this finding, results for both dependent variables of comfort and safety will be reported together. Choices Responses for Comfort and Safety In choices responses, participants were aske d to select from a pool of 42 spaces the most comfortable 3 spaces, the least comfortable space, the safest 3 spaces, and the least safe space. It is important to note that this set of responses is only for frequency analysis and visual assessment, with no statistical tests. Responses for the 3 most comfortable spaces and 3 safest

PAGE 85

85 spaces were weighted, and a total aggregated response was obtained satisfying the formula [Choice 1 42) + (choice 2 41) + (choice 3 40)]. The respondents ag reed that the most comfortable space was space (20, 40, 0.5), and sp ace (30,30,1) was the safest space, the second most comfortable space was space (30,40,0.75) and the second safest space was space (40,40,1). The third most comfortable space was space (40, 30, 1.33), and the third safest spaces was space (30, 20,1.5). All three most comfortable and a ll three safest spaces belong to ratio range of (0.5 to 1.5), height range of (20 to 40), width range of (20 to 40), and small scale range of (400 to 1,600), (Table C-1). Space (120, 20, 6) was the least co mfortable and the least safe space, followed by space (20, 130, 0.15), followed by space (780,130, 6). The first two most uncomfortable and unsafe spaces have the extreme ra tio values of (6, 0.15), and the third most uncomfortable and unsafe space has the extreme scale valu e of (101,400 sq. ft), (Table C-2) The relationships between ratio categories a nd the weighted frequencies of comfort and safety choices were visually investigated. The re lationships were not linear ; spaces with low or high ratios were the least frequently selected spa ces as most comfortable and safest, while spaces with medium ratios were the most frequently se lected spaces as most comfortable and safest. Ratios value of (3/4) received the highest freque ncies as the most comfortable ratio, followed by ratio (1), on the other hand, spaces with ratio valu e of (1) received the highest frequencies as the safest ratio, followed by ratio (3 /4) and (3/2), (Figure C-1). The relationships between scale groups and we ighted frequencies of comfort and safety choices were visually investigated. The relations hips were not linear; spaces with scale range of (400 to 1,600) were the most frequently selected as most comfortable and safest. Spaces, larger

PAGE 86

86 than (1,600), were less frequently selected; the larger the space the less comf ortable and the less safe it was, (Figure C-2). Rating Responses for Comfort and Safety A detailed analysis, including statistical te sts, of the influence of within-subjects independent variables of height, width, ratio a nd scale, on comfort and safety responses will be presented first, followed by the influence of be tween-subjects independent variables of gender, age, design background, type of living area, hei ght of buildings in living area, and width of streets in living area. Comfort and Safety and within-Subject Vari ables: Height, Width, Ratio and Scale Repeated measures: tests of variance Friedman test was conducted four times to examine variance of both comfort and safety responses; for the 42 spaces, for the 9 spaces gro ups, for the 14 ratio categories, and for the 3 scale groups. For the 42 spaces, Friedman tests were conducte d to answer the question whether or not there was a difference in the sense of both comfor t and safety scores across the 42 spaces. The tests results were significant (P = 0.000, n = 83, df = 41). The alternative hypothesis, H1: there is a difference in both comfort and safety respons es across the 42 spaces, was supported. Both highest comfort and safety mean ranks (32.77 an d 30.88 respectively) were for space (40, 40, 1). The lowest comfort and safety mean ranks (10.3 and 11.79 respectively) were for space (120, 20, 6), (Table 5-2). For the 9 groups of spaces; Friedman tests were used to know whether or not there was a difference in both comfort and safety scores acro ss the 9 spaces groups. The tests results were significant (P = 0.000, n = 83, df = 8). The alternative hypothesis, H1: there is a difference in both comfort and safety responses across th e 9 space groups, was supported. The space group

PAGE 87

87 that received the highest comfort and safety mean ranks (6.92 and 6.6 respectively) was space group (Medium (H), Medium (W)). The lowest comfort and safety mean ranks (3.10 and 3.6 respectively) were for space group (High, Narrow), (Table 5-3). For ratio categories, the tests re sults were significant (P = 0.000, n = 83, df = 13). The alternative hypothesis, H1: there is a difference in both comf ort and safety responses across the 14 ratio categories, was supported. High ratios of (5 and 6) a nd low ratios of (1/6 and 1/5) received the lowest mean ranks, while ratios of (3/4 and 1), in the middle received the highest comfort and safety mean ranks, (Table 5-4). For scale groups, the test resu lt was significant (P = 0.000, n = 83, df = 2). The alternative hypothesis, H1: there is a difference in both comfort and safety responses across the 3 scale groups, was supported. Group scale (Medium) recei ved the highest comfort and safety mean ranks (2.36 and 2.34 respectively). The lowest comfort and safety mean ranks (1.43 and 1.48 respectively) were received by the group scale (Large), (Table 5-5). Ratio association Both comfort and safety mean ranks were co rrelated with ratio under the assumption of linear relationships, the result was a significant low negative correlation at rho = -0.31 for comfort, and an insignificant negative correla tion at rho = -0.49 for safety. However, the relationships of ratio with both comfort and safe ty were found to be not linear. The ratio (3/4) was found to be the cut point a bout which both relationships beha ved differently, (Figure 5-2). Spearmans correlation tests were conducte d selecting only va lues of ratio ( 3/4), there was statistically significant high positive correlation be tween ratio and both comfort and safety at rho = +0.92 ( n = (12*83)).On the higher side of the ratio range (R 3/4), high statis tically significant negative correlations were found at (rho = -0.84) for comfort, and at rho = -0.85 for safety ( n = (30*83)), (Table 5-6).

PAGE 88

88 Scale association Scale relationship with both comfort and safety was found to better be analyzed if values of ratio were controlled. Scale across all variations of ratio was not efficient, because ratio superseded scale relative to comfort and safety. A group of 19 spaces were selected that satisfy the condition (0.5 <= R<=2), to isol ate the ratio effect as much as possible. With such selected spaces, scale was found to have a non-linear relati onship with comfort and safety, (Figure 5-3). It is important to note that, even w ith this selection of the 19 spaces, there was still an influence of ratio. Both comfort and safety mean ranks were corr elated with scale for the 19 spaces, still the results were statistically insigni ficant negative correla tion at rho = -.244 for comfort and at rho = 0.240 for safety ( n = 19*83). However, when the test was conducted after selecting only values of scale ( 1,600), which is the value of scale that r eceived the highest mean ranks of comfort (32.8) and safety (30.9), there were statistically significant positive correlations at rho = 0.77 for comfort, and at rho = 0.66 for safety ( n = (10*83)). On the higher side of the scale range ( 1,600), statistically significant ne gative correlations were found at rho = -0.75 for comfort, and t rho = -0.78 for safety ( n = (10*83)), (Table 5-7). Height association There were statistically significant low nega tive correlations at r ho = -0.334 (P= 0.03, n = (42*83)) between height and comfort, and at rho = -0.46 (P = 0.002, n = 42) between height and safety. When the correlation was conducted for spaces with widths ( 40 ft), the results were higher negative correlations at rho = -0.66 (P= 0.001, n = (22*83)) with comfort and at rho = 0.68 (P = 0.000, n = 22*83) with safety. Comfort and safety correlations with height for spaces with width values (> 40 ft) were statistically insignificant, (Table 5-8), (Figure 5-4).

PAGE 89

89 Width association There were no statistically sign ificant correlations between both comfort and safety with width in general. When the correlations were conducted for spaces with heights (<60 ft), a negative correlation at rho = -0.585 (P = 0.03, n = (19*83)) resulted with comfort, however, there was still no significant correlation with safety. Th e correlation of both co mfort and safety with width for spaces with height values ( 60 ft) were not statistically significant, (Table 5-9), (Figure 5-5). Regression analysis Both dependent variables comfort and safety we re recoded into binary values of 0 and 1; where 0 represents the absence of comfort or safe ty, and 1 represent the existence of comfort or safety. Comfort and safety scores of 1 and 2 were recoded into 0, scores of 5 and 6 were recoded into 1, while scores of 3 and 4 were not include d. The probability of a space being comfortable or not, and safe or not, falls between 0 and 1, fo r all possible values of the independent variables (Agresti & Finlay, 1997).The total number of selected cases was 1803 for comfort and 1795 for safety. It is important to note that this reduc tion in cases had no impact on the distribution of scores across all levels of independent variables. Ratio, scale, height, and width variables were all fitted in a logistic regression model to predict sense of comfort and safety Ratio and width alone were able to estimate 63.3% of responses, which is only 1% lower than the comple te model, so it was decided to use them alone in the final model. It is important to state here that height and scale are still present in this analysis, because for each combination of ratio a nd one width, there is only one height and one scale values, e.g., for a ratio value of 1, combin ed with a width of 20 ft, the only possible values of height is 20 ft, and the only po ssible value of scale is 400 sq. ft.

PAGE 90

90 Unlike the relationship with perceived enclos ure, ratio and width relationships with comfort and safety are not linear; which means that transformations for values of ratio and width should take place before fitting them together in the final model, (Eq. 5-1), (Eq. 5-2), (Eq. 5-3), and (Eq. 5-4). 3 2 ) (0005 0281 0 3265 0 2218 0 R R R YComfort (5-1) 0.0085 0995 0 0.4633 2 ) (W W YComfort (5-2) 3 2 ) (0007 0273 0 2799 0 0407 0 R R YSafety (5-3) 0.0088 1157 0 0.4347 2 ) (W W YSafety (5-4) Transformed ratio value, Rt, and transformed width value, Wt, were fitted in the regression models. The models were significant, and were able to estimate 74.88% of participants comfort responses, and 71.36% of participants safety respons es correctly, (Table 5-10) and (Table 5-11). The probability that a space of ratio (R) and wi dth (W) will be perceived as comfortable or not, can be calculated using the constant and the B values reported in the regression model, (Eq.5-5). The probability that a space of ratio (R ) and width (W) will be perceived as safe or not, can be calculated using the constant and the B values reported in the regression model for safety, (Eq. 5-6). If, for example, a space has a ratio of 1, and a width of 20 feet, then P(Comfort) = .8337, and P(Safety) = .8197. A calculator was created where ra tio and width values can be entered and probabilities of comfort and safety can be obtained, (Object 5-1). ) 7887 2 0027 4 5334 3 ( ) (1 1Wt Rt comforte P (5-5) ) 8563 2 9733 4 7196 4 ( ) (1 1Wt Rt Safetye P (5-6)

PAGE 91

91 The thresholds for comfort and safety probabilit ies were calculated at fixed width value of 40 ft. The ratio values (<1/4) and (>4) have pr obabilities (<0.50) of being comfortable, and the ratio values range of (<1/4) and (>7) have probabilities (<0.50) of being safe. It is important to note that spaces have wider span of being safe th an being comfortable. In other words, at fixed width of 40 ft, ratio values in the range of (5 to 7) are felt safe but not comfortable based on the approximate curve estimations and regression model. Comfort and Safety with between-Subject Variables: Gender, Age, Design Background, Type of living area, Height of buildings in living area, and Width of streets in living area. The 3 ratio categories and the 3 scale groups were used to examine differences among comfort and safety scores of the between-subjects variables. Gender Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to examine the difference in both comfort and safety responses of men and women. For the 3 ratio ca tegories, although the mean ranks suggested that women felt less comfortable and less safe with both high and low ratios, and more comfortable and safer with medium ratios than men, the te sts results revealed no statistical significant difference. The null hypothesis, H: women and men have the same sense of both comfort and safety across the 3 ratio categories, could not be rejected, (Table D-1), (Figure D-1). For the 3 scale category, there was a stat istically significant difference between both comfort and safety scores of men and women for the scale group (Large) at ( = 0.01, n = 83); with higher mens comfort mean rank of (47.2) and safety mean rank of (47.01) than womens comfort mean rank of (32.8), and safety mean ra nk of (33.15). Moreover, th ere was a statistically significant difference between safety sc ores of men and women for group (Small) at ( = 0.01, n = 83). Mens safety mean rank for group (Small) (37.6) was lower than womens safety mean

PAGE 92

92 rank (49.77). The alternative hypothesis, H1: women and men have different sense of comfort and different sense of safety across the 3 scale groups, was supported, (Table D-2), (Figure D-2). However, the correlation between comfort sc ores of men and women, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .84, (P = .000, n = 42), while the correlation between safety scores of men and women, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .74, (P = .000, n = 42). This indicated a reasonably high degree of consensus between men and women comfort and safety responses in general. Age Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to examine the differences in both comfort and safety responses of the three age groups. For the 3 ratio categories, there was a statistically significant difference between comfort scores of the 3 age groups for the ratio category (1/2 to 2) at ( = 0.01, n = 83); with lower comfort mean ranks of the younger group than the older two groups. The alternative hypothesis, H1: the 3 age groups have different sense of comfort across the 3 ratio categories, was supported. For safety response s, the test result was statistically insignificant. The null hypothesis, H: the three age groups have the same sense of safety across all ratio categories, was not rejected, (Table D-3), (Figure D-3). For scale groups, there was statistically signi ficant differences between both comfort and safety scores of 3 age groups for the scale group (Small) at ( = 0.05, n = 83); with lower comfort and safety mean ranks for the younger group than the two older groups. The alternative hypothesis, H1: the 3 age groups have different sense of comfort and different sense of safety across the 3 scale groups, was supporte d, (Table D-4), (Figure D-4). The range of correlations between comfort sc ores of the 3 age groups, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .71 to .93, (P = .000, n = 42). The range of correlations between safety scores of the 3 age groups, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .75 to .86, (P = .000, n = 42). The lower correlation

PAGE 93

93 was for youngest with oldest. This indicated a re asonably high degree of consensus between age groups comfort and safety responses. Design background A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to examin e the variance in both comfort and safety responses of designers and non designers. For th e 3 ratio categories, th ere was a statistically significant difference between both comfort and safe ty scores of designers and non designers for the ratio category (3 to 6) at ( = 0.01, n = 83). The comfort and safety mean ranks of non designers were lower than those of designers. For ratio category (1/6 to 1/3) there was a statistically significant difference, ( = 0.05, n = 83), between designers and non designers scores of comfort only. The comfort mean rank for non designers was higher than the comfort mean rank of designers. The alternative hypothesis, H1: designers and non designers have different sense of comfort and different sense of safety across the 3 ratio categories), was supported, (Table D-5), (Figure D-5). For scale groups, there was no statistical eviden ce of any significant difference in both comfort and safety scores of designers and non designers for the three scale groups. The null hypothesis, H: design background does not influe nce sense of comfort nor does it influence sense of safety for 3 scale groups, was not reje cted, (Table D-6), (Figure D-6). The correlation between comfort scores of designers and non designe rs, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .79, (P = .000, n = 42). The correlation between safety scores of designers and non designers, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .69, (P = .000, n = 42), this indicated a reasonably high degree of consensus between design background groups comfort and safety response. Type of living area Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to examine the difference in both comfort and safety responses relative to the inhabita nts of the three types of living area; urban, suburban and rural.

PAGE 94

94 For the 3 ratio categories, there was a statistica lly significant difference between comfort scores of three types of living area for the two smaller ratio categories (1/6 to 1/3) and (1/2 to 2) at ( = 0.05, n = 81). For the ratio category (1/6 to 1/3), the comfort mean rank was higher for rural than suburban and urban, the difference between urban and suburban was not significant. For the ratio category (1/2 to 2), the opposite was true, the comfort mean rank for rural was lower than suburban, which is in turn lower than urban. The alternative hypothesis, H1: inhabitants of the three types of area ha ve different sense of comfort across ratio categories, was supported. For safety, although safe ty mean ranks suggested that inhabitants of rural areas feel safer with smaller ratios than those of urban and suburba n areas, the difference was not strong enough and the test result was insignificant,(Table D-7), (Figure D-7). For the 3 scale category, there were statistically significant differences between both comfort and safety scores of inhabitants of the three types of areas of living for the scale group (Small) at ( = 0.05, n = 81); with higher comfort and safety mean ranks for urban, than suburban, and higher comfort and safety mean ranks for suburban than rural. The alternative hypothesis, H1: inhabitants of the three types of living area have different sense of comfort and different sense of safety across the 3 scale groups, was supported, (Table D-8), (Figure D-8). The range of correlations between comfort scor es of inhabitants of the 3 types of living area, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .53 to .92 (P = .000, n = 42). The range of correlations between safety scores of them, for the 42 sp aces, was at rho = .47 to .93), (P = .000, n = 42). Low correlations for both comfort and safety sc ores were for rural with both urban and suburban, while high correlations were for u rban and suburban. This indicated a low degree of consensus between comfort and safe ty responses of groups of area of living.

PAGE 95

95 Height of buildings in living area The dependent variable height of buildings in the living area was recoded into 4 categories 1 to 2 floors, to 4 floors, 5 to 6 floors, and >6 floor s. This variable was analyzed using the scale groups and the simula ted heights. For scale groups, there was no significant difference between comfort and safety scor es of inhabitants of ar eas of all four levels of height of building in the living area. Th e null hypothesis, H: inhabitants of areas with different heights of buildings have similar sense of comfort and similar sense of safety across the 3 scale groups, was not rejected, (Table D-9), (Figure D-9). For the simulated heights, and relative to the 4 levels of height of buildings in the living area, a statistically significant difference in comfort scores was found only at heights ( 60). At the simulated height ( 60), the comfort mean rank of participant who lived in areas with buildings (>6 floors) was higher than those with buildings heights (< 6 floors). The alternative hypothesis (H1: Height of buildings, that people are accustomed to, influences sense of comfort at different simulated heights. The null hypothesi s, H: height of buildings, that people are accustomed to, does not influence sense of safety at all simulated height levels, was not rejected, (Table D-10), (Figure D-10). The correlation between comfort scores of inhabi tants of areas that have different heights of buildings, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .80to .91 (P = .000, n = 42). The correlation between safety scores of inhabitants of areas that have different heights of buildings, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .71 to .91) (P = .000, n = 42). This indicated a reasonably high degree of consensus in comfort and safety responses regardless of the height of buildings in living area. Width of streets in living area The variable width of streets in the living area was recoded into 3 categories to 2 lanes, to 4 lanes, and >4 lanes. This vari able was analyzed using the scale groups and the

PAGE 96

96 simulated widths. For scale groups, there was no significant difference between both comfort and safety scores relative to the three levels of the independent variable width of streets in the living area. The null hypothesis, H: width of street s, that people are accustomed to, does not influence sense of comfort and does not influence sense of safety across the 3 scale levels, was not rejected, (Table D-11), (Figure D-11). Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant differences between both comfort and safety scores, relative to the 3 levels of width of streets in the living ar ea, at all simulated width levels. The null hypothesis, H: width of streets, that people are accustomed to, does not influence sense of comfort and does not influence sense of safety at all simulated width levels, was not rejected, (Table D-12), (Figure D-12). The range of correlations between comfort scores of inhabitants of areas that have the 3 widths of streets, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .79 to .97 (P = .000, n = 42). The range of correlations between safety scores of inhabitants of areas that have the 3 widths of streets, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .75 to .91) (P = .000, n = 42). This indicated a reasonably high degree of consensus in comfort and safety responses regardless of the width of streets in living area. Comfort and Safety with Perceived Enclosure Perceived enclosure was used in chapter 4 as a dependent variable, in this section it will be treated as a predictor for comfort and safety. The purpose of this swapping is, first, to examine the notion, stated in literature that it is possible to replace the variable perceived enclosure, which is from the cognitive model, by the va riables ratio and width, which are from the psychophysical model, which means less interpretative power is given to participants. Second, to create a connection with some empirical work that is already done in this field that had only used perceived enclosure; this point will be explained more in chapter 6.

PAGE 97

97 Since perceive enclosure had a high positiv e correlation with ratio (rho = 0.840), and relatively high negative correlation with width (rho = 0.677), it was expected to have the same predicting capacity of sense of comfort and safe ty that ratio and width had. The relationship between perceived enclosure and both sense of comf ort and sense of safety is not linear, (Figure 5-6). Perceived enclosure was correlated with bo th sense of comfort and sense of safety. No significant correlation with comfort, and negative weak correlation with safety was found (rho = -0.394). Correlations were then conducted about th e ratio value of (3/4). There was statistically significant high positive correlation between percei ved enclosure with comfort (rho = 0.896), and with safety (rho = 0.890) for ratio values ( 3/4), and statistically significant negative correlation with comfort (rho = -0.620), and with safety (rho = -0.625) for ratio values (>3/4), (Table 5-12). Below the ratio value of (3/4) both sense of comfort and sense of safety increase as perceived enclosure increase, and above ratio value of (3/4), both sense of comfort and sense of safety decrease as perceived enclosures increase. Curv e estimations were conducted to approximate the relationships of both comfort and safety with perceived enclosur e, (Eq. 5-7), (Eq. 5-8). 2 P P ) (E .0507 E 1.9435 7.2863 ComfortY (5-7) 2 P P ) (E .0373 E 1.3261 13.2918 SafetyY (5-8) Summary Sense of comfort for different enclosure degrees is very similar to sense of safety; they correlated at rho = 0.96. Ratio influences senses of comfort and safety in urban streets spaces. Urban street spaces with ratios of (3/4 and 1) evoke the highest sense of comfort and safety, while streets with high ratios of (5 and 6) and low ratios of (1/6 and 1/5) evoke the least sense of comfort and the least sense of safety. Urban stre ets with ratio value of (3/4) have the highest

PAGE 98

98 sense of comfort and safety. Sense of comfort and safety increases as ratio increases, until ratio value of (3/4), above that, sense of comfo rt and safety decreases as ratio increases. Scale influences senses of comfort and safety in urban street spaces. Providing that urban street spaces have ratios within the range of (1/2 to 2), sense of comfort and safety increases as scale increases until scale value of (1,600) square feet, above th at, sense of comfort and safety decreases. Outside the ratio range of (1/2 to 2); the ratio effect starts to strongly influence sense of comfort and safety and to supercede scale. Th e probability that a space of certain values of ratio and width will be perceived as comfortable or not and safe or not, can be calculated using comfort and safety probabilities, (Eq. 5-5) and (Eq. 5-6) Women and men have a consensus at rho = .84 for sense of comfort and at rho = .74 for sense of safety for urban street spaces. The di fference between them is that women feel more comfortable and safer in small spaces than me n, and the opposite is true. Age groups have a consensus at rho = .71 to .93 for comfort, and at rho = .75 to .86 for safety. The difference between them is that across different ratios and scale of urban street spaces, older people (>24) feel more comfortable with ratios in th e range of (1/2 to 2) and scales ( 1,600) than younger people (<24). Designers and non designers have a consensus at rho = .79 for comfort and at rho = .69 for safety. The difference between them is that designers feel more comfortable and safer with higher ratios in the range of 3 to 6 than non desi gners. Non designers feel more comfortable with lower ratios in the range of 1/6 to 1/3 than designers. Inhabitants of the 3 types of liv ing area, urban, suburban and rural, have a consensus at rho = .53 to .92 for comfort and at rho = .47 to .93 for safety. The difference between them is that inhabitants of urban areas feel more comfortabl e with higher ratios than those of suburban and

PAGE 99

99 rural areas, while inhabitants of rural areas fe el more comfortable with lower ratios than inhabitants of urban and suburban areas. Inhab itants of urban and suburban areas feel more comfortable and safer with smaller spaces than those of rural areas, a nd the opposite is true. Sense of safety, on the other hand, is not influe nced by the type of living area. Inhabitants of urban, suburban and rural areas have the same sens e of safety across all ratios of urban street spaces. Inhabitants of areas with different heights have a consensus at rho = .80 to .91 for comfort and at rho = .71 to .91 for safety. The diffe rence between them is that people who are accustomed to higher buildings, (<6 floors), feel more comfortable with higher buildings, in general, than those who are not. Inhabitants of areas with different streets widths have a consensus of at rho = .79 to .97 for comfort and at rho = .75 to .91 for safety. Perceived enclosure predicts sense of comfort and safety in the same manner that ratio does. Perceived enclosure correlates positively with both sense of comfort at rho = 0.896 and sense of safety at rho = 0.890 for ratio values (< 3/4), and negatively with sense of comfort at rho = -0.620 and sense of safety at r ho = -0.625 for ratio values (>3/4). To further summarize, ratio and scale of urba n street spaces influence sense of comfort and safety; sense of comfort and safety is the highest in spaces with ratios closer to the value of (3/4), and with scales closer to the value of 1,600 sq ft. Most demographic differences have smaller influences on sense of comfort and safety rela tive to stimuli differences. Gender, age, design background, height of buildings, and width of s treets have a relatively high consensus among them; generally at rho >0.7, type of living area exhibited lower consensus levels, e.g., at rho = 0.47, (Table 5-13).

PAGE 100

100 Table 5-1. Correlation of sense of comfort and sense of safety. Safety Spearmans rho Comfort rho 0.960** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 N 42 **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 101

101 Table 5-2. Friedman test of repeated measures of comfort and safety scores across 42 spaces. Spaces sorted by comfort MR Comfort MR Spaces sorted by safety MR Safety MR Friedman tests Space(40,40,1) 32.77 Space(40,40,1) 30.88 Comfort Space(30,40,0.75) 31.36 Space(30,30,1) 30.33 Test statistics Space(30,30,1) 31.21 Space(30,40,0.75) 29.85 N 83 Space(60,40,1.5) 29.96 Space(20,40,0.5) 29.05 Chi-Square 902.591 Space(40,30,1.33) 29.31 Space(20,30,0.67) 28.20 df 41 Space(20,30,0.67) 29.05 Space(40,30,1.33) 27.80 Asymp.Sig. 0.000 Space(20,40,0.5) 27.99 Space(60,40,1.5) 27.48 Space(60,60,1) 26.72 Space(40,60,0.67) 26.80 Safety Space(60,30,2) 26.58 Space(60,60,1) 26.69 Test statisticsa Space(40,60,0.67) 25.50 Space(30,60,0.5) 25.42 N 83 Space(30,60,0.5) 25.37 Space(60,30,2) 24.87 Chi-Square 567.839 Space(20,20,1) 24.40 Space(20,20,1) 23.60 df 41 Space(30,20,1.5) 24.18 Space(60,90,0.67) 23.33 Asymp.Sig. 0.000 Space(180,40,4.5) 23.99 Space(260,60,4.33) 22.61 aFriedman test Space(120,40,3) 23.86 Space(40,90,0.44) 22.55 Space(60,90,0.67) 23.81 Space(120,40,3) 22.52 Space(260,60,4.33) 23.45 Space(20,20,1) 22.44 Space(20,20,1) 23.32 Space(180,40,4.5) 22.37 Space(160,60,2.67) 22.81 Space(160,60,2.67) 22.32 Space(220,90,2.44) 21.80 Space(20,60,0.33) 21.81 Space(40,20,2) 21.36 Space(30,90,0.33) 21.60 Space(40,90,0.44) 20.84 Space(30,20,1.5) 20.78 Space(360,60,6) 20.83 Space(40,20,2) 20.49 Space(380,90,4.22) 20.81 Space(220,90,2.44) 20.33 Space(20,60,0.33) 20.28 Space(100,30,3.33) 19.76 Space(30,90,0.33) 20.11 Space(360,60,6) 19.70 Space(60,20,3) 20.02 Space(300,130,2.31) 19.30 Space(300,130,2.31) 19.37 Space(60,20,3) 19.07 Space(100,30,3.33) 18.83 Space(380,90,4.22) 19.04 Space(780,130,6) 17.98 Space(40,130,0.31) 18.95 Space(80,20,4) 17.11 Space(30,130,0.23) 18.14 Space(540,130,4.15) 16.55 Space(20,90,0.22) 17.61 Space(140,30,4.67) 16.51 Space(540,130,4.15) 17.55 Space(30,130,0.23) 15.99 Space(140,30,4.67) 17.25 Space(40,130,0.31) 15.80 Space(780,130,6) 17.02 Space(180,30,6) 15.25 Space(80,20,4) 16.80 Space(540,90,6) 15.19 Space(20,130,0.15) 16.20 Space(240,40,6) 14.32 Space(540,90,6) 15.89 Space(20,130,0.15) 13.53 Space(180,30,6) 15.62 Space(20,90,0.22) 13.23 Space(240,40,6) 14.90 Space(100,20,5) 11.36 Space(100,20,5) 14.30 Space(120,20,6) 10.29 Space(120,20,6) 11.79

PAGE 102

102 Table 5-3. Friedman test of repeated measures for comfort and safety scores across 9 groups of spaces. Group Comfort Group Safety Group(Medium(H), Medium(W)) 6.92 Group(Medium(H), Medium(W)) 6.60 Group(Low, Medium(W)) 6.29 Group(Low, Medium(W) 6.28 Group(Low, Narrow) 6.28 Group(Low, Narrow) 5.87 Group(Medium(H), Narrow) 5.79 Group(Medium(H), Narrow) 5.27 Group(High, Medium(W)) 4.95 Group(Medium(H), Wide) 4.87 Group(Medium(H), Wide) 4.51 Group(High, Medium(W)) 4.58 Group(High, Wide) 3.98 Group(High, Wide) 4.01 Group(Low, Wide) 3.19 Group(Low, Wide) 3.92 Group(High, Narrow) 3.10 Group(High, Narrow) 3.60 Comfort Safety Test statisticsa Test statisticsa N 83 N 83 Chi-Square 187.201 Chi-Square 114.317 df 8 df 8 Asymp. Sig. 0.000 Asymp. Sig. 0.000 aFriedman test. Table 5-4. Friedman test of repeated measures for comfort and safety scores across 14 ratio categories. Ratio Comfort RatioSafety 3/4 11.67 3/4 10.86 1 10.25 2/3 9.57 3/2 9.76 1 9.57 2/3 9.61 1/2 9.17 1/2 9.20 3/2 8.95 2 8.37 2 7.67 4 7.37 1/3 7.30 3 7.31 3 6.87 1/3 6.64 4 6.64 1/4 5.67 1/4 6.45 6 5.01 1/5 6.28 1/6 4.83 1/6 5.53 1/5 4.75 5 5.22 5 4.55 6 4.91 Comfort Safety Test statisticsa Test statisticsa N 83 N 83 Chi-Square 347.826 Chi-Square 215.525 df 13 df 13 Asymp. Sig. 0.000 Asymp. Sig. 0.000 aFriedman test.

PAGE 103

103 Table 5-5. Friedman test of repeated measures for comfort and safety scores across 3 scale groups Scale group Comfort Safety Meduim 2.36 2.34 Small 2.21 2.18 Large 1.43 1.48 Comfort Safety Test statisticsa Test statisticsa N 83 N 83 Chi-Square 42.226 Chi-Square 35.837 df 2 df 2 Asymp. Sig. 0.000 Asymp. Sig. 0.000 aFriedman test. Table 5-6. Ratio correlations. Ratio Spearmans rho All values R<3/4 R 3/4 R>3/4 R 3/4 Comfort rho 0.308* 0.893** 0.916** 0.826** 0.842** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.470 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 42 12 13 29 30 Safety rho 0.485** 0.893** 0.916** 0.835** 0.849** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 42 12 13 29 30 *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Table 5-7. Scale correlations. Scale at ratio values = 1/2 to 2 Spearmans rho All values Sc 1600 Sc 1600 Comfort rho 0.244 0.773** 0.746* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.315 0.009 0.013 N 19 10 10 Safety rho 0.240 0.656** 0.777** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.322 0.039 0.008 N 19 10 10 *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 104

104 Table 5-8. Height correlations. Height Spearmans rho All values Width 40 Width > 40 Comfort rho 0.334* 0.660** 0.140* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.03 0.001 0.482 N 42 22 27 Safety rho 0.460** 0.680** 0.231 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.000 0.328 N 42 22 27 *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Table 5-9. Width correlations. Width Spearmans rho All values Height<60 Height 60 Comfort rho 0.224 0.585* 0.221 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.154 0.030 0.523 N 42 19 23 Safety rho 0.130 0.440 0.240 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.412 0.059 0.269 N 42 19 23 *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 105

105 Table 5-10. Logistic regression model for comfort Logistic regression model -2 Log Likelihood Goodness of Fit 1922.306 1801.291 Cox & Snell R^2 Nagelkerke R^2 0.214 0.214 Chi-Square df Significance Model Block Step 433.828 433.828 433.828 2 2 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 Classification for comfort; the cut value is 0.50 Predicted 0 1 Observed 0 1 Percent Correct 0 0 365 284 56.24% 1 1 169 985 85.36% Overall 74.88% Variables in the equation Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig R Exp(B) Ratio_t Width_t Constant 4.0027 2.7887 3.5334 0.2465 0.4134 0.2891 263.7764 45.5070 149.4154 1 1 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.136 54.7470 16.2601 Table 5-11. Logistic regression model for safety Logistic regression model -2 Log Likelihood Goodness of Fit 1941.099 1761.822 Cox & Snell R^2 Nagelkerke R^2 0.152 0.152 Chi-Square df Significance Model Block Step 294.964 294.964 294.964 2 2 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 Classification for safety; the cut value is 0.50 Predicted 0 1 Observed 0 1 Percent Correct 0 0 195 370 34.51% 1 1 144 1086 88.29% Overall 71.36% Variables in the equation Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig R Exp(B) Ratio_t Width_t Constant 4.9733 2.8563 4.7196 0.384 0.468 0.386 167.5800 37.3095 149.5934 1 1 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.2721 0.1257 144.4980 17.3966

PAGE 106

106 Table 5-12. Correlations of perceived enclosure with sense of comfort and safety. Perceived enclosure Spearmans rho All values R 3/4 R > 3/4 Comfort rho 0.226 0.896** 0.620** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.151 0.000 0.000 N 42 13 29 Safety rho 0.394** 0.890** 0.625** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.010 0.000 0.000 N 42 13 29 **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Table 5-13. Influences of independe nt variables on dependent variables Comfort Safety Height W = all W 40 ft W > 40 ft rho = 0.33 rho = 0.66 No influence W = all W 40 ft W> 40 ft rho = 0.46 rho = 0.68 No influence Width H = all H < 60 ft H > 60 ft no influence rho = 0.585 No influence H = all H < 60 ft No influence No influence No influence No influence Ratio R = all R R rho = 0.31 rho = 0.92 rho = 0.84 R = all R R rho = 0.49 rho = 0.92 rho = 0.85 Scale at (0.5 R 2) Sc = all Sc 1600 Sc> 1600 No influence rho = 0.77 rho = 0.75 Sc = all Sc 1600 Sc> 1600 No influence rho = 0.66 rho = 0.78 Comfort Safety Ratio Scale Ratio Scale No influence Women felt less comfortable with large spaces than men. No influence Men felt safer in large spaces than women, and women felt safer in small spaces than men Gender rho = 0.84 rho = 0.74 Older people felt more comfortable with medium ratios than younger people Older people felt more comfortable with smaller spaces than younger people No influence Older people felt safer in small spaces than younger people Age rho = 0.71 to 0.93 rho =0 .75 to 0.86

PAGE 107

107 Table 5-13. Continued. Comfort Safety Designers felt more comfortable with higher ratios than non designers, non designers felt more comfortable with lower ratios than designers No influence Designers felt safer with higher ratios than non designers No influence Design background rho = 0.79 rho = 0.69 Inhabitants of rural areas felt more comfortable with lower ratios, inhabitants of urban areas felt more comfortable with higher ratios than suburban and rural Inhabitants of urban areas felt more comfortable with smaller spaces than inhabitants of suburban areas, while inhabitants of rural areas felt the least comfortable No influence Inhabitants of urban areas felt safer with smaller spaces than inhabitants of suburban areas, and inhabitants of rural areas felt the least safe Living area rho = 0.53 to 0.92 rho = 0.47 to 0.93 Comfort Safety Simulated height Scale Simulated height Scale Inhabitants of buildings >6 floors felt more comfortable with simulated heights 60 ft than others No influence No influence No influence Height of buildings in living area rho = 0.8 to 0.91 rho = 0.7 to 0.91 Simulated width Scale Simulated width Scale No influence No influence No influence No influence Width of streets in living area rho = 0.79 to 0.97 rho = 0.75 to 0.91

PAGE 108

108 Safety29.85 27.80 26.69 23.60 22.55 22.37 21.60 20.33 19.30 18.95 17.55 16.80 15.62 11.79 Comfort40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Figure 5-1. Relationship of sense of comfort and safety.

PAGE 109

109 Ratio5 3 3/2 3/4 1/2 1/4 1/6 Comfort40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 A Ratio5 3 3/2 3/4 1/2 1/4 1/6 Safety32.0 30.0 28.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 B Figure 5-2. Comfort and safety relationships with ratio. A) Comfort with ratio. B) Safety with ratio. Ratio (3/4) received the highest m ean ranks of comfort and safety scores.

PAGE 110

110 Scale19800 3600 1800 1200 800 400 Comfort34.0 32.0 30.0 28.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 A Scale19800 3600 1800 1200 800 400 Safety32.0 30.0 28.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 B Figure 5-3. Comfort and safety rela tionship with scale, for ratio valu es in the range of (0.5 to 2). A) Comfort with scale. B) Safety with scale.

PAGE 111

111 Height361-780 181-360 61-180 60 40 30 20 Comfort40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 Width 20 30 40 60 90 130 A Height361-780 181-360 61-180 60 40 30 20 Safety40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Width 20 30 40 60 90 130 B Figure 5-4. Comfort and safety relationship with height, clustered by wi dth. A) Comfort with height. B) Safety with height.

PAGE 112

112 Width130 90 60 40 30 20Comfort 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Height20 30 40 60 61-180 181-360 361-780 A Width130 90 60 40 30 20 Safety40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Height20 30 40 60 61-180 181-360 361-780 B Figure 5-5. Comfort and safety relationships w ith width, clustered by height. A) Comfort and width. B) Safety and width.

PAGE 113

113 Perceived enclosure6 5 4 3 2 1 Comfort4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 A Perceived enclosure6 5 4 3 2 1 Safety4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 B Figure 5-6. Relationship of perceived enclosur e with both comfort and safety. A) Perceived enclosure with comfort. B) Pe rceived enclosure with safety. Object 5-1. Probabilities calculator

PAGE 114

114 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION In this chapter, a discussion of the findings presented in chapter 4 and 5 will be conducted with reference to urban planning and design litera ture. The findings will be analyzed in light of both theoretical and empirical works of literature First, the chapter discusses the reasoning behind using experimental computer-simulation me thod and its reliability. Second, it discusses the dependent variable perceived enclosure; including its relationship with the simulated variables. Third, comfort and safety dependent variables are discussed; including their relationships with simulated variables and perc eived enclosure. Fourth, a discussion of the implications of my research for urban planning and design professions is presented. Fifth, the chapter discusses limitations of the research method. Experimental Computer Simulation Empirical inquiries need rigorous testing c onditions and necessitate the isolation of external variables. There are numerous factors in the urban environments that can influence perception of enclosure and senses comfort and safe ty including; functional, social, physical, and psychological ones. My research is mainly concer ned with the sensorial value of enclosure in urban street spaces, and its influence on comfort a nd safety, therefore there was a need to control these external variables. Since such control is difficult, if not impossible, in real-life environments, my research used computer-simulated urban street spaces as stimuli, and manipulated their values of ratio and scale to measure users comfort, safety and enclosure responses. Such simulation is categorized in urban de sign literature as experimental, wherein the simulation is directed toward a certain research question. In experimental simulation research, the simulation does not need to replicate the environment fully; it needs a rather flexible

PAGE 115

115 replication of it that allows for the needed ma nipulation of the independent variables, for the purposes of testing hypotheses and building theo ries (Ozel, 1993). The flexibility in realism usually entails limitations that have to be acce pted within the framework of each specific scientific protocol. The most important qualification in computer simulation, that is designed to stimulate human senses, is to insure that the stimuli are evoking, as close as possible, the same feelings evoked by the real environment. My research re lied on the premise that different simulated geometric dimensions of urban street spaces will evoke different estimations of enclosure values, and consequently different feelings of comfort and safety. To test the reli ability of this method, my research incorporated two additional depende nt variables; estimated height and estimated width to examine how well they correlate with the simulated heights and widths embedded in the computer 3D models, and whether the simu lated dimensions are actually perceived as designed. Literature reported some findings that support the use of simulated environments as an alternative to real-lif e environments. Im (1984) reported a value of (r = 0.923) for on-site and slide evaluation. Ewing (2005) reported similari ties between on-site and photographs. Stamps (2005a) reported a high level of correlation value at r = .83 for preferences from static color simulations and on-site preferences. The results of my research confirm these previous research findings for simulation methods. The estimated heights a nd widths had a high positive co rrelation with the respective simulated heights and widths (rho = .90 for hei ght, and rho = .77 for width). My researchs findings verified that the stimuli were able to convey the desired information about the differences of heights and widths, and ultimately, ratio and scale, as specifically needed for my

PAGE 116

116 research. The relatively lower width correlation is caused by the optimization of texture realism that was applied to the street furniture to isolat e the effect of implicati ons of street vehicular lanes on safety responses. Perceived Enclosure Simulated and Perceived Enclosure Urban design literature is promoting the c oncept of positive urban space, which is an explicitly eligible and defined space that is in balance with its defining masses. Enclosure is a major component of such balance. Enclosure is the perceived sensorial value evoked by spatial compositional characters of urban space. My re search simulated these spatial compositional values and hypothesized that ratio and scale of ur ban street space, as simulated, are functions of enclosure. The independent simulated variables of ratio and scale proved to be good estimator of perceived enclosure; ratio had a stronger relation ship with perceived enclosure at (rho = 0.936). Scale correlated negatively with perceived en closure at (rho = -.683). Height correlated positively with perceived enclosure (rho = 0.774 ). Width was found to be the second best predictor of perceived enclos ure after ratio (rho = -.858). Across the different simulated variations, ratio superceded scale such that, there was always a need to suppress the ratio value in orde r for scale to appear, a nd the opposite is not true. While the simulated ratio variable alone has ce rtainly evoked strong perceived enclosure, simulated scale was less capable to do that alone. It was concluded that if scale, as a product of height and width, can not work except under ratio, then width or height are more practical to use instead of scale, because the other dimension is already present in the ratio value. Because a combination of ratio and width alone, when en tered in the regression model together, can estimate 87% of the participants responses correctly, which is higher than any other possible

PAGE 117

117 combinations, width was used to substitute for sc ale. In other words, all that is needed to represent enclosure is ratio and width, where width is a scale indicator attached to ratio. Enclosure increases as ratio increases and as width decreases, and the probability that a given space will be perceived as enclosed or no t can be calculated using closedness probability in equation (4-1). Building on that, the variable p erceived enclosure can be replaced in future research with the simulated values of ratio and wi dth. This means that it is possible to not include variables from the cognitive model, with more interpretative power given to respondents, like perceived enclosure, and rely solely on simula ted variables from psychophysical model like ratio and width, where respondents have limited interp retative power. What supports this notion is that nearly all between-subject (demographic) variables had no influence on the perception of enclosure, which rendered the within-subject (space) variables of ratio, scale, height and width, alone responsible for predicting perceived enclos ure, and among those; ratio and width alone are the best predictors. Perceived Enclosure with Reference to Literature This section will connect the results of my research to both available empirical works about perceived enclosure. The scientific protoc ol that investigated enclosure in previous empirical literature can be traced back through the wo rk of Stamps (2005a). This most replicated scientific protocol, that is available until now used two variables to predict enclosure; proportion of the stimulus (or image) that is covered with walls and proportion of the stimulus that is covered with ground. To rela te to this protocol, some calculations were performed to extract these variables from the stimuli of my research. Stamps (2005a) reported three empirical works ab out perceived enclosure. In the first work by Hayward and Franklin (1974), perceived encl osure correlated with proportion of scene covered by walls at r = .93, with proportion of scene covered by ground at r = .18. The

PAGE 118

118 second work, which is a replication of Hayw ard and Franklins (1974) work, revealed a correlation of perceived enclosure with proportion of scene covered by walls at r = .68, and with proportion of scene covered by ground at r = .31. The third work, by Stamps and Smith (2002), revealed a correlation of perceived en closure with proportion of scene covered by walls at r = .73, and with proportion of scene covered by ground at r = .53. In my research, the generated variables of proportions of walls and ground were correlated with perceived enclosure. Perceived enclosure co rrelated at rho = .95 with proportion of scene covered by walls, and at rho = -.55 with propo rtion of scene covered by ground. My research confirms the findings that were reported along this line of empirical work, however it maintains that the variables ratio and width have higher pred ictability than proportions of the scenes and easier transformability into urban planning and design policies. Comfort and Safety Simulated Variables and Sense of Comfort and Safety Both sets of responses in my research; choi ces responses and ratings responses revealed virtually the same results concerning the depende nt variables of comfort and safety. In the choices response, sense of comfo rt and safety is the highest for ratio range 0.5 to 1.5, height range 20 to 40 ft, width range 20 to 30 ft, and scal e values <1,600 sq. ft. Visual investigation of weighted responses revealed that there are non-lin ear relationships between sense of comfort and safety and both ratio and scale. Variance tests for rated responses revealed th at there were significant differences in comfort and safety responses across all levels of simulated independent variables. Correlation tests for ratings responses revealed that below the ratio value of 3/4, sense of comfort and safety increases when ratio increases, while above it, se nse of comfort and safety decreases as ratio increases, consequently ratio value 3/4 is felt as the most comfortable and the safest. Correlation

PAGE 119

119 tests revealed also that below the scale value of 1,600 sq ft, sense of comfort and safety increases as scale increases, while above it, sense of comfort and safety decr eases as scale in creases, which makes the scale value1,600 sq ft the most comfortable and the safest. Across the different simulated variations, the influence of ratio on comfort and safety was higher than that of scale; the ratio variable had to be controlled, in order for scale to appear, and the opposite is not true. In other words, while simulated ratio alone has evoked high levels of sense of comfort and safety, simulated scale was able to do that only after controlling for ratio. Similar to perceived enclosure, it was decided th at, width is more practical to use instead of scale. The combination of ratio and width alone, when entered in the regression model together to estimate comfort and safety, were only 1% lower than the complete model. After transformation, they were able to correctly estimate 74.88% and 71.36% of the participants comfort and safety responses respectively, which are higher than any other possible combinations. Based on that, width was used to indicate scale. Both senses of comfort and safety have non-li near relationships with ratio and width. The probability that a space of ratio of (R) and widt h (W) will be perceived as comfortable or not, safe or not, can be calculated using comfort and safety probabilities in equations (5-5) and (5-6). At fixed width value of 40 ft, the range ratio values <1/4 and >4 have a range of probabilities <0.50 of being comfortable, and the ratio values range <1/4 and >7 have a range of probabilities <0.50 of being safe. To satisfy both comfort and safety, the recommended ideal ratio is 3/4, the recommended minimum ratio value is 1/4, and the recommended maximum ratio value is 4. Comparison of Comfort and Safety Except for the difference that sense of safety had a wider span and more relaxed inverted U-shape than comfort, senses of comfort and safe ty are very similar. First, sense of comfort correlated positively with sense of safety (rho = 0.96, P = .000, n = 42*83). Second, in choices

PAGE 120

120 responses, all three of the most comfortable and all three of the safest spaces belong to the smallest group of spaces with ranges of heights < 40, of widths <40, of ratio 0.51,600. Sixth, both co mfort and safety have ne gative correlation with height. Seventh, both comfort and safety have ne gative correlations with width after controlling for height. Eighth, in 75% of the cases, both co mfort and safety are influenced in the same manner by between-subject (demographic) independe nt variables. These similarities strengthen the notion that both advanced sense of comfort and survival instincts of safety are connected, where safety can be considered as a function of comfort. Differences between sense of comfort and safety are a question that needs more future research to investigate. For example, why does the ratio range of 5 to 7 received safe but not comfortable responses? There is a connection between this phenomenon and the prospect and refuge theory. Sense of Comfort and Safety with Reference to Literature This section will connect the results of my research to both available theoretical and empirical literature about sense of comfort and safety. It will first discuss sense of comfort and safety in the light of theoretical constructs, a nd then it will discuss the results relative to the empirical literature. Theoretical constructs and sense of comfort and safety Literature suggests that users preference of space enclosure is an inverted U-shape relationship. Both extreme high and low values of enclosure are not favored; there are preferred

PAGE 121

121 values of enclosure in the middle. If we assume that comfort and safety are themselves indicators of preference, my research confirms the inverted U-shape relationship. Both comfort and safety has an inverted U-shape relationship with percei ved enclosure. They also have an inverted Ushape relationship with ratio and scale; whether scale indica ted by width or not. Similar to perceived enclosure, an optimum width of 40 ft was included. The corresponding comfort and safety probability valu es ideal ratios reporte d in literature were calculated. Lynch & Hacks (1975) ideal ratio ra nge of 1/3 to 1/2 has a comfort and safety probability of .76 to .83, Alex ander and colleagues (1977) idea l ratio of 1 has a comfort and safety probability of .87, Moughtins ( 1992) ideal ratio of 1/2 has a comfort and safety probability of .83, Nelessens (1993) ideal rati o range 1/2 to 1 has a comfort and safety probability of.83 to .87, and Carmona and collea gues (2003) ideal ratio range 2 to 2.5 has a comfort and safety probability of .81 to .74. Ca rmona and colleagues (2003) minimum ratio of 1 has a comfort and safety probability of .87, Nelessens (1993) minimum ratio of 1/5 has a comfort and safety probability of .45, and Duany & Plater-Zyberks (1992) minimum ratio of 1/6 has a comfort and safety probability of .23. Nelessens maximum ratio of 4 has a comfort and safety probability of .63. The inconsistency in these proposals is eviden t. Nelessens (1993) suggestions are the most compatible with my researchs findings. The ideal ratio for comfort and safety suggested by my research is 3/4, which is exactly the middle point of Nelessens suggested range 1/2 to 1. Furthermore, Nelessens suggested minimum ratio va lue of 1/5 has a probability of .45 of being both comfortable and safe, which is slightly lower than the thresholsd of .5, rendering the results of my research most compatible with Nelesse ns proposals. In addition, Nelessens suggested maximum ratio 4 has a probability of .63, which is reasonably close to the threshold of .5.

PAGE 122

122 Empirical literature and sense of comfort and safety The available empirical work that involved encl osure is a line of empirical work that has been culminated in the work of Stamps (2005a) about the relationship of safety and enclosure. Because comfort and safety correlated highly in my research, it was found convenient to discuss the results of my research about the relationship of both comfort and safety with enclosure in the light of stamps work on enclosure and safety. Stamps (2005a), in consistence with this empirical line of work, used proportions of the scenes covered by walls and ground, to predict pe rceived enclosure, and then used perceived enclosure to predict safety. Stamps reported that the correlation between perceived enclosure and safety was ( r = .82, n = 21 stimuli). While my research ha s already confirmed Stamps findings in the relationship of perceived enclosure and pr edictors of proportions of the scenes that are covered with walls and ground, it does not c onfirm Stamps conclusion on the relationship between enclosure and safety My research found that this relationship is not linear, and that high and low values of enclosure correspond to lower values of comfort a nd safety, and that medium values of perceived enclosure correspond to high values of comfort and safety. The finding of my research does not confirm Stamps result which assumes linearity of the relationship between safety and perceived enclosure; alternatively a curvi linear relationship is proposed. Th is curvilinear relationship has regression coefficient value of (R2 = .545) compared to (R2 = .129) of the lin ear relationship, (Figure 6-1). One explanation for stamps result is that all models in his experiment were given a fixed height of 6 meters, which probably rendere d the stimuli sample with insufficient ratio values > 3/4. What supports this finding, as well, is that bo th sets of predictors; Stamps predictors of proportions of the scenes and my researchs predicto rs of ratio and scale, were tested to predict

PAGE 123

123 safety, and both resulted in non-linear relations hips, (Figure 6-2). My research proposes a nonlinear relationship between safety and percei ved enclosure, (Eq. 5-8). Although it is not important to replicate this equation exactly, my research asserts that when enough variations in ratio are included, the relationship between safety and perceived enclosure is better predicted using, at least, a 2nd degree polynomial function. Demographic Differences and Sense of Comfort and Safety with Reference to Literature The line of empirical literature that investig ated the influence of demographic difference on peoples judgment of the environment used corre lation instead of variance tests. This line of literature suggested that there is no significan t differences in peoples preferences of the environment founded on demographic differences; and it reported that the consensus between demographic groups is (.8 < r < .89), (Stamps, 1999a). Stamps (2005a) also talked about gender relationship with safety, and concluded that a 10% difference in correlation between men and women is small. The rule of thumb in these studies is to c onsider that the difference is small if the correlation was > 0.8. My research used correla tions between different demographic groups to be able to connect to these studies. In my research correlations had values as low as 0.47, which means that some differences are significant re lative to this line of empirical inquiry. All correlations within demographic variables of gender, age, desi gn background, type of living area, height of buildings in living area, and width of street in living area have exhibited at least one correlation that is <.8. Consequently, it can be concluded that comfort and safety senses are generally influenced by these demographic diffe rences. Moreover, it is crucial to report that, correlations within the variable type of living ar ea were clearly lower than all other variables. Whether people live in rural areas or not is a deci sive factor in the way they feel comfortable and

PAGE 124

124 safe in urban street spaces. The correlation be tween rural and both urban and suburban were < .53 for comfort and safety. While empirical literature suggested high consensus levels among demographic groups concerning aesthetic appreciation of architectural styles and building facades, my research can not refute or confirm these result. However, it suggests that judgments concerning sensorial values of enclosure depart from this notion. It suggests that judgments of three-dimensional spatial values of urban spaces are more influenc ed by demographic difference than judgment of, for example, an architectural faade portrayed two-dimensionally. Judgments of 2D compositions is usually governed by the relationships between the internal elements of the composition, which probably have higher consensus among demographic groups as it relates to the over-ar ching appreciation of beauty embedded in all humans and shared by them. However, judgments of compositional qualities of 3D spaces is governed by the sensorial value of enclosure, which belong to a lower level of human senses; sense of comfort and safety. In other words, sens e of comfort and safety are more influenced by demographic differences than aesthetic appreciation. Comfort and Safety and Participants Qualitative Input Qualitative responses revealed interesting interp retation of peoples reasoning in relation to the stimuli. The overwhelming factor that determin ed why a space is felt comfortable or safe is attributed to the relationship between height of buildings a nd width of the streets, which confirms the findings about the reliability of th e method. This relationship was expressed in different ways. Some responses ha ve directly stated ratio or proportion, some responses explained this relation using the not too expr ession, like not too wide and not too high, while other responses just stated the relati onship between height and width was the major

PAGE 125

125 factor that influenced their judgment. Safety and comfort qualitative responses were similar; however, some expressions were specifically used for safety, (Table 6-1). Some response for safety included other reasons that are not ratio or scale in the direct sense, like shadows and light, which was mentione d by three different participants as factors for their choices. It is important to note here that shadow and light were embedded in the different stimuli, and that more shadow is expected wi th higher buildings and narrower streets. Although no cars were included in the simulation, and no la nes were present to implicate cars, yet other responses included traffic and explained that wide r streets mean more traffic, which is not safe. Some connected high buildings with bigge r cities where crime rate is high. Some intermediate factors were also detected that are implied by either height of buildings or width of the street. Interpretation of density of people based on the height of buildings and width of street had been expressed; some expr essed that high buildings mean more people, which means more safety, some expressed th e opposite; more people is less comfortable. Some expressed a relationship between high buildi ngs and earthquakes or fire, and consequently safety. Some associated comfort with narrower streets for functional reasons like moving easier from one side of the street to the other, others thought it is safer in narrow streets because it is easier for some one on the other side of the stre et to come to help in case of emergency. Although some extraneous factors have app eared as subjective interpretations by participants, the overwhelming reason that was cite d is the relationship of height to width. Safety has exhibited more extraneous factors than comfort, mostly connected to traffic. It is imperative to seek more ways to isolate this f actor in future research. The wider span, and the more relaxed inverted-U shape relationship that safety responses has with ratio, compared to

PAGE 126

126 comfort, is probably a result of a lower consensu s on safety concerning th e width variable. Some people feel safer in wider streets, while others feel safer in narrower streets. This phenomenon can be analyzed in light of the prospect and refuge theory, which had evident implications in the qualitative responses. Prospect entails a viewing point that has control over the space, while refuge entails the ability to escape the scene in case of danger. Some people want prospect; more room or distance, to have control over the space, where they can protect themselves when they sense danger. This group of people might be younger and stronger people; they consequently want wider spaces to take action. Other people want refuge; those might be older or softer people, and this is available only if spaces are smaller, which means more opportunity to get help from others. It is not just the width of street that has an influence on peoples perception of safety corresponding to prospect and refuge notions. More buildings height implies more people; this is interpreted differently by different people. Some people want the personal space, or the distance, or ultimately the prospect situation; mo re people, for them, means less personal space, less reaction distance, and higher opportunity of being attacked. Other people want more people to be present to help them in case of emergenc y. This difference should be accounted for when trying to relate safety to the geometry of urban street spaces in future research. Urban Planning and Design Implications It is the responsibility of urban planning a nd design professions to shape the urban environment for the convenience of its users. It is also their responsibility to create opportunities for a fit of the social and physical urban layers Urban planners and designers should observe the physical, socio-economic, political, functional, and be havioral factors that resist a healthy social and physical fit. Some of these factors are directly in the center of planers and designers realms; they are solely responsible for them, like decisi ons concerning physical and functional aspects of

PAGE 127

127 the urban environment. Other factors are shared by numerous parties of the society, and belong mainly to the socio-economic and political realms. The fit of social and physical domains is reasonably attainable at least from the physical side of the equation. Providing the functional requirements for vitalizing an urban space is a prerequisite for any further tuning. Because the f unctional dimension is within the realm of urban planning and design professions, it is most importa nt to first create th e functional grounds for other more advanced dimensions to operate. Mi xed uses, higher mass-to-void densities, higher population density, less-hierarcha l street network, multimodal-orie nted transportation schemes, and decentralization of shopping and retailing structures ar e among the numerous functional aspects that lay the grounds for other higher dimensions like the behavioral dimension. An urban street supported with retailing f unctions at the lower floors, offices and residential functions at the upper floors, and worki ng infrastructures, invite s functional activities, while an urban street with all that in addition to convenient width and he ight of buildings will evoke a psychological attachment. An ideal ratio va lue of 3/4, a scale value of 1,600, a minimum ratio value of 1/4, and a maximum ratio value of 4 are proposed by my research to be observed by professionals of urban planning and design. Heights of buildings are usually governed by the maximum height requirements, which are guided by land use and density policies. Widths of streets are mostly a product of transportation policies including number of driving lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks and right of way. However, my research proposes the use of some policies th at support a balanced degree of enclosure which does not contradict these functional requirements of urban street spaces. These policies can be divided into two sets of policie s; overarching policies for new developments, city expansion and new cities, and policies to modify existing conditions.

PAGE 128

128 For future development and urban expansion, the first policy is planning for low-rise and high-density morphology. Low-rise buildings less th an five floors generally result in acceptable scales and ratios. High mass-to-void density en sures enough mass to form positive urban spaces, regulates less setback distances on the ground floor; which maintains a street wall, and guarantees less empty lots and surface car parking. The second policy is the adaptation of smaller blocks and street widths. Smaller street widths with smaller urban blocks produce more visual and physical connectivity and smaller sp aces closer to the human scale. Policies of higher densities and smaller street widths can only operate under other policies at a higher level. The implementation of hi gher mass-to-void densities involves policies for decentralization and mixing of urban uses, policies for controlling urban limits, and overarching governmental policies to guide private developm ents. The implementation of smaller streets policies involves policies for providing smoothe r connection in cities using more number of streets rather than more lanes of streets, policie s of small urban blocks with convenient buildings heights, and policies for less arterial s treets that create damaging urban edges. The third policy is considering a minimum and maximum height corresponding to each street width. When higher floors are inevitabl e, height recesses and set backs should be introduced to break the sheerness of the height. Th e fourth policy is integrating arcades, awnings, and canopies on the street sides. In addition to their weather-related and functional purposes of shelter, these elements help in creating the de sired degree of enclosure. The fifth policy is attaching buildings heights to the length of street segments. Frequent breaks of the length of the street, lower the impression of enclosure as more sky appears. For modifying existing conditions, the first po licy is concentrating efforts on streets that have pedestrian-friendly scale. The second policy is eliminati ng urban street elements that

PAGE 129

129 impose an undesired higher degree of enclosure, usually those that increase ratio in narrow streets. This occurs sometimes in streets with high ratios, yet street elements like trees and light poles exacerbate the condition by creating an illu sion of even higher degree of enclosure. The third policy is to articulate material and color to increase the degree of enclosure or decrease it. Transparent materials and lighter colors probabl y reduce the impact of enclosure, while solid materials and darker colors convey more enclosur e. The fourth policy is encouraging regulatory grounds to motivate adding more floors in spaces with lower ratio values. The fifth policy is breaking larger spaces into smaller subspaces by means of trees and street furniture. Some existing streets with large scales can be broken do wn into smaller spaces by using trees, shrubs, and other street furniture, in the median and on bot h sides of the street. Rather than one space, a large street space can be divided in to four or more subspaces to cr eate enclosed pedestrian spaces on both sides of the street and two enclosed driving lanes. Supported by numerous arguments in urban planning and design today, these policies produce human-scale environments and smaller bloc ks and streets with the appropriate building heights, which ensure a feeling of belonging a nd control over the environment. These policies promote the notion of smaller scales which provides for easier extensions of private realms into public realms, gives sense of community, and emphasi zes the role of streets as a social arena for people to live safely. These policies are based in the urban design notion of reviving positive urban space; which involves the reestablishment of their social and visual integrity within frameworks like Neo-traditional neighborhoods, tran sit-oriented development, and revival of traditional main street which constitute some important notion of new urbanism. Planning and designing urban street spaces taki ng enclosureas understood by usersinto consideration implies introducing the space-mo rphology dimension of urban design into the

PAGE 130

130 equation, more control over the meaning of urba n street to its users, taking the perceptual dimension into consideration, relating more to human scale, and democratizing urban planning and design policies. Methodological Limitations There are some limitations pertaining to the research method that suggests alternative reasoning of some of the findings. The first limitati on is about the finding that ratio overwhelmed scale. My research method revealed that scal e does not appear except if ratio was fixed. However, one alternative line of reasoning is that because of the limitation of the simulation method itself, and unlike ratio which is more c onveyable by simulation, scale is less conveyable by simulation. The point here is that people need to sense the magnitude of the scale as related to their own scale, and unless they are actually insi de a real-life space or more immersive simulated environments, they may not sense the expansiveness of the space. It is important to state that this alternativ e concept does not imply that my researchs simulation method does not convey scale values alwa ys; rather it asserts that scale can not be conveyed in the presence of mani pulated ratio values, but it can be conveyed after fixing ratio values. So the unresolved question would be whether if this is also the case in real-life and more immersive simulated environments or not. The second limitation relates to the degree of realism. My research maintains that in experimental research design, and when more realism produces potential confounding variables, an optimum degree of realism should be produced instead of the maximum possible one. Examples of avoiding the maximum realism degree in my research is the exclusion of trees from the stimuli, the continuous uninterrupted walls on both side of the street the neutral texture for the ground, and the exclusion of cars. Each of these decisions has a methodological rationale; however, they have negative impact on the degree of realism of the simulated environment. Such

PAGE 131

131 impacts were detected in some of the qualitati ve response like: it looks like a ghost town; referring to the absence of life-indicating elements like cars, trees, and people. Decisions to reduce realism in favor of more rigorous scientific protocols should be carefully considered, and an optimum realism degree should be reached. The third limitation is related to the immersi on degree of the simulated environment. My research method required 42 street spaces as stimuli, which were represented as still images on computer screens. On aspect of perception in urban areas is that people minimize and maximize their acquisition of information by alternating be tween the local and the global scales. Real-time visualization techniques are perhaps the most conducive to simulate such mechanism. Had my research not been limited in time and money, more immersive stimuli with the 4th dimension of time and virtual larger screens w ith real-time visualization coul d have been used, which should have enhanced the participants immersion in th e scenes and probably enhanced the opportunity for such alternation of the information field to take place. The fourth limitation is related to the incapacity of linear regression models to analyze ordinal data, and to the fact that the ordinal regression model, that is available now, assumes parallel behavior at deferent levels of the response variable, which was not the case in my researchs response variables. This entails the use of logistic regression model which is less powerful than the linear and the ordinal models in explaining the response variables. Alternatively, some researchers consider ordina l data as approximately continuous if collected using a wider scale, say 1 to 30. In this case, an d providing that the response variable is normally distributed, linear regression models can be used. If not normally distributed, then some transformation can be used to make the data normally distributed, however this is not accepted

PAGE 132

132 by other scholars. My research was limited by th e choice to use logistic regression model which resulted in limited predictability. The fifth limitation pertains to the convenie nce sample of 83 participants who were students and employees from the University of Florida. Because literature suggested that demographic differences have no significant impact on users preference of urban environment, my research used a convenience sample. The co nvenience sample does not necessarily maintain proportionate representations of demographic groups; e.g. people with lower levels of education. Since there was evidence in my research that th e initial assumption is not true, and that comfort and safety are influenced by demographic differences it is maintained that further research is needed using stratified sampling. Chapter 7 presents the conclusions and reco mmendations that were derived form my research. It places my research within the body of urban design literature, summarizes findings pertaining to perceived enclosure and sense of co mfort and safety, presents notes on the research method, and concludes by recommendations for future research.

PAGE 133

133 Table 6-1. Qualitative responses. Comfort Safety Ratio Ratio Proportion Not too wide and not too high The relationship between height and width Coziness Not claustrophobic Proportion of the sky Enough shelter, but not being overly constrictive Narrow and high means suffocating Narrow is comfortable unless it looks like back alleys Not too wide, not too tall are comfortable Balanced proportion more comfortable Balance between solid and void Enough sky but also walls to protect Low and narrow means coziness, familiarity, intimacy without being claustrophobic Moderately narrow streets give sense of security, wide streets and short building give a feeling of insecurity Too close means confinement, too open means insecure Narrow means no where to escape, no time to react Narrow means safer, but not canyon Closed reduce reaction time The more I see the safer I feel Low and narrow means safer; it cradles you Enclosed spaces mean more density of pedestrian which means more witnesses Smaller streets mean high density and more people to help Scale Coziness Height and width in relation to the human scale Smaller scales relate more to humans Open spaces are easy to escape in smaller spaces you find people easier when you need them Height High buildings mean more people; which is safer Width Wide is not comfortable, narrow means coziness If too wide it is socially alienating

PAGE 134

134 SafetyPerceived enclosure40 30 20 10 0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Observed Linear Quadratic Figure 6-1. Curve estimation to predic t safety using perceived enclosure.

PAGE 135

135 SafetyArea of scene covered by walls.7 .6 .5 .4 .3 .2 .1 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Observed Linear Quadratic Figure 6-2. Curve estimation to predict safety using proportions of scene covered by walls.

PAGE 136

136 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Urban street spaces in toda ys cities are merely byproducts of planning and design decisions including buildings heights, density, and transportation regulations. The resulting spaces have second-order functions that impact sense of comfort and safety. One major secondorder function is the degree of enclosure, which can be measured using the ratio of height to width and scale of these spaces. My research ex amined how the sensorial value of enclosure influences comfort and safety, and established a certain degree of enclosure that satisfies ideal comfort and safety perceptions, and concluded th resholds for comfort and safety, below which, urban street spaces are not comfortable and safe. This section, first, fits my research into the body of space-morphology inquiry; and eventually within urban planning and design theory. Second, it summarizes conclusions on the influence of ratio and scale on perceived enclosur e. Third, it presents conclusions pertaining to the influence of enclosure; simulated and perceive d, on senses of comfort and safety. Finally, the section presents the methodologica l limitations encountered in my research, and the alternative possibilities. Connection to Urban Design Theory Urban design operates over the line that se parates public and privates realms. It is responsible for the interaction between the public and the private realms, and it seeks a fit of the social and the physical urban layers. The physical dimension of urban design is concerned with urban masses and voids, while the social dimens ion is concerned with the extension of our private life into the public realm, or our public life. Space-morphology approach in urban design is concerned with the impact of three-dimens ional spaces and masses on other urban systems;

PAGE 137

137 including social and behavioral aspects. Such approach connects to the social approach in a probabilistic manner. This means that design influences social systems such that it allows necessary activities to linger and it has a direct cause-effect relationship with optional activities. Urban streets constitute the major part of urban spaces in todays cities. The spacemorphological quality of our cities is a product of the streets tw o-dimensional layout at larger scale, and their three-dimensional geometric nature at smaller scales. While, at larger scale, we identify with our cities using lines and point elements like landmarks, paths, and edges, at smaller scales, we perceive our localities using volumes and masses that fall within our cone of vision. The volumetric qualities of urban streets is communicated to us through our perceptual capacities, subsequently we make a decision to interact one way or another. Our collective social decisions, derived from perception, determine th e fit or misfit between the physical and social layers of urban design. There are numerous factors that encourage people to retreat into private domains, leaving behind them dead urban spaces. These factors include socio-economic factors like social lifestyles, technology, privatizat ion and fear. On the other hand, they include planning and design factors like functional zoning, decentrali zation of land uses, vehicles-oriented planning and loss of social spaces, market-oriented developm ent, and the distribution of activities in time and space resulting in an amorphous urban milieu. In addition to its functional meaning, the physical urban environment has a second-order meaning; the perceptual meaning. The perceptual meaning of the physical urban environment is primarily a function of complexity and architectu ral articulation in addition to geometric quality and enclosure; and both are conveyed to humans through cognition. Both functions evoke in humans, senses of fear or safety, ease or anxi ety, curiosity or apathy, amusement or boredom,

PAGE 138

138 and freedom or restriction. While a degree of complexity mean s a degree of detailing that engages humans in an interesting urban experience, a degree of enclosure is needed to offer a psychological shelter but not rest riction and claustrophobia. There is a point of balance between the human needs of security and freedo m where enclosure allows for both. My research relied on the premise that different simulated geometric dimensions of urban street spaces evoke different estimations of encl osure values, and consequently different feelings of comfort and safety. It conclude s that this hypothesis is true, a nd that each different simulated scene evoke different perceived enclosure and consequently different sense of comfort and safety. It also concludes that there are strong associations as well. For example, perceived enclosure changes in a systematic linear manner, when ratio and scale of the urban street space change, while senses of comfort and safety cha nge in a systematic curvilinear manner, when enclosure changes. Perceived Enclosure The degree of enclosure that is needed is a balance of the height of the defining buildings with the width of the street. My research conf irms both theoretical and empirical literature in urban design that suggests this balance. My research concludes that the sensorial value of enclosure in urban street space is a function of its height-to-width ratio and scale, and that perceived enclosure increases as ratio increase s and as scale decreases. Perceived enclosure correlated with ratio at rho = .94, with scale at rh o = -.68, with height at rho =.77, and with width at rho = -.86. When ratio and scale are operating together, ra tio influences enclosure and consequently sense of comfort and safety regardless of the sc ale values, while the opposite is not true; ratio values should be controlled before scale starts to have an influence. Scale, based on that, can be indicated by width, because the height variable is already embedded in the ratio variable. My

PAGE 139

139 research concludes that it is more practical to use ratio with width as functions of enclosure for simulation experiments. Both ratio and width we re able to estimate 87.63%.of the perceived enclosure correctly. The research proposed equa tion (4-1) to predict perceived enclosure from ratio and width. My research concludes as well that while within-subjects (space) independent variables influence perceived enclosure, the between-subject (demographic) variables have no significant influence on it. Sense of Comfort and Safety Senses of comfort and safety are influenced by height-to-width ratio and scale of urban street space; ratio value of 3/ 4 and scale value of 1,600 sq ft are the balance points where the highest comfort and safety levels were detected The relationships of ratio and both comfort and safety are not linear. Both comfort and safety have positive correlations with ratio at rho = 0.92, for ratio values 3/4, and negative correlations at rho = -0.84, -0.85, respectively, for ratio values 3/4. Both comfort and safety have positive co rrelations with scale at rho = 0.77, 0.66, respectively, for scale values 1,600, and negative correlations w ith scale at rho = -0.75, -0.78, respectively, for scale values >1,600. Ratio and width are able to predict 74.88% of comfort responses and 71.36% of safety responses correc tly. The research proposes equations (5-5) and (5-6) to predict comfort and safety, respectively, from ratio and width. Demographic differences have relatively smalle r, yet statistically significant, influence on senses of comfort and safety compared to spac e variables. Gender groups agreed at rho = .84 for comfort, at rho = .74 for safety. Age groups agreed at rho = .71 to .93 for comfort, and at rho = .75 to .86 for safety. Design background groups agr eed at rho = .79 for comfort, and at rho = .69 for safety. Inhabitants of urban, suburban and rura l areas agreed at rho = .53 to .92 for comfort, and at rho = .47 to.93 for safety. Inhabitants of ar eas with different building heights agreed at rho = .80 to .91 for comfort, and at rho = .71to .91 for safety. Inhabitants of areas with different

PAGE 140

140 street widths agreed at rho = .79 to .97 for comf ort, and at rho = .75 to .91 for safety. There are statistically significant differences in all demogr aphic variables, however, the type of living area has the heaviest influence on peoples senses of comfort and safety in urban street spaces; inhabitants of rural areas feel mo re comfortable and safer in urba n spaces with lower ratios and larger scales compared to inhabitants of urban and suburban areas. My research hypothesized that sense of comf ort and sense of safety are influenced differently by enclosure. Small differences we re detected especially in the span of the relationships; safety has a more relaxed invert ed U-shape relationship and a wider span than comfort. While the ratio of 3/4 received the highest responses on comfort and safety scales, safety span was wider to include more values of higher ratios than comfort, comfortable ratios span was R = 1/4 to 4, while safe ratios span was R = 1/4 to 7. This can be attributed to the fact that sense of safety was more influenced by th e reaction distance and pe rsonal space, explained by the prospect and refuge theory, than sense of comfort. Within the design framework of my research, the overall conclusion is that both comfort and safety are influenced similarly by enclosure as they accord at (rho = 0.96), and the differences between them are minimal. A research design that is specifically oriented to ward investigating these differences might produce more solid results. The empirical literature that investigated enclosure has used proportions of walls and ground of the stimuli scenes as indicators of en closure. While my research confirms the findings of this line of empirical work concerning perc eived enclosure, it does not confirm the reported linear relationship between enclosure and safety. My research asserts that to predict comfort or safety from enclosure, at least a 2nd polynomial function should be considered to describe the relationship.

PAGE 141

141 My research presents its finding as a co mponent of knowledge within space-morphology studies. While the main purpose of the research is describing relationshi ps of enclosure with comfort and safety in an empirical framework, it reaches out to suggest considering ten urban planning and design policies that support the im plementation of these findings. These policies are two types; policies for future urban expans ions and new cities, and policies for modifying existing urban conditions. For future development and urban expansion, the first policy suggests low-rise and highdensity morphology, which enhances the opportunity for positive urban spaces to appear, insures minimum setbacks, maintains less empty lots, and allow for continuous street walls. The second policy is planning smaller blocks and narrower stre ets, which facilitates the creation of smaller urban street spaces and higher physic al and visual connectivity. Th e third policy is considering a minimum and maximum height corresponding to each street width in addition to height recesses and setbacks when higher buildings are inevitabl e. The fourth policy is integrating arcades, awnings, and canopies on the street sides to help establish the desired degree of enclosure when wider streets are inevitable. The fifth policy is at taching buildings heights to the length of street segments, and to use this relationship to manipul ate enclosure; because longer street segments introduce more enclosure. For existing conditions, the first policy is con centrating efforts on streets that have the potential in their scale, closer to 1,600 sq. ft, to be modified into pedestrian-friendly ones. The second policy is eliminating urban street elements that impose an undesired degree of enclosure; usually those that increase ratio in narrow stre ets like commercial signage and light poles. The third policy is to articulate material and color to increase the degree of enclosure or decrease it. The fourth policy is enacting regulatory grounds to motivate adding more floors in spaces with

PAGE 142

142 lower ratio values. The fifth policy is breaking larg er spaces into smaller subspaces by means of trees and street furniture. Methodological Notes For the purposes of investigating geometric qualities of the urban environment and the effect of its physical dimension on behavioral dimension of human beings, computer simulation was found to be a practical and reliable method. Simulated height has a high positive correlation, at rho = .90, with perceived height, and simula ted width has a high positive correlation at rho = .77 with perceived width. Providing the use of th e appropriate realistic textures and articulations as much as the scientific protocol permits, it is possible to convey geometric information of urban street spaces to people through computer simulation. For the purposes of specifically conveying the se nsorial value of enclosure in urban street spaces, computer simulation has as well proved to be a practical and reli able method. The ratio variable is a strong estimator of enclosure (rho = 0.936), while scale is a relatively weaker estimator of enclosure (rho = 0.683). Based on that, scale can be indicated by width (rho = .86), where both ratio and width are capable of estimating 87% of enclosure correctly. One possible interpretation of the scale performan ce relative to ratio is that scale of urban street space cannot be completely conveyed by computer simulation, and people need to be physically in real-life environment to actually sense the expansiveness of urban spaces. This possibility doesnt imply that s cale cannot be conveyed through simulation, it just states that scale can not be conveyed at the same time as ratio. This leaves the unresolved question as follows; while scale in simulated environments is ove rwhelmed by ratio, is this also true in reallife and in more immersive simulated environments?

PAGE 143

143 Recommendations This section presents recomme ndations for potential future research. Future research can follow the protocol of my research for purpos es of investigating th e influence of urban environment on peoples perceptions. Some potentia l relationships that can be investigated include the relationship of simulated enclosure w ith variables of archite ctural articulation and texture complexity, building functions, trees, shadows, cars and street furniture, or different cultural spacescapes. Other recommendations are concerned with the relationships of comfort and safety with variables of ma ss-to-void density, street and block structure and scale, or stationary urban spaces, and the differences of comfort and safety senses. Among the environmental factors that may have an influence on peoples perceptions are architectural articulation and texture. Different ar chitectural treatments and texture complexities need to be measured and related to perception of enclosure in urban street spaces. Previous studies that can help as starting points for such research are Kaplan and Kaplan (1989), Garc a et al. (2006), Heath et al. (2000), Krampen (1979), and Stamps, (1999). Another environmental factor that may have an influence on peoples perception of urban spaces is the scale of street pattern. What size of urban blocks produces livable and comfortable environments for its users? The independent va riables can be areas of urban blocks, building heights, and streets widths. The stimuli can i nvolve an animation of a tour or real-time visualization. If animation and real-time visu alization are used, it is recommended to keep the number of variables to the minimum for bette r management of the scientific protocol. Following the same line of my research, enclosure in urban spaces of more stationary natures; i.e., squares or plazas, can be investigated. Methodological modifications include introducing the third dimension which is the depth of the space. This potential research may have

PAGE 144

144 four independent variables width-to-depth ratio, height-to-width ratio, height-to-depth ratio, and volume. Another intriguing line of research is measuri ng enclosure as influenced by different urban functions. Some urban functions have invi ting faades while some do not. The visual permeability at the ground floor level may evoke di fferent degrees of perceived enclosure. Some functions interfaced with permeable material extend the urban spaces inside private domains. While other functions interfaced with opaque ma terials strictly define the urban space. Trees may have a strong impact on sense of en closure. One line of research could be measuring enclosure with and without trees, and calculating what volumes or numbers of trees produce what difference in perceived enclosure. Th is is rather a difficult task, where quantifying trees is a challenging objective. One other line of research could be calculati ng the mass-to-void densities in different area of the cities using GIS, and relating that to inhabitants co mfort levels. The use of two measurement groups can isolate the non physical factors; measurement of responses for inhabitants in real-life contexts and measurement of responses fo r computer simulated densities. This line of research is expected to have numerous methodological challenges. Another possible future research involves re plications of my research using different simulation methods. While replicating my research in real-life context is virtually impossible, more immersive simulated environment, for example, may be able to convey scale variances more efficiently than the method of my resear ch. Literature suggests that there are minimum differences between different methods of simula tion; such possible research can verify this notion.

PAGE 145

145 A possible area of inquiry is to investigate the differences between comfort and safety themselves, and to explain why they have differe nt acceptable ranges relative to ratio categories. Such possible research can include the reaction time, and can tie that to dist ances, in the light of the prospect and refuge theory. For example, what widths and depths are associated with what higher and lower sense of safety? Moreover, wh at demographic differences can explain the contradicting sense of safety concerning width? Shadow was embedded in my research method and was attached to the degree of enclosure. What if shadow was not included, an d to what extent does it contribute to explaining the outcomes from comfort and safety responses ? Cars were not included in my research method. If cars were included, how much would th ey shift the relationship of comfort and safety with perceived enclosure and simulated values of ratio and scale, and to what extent would they influence safety responses differently from comfort? Replicating my research in a different region of the world may produce results that confirm or contradict it. There are indications that pe ople from regions with high population densities depart significantly in their perception from the mean perceptions of people from regions with lower population densities. There are also indica tions that people who are accustomed to cities that have historical roots have a different perspective about en closure from those who are not. Moreover, the culture of the urbanscape may ha ve different perceptual implications. Stone construction, for example, may have a different vi sual impact and safety implications than wood construction. Theoretically, the dilemma of physical versus social environments or the relationship of the social structure and the spatial structure of th e city and how they are made to fit together is perhaps the most important line of research th at need to be advanced now. The problem that

PAGE 146

146 faces empirical research in this context is quan tification of the social side of the equation. Population densities, yearly income, and ethni c groups are among the easiest variables of the social structure that can be quantified. However, the social structure is deeply rooted in culture and history, and it is perhaps the ultimate cha llenge to quantify such intangible values. One possible ground for a start is to measure the shi fts of the line that sepa rates public and private realms, and the physical overlapping circles of shared territorial sense as an indicator of different social lifestyles and cultural contexts. The shar ed territorial sense is a bounded physical area within which an individual, a group of individua ls, or certain social units have senses of belonging and social attachment. If communities are fragmented, it is possibl e to find this line matching the private ownership of the individual or the family, while it is possible to find more than one circle of belonging pertaining to each level of social bonds in more socially-connected contexts. The first step could be an attempt to promote a tool to measure the associations of societal connectedness with perceived territorial sense quantified by th e physical area of sens e of territoriality. Upon establishing an indicator, further research may use this indicator to establish how territoriality impact urban experience. When quantifying both so cial and physical realms is possible, an empirical work can actually reveal important relationships. Theoretical constructs that should help as a starting point to pursue this line of research are Newman (1972), (Akbar 1988), and Kostof (1992).

PAGE 147

147 APPENDIX A ON-SCREEN SURVEY Figure A-1. Survey introductory page.

PAGE 148

148 Figure A-2. Survey page 2; extreme cases.

PAGE 149

149 Figure A-3. Survey page 3. Choices of most comfortable three spaces, most uncomfortable space, most safe three spaces, and most unsafe safe.

PAGE 150

150 Figure A-4. Survey page 4. Rating comfort, safety and enclosure levels and perceived height and width. This page was repeated 42 times for each case.

PAGE 151

151 Figure A-5. Survey page 5. Partici pants reasoning of their responses.

PAGE 152

152 Figure A-6. Survey page 6. Demographic differen ces of gender, age, profession, and nature of living area.

PAGE 153

153 APPENDIX B PERCIEVED ENCLOSURE ACROSS DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES Table B-1. Mann-Whitney test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of men and women across 3 ratio categories. N Perceived enclosure MR Test statisticsa Gender Gender Ratio Male Female Total Male Female MannWhitney U Z Asymp Sig. 1/6-1/3 53 30 83 42.13 41.77 788.000 0.067 0.947 1/2-2 53 30 83 41.68 42.57 778.000 0.161 0.872 3-6 53 30 83 40.67 44.35 724.500 0.668 0.504 aGrouping variable: gender. Table B-2. Mann-Whitney test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of men and women across 3 scale groups. N Perceived enclosure MR Test statisticsa Gender Gender Male Female Total Male Female MannWhitney U Z Asymp. Sig. Small 53 30 83 44.18 38.15 679.500 1.101 0.271 Medium 53 30 83 42.09 41.83 790.000 0.048 0.962 Large 53 30 83 39.38 46.63 656.000 1.321 0.187 aGrouping variable: gender. Table B-3. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of the 3 age groups across 3 ratio categories. N Perceived enclosure MR Test statisticsa,b Age Age Ratio < 24 25-32 >32 Total < 24 25-32 >32 ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. 1/6-1/3 31 25 27 83 39.83 41.72 44.69 0.581 2 0.748 1/2-2 31 25 27 83 42.48 38.06 45.09 1.125 2 0.570 3-6 31 25 27 83 40.35 36.40 49.07 3.820 2 0.148 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: age.

PAGE 154

154 Table B-4. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of the 3 age groups across 3 scale groups. N Perceived enclosure MR Test statisticsa,b Age Age Scale < 24 25-32 >32 Total < 24 25-32 >32 ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. Small 31 25 27 83 42.39 40.20 43.22 0.219 2 0.896 Medium 31 25 27 83 40.10 40.68 44.48 0.493 2 0.782 Large 31 25 27 83 37.45 38.68 50.30 4.799 2 0.091 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: age. Table B-5. Mann-Whitney Test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of designer and non designer groups across 3 ratio categories. N Perceived enclosure MR Test statisticsa Design background D esign backgroun d Ratio Yes No Total Yes. No MannWhitney U Z Asymp Sig. 1/6-1/3 30 52 82 41.50 41.50 780.000 0.000 1.000 1/2-2 30 52 82 40.80 41.90 759.000 0.202 0.840 3-6 30 52 82 44.18 39.95 699.500 0.775 0.438 aGrouping variable: design background. Table B-6. Mann-Whitney Test for differences of perceived enclosure scores of designer and non designer across 3 scale groups. N Perceived enclosure MR Test statisticsa Design background D esign backgroun d Scale Yes No Total Yes. No MannWhitney U Z Asymp Sig. Small 30 52 82 39.18 42.84 710.500 0.637 0.501 Medium 30 52 82 45.38 39.26 663.500 1.132 0.258 Large 30 52 82 43.92 40.11 707.500 0.700 0.484 aGrouping variable: design background. Table B-7. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosur e scores relative to the types of living area across 3 ratio categories. N Perceived enclosure MR Test statisticsa,b Living area Living area Ratio Urban Suburban RuralTotalUrban SuburbanRural ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. 1/6-1/3 36 38 7 81 37.17 43.71 46.001.784 2 0.410 1/2-2 36 38 7 81 34.35 47.05 42.365.419 2 0.067 3-6 36 38 7 81 41.21 40.82 40.930.005 2 0.997 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: type of living area.

PAGE 155

155 Table B-8. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosur e scores relative to the type of living area across 3 scale groups. N Perceived enclosure MR Test statisticsa,b Living area Living area Scale Urban Suburban RuralTotalUrban SuburbanRural ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. Small 36 38 7 81 34.57 45.83 47.864.944 2 0.084 Medium 36 38 7 81 39.64 44.28 30.212.373 2 0.305 Large 36 38 7 81 45.44 36.45 42.862.764 2 0.251 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: type of living area. Table B-9. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the height of buildings in the living area across 3 scale groups. N Perceived enclosure MR Test statisticsa,b Height of buildings in area of living (floors) Height of buildings in living area (floors) Scale 1-2 3-4 5-6 >6 Total1-2 3-4 5-6 >6 ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. Small 34 19 13 17 83 46.8239.8948.8529.477.235 3 0.065 Medium 34 19 13 17 83 37.9043.9554.5438.445.092 3 0.165 Large 34 19 13 17 83 37.8543.0547.0845.241.935 3 0.586 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: height of buildings in living area. Table B-10. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure sc ores relative to the height of buildings in the livi ng area, across simulated heights. N Perceived enclosure MR Test statisticsa,b Height of buildings in area of living (floors) Height of buildings in living area (floors) Simulated height 1-2 3-4 5-6 >6 Total1-2 3-4 5-6 >6 ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. 20 ft 34 19 13 17 83 46.6835.7943.6538.32 3.032 30.387 30 ft 34 19 13 17 83 43.6040.2155.6530.35 8.482 30.037 40 ft 34 19 13 17 83 44.3139.1354.6930.88 7.908 30.048 60 ft 34 19 13 17 83 36.6348.9555.5834.59 9.158 30.027 >60 ft 34 19 13 17 83 37.9444.2447.7743.21 1.917 30.590 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: height of buildings in living area.

PAGE 156

156 Table B-11. Kruskal Wallis test fo r differences in perceived enclos ure scores relative to widths of streets in the living area across 3 scale groups. N Perceived enclosure MR Test statisticsa,b Width of streets in area of living (lanes) Width of streets in area of living (lanes) Scale 1-2 3-4 >4 Total 1-2 3-4 >4 ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. Small 37 39 7 83 45.57 40.91 29.21 2.894 2 0.235 Medium 37 39 7 83 41.88 41.45 45.71 0.191 2 0.909 Large 37 39 7 83 41.11 41.74 48.14 0.512 2 0.774 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: width of streets in living area. Table B-12. Kruskal Wallis test fo r differences in perceived enclos ure scores relative to widths of streets in the living area across simulated widths. N Perceived enclosure MR Test statisticsa,b Width of streets in area of living (lanes) Width of streets in area of living (lanes) Simulated width 1-2 3-4 >4 Total 1-2 3-4 >4 ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. 20 ft 37 39 7 83 47.61 39.23 27.79 4.986 2 0.083 30 ft 37 39 7 83 45.68 40.21 32.57 2.166 2 0.339 40 ft 37 39 7 83 40.27 42.36 49.14 0.821 2 0.663 60 ft 37 39 7 83 44.14 39.81 42.93 0.630 2 0.730 90 ft 37 39 7 83 43.58 40.05 44.50 0.494 2 0.781 130 ft 37 39 7 83 40.58 42.64 45.93 0.345 2 0.842 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: width of streets in living area.

PAGE 157

157 Male Female Gender Statistics Mean Rank 1/6 1/31/2 23 6 Ratio 41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00P e r c e i v e d e n c l o s u r e Figure B-1. Differences in perceived enclos ure scores of men and women across 14 ratio categories. Male Female Gender SmallMediumLarge Scale 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00P e r c e i v e d e n c l o s u r e Statistics Mean Rank Figure B-2. Differences in perceived enclosure scores of men and women across 3 scale groups.

PAGE 158

158 < 24 years 25 32 years > 32 years Age Statistics Mean Rank 1/6 1/31/2 23 6 Ratio 36.00 40.00 44.00 48.00P e r c e i v e d e n c l o s u r e Figure B-3. Differences in perceived enclosur e scores of the 3 age groups across 3 ratio categories. < 24 years 25 32 years > 32 years Age SmallMediumLarge Scale 40.00 45.00 50.00P e r c e i v e d e n c l o s u r e Statistics Mean Rank Figure B-4. Differences in perceived enclosure sc ores of the 3 age groups across 3 scale groups.

PAGE 159

159 Nondesigner Designer Designer/ Nondesigner Statistics Mean Rank 1/6 1/31/2 23 6 Ratio 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00P e r c e i v e d e n c l o s u r e Figure B-5. Differences in perceived enclosure scores of designers and non designers across 3 ratio categories. Nondesigner Designer Designer/Nondesigner SmallMediumLarge Scale 40.00 42.00 44.00P e r c e i v e d e n c l o s u r e Statistics Mean Rank Figure B-6. Differences in perceived enclosure scores of designers and non designers across 3 scale groups.

PAGE 160

160 Urban Suburban Rural Area of living Statistics Mean Rank 1/6 1/31/2 23 6 Ratio 35.00 40.00 45.00P e r c e i v e d e n c l o s u r e Figure B-7. Differences in perceived enclosure scor es relative to the types of living area across 3 ratio categories. Urban Suburban Rural Area of living SmallMediumLarge Scale 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00P e r c e i v e d e n c l o s u r e Statistics Mean Rank Figure B-8. Differences in perceived enclosure scor es relative to the type of living area across 3 scale groups.

PAGE 161

161 1-2 floors 3-4 floors 5-6 floors above 6 floors Height of Buildings SmallMediumLarge Scale 30.00 40.00 50.00P e r c e i v e d e n c l o s u r e Statistics Mean Rank Figure B-9. Differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the height of buildings in living area, across 3 scale groups. 1-2 floors 3-4 floors 5-6 floors above 6 floors Height of Buildings in Area of Living Statistics Mean Rank 20 ft30 ft40 ft60 ft> 60 ft Simulated heights 30.00 40.00 50.00P e r c e i v e d e n c l o s u r e Figure B-10. Differences in perceived enclosure sc ores relative to the height of buildings in living area, across simulated heights.

PAGE 162

162 1-2 lanes 3-4 lanes > 4 lanes Width of streets SmallMediumLarge Scale 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00P e r c e i v e d e n c l o s u r e Statistics Mean Rank Figure B-11. Differences in perceived enclosure scor es relative to the width of streets in living area across 3 scale groups. 1-2 lanes 3-4 lanes > 4 lanes Width of streets in Area of Living Statistics Mean Rank 20 ft30 ft40 ft60 ft90 ft130 ft Simulated widths 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00P e rc e i v e d e n c l o s u re Figure B-12. Differences in perceived enclosure scor es relative to the width of streets in living area across simulated widths.

PAGE 163

163 APPENDIX C WEIGHTED FREQUENCIES OF COMFORT AND SAFETY RESPONSES Table C-1. Frequencies of choices for most co mfortable and safest spaces, ranked by weighted frequencies. Space Weighted frequencies of 3 most Comfortable spaces Space Weighted frequencies of 3 safest spaces Space(20,40,0.5) 659 Space(30,30,1) 693 Space(30,40,0.75) 657 Space(40,40,1) 659 Space(40,30,1.33) 653 Space(30,20,1.5) 654 Space(40,40,1) 618 Space(20,20,1) 583 Space(20,20,1) 617 Space(30,40,0.75) 454 Space(30,30,1) 576 Space(40,30,1.33) 449 Space(60,40,1.5) 490 Space(20,30,0.67) 413 Space(30,20,1.5) 460 Space(30,60,0.5) 409 Space(60,60,1) 408 Space(20,130,0.15) 376 Space(780,130,6) 407 Space(60,40,1.5) 370 Space(20,30,0.67) 375 Space(60,30,2) 370 Space(40,60,0.67) 369 Space(20,60,0.33) 330 Space(60,30,2) 327 Space(20,40,0.5) 329 Space(20,60,0.33) 325 Space(40,20,2) 325 Space(220,90,2.44) 287 Space(40,60,0.67) 285 Space(120,40,3) 284 Space(780,130,6) 246 Space(160,60,2.67) 283 Space(100,30,3.33) 246 Space(30,60,0.5) 249 Space(120,40,3) 246 Space(300,130,2.31) 246 Space(20,90,0.22) 245 Space(60,90,0.67) 244 Space(120,20,6) 206 Space(40,20,2) 244 Space(160,60,2.67) 206 Space(60,20,3) 206 Space(40,90,0.44) 204 Space(100,30,3.33) 162 Space(60,60,1) 203 Space(360,60,6) 124 Space(540,90,6) 201 Space(540,90,6) 123 Space(60,90,0.67) 165 Space(540,130,4.15) 122 Space(30,130,0.23) 164 Space(260,60,4.33) 121 Space(300,130,2.31) 123 Space(120,20,6) 83 Space(60,20,3) 122 Space(180,40,4.5) 82 Space(380,90,4.22) 121 Space(240,40,6) 82 Space(30,90,0.33) 120 Space(20,90,0.22) 81 Space(80,20,4) 83 Space(380,90,4.22) 80 Space(540,130,4.15) 82 Space(20,130,0.15) 42 Space(240,40,6) 82 Space(30,130,0.23) 42 Space(360,60,6) 81 Space(180,30,6) 41 Space(140,30,4.67) 81 Space(40,90,0.44) 40 Space(220,90,2.44) 80 Space(100,20,5) 0 Space(20,20,1) 42

PAGE 164

164 Table C-1. Continued. Space Weighted frequencies of 3 most Comfortable spaces Space Weighted frequencies of 3 safest spaces Space(80,20,4) 0 Space(100,20,5) 41 Space(20,20,1) 0 Space(180,40,4.5) 40 Space(140,30,4.67) 0 Space(180,30,6) 40 Space(40,130,0.31) 0 Space(40,130,0.31) 40 Space(30,90,0.33) 0 Space(260,60,4.33) 0 Table C-2. Frequencies of choices for le ast comfortable and least safe spaces. Space Name Frequencies of choices for least comfortable space Space Name Frequencies of choices for least safe space Space(120,20,6) 37 Space(120,20,6) 25 Space(20,130,0.15) 26 Space(20,130,0.15) 21 Space(780,130,6) 13 Space(780,130,6) 21 Space(20,20,1) 3 Space(20,20,1) 3 Space(100,20,5) 1 Space(100,20,5) 2 Space(20,60,0.33) 1 Space(540,90,6) 2 Space(360,60,6) 1 Space(20,90,0.22) 2 Space(30,130,0.23) 1 Space(60,20,3) 2 Space(60,40,1.5) 0 Space(60,90,0.67) 1 Space(80,20,4) 0 Space(40,20,2) 1 Space(40,90,0.44) 0 Space(360,60,6) 1 Space(300,130,2.31) 0 Space(180,30,6) 1 Space(20,40,0.5) 0 Space(30,130,0.23) 1 Space(220,90,2.44) 0 Space(60,40,1.5) 0 Space(20,30,0.67) 0 Space(80,20,4) 0 Space(30,60,0.5) 0 Space(40,90,0.44) 0 Space(60,90,0.67) 0 Space(300,130,2.31) 0 Space(40,60,0.67) 0 Space(20,40,0.5) 0 Space(540,90,6) 0 Space(220,90,2.44) 0 Space(40,20,2) 0 Space(20,30,0.67) 0 Space(40,30,1.33) 0 Space(20,60,0.33) 0 Space(60,60,1) 0 Space(30,60,0.5) 0 Space(20,90,0.22) 0 Space(40,60,0.67) 0 Space(20,20,1) 0 Space(40,30,1.33) 0 Space(60,20,3) 0 Space(60,60,1) 0 Space(180,40,4.5) 0 Space(20,20,1) 0 Space(540,130,4.15) 0 Space(180,40,4.5) 0 Space(180,30,6) 0 Space(540,130,4.15) 0 Space(260,60,4.33) 0 Space(260,60,4.33) 0 Space(380,90,4.22) 0 Space(380,90,4.22) 0 Space(40,40,1) 0 Space(40,40,1) 0 Space(160,60,2.67) 0 Space(160,60,2.67) 0

PAGE 165

165 Table C-2. Continued. Space Weighted frequencies of 3 most Comfortable spaces spaces Space Weighted frequencies of 3 safest spaces Space(30,40,0.75) 0 Space(30,40,0.75) 0 Space(240,40,6) 0 Space(240,40,6) 0 Space(100,30,3.33) 0 Space(100,30,3.33) 0 Space(120,40,3) 0 Space(120,40,3) 0 Space(140,30,4.67) 0 Space(140,30,4.67) 0 Space(60,30,2) 0 Space(60,30,2) 0 Space(30,30,1) 0 Space(30,30,1) 0 Space(40,130,0.31) 0 Space(40,130,0.31) 0 Space(30,20,1.5) 0 Space(30,20,1.5) 0 Space(30,90,0.33) 0 Space(30,90,0.33) 0

PAGE 166

166 Ratio6 5 4 3 2 3/2 1 3/4 2/3 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6Comfort weighted frequencies700.0 600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 A Ratio5 3 3/2 3/4 1/2 1/4 1/6 Safety weighted frequencies700.0 600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 B Figure C-1. Ratio and weighted frequencies of c hoices. A) For most comfortable three spaces, B) For safest three spaces.

PAGE 167

167 Scaleover 21324 5401-21324 3601-5400 2401-3600 1601-2400 801-1600 400-800 Comfort weighted frequencies700.0 600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 A Scaleover 21324 5401-21324 3601-5400 2401-3600 1601-2400 801-1600 400-800 Safety weighted frequencies500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 B Figure C-2. Scale and weighted frequencies of c hoices. A) For most comfortable three spaces. B) For safest three spaces.

PAGE 168

168 APPENDIX D SENSE OF COMFORT AND SAFETY ACROSS DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES Table D-1. Mann-Whitney test for differences in comfort and safety scores of men and women across 3 ratio categories. N Mean rank Test statisticsa Gender Gender Ratio Male Female Total Male Female MannWhitney U Z Asymp Sig. Comfort 1/6-1/3 53 30 83 43.02 40.20 741.000 0.512 0.609 1/2-2 53 30 83 40.92 43.92 737.500 0.545 0.586 3-6 53 30 83 44.80 37.05 656.500 1.408 0.159 Safety 1/6-1/3 53 30 83 44.84 36.98 644.500 1.427 0.154 1/2-2 53 30 83 40.18 45.22 698.500 0.915 0.360 3-6 53 30 83 43.86 38.72 696.500 1.934 0.350 aGrouping variable: gender. Table D-2. Mann-Whitney test for differences in comfort and safety scores of men and women across 3 scale groups. N Mean rank Test statisticsa Gender Gender Scale Male Female Total Male Female MannWhitney U Z Asymp Sig. Comfort Small 53 30 83 38.39 48.38 603.500 1.822 0.069 Medium 53 30 83 43.13 40.00 735.000 0.577 0.564 Large 53 30 83 47.79 31.77 488.000 2.916 0.004 Safety Small 53 30 83 37.60 49.77 562.000 2.220 0.026 Medium 53 30 83 41.08 43.62 746.500 0.464 0.642 Large 53 30 83 47.01 33.15 529.500 2.523 0.012 aGrouping variable: gender.

PAGE 169

169 Table D-3. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores of age groups for 3 ratio categories. N Mean rank Test statisticsa,b Age Age Ratio < 24 25-32 >32 Total < 24 25-32 >32 ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. Comfort 1/6-1/3 31 25 27 83 39.18 41.98 45.26 0.920 2 0.631 1/2-2 31 25 27 83 31.34 51.02 45.89 10.271 2 0.006 3-6 31 25 27 83 43.92 41.34 40.41 0.333 2 0.847 Safety 1/6-1/3 31 25 27 83 41.87 43.20 41.04 0.106 2 0.948 1/2-2 31 25 27 83 36.63 47.02 43.52 2.731 2 0.255 3-6 31 25 27 83 44.40 39.26 41.78 0.634 2 0.729 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: age. Table D-4. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort scores of 3 age groups across 3 scale groups. N Mean rank Test statisticsa,b Age Age Scale < 24 25-32 >32 Total < 24 25-32 >32 ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. Comfort Small 31 25 27 83 32.60 49.04 46.28 7.756 2 0.210 Medium 31 25 27 83 36.50 48.16 42.61 3.360 2 0.186 Large 31 25 27 83 48.47 41.12 35.07 4.707 2 0.095 Safety Small 31 25 27 83 33.11 47.16 47.43 6.798 2 0.033 Medium 31 25 27 83 39.60 45.16 41.83 0.754 2 0.686 Large 31 25 27 83 46.76 38.86 39.44 1.945 2 0.378 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: age.

PAGE 170

170 Table D-5. Mann-Whitney test for differences in comfort and safety scores of designer and non designer groups across 3 ratio categories. N Mean rank Test statisticsa Design background D esign backgroun d Ratio Yes No Total Yes. No MannWhitney U Z Asymp Sig. Comfort 1/6-1/3 30 52 82 34.08 45.78 557.500 2.143 0.032 1/2-2 30 52 82 41.55 41.47 778.500 0.014 0.988 3-6 30 52 82 51.63 53.65 476.000 2.927 0.003 Safety 1/6-1/3 30 52 82 36.37 44.64 626.000 1.483 0.138 1/2-2 30 52 82 44.97 39.50 676.000 1.001 0.317 3-6 30 52 82 52.93 34.90 437.000 3.302 0.001 aGrouping variable: design background. Table D-6. Mann-Whitney Test for differences in comfort scores of designer and non designer groups across 3 scale groups. N Mean rank Test statisticsa Design background D esign backgroun d scale Yes No Total Yes. No MannWhitney U Z Asymp Sig. Comfort Small 30 52 82 39.70 42.54 726.000 0.522 0.602 Medium 30 52 82 45.27 39.33 667.000 1.103 0.270 Large 30 52 82 42.62 40.86 746.500 0.323 0.747 Safety Small 30 52 82 40.47 42.10 749.000 0.300 0.764 Medium 30 52 82 47.45 38.07 601.500 1.735 0.083 Large 30 52 82 44.00 40.06 705.00 0.724 0.469 aGrouping variable: design background.

PAGE 171

171 Table D-7. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the types of living area across 3 ratio categories. N Mean rank Test statisticsa,b Living area Living area Ratio Urban Suburban RuralTotalUrban SuburbanRural ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. Comfort 1/6-1/3 36 38 7 81 43.40 35.08 60.797.740 2 0.021 1/2-2 36 38 7 81 48.38 35.66 32.716.507 2 0.039 3-6 36 38 7 81 45.99 37.07 36.712.912 2 0.233 Safety 1/6-1/3 36 38 7 81 40.29 38.66 57.373.796 2 0.150 1/2-2 36 38 7 81 45.44 37.38 37.792.315 2 0.314 3-6 36 38 7 81 44.65 39.07 32.711.993 2 0.369 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: type of living area. Table D-8. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in co mfort and safety scores relative to the type of living area across 3 scale groups. N Mean rank Test statisticsa,b Living area Living area Scale Urban Suburban RuralTotalUrban SuburbanRural ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. Comfort Small 36 38 7 81 48.29 36.24 29.366.779 2 0.034 Medium 36 38 7 81 45.39 38.12 34.072.499 2 0.287 Large 36 38 7 81 40.58 40.04 48.360.762 2 0.683 Safety Small 36 38 7 81 48.56 36.12 28.467.351 2 0.025 Medium 36 38 7 81 44.43 38.46 37.141.424 2 0.491 Large 36 38 7 81 41.22 39.50 48.000.781 2 0.677 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: type of living area.

PAGE 172

172 Table D-9. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the height of buildings in the living area across 3 scale groups. N Mean rank Test statisticsa,b Height of buildings in area of living (floors) Height of buildings in living area (floors) Scale 1-2 3-4 5-6 >6 Total1-2 3-4 5-6 >6 ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. Comfort Small 34 19 13 17 83 40.2638.2437.5053.124.743 3 0.192 Medium 34 19 13 17 83 40.4041.2132.8853.065.773 3 0.123 Large 34 19 13 17 83 37.7842.4239.4251.944.105 3 0.250 Safety Small 34 19 13 17 83 41.4037.9533.3854.326.733 3 0.081 Medium 34 19 13 17 83 39.7446.4532.6584.714.305 3 0.230 Large 34 19 13 17 83 38.9036.6644.9651.914.589 3 0.204 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: height of buildings in living area. Table D-10. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the height of buildings in the living ar ea across simulated heights. N Mean rank Test statisticsa,b Height of buildings in area of living (floors) Height of buildings in living area (floors) Simulated height 1-2 3-4 5-6 >6 Total1-2 3-4 5-6 >6 ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. Comfort 20 ft 34 19 13 17 83 42.4743.3236.5443.760.832 3 0.842 30 ft 34 19 13 17 83 40.3743.4734.6949.212.060 3 0.396 40 ft 34 19 13 17 83 38.8241.3240.0050.652.916 3 0.405 60 ft 34 19 13 17 83 35.4640.9238.6558.8511.298 3 0.010 >60 ft 34 19 13 17 83 35.4946.6136.2754.268.327 3 0.040 Safety 20 ft 34 19 13 17 83 40.6240.5342.0846.350.740 3 0.864 30 ft 34 19 13 17 83 41.9439.3942.0445.000.490 3 0.921 40 ft 34 19 13 17 83 39.4644.1341.5045.090.823 3 0.844 60 ft 34 19 13 17 83 39.9040.2434.5053.915.856 3 0.119 >60 ft 34 19 13 17 83 37.0442.1140.2353.155.153 3 0.161 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: height of buildings in living area.

PAGE 173

173 Table D-11. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to widths of streets in the living area across 3 scale groups. N Mean rank Test statisticsa,b Width of streets in area of living (lanes) Width of streets in area of living (lanes) Scale 1-2 3-4 >4 Total 1-2 3-4 >4 ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. Comfort Small 37 39 7 83 39.76 43.49 45.57 0.627 2 0.731 Medium 37 39 7 83 41.35 41.29 49.36 0.733 2 0.693 Large 37 39 7 83 38.07 42.41 60.50 5.140 2 0.077 Safety Small 37 39 7 83 40.42 42.78 46.00 0.397 2 0.820 Medium 37 39 7 83 41.08 41.88 47.50 0.428 2 0.807 Large 37 39 7 83 37.01 43.85 58.07 4.947 2 0.084 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: width of streets in living area. Table D-12. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to widths of streets in the living area across simulated widths. N Mean rank Test statisticsa,b Width of streets in area of living (lanes) Width of streets in area of living (lanes) Simulated width 1-2 3-4 >4 Total 1-2 3-4 >4 ChiSquare df Asymp Sig. Comfort 20 ft 37 39 7 83 36.70 46.62 44.29 3.286 2 0.139 30 ft 37 39 7 83 37.78 44.95 47.86 2.145 2 0.342 40 ft 37 39 7 83 41.41 41.22 49.50 0.754 2 0.686 60 ft 37 39 7 83 39.61 42.12 54.00 2.117 2 0.347 90 ft 37 39 7 83 38.38 43.01 55.43 3.089 2 0.213 130 ft 37 39 7 83 40.12 42.64 48.36 0.742 2 0.690 Safety 20 ft 37 39 7 83 35.27 47.82 45.14 5.288 2 0.071 30 ft 37 39 7 83 37.32 44.92 50.43 2.840 2 0.242 40 ft 37 39 7 83 40.43 42.83 45.64 0.368 2 0.832 60 ft 37 39 7 83 39.01 41.58 60.14 4.574 2 0.102 90 ft 37 39 7 83 38.35 42.95 56.00 3.282 2 0.194 130 ft 37 39 7 83 39.70 42.95 48.86 0.966 2 0.617 aKruskal Wallis test. bGrouping variable: width of streets in living area.

PAGE 174

174 Male Female Gender Statistics Mean Rank 1/6 1/31/2 23 6 Ratio 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00C o m f o r t A Male Female Gender Statistics Mean Rank 1/6 1/31/2 23 6 Ratio 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00S a f e t y B Figure D-1. Differences of comfort and safety mean ranks of men and women across 3 ratio categories. A) Comfort and ra tio. B) Safety and ratio.

PAGE 175

175 Male Female Gender SmallMediumLarge Scale 32.00 36.00 40.00 44.00 48.00C o m f o r t Statistics Mean RankA Male Female Gender SmallMediumLarge Scale 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00S a f e t y Statistics Mean RankB Figure D-2. Differences in comfort and safety scores of men and women across 3 scale groups. A) Comfort and scale. B) Safety and scale.

PAGE 176

176 < 24 years 25 32 years > 32 years Age Statistics Mean Rank 1/6 1/31/2 23 6 Ratio 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00C o m f o r t A < 24 years 25 32 years > 32 years Age Statistics Mean Rank 1/6 1/31/2 23 6 Ratio 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00S a f e t y B Figure D-3. Differences of co mfort and safety mean ranks of age groups across 3 ratio categories. A) Comfort and ra tio. B) Safety and ratio.

PAGE 177

177 < 24 years 25 32 years > 32 years Age SmallMediumLarge Scale 32.00 36.00 40.00 44.00 48.00C o m f o r t Statistics Mean RankA < 24 years 25 32 years > 32 years Age SmallMediumLarge Scale 36.00 40.00 44.00 48.00S a f e t y Statistics Mean RankB Figure D-4. Differences of differences in comf ort and safety scores of 3 age groups across 3 scale groups. A) Comfort and age. B) Safety and age.

PAGE 178

178 Nondesigner Designer Designer/ Nondesigner Statistics Mean Rank 1/6 1/31/2 23 6 Ratio 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00S a f e t y A Nondesigner Designer Designer/ Nondesigner Statistics Mean Rank 1/6 1/31/2 23 6 Ratio 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00S a f e t y B Figure D-5. Differences in comfort and safety scores of designers and non designers across 3 ratio categories. A) Comfort and ratio. B) Safety and Ratio.

PAGE 179

179 Nondesigner Designer Designer/ Nondesigner SmallMediumLargeScale 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00C o m f o r t Statistics Mean RankA Nondesigner Designer Designer/ Nondesigner SmallMediumLarge Scale 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00S a f e t y Statistics Mean RankB Figure D-6. Differences in comfort and safety scores of designers and non designers across 3 scale groups. A) Comfort and sc ale. B) Safety and scale.

PAGE 180

180 Urban Suburban Rural Area of living Statistics Mean Rank 1/6 1/31/2 23 6 Ratio 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00C o m f o r t A Urban Suburban Rural Area of living Statistics Mean Rank 1/6 1/31/2 23 6 Ratio 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00S a f e t y B Figure D-7. Differences in comfort and safety scor es relative to the types of living area across 3 ratio categories. A) Comfort and ratio. B) Safety and ratio.

PAGE 181

181 Urban Suburban Rural Area of living SmallMediumLarge Scale 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00C o m f o r t Statistics Mean RankA Rural Suburban Urban Area of living LargeMediumSmall Scale 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00S a f e t y Statistics Mean RankB Figure D-8. Differences in comfort and safety scor es relative to the type of living area across 3 scale groups. A) Comfort and sc ale. B) Safety and scale.

PAGE 182

182 1-2 floors 3-4 floors 5-6 floors above 6 floors Height of Buildings SmallMediumLarge Scale 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00C o m f o r t Statistics Mean RankA 1-2 floors 3-4 floors 5-6 floors above 6 floors Height of Buildings SmallMediumLarge Scale 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00S a f e t y Statistics Mean RankB Figure D-9. Differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the height of buildings in the living area across 3 scale gr oups. A) Comfort and scale. B) Safety and scale.

PAGE 183

183 1-2 floors 3-4 floors 5-6 floors > 6 floors Height of buildings in area of living Statistics Mean Rank 20 ft30 ft40 ft60 ft> 60 ft Simulated height 36.00 39.00 42.00 45.00 48.00 51.00 54.00 57.00C o m f o r t A 1-2 floors 3-4 floors 5-6 floors > 6 floors Height of buildings in area of living Statistics Mean Rank 20 ft30 ft40 ft60 ft> 60 ft Simulated height 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00S a f e t y B Figure D-10. Differences in comfort scores relative to height of buildings in living area across 7 simulated heights. A) Comfort and simulate d height. B) Safety and simulated height.

PAGE 184

184 1-2 lanes 3-4 lanes > 4 lanes Width of streets SmallMediumLarge Scale 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00C o m f o r t Statistics Mean RankA 1-2 lanes 3-4 lanes > 4 lanes Width of streets SmallMediumLarge Scale 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00S a f e t y Statistics Mean RankB Figure D-11. Differences in comfort and safety cores relative to the widths of streets in the living area across 3 scale groups. A) Comfort and scale. B) Safety and scale.

PAGE 185

185 1-2 lanes 3-4 lanes > 4 lanes Width of streets Statistics Mean Rank 20 ft30 ft40 ft60 ft90 ft130 ft Simulate width 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00C o m f o r t A 1-2 lanes 3-4 lanes > 4 lanes Width of streets Statistics Mean Rank 20 ft30 ft40 ft60 ft90 ft130 ft Simualted width 40.00 50.00 60.00S a f e t y B Figure D-12. Differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the widths of streets in the living area across 6 simulated widths. A) Comf ort and simulated width. B) Safety and simulated width.

PAGE 186

186 LIST OF REFERENCES Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (1997) Statistical Methods for Social Sciences (Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall, Inc.). Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. & Silverstein, M. (1977) A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction (New York, Oxford University Press). Appleton, J. (1975) The experience of landscape (London, William Clowes). Appleyard, D. (1981) Livable Streets (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press). Bacon, E. (1967) Design of Cities (New York, Penguin Books). Bosselmann, P. (1998) Representation of Places: Realty and Realism in City Design (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press). Bosselmann, P. (1993) Dynamic simulations of ur ban environments, in: R. Marans & D. Stokols (Ed.) Environmental Simulation: Research and Policy Issues (New York, Plenum Press). Carmona, M., Heath, T. & Tiesdell, S. (2003) Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design (Burlington, MA, Architectural Press). Chandra, S. & Kumar, U. (2003) Effect of lane width on capacity under mixed traffic conditions in India, Journal of Transportation Engineering 129(2), pp. 155-160. Clipson, C. (1993) Simulation for planning a nd design, in: R. Marans & D. Stokols (Ed.) Environmental Simulation: Research and Policy Issues (New York, Plenum Press). Cullen, G. (1961) The Concise Townscape (New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold). Duany, A. & Plater-Zyberk, E. (1992) Th e second coming of the American small town, Wilson Quarterly 16(1), pp. 49-50. Epstein, R. & Kanwisher, N. (1998) A cortical re presentation of the local visual environment, Nature 392, pp. 598-601. Ewing R., King, M., Raudenbush, S. & Clemente O. J. (2005) Turning highways into main streets: two innovations in planning methodology, Journal of the American Planning Association 71(3), pp. 269-282. Retrieved on 11/12/2005, from ABI/INFORM Global. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), (2005). Chapter 11: Sidewalk Assessment, Planning, Environment, and Real Estate Services (Washington DC, FHWA) Gar a, L., Hernande, J. & Ayugac, F. (2006) Analys is of the materials and exterior texture of agro-industrial buildings: a photo-analytical approach to landscape integration, Landscape and Urban Planning 74(2), pp. 110-124. Gehl, J. (1987) Life between Buildings (New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold).

PAGE 187

187 Gibson, J. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum) Godley, S. Triggs, T. & Fildes, B. (2004) Perceptu al lane width, wide perceptual road centre markings and driving speeds, Ergonomics 47(3), pp. 237-256. Heft, H. & Nasar, J. (2000) Evaluating env ironmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays, Environment and Behavior 32(3), pp. 301-322. Hillier, B & Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Im, S. (1983) An investigation of the relationship betw een visual preference and ratio variables in enclosed urban spaces (Ann Arbor, MI, University Microfilm International). Im, S. (1984) Visual preferences in enclosed urban spaces: an explora tion of a scientific approach to environmental design, Environment and Behavior 16(2), pp. 235-252. Isaacs, R. (2000) The urban picturesque: an aest hetic experience of urban pedestrian places, Journal of Urban Design 5(2), pp. 145-180. Jacobs, A. (1993). Great Streets (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press). Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York, Random House). Kallus, R. (2001) From abstract to concrete: subjective reading of urban space, Journal of Urban Design 6(2), pp. 129-150. Kaplan, R. (1993) Physical models in decision making for design, in: R. Marans & D. Stokols (Ed.) Environmental Simulation: Research and Policy Issues (New York, Plenum Press). Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press). Karjalainen, E. & Tyrainen, L. (2002) Visualizati on in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective, Landscape and Urban Planning 59, pp. 13-28. Krampen, M. (1979) Meaning in the Built Environment (London, Poin Limited). Krier, R. (1979) Urban Space (New York, Rizzoli). Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press). Lynch, K & Hank, G. 1975. Site Planning (Cambridge, MA., MIT Press). Madanipour, A. (1996) Design of Urban Space (Chichester, Wiley). Marans, R. & Stokols, D. (1993) Preface, in: R. Marans & D. Stokols (Ed.) Environmental Simulation: Research and Policy Issues (New York, Plenum Press).

PAGE 188

188 Moirongo, B. (2002) Urban public space patterns: human distri bution and the design of sustainable city centres with reference to Nairobi CBD, Urban Design International 7(3/4), pp. 205-216. Retrieved on 1/7/2004, from ABI/INFORM Global Morgan, G. & Griegro, O. (1998) Easy Use and Interpretation of SPSS for Windows: Answering Research Questions with Statistics (London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). Moudon, A.V. (1992) A catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should know, Journal of Planning Literature, 6(4), pp. 331-349. Moughtin, C. (1992). Urban Design: Street and Square (Oxford, Butterworth). Mumford, L. (1961) The city in history: its Origins and transformation, and its Prospects. (New York, Harcourt Brace & World). Nasar, J. (1990) The evaluative image of the city, Journal of the American Planning Association 56(1), pp. 42-53. Retrieved on 2/ 27/2004, from IBI/INFORM Global. Nelessen, A. (1993). Visions for a New American Dream (Chicago, IL, Planners Press). Nichol, J. & Wong, M. (2004) Modeling urban environmental quality in a tropical city, Landscape and Urban Planning 73, pp. 49. Ouf, A. (2001) Authenticity and th e sense of place in urban design, Journal of Urban Design 6(1), pp. 73-86. Ozel, F. (1993) Computer simulation of behavior in spaces, in: R. Marans & D. Stokols (Ed.) Environmental Simulation: Research and Policy Issues (New York, Plenum Press). Pallant, J. (2001) SPSS Survival Manual: A step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS (Philadelphia, PA, Open University Press). Rapoport, A. (1982) The Meaning of the Built Environment (Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications). Rapoport, A. (1977) Human aspects of urban form: towards a man-environment approach to form and design (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press). Salingaros, N. (2000) Complexity and urban coherence, Journal of Urban Design 5(3), pp. 291316. Salingaros, N. (1999) Urban space and it information field, Journal of Urban Design 4(1), pp. 29-49. Shiode, N. (2000) 3D urban models: recent developments in the digital modeling of urban environments in three-dimensions. GeoJournal, 52, 3: 263-269. Simpson, D. (2001) Virtual real ity and urban simulation in pla nning: a literature review and topical bibliography, Journal of Planning Literature 15(3), pp. 359-376.

PAGE 189

189 Smith, T. Nelischer, M. & Perkins, N. (1997) Qu ality of an urban community: a framework for understanding the relationship betw een quality and physical form, Landscape and Urban Planning 39, pp. 229-241. Stamps, A. (2005a) Enclosure and Safety in Urbanscapes, Environment and Behavior 37(1), pp. 102-133. Stamps, A. (2005b) Visual Permeability, locomotive permeability, safety, and enclosure, Environment and Behavior 37(5), pp. 587-619. Stamps, A. (1999) Physical determinants of preferences for residential faades, Environment and Behavior 31(6), pp. 723-751. Stamps, A. & Smith, S. (2002) Environm ental enclosure in urban settings, Environment and Behavior 34(6), pp. 781-794. Staub, A. (2005) St. Petersburgs double life : the planners versus the peoples city, Journal of Urban History 31(3), pp. 334-354. Sternberg, E. (2000) An integrative theory of urban design, Journal of the American Planning Association 66(3), pp. 265-78. Retrieved on 2/11/2005, from IBI/INFORM Global. Taylor, N. (1999) The elements of to wnscape and the art of urban design, Journal of Urban design 4(2), pp. 195-209. Vuchic, V. (1999) Transportation for Livable Cities (Rutgers, NJ, The State University of New Jersey). Whyte, W. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Washington, DC, The Conservation Foundation). Willis, C. (1986) Zoning and zeitgeist: the skyscraper city in the 1920s, The Journal of the society of the architectural historians 45(1), pp. 47-59. Zimring, C. & Dalton, R. (2003) Linking objecti ve measures of space to cognition and action, Environment and Behavior 35(1), pp. 3-16. Zacharias, J. (2001) Pedestrian behavior a nd perception in urban walking environments, Journal of Planning Literature 16(1), pp. 3-18. Zacharias, J. (1999) Preferences for view corridors through the urban environment, Landscape and Urban Planning 43, pp. 217-225.

PAGE 190

190 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Majdi Alkhresheh is an architect and urban de signer with teaching experience. In 1982, he received The Jordanian Ministry of Education Scholarship to pursue a bachelors degree in architecture and planning at King Faisal Univer sity, Saudi Arabia. Upon graduation, he practiced architectural design in Jordan for 3 years before returning to academia, where he received a masters degree in urban design from the Univer sity of Jordan in 1995. Upon completion of the masters program, he joined the Department of Architecture at Al-Isra University, Jordan, as a faculty member for 8 years. In 1993, Majdi Alkhresheh joined Mutah Univers ity, Jordan, as a lecturer for 2 years. In 2003, he was awarded the Fulbright Award of Fore ign Students Program to study in the U.S. for 2 years; he joined the doctoral program at th e College of Design, Construction, and Planning, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, at th e University of Florida. He received Mutah University Scholarship for the last 2 years of the doctoral program. Upon completion of the PhD program, he will return to Jordan to teach at Mutah University, and to pursue urban design, computer applications, and GIS research.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101115_AAAAGA INGEST_TIME 2010-11-15T22:14:40Z PACKAGE UFE0019676_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 2787 DFID F20101115_AACDDH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH alkhresheh_m_Page_010.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
d88f92351b2b9f0176ed1135d7ff6d3c
SHA-1
64a8f24f53c7162363a96d8a1aa442dcd423c365
11954 F20101115_AACDCS alkhresheh_m_Page_184.pro
2f1a9adb48e7d6f982d1e748b6d29455
b74a8c5dfd79c1abf1316c6a1da2cf126f75d04a
54584 F20101115_AACCXM alkhresheh_m_Page_028.pro
eab3642b87b55f9138ffd54e08e289d1
3f2ca60268835e1b36134f68e277c91e823823b5
79707 F20101115_AACCWY alkhresheh_m_Page_011.pro
869c7e84dcecb1196a4b2119c21f89c6
3bc647b5c397ef4a5bc417cfe6802c8aa56f66db
3039 F20101115_AACCAF alkhresheh_m_Page_014.txt
832bbdcfddeebe064646f8cb32aae07f
69a22f4bc6bd29f14574c95d77b1bf5494eeab28
42555 F20101115_AACCYA alkhresheh_m_Page_042.pro
e6bbf6f97e69feee6f6884bc1e6bf2d4
7161b0e1fcd4a9a1a7965a315abd7e5c7fa9a4f0
3284 F20101115_AACDDI alkhresheh_m_Page_011.txt
c778cc1184bbee18b7b834a0d6ffdbfd
6863c931e44fb5f333a303a088b30921a1516c53
14073 F20101115_AACDCT alkhresheh_m_Page_185.pro
3ff41e74589c45ed3883722ca78d232d
33d87d5b64f5eccebf568660c8bb507a50244282
51118 F20101115_AACCXN alkhresheh_m_Page_029.pro
e89c3584d5e4553e8bcd65d5f1fe5787
f8ceea99f0a845bf9f9871f08049637f61e59b7b
9865 F20101115_AACCWZ alkhresheh_m_Page_012.pro
437e30527b176048bc2c4457f7d63a5e
e7c5272779dc6c223e1037f4809276c2180967c0
38258 F20101115_AACCAG alkhresheh_m_Page_177.jpg
0d503a4dd3c1af79d1d8626b7ca09cf0
5dfeb2076d7e61682e4614e0271fca44b4ad9d10
50950 F20101115_AACCYB alkhresheh_m_Page_043.pro
c58482b8e53a7e144f77831e69b53783
5ef4bd9eb4ed9143fc6e025b42360096f8e7e934
418 F20101115_AACDDJ alkhresheh_m_Page_012.txt
345a2af23e8073885b69dfc89be6fc20
3bdddadab2813170c801bb74095a7b6e2693996c
61401 F20101115_AACDCU alkhresheh_m_Page_186.pro
0e9e8e19a3191886080edf795eb3a62d
ee2d8417e9ac6879057a2aaf37a429d04ba2c64c
51923 F20101115_AACCXO alkhresheh_m_Page_030.pro
8a2f56fc5638df84b2171ba8474ab488
7d830196359aa35910b05cbeafe652c5dd8870a6
4279 F20101115_AACCAH alkhresheh_m_Page_185thm.jpg
9507efac2f76facc8ed360dd29083c8e
a0e51f9acc953181989b15b5305aab667053393e
54086 F20101115_AACCYC alkhresheh_m_Page_044.pro
b22ff7b84e9205b4dd9836836d18d9e0
fde30bf3416b972b5387785315046bc166e6cee7
58880 F20101115_AACDCV alkhresheh_m_Page_187.pro
74e9488c8677900abf2236289e76d86a
fa73780fcd2de77b90775af2de3562d7437ad04a
52658 F20101115_AACCXP alkhresheh_m_Page_031.pro
8a2160fe144faee349ef6b66f95c7588
d2aee6611b73fb8d194af9b68086f86f872387ad
51411 F20101115_AACCYD alkhresheh_m_Page_045.pro
5623e6fb6fde121ab7426011acd1a5e9
b103d818bb12cf6d1251df8fa25df6515f75539c
2443 F20101115_AACDDK alkhresheh_m_Page_013.txt
7c351e856964d16b1779abe247c9e8ec
8a430bcb10ae36782c0a7258f70e2373331a86cb
61524 F20101115_AACDCW alkhresheh_m_Page_188.pro
00cb652267431c8825ddfce2e01daff8
a7a378e079397a7ea81715b8fd1b49badee105f4
55718 F20101115_AACCXQ alkhresheh_m_Page_032.pro
e6e91ff6280485d76bbcff0297bc0502
0cfa969b3a4e51a67b3fbe83ed52593729a2198d
93982 F20101115_AACCAI alkhresheh_m_Page_034.jpg
558022062e18dc6a4b19fee39deeabee
5cb196b1c8f565bfd8dc5b47be9dac2ddf936823
51465 F20101115_AACCYE alkhresheh_m_Page_046.pro
a393510692fe396fc3fd43e63a7b38ef
cfd1f35aee6673e5991864069f853b985e70be3c
2045 F20101115_AACDEA alkhresheh_m_Page_030.txt
49e5b112139d8b726fa147b626c1d681
46e3b85d980b9d48c15c2e6721bb52fa70107303
2174 F20101115_AACDDL alkhresheh_m_Page_015.txt
71b868669ffa38cff7d7ac4704379946
75edb7f4727aa2fd2ef791682007d4c8174e7df4
49618 F20101115_AACDCX alkhresheh_m_Page_189.pro
1cbdca540a6ee498e8fc644d5e67ba07
59a8f4583da878ad6e5dc1eb096e23499de6ffb6
54596 F20101115_AACCXR alkhresheh_m_Page_033.pro
c2fbf655a54f9a593a1a536141d5c34f
2baf9d9516b547c37789b903acd849d421d60af8
21734 F20101115_AACCAJ alkhresheh_m_Page_009.QC.jpg
c6eabd571d0c4bc733a82ea6d4ffc175
9767fec30ad51467f33371f512814410e9f0ce14
54504 F20101115_AACCYF alkhresheh_m_Page_047.pro
aa858e2e60fb7f8f0bd31706c785b462
2582f4836013492ec9981b2f298b0bda6bb31f0f
2079 F20101115_AACDEB alkhresheh_m_Page_031.txt
c87e1e89f72948a8a39b0c455a4599dc
be41d8b51ac833ecd50685e16472dd8bc425fd7f
197 F20101115_AACDDM alkhresheh_m_Page_016.txt
ef0e1819ed26af23f02277c9c4f961d3
3ee94e3ac866574e5a0ffb404fbb1f04c17c6280
546 F20101115_AACDCY alkhresheh_m_Page_001.txt
71598e52e1e0cad551c4b7cf13681c0e
0bea54ae323b5d7aaed16ff80309d69d89a90a2a
57469 F20101115_AACCXS alkhresheh_m_Page_034.pro
41d13f597f063fca5d028e1595c42909
0fb93715c9d36c3bc6a488ca50e2c5e452ab0c11
115165 F20101115_AACCAK alkhresheh_m_Page_023.jp2
a03a0db036560f7ac5130d0c45256e96
28f0711340502067e33cfb2d338c16796dea2822
49284 F20101115_AACCYG alkhresheh_m_Page_050.pro
4ee4094999229ee76e90d27d6898ae0b
865b4cfe312300ee6cd0864ff330443f0322c8f2
2193 F20101115_AACDEC alkhresheh_m_Page_032.txt
007fdb719a1b5bf6a4a0a6fd1222f32b
9b640696d297655cb749299040206b750901a31f
2099 F20101115_AACDDN alkhresheh_m_Page_017.txt
eddc86e9d52bb8f3fbeb6a0ca6cc68d6
27d93c53eb9bd435e25ccb936394773860391fdf
90 F20101115_AACDCZ alkhresheh_m_Page_002.txt
130ed9b1587f01a1f42323fed995a843
5753c79b5235e7c84d24c59f056e48cf8cc2ba2a
55753 F20101115_AACCXT alkhresheh_m_Page_035.pro
63b90328882afa653e6dd5935c3ddf67
e083aafbc822311013689bd361ec977daea17af5
5720 F20101115_AACCBA alkhresheh_m_Page_013thm.jpg
534f52c74d913267363fe870125507bf
f74095ba6493a1282e497539890cd79e885c5d47
1053954 F20101115_AACCAL alkhresheh_m_Page_129.tif
59733121bdc9e9215977074b2f622f9b
3e8d8d15c1fcf4dc469fb6c6e34bab048e63e866
51477 F20101115_AACCYH alkhresheh_m_Page_051.pro
7705eb93447cbed3f57511cb82751193
ed5c21c134f1cb45fcf05f2ba9ca02963e3ad934
2149 F20101115_AACDED alkhresheh_m_Page_033.txt
9f038890743397c7e24d37355ca6a937
5d0b68664937fdc237d5f79e075ed8ba998304a4
879 F20101115_AACDDO alkhresheh_m_Page_018.txt
0157aeda7fc7868883a328df7ec77535
dcbe3da48d18dfa7bb13173ea6d36d8b1fb381a0
49262 F20101115_AACCXU alkhresheh_m_Page_036.pro
d398ed3d092d59c65d862b7cc61a4a81
53266feaaefe1a47d5cfd2b24d27938d33c004f5
467490 F20101115_AACCBB alkhresheh_m_Page_110.jp2
da513480c181f2deeec6cc7fb73ff33c
3e0597e1b287b6c2b25bc115188ef44aa70fa13c
2148 F20101115_AACCAM alkhresheh_m_Page_070.txt
bae608602aac12305c34e209f243e38b
3a7355da919844ae9264464b7a697c76d622e2cf
56639 F20101115_AACCYI alkhresheh_m_Page_052.pro
8ca6180e38ee2e977427ab3740896d74
c21dec712135503790b328744a5e155778d40f16
2250 F20101115_AACDEE alkhresheh_m_Page_034.txt
15ec1583a06f203a7f2932850af3644c
d0c94e0c79480e167704cbef3787229a0c44acf4
2158 F20101115_AACDDP alkhresheh_m_Page_019.txt
ac827a90c3c4c424fb35d60872dbe57b
494d44df9b1599f93ae45c89337e45c457f8499b
51802 F20101115_AACCXV alkhresheh_m_Page_037.pro
bbd82c62ddc31e4ba8b83131d9747249
9bd5550c90661f92dd308469598b15657d74d107
674126 F20101115_AACCBC alkhresheh_m_Page_152.jp2
a5637dc9902039a77a2b865edef07986
d6c4ecf4f1b37fc132f8a08a9c5e1d739cc85d5d
28374 F20101115_AACCAN alkhresheh_m_Page_070.QC.jpg
88ec644c8bab54ba441fbe90a2ee3333
bb0581797bfc81f6b3b982805e3b4a725c9180f6
54199 F20101115_AACCYJ alkhresheh_m_Page_053.pro
a267910e58b72327d213d912c9fac213
b15deafed038918fa99476c2d11761f0a1182490
F20101115_AACDEF alkhresheh_m_Page_035.txt
1e9a047d0f25282da9bcb2922560ae94
f77132994f1da99d257ac5a9f97dfbf1ee17f41c
2102 F20101115_AACDDQ alkhresheh_m_Page_020.txt
342daefe8d5d57de571880df99fd8eac
cb5fafcbaab28f8a746db1cbdca737ac1c5d66ad
52883 F20101115_AACCXW alkhresheh_m_Page_038.pro
98e211de175f3a07aee0cb2068cf6033
9a76998945ef4e1b48dada82e31c8a9547aafe36
F20101115_AACCBD alkhresheh_m_Page_153.tif
e97e522c88ecd1edab92991f42ebda06
96e2ec5b8b8b4233161960747d4d797129b5d6ce
23090 F20101115_AACCAO alkhresheh_m_Page_170.QC.jpg
ff011fd9406cb2f5b6f7d17259b15c4b
cb0a62b0ea8614b4fcd076c3c79e6123d6ccf48f
54032 F20101115_AACCYK alkhresheh_m_Page_054.pro
b67e64762e133e092b7b688d86c71394
f04b0df4dc11bcdb7d7f4a9394907cfe31e93517
1946 F20101115_AACDEG alkhresheh_m_Page_036.txt
664b6e5263811a17c1b24d56161167cd
0c564c72e3f1a2680e9e807483b5dee7f58344d2
2072 F20101115_AACDDR alkhresheh_m_Page_021.txt
877abce494bbe424b7539f808d91fd2e
064ecb1119d4299ea01c73484596473789dde6eb
51946 F20101115_AACCXX alkhresheh_m_Page_039.pro
2dc54ee32c6f00c5504dc85a3109b481
86845c05127c8516d7b7e1d75f7f3f2ecc8ce432
26335 F20101115_AACCBE alkhresheh_m_Page_086.QC.jpg
a4b0ef79167b00c9cd3abae0c7c86c92
2e6e73a57d1458769571998da74062b720f793ac
90521 F20101115_AACCAP alkhresheh_m_Page_090.jp2
8cd1e12ba4bc9dc7f6f09e253aef79ff
907ad9e89edfabe356c7c783770a24ec5c9e4761
50904 F20101115_AACCZA alkhresheh_m_Page_071.pro
4fe68472b30521a3b514fe2e8c3247ad
d3a20085ee6e944894477cb634cf63aea9cb5da6
54018 F20101115_AACCYL alkhresheh_m_Page_055.pro
d1f9448527585ae392091bf41751abdb
fd07085c60da421478ea550e1b40f0a1b8c68125
2049 F20101115_AACDEH alkhresheh_m_Page_037.txt
de977ce29539cb53bfb1ca150a749765
87380f265ca9eef8a6d1c55472e886880a64be67
2076 F20101115_AACDDS alkhresheh_m_Page_022.txt
828773c2f9563cf8c27b688287f2cb68
664e863c7fa254d15c90f48e40f8066c3cdd885a
9480 F20101115_AACCBF alkhresheh_m_Page_057.QC.jpg
17fc5b19c8c172c1694158a5a12200af
8719b00b5490cff6e089b8c880df77e6d0e0567b
2386 F20101115_AACCAQ alkhresheh_m_Page_056.txt
520b67cb0a61dd4f914566b3c376e0a6
164f94c77d9058560d3c2448b3af57ca09f24f42
59977 F20101115_AACCYM alkhresheh_m_Page_056.pro
51c55e38b20204b0532bd96b6ad6f0a7
8cf328d81ca81419159b03e02312adc3916b2ae9
51801 F20101115_AACCXY alkhresheh_m_Page_040.pro
5087258b4610ccfd8a3c268fe55af550
24bac52349bb10dd85d17a7766d9b344928ba35c
2118 F20101115_AACDEI alkhresheh_m_Page_038.txt
7bfdc0e2d473057c36d53f56430df6b0
abc1bfe96a55d0e9fcf362aa68873d822284a2f6
2124 F20101115_AACDDT alkhresheh_m_Page_023.txt
c99a1af0869b4f984e74a41b9443b9f0
7a2c11bd33c5abce54bf041f555ca6ad65435fda
1317 F20101115_AACCBG alkhresheh_m_Page_169.txt
bf1ef14fcee23133266e21c977137cb5
16f5d27d7f0788d281f00992d72ca5bb8fcd87fc
4261 F20101115_AACCAR alkhresheh_m_Page_190thm.jpg
7a6958625403cef681d4a91b526608c1
a0421d48ee03e1cbbc0878f821065a6ddd0df92c
48060 F20101115_AACCZB alkhresheh_m_Page_072.pro
e8fe3ff1b4fe1fc5d61914d0f84f8ee4
1d959eebb1ee573f45543e4b2604d33ddac7f2c9
16208 F20101115_AACCYN alkhresheh_m_Page_057.pro
df1d2931aad977acd5a056b678ecc467
3f507f20070d63462e6e4917d922a133eec5796c
49199 F20101115_AACCXZ alkhresheh_m_Page_041.pro
fa16c47c79a7c19c8aacf126f2ac0fe8
149c073557f08009b63816465bf6ef2ce7a6ce08
2046 F20101115_AACDEJ alkhresheh_m_Page_039.txt
fb85d18d93417106e26909851ded6506
622e8748d84d58e90cac477361388faf5da93411
2043 F20101115_AACDDU alkhresheh_m_Page_024.txt
d4cf57a7d20af39ba3d12ee166ce83a0
2b45aec0863b21008eeccee25ce14aa50f61377d
25271604 F20101115_AACCBH alkhresheh_m_Page_009.tif
f59e43f3f1ca1a1ec6dde279c72e1eed
104f372c1c40f922fc75e52dd9aff8e81383916a
2414 F20101115_AACCAS alkhresheh_m_Page_186.txt
ab1e1eca61ad7adcdb2655ee9c9cdebb
b93282c5517d5780ccb0b4c897225c754ae4c839
48854 F20101115_AACCZC alkhresheh_m_Page_073.pro
49f93bf7bca95cbab004de0605a7794b
f19a7cd135f7f553ee59cc76107f6c4111e77d69
39509 F20101115_AACCYO alkhresheh_m_Page_058.pro
79ce73f9daaac516cf600812669540bf
5c85174bd9d520d4aaa6550ff225b5d48c0d8916
2040 F20101115_AACDEK alkhresheh_m_Page_040.txt
984697e36128dfc3915aa3fa8f85bd82
59b9ede1dc647d56f3be1096b79665a78ea0a6c4
2014 F20101115_AACDDV alkhresheh_m_Page_025.txt
60268a002045e96cedaf267e3d352d0c
ecc5fcc4a223945314daaca1958adc8fc7710a9d
2151 F20101115_AACCBI alkhresheh_m_Page_143.txt
d8cbc6e7660b30c85c9bb6ae82c81705
e875b489de596bd686a7f6b652ae030f9fa42056
7001 F20101115_AACCAT alkhresheh_m_Page_014thm.jpg
d716dfbb06b0c6589ad345fe5d0a1fcb
49ec7c7092cd99e0e1b2e24853601c2588ea846e
53687 F20101115_AACCZD alkhresheh_m_Page_074.pro
c7c247438dec514d069fcbe449f36b2f
0b37d8942a6506e4bf4732418a21a2e4683d9179
27910 F20101115_AACCYP alkhresheh_m_Page_059.pro
9353ec9461d5b40646027dd5ee42ae40
0d9c2ae2d5d1c7c44d3f988133e0a34fd8749c5e
2036 F20101115_AACDDW alkhresheh_m_Page_026.txt
c838d4dd6ff196202f300cd947cdd8a6
7012c90a07f001363393fd49d3f8bb756a839a26
18391 F20101115_AACCAU alkhresheh_m_Page_152.pro
01931fb3db40f72dfd4b33afb3595aee
75f363d5022d8d1f9fdc2e026654065a434c1687
54425 F20101115_AACCZE alkhresheh_m_Page_075.pro
6fa998695f5d8a74d2e9b202ab1771f1
fd9231fa911dc516dd77e685aab02476a9f88421
5025 F20101115_AACCYQ alkhresheh_m_Page_060.pro
674e5fcfde163fae3b7738de67bcd23d
62fee921724a4ca52478c57ed3c9feeafbd16e27
1263 F20101115_AACDFA alkhresheh_m_Page_059.txt
da2e6804a1c041c2ab78136e938bd96f
cfccdebaf4f173825670d9e29949a6b7fa585823
1952 F20101115_AACDEL alkhresheh_m_Page_041.txt
ddab46677df1139dba6035d53d07cae6
431832bef3d1e060af14f9ba3872aaf3365421af
2311 F20101115_AACDDX alkhresheh_m_Page_027.txt
77a911fe05d7fe116951acda3203966f
53eb822a5c9e500bd7390c2831102128cae91ef4
13455 F20101115_AACCBJ alkhresheh_m_Page_158.pro
9eeb47c82b339936d82c11758c245f5d
c5a824c8bc6b99375b20451b11e73db4ea639e0a
2106 F20101115_AACCAV alkhresheh_m_Page_087.txt
7d42afeaf7cf57d7fead05ea38e618d7
46960f6355a314bd524a25fce1d344961ed37e9a
48884 F20101115_AACCZF alkhresheh_m_Page_077.pro
f71c0830b982543d1208027ca3116f26
d4080d94bdd7334e70c39a4ca321446b5d44eaef
8573 F20101115_AACCYR alkhresheh_m_Page_061.pro
48f916cc58d2416f2b9aaa4e51443f08
175fe169368877119ada56b340433a1d8066c31c
399 F20101115_AACDFB alkhresheh_m_Page_060.txt
d3f25b68153fdc28c8f2214d0794281d
f78813481bf33ed932472f2b2701229145e45dc4
1776 F20101115_AACDEM alkhresheh_m_Page_042.txt
d99da58d044d1c06e4803e6265b32bfb
ad0f4616ae4e85b4184f01c92bf62708d9ad5d84
2145 F20101115_AACDDY alkhresheh_m_Page_028.txt
55b2649de18da4b944b8f3a907de8e7e
19bc5a0dd353968844dd86f182f0215e58c7a391
92008 F20101115_AACCAW alkhresheh_m_Page_129.jpg
d904dac950b2233bdef4f1f4bb424c02
0d327fe125e2792c9abf8cf85c4473371e051a39
31279 F20101115_AACCZG alkhresheh_m_Page_079.pro
677acd5b70f1cc95689009db3014771f
d3bec50f5f5e30de6713cf58d1e591d59702f51b
5517 F20101115_AACCYS alkhresheh_m_Page_062.pro
c453741e24b742b6d88975f2f66898a6
b852452d9256058993f9f479a196d24d2b0f77c7
51323 F20101115_AACCBK alkhresheh_m_Page_115.pro
7ab237af8ec74c0d53a388728d4eafa3
bbbc4478b93f3458c7e2e98e16c2f7d127d783ec
405 F20101115_AACDFC alkhresheh_m_Page_061.txt
ba6668a7eeb27af2c8c983cdcdf39a44
1f715ed8583ffd119b053c8337479c1d0ff213a9
2010 F20101115_AACDEN alkhresheh_m_Page_043.txt
1c1e99e59a7e5ef1afa331e8358f0182
07910454f0c6f12a672ca2824a22d1a17221377e
2017 F20101115_AACDDZ alkhresheh_m_Page_029.txt
c2e9d5c84ca846d4f0db3b0ebc478852
b4d1ca0c9770613c582931efde41ebd8d26d79eb
28088 F20101115_AACCAX alkhresheh_m_Page_123.QC.jpg
a1659a9609d065c7240a790894fcd682
4d9b733189582d46798707458519cd72c2d9da7d
17810 F20101115_AACCZH alkhresheh_m_Page_080.pro
cc3fe8bab22c56b3a7473084ca600bc1
152d7cc6fc624e93646703201a5d441a23006b5f
3760 F20101115_AACCYT alkhresheh_m_Page_063.pro
aa59e3960070dc2fa97b9c28007ce4dd
1e0d88c48dab2cf156b0bc23e5606e34a78862d2
87156 F20101115_AACCCA alkhresheh_m_Page_070.jpg
3dc3a0944400ea5d251844d63ba4fe96
694e1e7f8c1f1b78a447048ed0aaffc7c4046420
2154 F20101115_AACCBL alkhresheh_m_Page_137.txt
9c631e09af294d851f8bcb081a7afc37
96f81290a5fb2948b508067092889cb3f86827fc
306 F20101115_AACDFD alkhresheh_m_Page_062.txt
7bb019168252726e7c49c482e4730cf5
fa784bf7d4a23d4f438fc2edceffa203aae1f533
2134 F20101115_AACDEO alkhresheh_m_Page_044.txt
0d714780015f3ca4b7d9da7b4ece924a
84c81591d323ddffab12c11c533fce81ef60d7de
6861 F20101115_AACCAY alkhresheh_m_Page_121thm.jpg
783d9f2d8f38b04323f2bacd219cfc2f
3a7630811aacfbe817e966cdbd57fa048bb862de
10877 F20101115_AACCZI alkhresheh_m_Page_081.pro
cc26ceebea4a8b116d49f1da649e2557
f1cf71bb8e331265c39e48da26a3184c1692a17d
43921 F20101115_AACCYU alkhresheh_m_Page_065.pro
f63cd00a1080b5adcb91df06d439cce0
9cc384f145233b910a07ed080275d227addfaeaf
35176 F20101115_AACCCB alkhresheh_m_Page_105.pro
294433628c4dfcead0165f7529f71f22
6e911eea9a762d1b60e3d2f2cc572a25b7bcc903
1051954 F20101115_AACCBM alkhresheh_m_Page_062.jp2
da0d370f7aecdf516b61127cc3e455ae
698ab10083d466a25278da91d0235bf5635a394b
135 F20101115_AACDFE alkhresheh_m_Page_063.txt
cd36128c45605ae9ef11d6beef8f7a07
b73dc273777daf5140d631c0f109764e5d0edad2
F20101115_AACDEP alkhresheh_m_Page_045.txt
d57f0f7f634abe438ffa6e41207b4382
b51793497a4bc5a80f13874a2935be343039a05e
1614 F20101115_AACCAZ alkhresheh_m_Page_012thm.jpg
94cbe30d2ad8c231c569129a04bf8ffc
9a57313903d49101e0966a4658e97bc0b0d08da4
13473 F20101115_AACCZJ alkhresheh_m_Page_082.pro
063ef78e654856a82d63c9428ce6cd94
9d4fb96db310f7ab36a927aadb1b79be782bb128
52962 F20101115_AACCYV alkhresheh_m_Page_066.pro
25917db8c1bfe3652f2fa28c453b0ef4
af1d5c43dac4a8c6453bc56b017966967165af0f
2164 F20101115_AACCCC alkhresheh_m_Page_095.txt
a16d4f3dc1f08d6c3db1a1ee91eb3853
f063242d22fd35e561892ca6931704ba902da1d5
71586 F20101115_AACCBN alkhresheh_m_Page_078.jp2
faa59a0f5ca427aa01e2f76da71e82a0
0accbfead62425bd6925fecf9856382605690433
292 F20101115_AACDFF alkhresheh_m_Page_064.txt
227c1d3b95e3938b5360ac9fbfab9e0d
75b63526cce09b4d2722b1e742514b54fe780cf8
2035 F20101115_AACDEQ alkhresheh_m_Page_046.txt
8e80fee815801bb38887496f1d748c23
a69378f576cdad5a7ad0ffd95702c37df248cf08
7407 F20101115_AACCZK alkhresheh_m_Page_083.pro
3ec4f9133648a23f5b1d76cdbfd38718
999518a9034755a15b8fb4348b099879f1bebe69
52468 F20101115_AACCYW alkhresheh_m_Page_067.pro
cce506b6c552fe3405f7cb04af406804
e77dbbe6b099482de5ee824dc8858d745442d8ac
27863 F20101115_AACCCD alkhresheh_m_Page_094.QC.jpg
498c90243631acfdd8353d425d3925b8
803345673d1f3d45327e7b80c533915cafb9928d
F20101115_AACCBO alkhresheh_m_Page_036.tif
4d5ce7e36d6da3854f9f6dc9d3416cd4
aae89af7d0368faadd319d5039df40f2c00cb0e1
1821 F20101115_AACDFG alkhresheh_m_Page_065.txt
6b1d000d27591bdd6db41c906c8120f8
97e58ce05b1abd09f3b9d6e2f96b953ce920fe44
F20101115_AACDER alkhresheh_m_Page_047.txt
482c6ed157204b15606cfe66803977a3
ef91ea80c065da6d17971c1da3b1b5952c2e6bef
50918 F20101115_AACCZL alkhresheh_m_Page_084.pro
ed9f16a2f8942b56216b959df8131aa7
8517acc20fa57251c80566cb95f3bfba16f85f7b
48281 F20101115_AACCYX alkhresheh_m_Page_068.pro
bba541731dd196c677b059f1c38a2ebb
6b4aa123c28d2dbe9f2e9880e458e4a739bbf4a3
27677 F20101115_AACCCE alkhresheh_m_Page_137.QC.jpg
01bae06717633b55259a60a07aa00034
3150764fd5d1b2b02e80cc1e10294de1d415d6c5
F20101115_AACCBP alkhresheh_m_Page_148.tif
ba2586133cd4b7c5ba9b8e5dcc260dfd
aa14e0b5119646eb2f4caaf54556c7e69b50a243
2084 F20101115_AACDFH alkhresheh_m_Page_066.txt
0292afefd9c72ab856c7a8675bc3a557
312cc270d370755f69eee590abe73b715b917589
2216 F20101115_AACDES alkhresheh_m_Page_048.txt
37b52fc1befa56437c876f8b32dca81b
51ae659365f8d3f42ef190e161bbbaecc0f520f5
51888 F20101115_AACCZM alkhresheh_m_Page_085.pro
a9e2667ff37690f88ffd26929d65521b
c67d59e9b5ab5c7777cbbfe5a7a0a255e7b2ba01
52551 F20101115_AACCYY alkhresheh_m_Page_069.pro
fb295e2fdeb11ce9eb1b93b782b7a12b
61fa030785bff4e9d26ab4c4717100edcddfdbc6
52437 F20101115_AACCCF alkhresheh_m_Page_049.pro
2695e9ea465aebbecbc65518c7a9b377
f66e0d87f9ddc0d931706d13aeef46f9bb3e985d
F20101115_AACCBQ alkhresheh_m_Page_066.tif
ea92015f2676f0cde64265bd7ad4509e
837baf7e515d6fef56c8f2dbc2fe94baed7de3f7
2105 F20101115_AACDFI alkhresheh_m_Page_067.txt
37e624114b4cf86dee323c6b64b5c034
99c851e7403610f19531e268b7a9374b292616ec
1942 F20101115_AACDET alkhresheh_m_Page_050.txt
46119d2ea1fa7d93147deec3d6e0c5fd
0fdc0523bb36199eccde84aa74bedbea2c149010
49235 F20101115_AACCZN alkhresheh_m_Page_086.pro
8f30463d08a73bed3c047a56e8386df2
34e153c00f44c843dee66b970ca82f985fb74c9a
54485 F20101115_AACCYZ alkhresheh_m_Page_070.pro
114133d75588c20a9b24996f59540538
83335792a82c1a7d22401e8befcd6e2c88411a57
120375 F20101115_AACCCG alkhresheh_m_Page_007.jpg
5a330d9d2f3174fe1482d6ac4160085d
9594c3cfd781f62b54c4080f884cb0b53a9d675d
112579 F20101115_AACCBR alkhresheh_m_Page_189.jp2
f654bf41b91ea5ee69140e79f90bf176
87a82cf73f35897ed6115c0c479ba94d46a7ca66
1919 F20101115_AACDFJ alkhresheh_m_Page_068.txt
acc92928c16f62cab9452b6d7c1bcbfb
47c24e51e01a739e6b6a00850b2ac2b499fc0f7d
2039 F20101115_AACDEU alkhresheh_m_Page_051.txt
8ab56f531e3b2c1d3a16312ddaddba7e
8b297c0d69ef1ef2a57ef0f537301d1f531eefc0
51202 F20101115_AACCZO alkhresheh_m_Page_088.pro
efc2f0eb4a5d6fc21c484417dafa977f
599c87489f403f48f00bc2440e0bbc9caf733f8a
6468 F20101115_AACCCH alkhresheh_m_Page_074thm.jpg
68bc2ac85b6d52434fe66927f11d8100
fac0a9b2cde31464303d0e77f059170a09be0c27
6450 F20101115_AACBXA alkhresheh_m_Page_125thm.jpg
43f6fce9f505a3e9f12bddc34adec7bf
1719b5952767d080b8c3734f4b7c9710cbfc50eb
117196 F20101115_AACCBS alkhresheh_m_Page_075.jp2
0cff8904d96e69cbedabcb7282780517
cb019be04d371d982cb254e396d8b8ae09c915fb
2071 F20101115_AACDFK alkhresheh_m_Page_069.txt
bf1573d27c4ddb2bd195e84959fc2d68
2ef607c4e163afcb2392ea149b35d4327323752a
2232 F20101115_AACDEV alkhresheh_m_Page_052.txt
43e5caf57e3f891d463058bb6ff7d242
c3094deb222be4f9889eddf3d20704155348da83
50446 F20101115_AACCZP alkhresheh_m_Page_089.pro
fde7798c2f54bbe86ba10bb30c16acbc
2aea3fe5375692e261e2cf1a93cb5bb7df2a44e7
118631 F20101115_AACCCI alkhresheh_m_Page_128.jp2
2bb2a10a5c492c95280e482644ab100f
c2d719de6436ecdc286e8cc05367f5551e7c1395
6555 F20101115_AACBXB alkhresheh_m_Page_029thm.jpg
8a3534ef2f7b8396d06e368f6f92c23b
b13c84f7a221b66880c8fff44dd9b34949d7fb18
4751 F20101115_AACCBT alkhresheh_m_Page_133thm.jpg
5cbce3e12023a645e7b231c2eb522e4d
611c969cf56a363b84004309aec56c9541abcf00
F20101115_AACDFL alkhresheh_m_Page_071.txt
020e0124018673a12506d7d20d8299cc
89db28e71b2aad3b37e84a93e35be0c1ae2b4556
2139 F20101115_AACDEW alkhresheh_m_Page_053.txt
028de6a30363705be7f405ec261ac426
63881dae645bac80d59ecb9753e7e60c5d916d72
41495 F20101115_AACCZQ alkhresheh_m_Page_090.pro
c4bb3c1e7d1476a3f3d2de87268e0bca
5572d5f2e0af5e45b960c59c4474a2c8db9dd02d
14426 F20101115_AACCCJ alkhresheh_m_Page_151.pro
85cd0e16192b307ebe735e0b221fcffd
a068ac11d74fc0f46903c7e88bdb9ea657f45237
8020 F20101115_AACBXC alkhresheh_m_Page_109.pro
9e6f2d05524948bb82b368f1cf04b0f6
5dc387b189de4e9ef2fc5f19769a01e86df070b7
13487 F20101115_AACCBU alkhresheh_m_Page_150.QC.jpg
14b901e56de09e7cba4555cf03d6d6d0
f3bb74eae732d38cd5cf32ae5f04e0b084c70796
2022 F20101115_AACDGA alkhresheh_m_Page_088.txt
9433143e8fcb9d820274b4db857e944b
a60c188fcebc1961d545da0642131f0db16e451d
2129 F20101115_AACDEX alkhresheh_m_Page_055.txt
7c19ae7c21b12595ed057d0b4ffddf28
9cfd6c45f6c17927519c0865fe4b07782c048c24
52609 F20101115_AACCZR alkhresheh_m_Page_091.pro
4c1680deb1e7201efedd6cd03cd29d4f
2d596332cd8bb8545ac40117a5b8697384796e8a
13073 F20101115_AACBXD alkhresheh_m_Page_158.QC.jpg
c68ab30bd997e9d44151243acbd8e88c
0273cb5af96bad7ea2de18a953608ddc5b97f506
17952 F20101115_AACCBV alkhresheh_m_Page_190.QC.jpg
3dc957b4dae0d7e7adaebb0f473cfc40
419144667fdcc19bbae1a21edd1c903760ed8392
F20101115_AACDGB alkhresheh_m_Page_091.txt
ce3de83895266a7a4d7a41516ed3fa59
c00185eb1395d66bd7d63bbbdbf135ebb4e278e7
1910 F20101115_AACDFM alkhresheh_m_Page_072.txt
2e28ea07432be890f63d81637d9d702f
ef9ca8db8890c601171da7342aede20dad38ecb5
650 F20101115_AACDEY alkhresheh_m_Page_057.txt
abb04bb74d473582a670c1fb2414a72b
3090af833b52d9130b2812a227c4cb7e75403f70
53523 F20101115_AACCZS alkhresheh_m_Page_092.pro
7a4f9938ab2f876c61ec7b6d9e632010
4d4bd5052ec33ed176365e3a52009109b5446440
580 F20101115_AACCCK alkhresheh_m_Page_174.txt
38bbb40c3628617884039b37060e5af6
20613efaf7483dfc1e5053d6ad17c652cce77871
F20101115_AACBXE alkhresheh_m_Page_023.tif
b16000360bab512028f1346ae22a1cea
0299b3eb79e8e7475976782f2e63b6aa8e2f1d6c
80741 F20101115_AACCBW alkhresheh_m_Page_086.jpg
573b1d704ed908e00ba1a87b7b79ee1c
d05dba6681730407c137397dc37d6ed226f1465b
2115 F20101115_AACDGC alkhresheh_m_Page_092.txt
87ce909537a3b8a0b44745b477810d19
3700dd5c1c46679d92ddec784f8f723aff41d033
1940 F20101115_AACDFN alkhresheh_m_Page_073.txt
f47e1606f602494a92b988d09dba9ce7
14097d8c004f447074bfe0721b2fe7c5c10b40ce
1847 F20101115_AACDEZ alkhresheh_m_Page_058.txt
211ccbda06b6ec3bfe243ad0f476c3f8
7903976eed0ff7c5c5f1e90b88dd388e2a3a61fb
52086 F20101115_AACCZT alkhresheh_m_Page_093.pro
25e71f8996789964a094aeb51af91eb0
aa1a128437b6871365d14142c2e018ce2e682c99
112295 F20101115_AACCDA alkhresheh_m_Page_006.jpg
d9071c596128cf410ee47bb6ba14d8f4
72c46e24b09d2ae8a1a115e12cf7c60f5e6af6e4
12534 F20101115_AACCCL alkhresheh_m_Page_182.QC.jpg
7808eb478c763881c3f6f5f01b49a0a7
0af75e8b6322d6c639d0d6982dbee0630033c248
120655 F20101115_AACBXF alkhresheh_m_Page_139.jp2
891fc97cd842793c6c8a3caf7d2a3e77
de6453ccec54f106de0ab615adbe6d1c5c3896ba
8500 F20101115_AACCBX alkhresheh_m_Page_113.pro
7e7ec5266528f8127d46293771a971e1
ae6766aab2244151a77a55908eb1fb114f7a20a8
2060 F20101115_AACDGD alkhresheh_m_Page_093.txt
685f548bfab57095e1c9f3d18f5a5bb6
4cb6a292ce5a1d1df1b502388126301fa3337494
2120 F20101115_AACDFO alkhresheh_m_Page_074.txt
f6636e3087bba8b4923d43f4cc8b06a4
196e3d6873bea1ad89b3b5539dc9f2c12bc8eb98
54968 F20101115_AACCZU alkhresheh_m_Page_094.pro
024d765c6e03a2fa5bd4aa0110107956
9d644398ab83d9478fd5b1aa0de1b7f5287edebf
85486 F20101115_AACCDB alkhresheh_m_Page_009.jpg
1751d47a8f050cc5219f94dbcc48d402
fb4fde1c4aff051fccf186b838e8990ec281ff9c
55450 F20101115_AACCCM alkhresheh_m_Page_048.pro
84737e371e550b5bb0347adaa29cd09f
64084d5c2d9a8ddf0d5fc7a7c166e08df5b85d4f
52347 F20101115_AACBXG alkhresheh_m_Page_021.pro
6c25fa465a35f22c351077c2e2a88d4a
cc4adb988798fee1cdc4b62f6fb6cc5d17870de2
112643 F20101115_AACCBY alkhresheh_m_Page_096.jp2
265da56f6660cffb6a0fb4e10c96da95
923cd0b67a5f6f94c014b0c711697cd748b76680
2159 F20101115_AACDGE alkhresheh_m_Page_094.txt
e39393e1b02a6e6b7706c9a17c88b349
95d77f89403f3c0feccecccced30e0b79dd65351
2185 F20101115_AACDFP alkhresheh_m_Page_075.txt
dfc24adecb9a3bc8f494a379d0d94ad7
257f6d3c9ed98d3dcbb73e6c5e99483f53d9eb3a
54755 F20101115_AACCZV alkhresheh_m_Page_095.pro
f8c107d9990cd704031fe6caff404bc2
0c5fccf8affe0c78cdf04e47ced75e475fc55b6c
96970 F20101115_AACCDC alkhresheh_m_Page_010.jpg
29919211e20ed0951f14fa76ab85e482
877f1c0399b943fb75ae9e90d9ff1f3c6ab23ac9
110406 F20101115_AACCCN alkhresheh_m_Page_045.jp2
a77652254f2fdb9c32b128a09723c2e9
eb22caf1da1def19799e690911737c5aaeed7477
432487 F20101115_AACBXH alkhresheh_m_Page_012.jp2
4f6f069f9f890852e0879ca187c1eca5
b45d043e242a687475ce78cdea6057a034ac3ab9
4381 F20101115_AACCBZ alkhresheh_m_Page_183thm.jpg
1899863fd571895df18bb4b9c6f82db7
635aa30affa2b4d55457fa5a18f3496b1ab3eca1
2122 F20101115_AACDGF alkhresheh_m_Page_096.txt
338fd42aa76f05feba1760fb4c6fc551
55593ee03d619c340e1f38c2942d05dc27805e6a
1489 F20101115_AACDFQ alkhresheh_m_Page_076.txt
182b4d3ef0473770b047089c89c88994
71631a242773bfe8d956f2157f0b55984f531828
53764 F20101115_AACCZW alkhresheh_m_Page_096.pro
997358cccb6b3db094d26665778444b1
5099ea6db942f7eec2eccdc274809603a527ab55
120163 F20101115_AACCDD alkhresheh_m_Page_011.jpg
0de2582951de60cc277f439aba706733
a2f487213d40c3cb71f649eeb6cd944ae3d5f398
1681 F20101115_AACCCO alkhresheh_m_Page_003.pro
10af61f81707672d6c0a04b361913b36
d5972fc5a376d6da289a369902b8a004d1b95850
37302 F20101115_AACBXI alkhresheh_m_Page_076.pro
fa3b647273a0900d77b6bbb5bd57bff0
0486d634e9371b785488b5ce4d3284393d82455e
2070 F20101115_AACDGG alkhresheh_m_Page_097.txt
9d6aea8ee48fc9f95db45f9aac48b1c2
efeb6f266654281f9ba74154daa0e7f4191da1df
2233 F20101115_AACDFR alkhresheh_m_Page_077.txt
2d46d66c03e0649932b67c2e355c2b42
c6aeca7cc27faabdcd2dd2b7e7708eb7c0506b14
F20101115_AACBWV alkhresheh_m_Page_083.tif
9c079b18b3d336804c17d33e70aa0fea
cfdf26ed30e4f812a1b6acb543c3703fc3658c5a
51094 F20101115_AACCZX alkhresheh_m_Page_097.pro
6676747dff6d2488a80e82e93faf90c1
d21ef2428551e462c507a69f9c1bcb6a2e53765d
20170 F20101115_AACCDE alkhresheh_m_Page_012.jpg
ef6a18f3b466c2597d0eaabc71ccd1ad
e376234e2b97e2ee1339306f181fd2ef2d89ccce
20430 F20101115_AACCCP alkhresheh_m_Page_156.QC.jpg
eb5531b21677bbc0479c1248e97db63c
698638125ad98c8e74983772827c6ad6ab90d427
6413 F20101115_AACBXJ alkhresheh_m_Page_019thm.jpg
764f8a292523435ad9a01b0ca68edcd0
cd71d2f14f7988df25f7ec67cd43df443dae707e
F20101115_AACDGH alkhresheh_m_Page_098.txt
a4c662026a8aef30cd778dd7be344e10
779b892f9bae7bf180b3231b012f9ae5a60ea4ca
1247 F20101115_AACDFS alkhresheh_m_Page_078.txt
d01bf7aa6a2690ae9e44e9439878250d
70091c846994480fc110c1c6481e0967d832c6bb
1439 F20101115_AACBWW alkhresheh_m_Page_003.QC.jpg
3f4bc32dc600e6a5d2fd8394b4d88b24
757631f04219792fd09a0e5c6ae18d5a52038e6e
53715 F20101115_AACCZY alkhresheh_m_Page_098.pro
c4f815b348f4466d63887ef44585c9c5
09ecf097f9f7f8857961ad5142775907e36ef116
87611 F20101115_AACCDF alkhresheh_m_Page_013.jpg
ffb1800bd3fbb844813499609ac7a5d4
12d2a68c4d2ec5f1e4c2f256494cbfa2ebf902a3
32020 F20101115_AACCCQ alkhresheh_m_Page_168.pro
5dce404c80c8471973fd613b0fd88089
4edb95bfbb670194170bf5b610a9b367b374fba7
F20101115_AACBXK alkhresheh_m_Page_132.tif
6fb8360c65c4c59528e7af6ce96643a5
dc75bcf054666fafa02fb32926ff667d56aeda44
1969 F20101115_AACDGI alkhresheh_m_Page_099.txt
18c4c2f66532d3510370ab2499024637
efc5f52b726ebb7fa99281729808c75e6480afc2
872 F20101115_AACDFT alkhresheh_m_Page_080.txt
4552dccb00f2817946337cb85e16538c
b9cbfc1eb319d5817546b21011f3a194b96c5b22
2064 F20101115_AACBWX alkhresheh_m_Page_049.txt
cd81964f0d68dab06c859558ef0ab3ac
c5b38d260152986a83f9b580faea247a8d2c802f
49577 F20101115_AACCZZ alkhresheh_m_Page_099.pro
79de05ab04827dea381dbfe424762c88
7c413b14b0b04c584b5a62224a06c54b53e64163
109023 F20101115_AACCDG alkhresheh_m_Page_014.jpg
c8eaf289a5c6426b3c9b01c627063f33
cc586ccf15d7bcc9f71867144acf2a40f834ed1a
53798 F20101115_AACBYA alkhresheh_m_Page_138.pro
ec89412dc7d24270c0664f1966df48bd
3360a7c93511efe079dba10411d7dbc2ccea5a8e
5280 F20101115_AACCCR alkhresheh_m_Page_146thm.jpg
81acf4a64e619fc1329eeeb77a024bc2
51a597c6b2d4bff38164d0dd173063c58955c419
1312 F20101115_AACBXL alkhresheh_m_Page_190.txt
686465cc7f3122f4ef453d1bb7b816c0
5b120897af3427a0120b6f99d38ff60f5022b051
368 F20101115_AACDGJ alkhresheh_m_Page_100.txt
bc63cc1c3f2d7bb5ca4afb21191934b6
b1f43876d959f45dab2673177f8f323453482e50
509 F20101115_AACDFU alkhresheh_m_Page_081.txt
0252b32a0c433366fb85a953b4b2c4fb
a9d320e0ff1700275a157396a09e33f4ffa45d99
F20101115_AACBWY alkhresheh_m_Page_104.tif
945f501038702fdbeb1e2572197b1e06
125ce51ea435a2bd6b7a91940de9f0b041a84d4b
83448 F20101115_AACCDH alkhresheh_m_Page_015.jpg
a4e7140724a556c99e8a07b72fcc1e61
73c3ac421a3d5d388c7229abaa21db46f3e4308e
222217 F20101115_AACCCS UFE0019676_00001.mets FULL
b58d96eec6f2cdfeb8ad1b4db0f67404
14a20966c13a2684f8b98fb9f0b4c16c265e9160
1602 F20101115_AACBXM alkhresheh_m_Page_079.txt
b9ea1fb06dc6e85107dec8c4c7d93f48
b1f460fbd69032b6cea91856234b689ccebbc797
2521 F20101115_AACDGK alkhresheh_m_Page_101.txt
7e7c57c6b1b2585c013db709be24e8a4
ce11cdc53226498270b9621ab736fbba6ae44df5
620 F20101115_AACDFV alkhresheh_m_Page_082.txt
7f09b0ef5a0e2afce3602144f362d795
43a6fa3f509d2415c486539419a958f7ac9c5d9a
6589 F20101115_AACBWZ alkhresheh_m_Page_071thm.jpg
cc72436108135384f4c1bfc2ac26f8d6
915d60e2ae95ce457db6ab2ba62bfd465eb2af67
8331 F20101115_AACCDI alkhresheh_m_Page_016.jpg
0da70a34db5f7806d87c06dd9042dab8
d915f8662a6792da579f57134c8b86f488eb10bc
5946 F20101115_AACBYB alkhresheh_m_Page_017thm.jpg
f9f175b67e7a2481d170a6b7fe019527
ec1afb98537a3a80aac49ceec6c9c8a4dc17d2ef
6854 F20101115_AACBXN alkhresheh_m_Page_094thm.jpg
3c7cda86410c1eccc7d39638a7fc7e10
3b9f98f4c34580a6c968de83f7fc34286e47a488
1594 F20101115_AACDGL alkhresheh_m_Page_102.txt
c013ae90a318344a1e7085d5a3c36902
1a8749ffd93c51482881bbf72831f2914f378472
536 F20101115_AACDFW alkhresheh_m_Page_083.txt
7979bd19ea2faf4bf6cdf8cc93fde685
720312c4befe9f0cf1d994dead95a1691989851e
82681 F20101115_AACCDJ alkhresheh_m_Page_017.jpg
663a3f81ce3187ef8cf1544af8d91e1a
a5716cde2705f19baf36676b10594e8007f006f2
152304 F20101115_AACBYC alkhresheh_m_Page_101.jp2
23535666547931bd8322981044b8e070
4449193f4fa032067b7ca4ca5f1a64863da150a3
6639 F20101115_AACBXO alkhresheh_m_Page_048thm.jpg
345eef48ec662520c327a3f7238bf989
bfe2c3668d336c41c46269e70ad5481358578e51
2249 F20101115_AACDHA alkhresheh_m_Page_119.txt
85082a2b2a7b8fa012b7ac4f22cd44e7
6570babddb09cd08dfc7d359b53af89b63535870
1469 F20101115_AACDGM alkhresheh_m_Page_103.txt
2e12164dd924ef76a7265c42979060cb
04dfec559f6a7a99c6e40a70b93ba4ec91eca458
2119 F20101115_AACDFX alkhresheh_m_Page_084.txt
5f2a4b786463289f5162b5567de4331d
2fa61befbb17007bf702020a464b6c2512a6e97c
39452 F20101115_AACCDK alkhresheh_m_Page_018.jpg
26014b25fe18563ef80e203a0b491d64
0d35cf05fc980712abbfdc78b320831eb2870550
27873 F20101115_AACBYD alkhresheh_m_Page_027.QC.jpg
b0c07cf65bc7310b9bf43a47da45e086
1796dc2e5e44d4cad1a9a54398412a57b48bddbd
26010 F20101115_AACCCV alkhresheh_m_Page_001.jpg
0343b6f167707bfebcbaaabf2f8d429a
d9c0f49ecac733c5b349f9804a2f52f3b6f3d06e
14795 F20101115_AACBXP alkhresheh_m_Page_149.QC.jpg
dccc8cfab870a1daaef69f4d110a9644
8d53d6ff18de932d57d89aaf827a532d5e7d790f
2167 F20101115_AACDHB alkhresheh_m_Page_120.txt
0f11f8da5491b800754eb1af1e9ba51d
c92374d70f73ff425eed66a0f0dd4e5b9fb0aa61
2052 F20101115_AACDFY alkhresheh_m_Page_085.txt
d7690cf3ad9997da93eb5624d471fcb7
517b55845677889831cc603e4f9c30a10f6bfa10
37700 F20101115_AACBYE alkhresheh_m_Page_008.jpg
0a027cedec66e4fa9191cc10c95731e4
3ece2b8cb61090e6fdc9722035f7deb05fe95c0d
3890 F20101115_AACCCW alkhresheh_m_Page_002.jpg
45b9121919100c020218571dc1970a86
239807c3aa700f30413c80f5df5b2aa3714373f1
3671 F20101115_AACBXQ alkhresheh_m_Page_016.pro
1c780bba685a88fbec590fb4c6434e8f
daa8d5b28d0c4b55e447d03cec0f1827583dead2
F20101115_AACDHC alkhresheh_m_Page_121.txt
ab7410622d2f93aedd01a3437b2e89f6
a95853933a42dca23f44433605fcc42ce4eed612
2307 F20101115_AACDGN alkhresheh_m_Page_106.txt
8e97edff81c1c81ff58a77e49721ca94
aa4e821493133c1d6b70f9291704a12aad316be3
1975 F20101115_AACDFZ alkhresheh_m_Page_086.txt
dc4317c48e824415b31c2f048e858c29
f5703976ba2ee179da07b5b7df1c449800d38176
86119 F20101115_AACCDL alkhresheh_m_Page_019.jpg
96192d263ce2af2f9955d9216954f1ef
20669eb33921d59fe768e878faf0cd22c93cca3b
69400 F20101115_AACBYF alkhresheh_m_Page_004.jp2
cbd8e5b52e67d168b054c1a3b5238ef6
719acec7cc68c2387a42339526332570704dc1d3
5312 F20101115_AACCCX alkhresheh_m_Page_003.jpg
7bd85580218459cda754e7dd5ee73271
a38b55104fe4dec0d40931630a532078e2b30c8d
6542 F20101115_AACBXR alkhresheh_m_Page_020thm.jpg
3071b68a3d03b9fc657820ec4e54efa4
4d1ab3e181edc73c83a901f42a79959052bd25de
81790 F20101115_AACCEA alkhresheh_m_Page_036.jpg
971c61f5ffa994be9e5d1b58741cbd9c
cf569271fe60dcd3639cccf11d0a940e6128b157
F20101115_AACDHD alkhresheh_m_Page_122.txt
3016f4d6b9db6ffdb805a095404bb614
9c4e741064b8748f2307fcc3ed8f66a1250dacac
1841 F20101115_AACDGO alkhresheh_m_Page_107.txt
1fc60fdadd95aa4564bf20999ef86221
bdce3e555196cac43a003ebecbc473a23a1c0865
86308 F20101115_AACCDM alkhresheh_m_Page_020.jpg
2da9043ad00c9647409c5862d77635d0
c35f884d862a2793156f2117064cccc834bbfc67
11304 F20101115_AACBYG alkhresheh_m_Page_178.QC.jpg
c9095cc90ffe4985b0b38b90a40f8f8d
c58c37ae278196b5ce0a91bf60d6bb2c64704cba
55022 F20101115_AACCCY alkhresheh_m_Page_004.jpg
290202ccdec9f069123a3585bb026589
2d6add1136e9bc468dbaad0c77f4061966f6742e
F20101115_AACBXS alkhresheh_m_Page_113.tif
b36491039bbd1ec3bd8c2a0e13074107
70f484d2a5b43ff92e105de6c17f1134b2b29258
84126 F20101115_AACCEB alkhresheh_m_Page_037.jpg
b83d9dcd28ee84072c42d2bee78a9597
2579ecff32cb710c8bc252d6c776753b5d7d4273
2150 F20101115_AACDHE alkhresheh_m_Page_123.txt
7af3e95c7fa7629a2c88b65d31c4f446
c21dbad3706579681502c89e8bd5ed48027ff805
268 F20101115_AACDGP alkhresheh_m_Page_108.txt
3df0e3e4fd5f0d5c36f7e7e872f39d90
c363c53690f10a43f00e261f87d9bbd81828be21
88132 F20101115_AACCDN alkhresheh_m_Page_022.jpg
7f1dc9807b002e7a3a1c7fbbe9f5813d
f926b9f32f1266aa8c475c7281b90be2c87ced78
F20101115_AACBYH alkhresheh_m_Page_130.tif
07038c620ee1e04546fbb2b2a46bc684
8536479336c88d5ce2730edc144d21b157e980eb
87484 F20101115_AACCCZ alkhresheh_m_Page_005.jpg
afe3a0ce50cd6afe36be50fa5b1a0002
b3b3137cf048a17924584c7184d2def4ee951269
F20101115_AACBXT alkhresheh_m_Page_067.tif
219003c8138e7ecb0616bd594b12bc09
9d030c87c2728d4225f786988785ae37c0bcb6f1
87907 F20101115_AACCEC alkhresheh_m_Page_038.jpg
e2e10594990d90992c42159ae6bd7e4c
386a1efd5fce32f783c7e9cd99897c34c9b238b2
2048 F20101115_AACDHF alkhresheh_m_Page_124.txt
57d30d57058c2e6efc4ae583f3722bce
794fc948fd614171ba1abfe9798edc7c3709af28
571 F20101115_AACDGQ alkhresheh_m_Page_109.txt
220a1291966353118a474bf089df573a
3426cbedeff6a243eb96e11fddac3a063f534422
88851 F20101115_AACCDO alkhresheh_m_Page_023.jpg
f3a352af368fcae0a4d5c68d67755f8d
31760911e4804c26ca362e8bb9eda126534f6f8e
6448 F20101115_AACBYI alkhresheh_m_Page_122thm.jpg
a3cd479f1af8e98aef9290f729edd38d
ee47b340ba45a21b23c68e627795f92e74911e48
F20101115_AACBXU alkhresheh_m_Page_078.tif
a5df8811a61a47b563533a2185baf2e5
aac483891533ea7dc236f27fc09f008c296c20d0
85529 F20101115_AACCED alkhresheh_m_Page_039.jpg
c467e111b41c3e73e795802827a3252e
6c6fe0bfd38a26ff16946c89d8be44ea78b570ce
2123 F20101115_AACDHG alkhresheh_m_Page_125.txt
ef7207e40d3625b57da049dd8eaf9028
4186dd61c2bfefa5fc1be2014893f41bfff2d2b6
808 F20101115_AACDGR alkhresheh_m_Page_110.txt
35163bf6c37a116541b8247d66940b76
51769e7b2af8334a2efe3c8b6a36d5908cafb397
85645 F20101115_AACCDP alkhresheh_m_Page_024.jpg
34590d7e5a6b1953f669e272fa61de20
f02923934ca23f5f0b89c6a3f41f622846770438
85176 F20101115_AACBYJ alkhresheh_m_Page_093.jpg
d051ed03a9502f0e83be58b9f0c1f5bb
bf2fa9391867df9eec6bc31cf00cd38acdf3ff1b
6841 F20101115_AACBXV alkhresheh_m_Page_096thm.jpg
b8f37f5713ebb204c21450f182beda0d
66319875fe06a3c82527b6e73810dc7f92c31e1b
81612 F20101115_AACCEE alkhresheh_m_Page_041.jpg
720ec4db7aa5e7b0fd5291ac83862894
5b4bed4014f7d6e520ed20039cc215a5238f0f79
2277 F20101115_AACDHH alkhresheh_m_Page_126.txt
8d22ae36593577e5d81f48bf8a6e3e03
dcbc596f9064eccbe5e120c3e666a2236444baa9
1287 F20101115_AACDGS alkhresheh_m_Page_111.txt
b42bf13eddb2d1ffbd70b8573551bf72
106561a56e85efeff1ebdc3bcead672b3fc58aea
84119 F20101115_AACCDQ alkhresheh_m_Page_025.jpg
a50bc632cc90387ead57e3c54e67119b
c3e34f03ae462b91bf105740d31833bc7613f14b
113257 F20101115_AACBYK alkhresheh_m_Page_124.jp2
fd031c100ef9dd3f77cd14053e228115
9446936f7a923f2e37c2ee826c9adcc97287e419
5497 F20101115_AACBXW alkhresheh_m_Page_061thm.jpg
db58b4c2ea5c2182bb948ef8d9a31922
d609ffca711866c24488f1b394f88d2f6f14a997
70667 F20101115_AACCEF alkhresheh_m_Page_042.jpg
63bf600bd1fad0567b6c2015b91e1d75
8f66f777ceb0a1343a8e10d85f23cb1bc40146af
F20101115_AACDHI alkhresheh_m_Page_127.txt
085c478e6d7975ee81db5402051fc13d
230c4633807f7324cc3fafc5198d6a4df7a0c6cc
504 F20101115_AACDGT alkhresheh_m_Page_112.txt
bf73628ec6e10adaedcb2a1718227a59
d1ab6c402f3ece3688cab879c9411c60b334bdfc
31984 F20101115_AACBZA alkhresheh_m_Page_190.pro
436f1e1dc349f201016b9e672673bb36
17140005e478eb3e4bba40feb58a767de360cfd8
78579 F20101115_AACCDR alkhresheh_m_Page_026.jpg
10a45afacb1930cc32eb88f0ec85dad4
103dcabf92e648b98d401ef12ef013b2dfd712f3
70176 F20101115_AACBYL alkhresheh_m_Page_005.pro
da4400c72243f6e0469a7bb74348c0a8
7775831930bd8d171b5dc5b5f8034c20ff013062
1859 F20101115_AACBXX alkhresheh_m_Page_090.txt
9e262312ed7061a7974a415f5c53d124
c42de3aded45b4ac5c4a091fa448d84ebe19c5d1
84809 F20101115_AACCEG alkhresheh_m_Page_043.jpg
95c8722b5ac2b2ba9f7548c17d555c85
e0832e85676d415bdb76ba4d93c6ea41e848bca5
2203 F20101115_AACDHJ alkhresheh_m_Page_128.txt
96f28d8a83697eeb851bc384446c2bf1
44f52c0d704ce561ff3fa52dedd5de7b80592458
634 F20101115_AACDGU alkhresheh_m_Page_113.txt
2ed5aa1bfaf12c11fa09972c708c6fcf
41e71f8379c28b001770abe2ce9be3c5b72772d5
844 F20101115_AACBZB alkhresheh_m_Page_150.txt
9f41c629a881b3471f6dbf741796906c
26c6c9fc47befdb47bd12b2fcfcc253746a566bf
94743 F20101115_AACCDS alkhresheh_m_Page_027.jpg
5710f2fb3a223655308315b1365f1892
91f048c18a0790d8bee172eef29628fb080d5435
22312 F20101115_AACBYM alkhresheh_m_Page_042.QC.jpg
c85845bb6f48bce9ea81001c7dd088a5
658215faf913d3f788b6b85a272f55981d6aa310
769 F20101115_AACBXY alkhresheh_m_Page_179.txt
fa6eae9d5fb12abe28b1c8c0f54a1d6f
be18dacc21a12f76ec4cf06442b25b31531ca570
83750 F20101115_AACCEH alkhresheh_m_Page_045.jpg
ba7c6aa004f5aaf146ac0dddd4737efc
e4d4c765146c0bbf13707eb3ca23be53b0fb52a1
2224 F20101115_AACDHK alkhresheh_m_Page_129.txt
419733ba13ce0a31afa2daaedab3b608
1dcd10d69ad78a91eeecca0a90fffaa1c96bc5a3
2089 F20101115_AACDGV alkhresheh_m_Page_114.txt
0f4453be5f314a9f00187bd094b4ca37
0ba52d1cce5d77016c7d1468d886fb210103e83f
89651 F20101115_AACCDT alkhresheh_m_Page_028.jpg
4c493d57ba9bd35cd9b4c56c6a67a90d
9b9c0b4e5daf398a72c21143dd3f4066370ef0c0
F20101115_AACBYN alkhresheh_m_Page_150.tif
7f4b24b1a7b0e8f362bbe7eaf276e69e
b58225e7271715306ef2d026e4fa98b584f81385
F20101115_AACBXZ alkhresheh_m_Page_164.tif
30707f4d9fa59c71fb1887a574460671
550c1eba56ea37dbc1bd327abbacb08c1a395d7f
84849 F20101115_AACCEI alkhresheh_m_Page_046.jpg
058a5df0718ac8f85b8d38a49fb05889
a21765c4913fd9bd20733a669c1782dac199ec71
2171 F20101115_AACDHL alkhresheh_m_Page_130.txt
4bbcf504aca3ee77dfc61576e1ef6ef2
6d58dcdf4a73e30248320e98df6fa84c58c44237
2026 F20101115_AACDGW alkhresheh_m_Page_115.txt
5f307ac579fb78658825e6afe67023e3
0487b413266c521eff211193c87b99c646881145
F20101115_AACBZC alkhresheh_m_Page_024.tif
b9e52a77e8869f111864e65444da0dfa
0bd58187a0a9c16e543ec278473d6f35dd4266d2
82966 F20101115_AACCDU alkhresheh_m_Page_029.jpg
e7a444a97db0fd87b3d1c14acbc9e359
bd79bf3740a7af1d944b471aa621b87ae45d23a0
111456 F20101115_AACBYO alkhresheh_m_Page_024.jp2
77e5bc0400a11e8095e9c6522167ba7c
44944a9371297d91232b1bb3344b56aef9fb3ddf
88515 F20101115_AACCEJ alkhresheh_m_Page_047.jpg
497ab96a312b284bfb50ded571285524
4c94cbd4de99d08c2790a454d5d892554e13f0bd
1865 F20101115_AACDIA alkhresheh_m_Page_147.txt
cbc2f69bbf03c20b081227908b3c06f4
082c6f509614eb003dab14c6f43f44aecc43c2bf
2082 F20101115_AACDHM alkhresheh_m_Page_131.txt
5d41bfac27094d41fb5c49f80e1fc31e
893c476a954a34b51ef6e9a699911b61d3c1aa1d
F20101115_AACDGX alkhresheh_m_Page_116.txt
f9df9eb54b54482d65eafef06b66d44c
97cd1a410950645f634abebc0f3ff76733b3c4e6
114691 F20101115_AACBZD alkhresheh_m_Page_087.jp2
cbbae086fbceafde12fa895752b83d37
3fdf448eb7c178611409f5a73720b26b31ae4789
84557 F20101115_AACCDV alkhresheh_m_Page_030.jpg
667646323c911c146ead35ed26823f93
2f486c7030d7d197a531221646995929b0c3a77f
1993 F20101115_AACBYP alkhresheh_m_Page_089.txt
b6d2c7b375ef071bd6d03c22a41e7590
e0c493670df395c4c93ae73375436c08f3f2dd92
90812 F20101115_AACCEK alkhresheh_m_Page_048.jpg
159b0d25520f02b433096e3dbdd77f7c
0d9697ee082775ab57a7395b3249a55c3137b915
187 F20101115_AACDIB alkhresheh_m_Page_148.txt
ca335e2618f5625bbab5f4ee7587ba81
513f780be36b5e2739109204471acf8590f95f1f
1222 F20101115_AACDHN alkhresheh_m_Page_132.txt
afcbc4415435bccb04a0b99aa0d4694c
c389f7fdd950f11529f57083b0920f63a6358fb3
2206 F20101115_AACDGY alkhresheh_m_Page_117.txt
8fe2445b4f665680d88d8c7b42ee89ea
abb6e755cd003da9b23acb1b17f3c05b96417106
734442 F20101115_AACBZE alkhresheh_m_Page_083.jp2
2ca2c6c206afe1c8c3b409b929f82355
08d718aea8857b5cd9cc1c6c1fbb9c8a605811d2
86775 F20101115_AACCDW alkhresheh_m_Page_031.jpg
708360188ea82cd701ba8f6fef2712c0
b37b2275d3cca8e58ff95184221748bfa057a6bb
F20101115_AACBYQ alkhresheh_m_Page_086.tif
50a78c8e0933e5df44947c55acf5e07e
478c23d7105cad21ae1095db22efe1f870273b19
85901 F20101115_AACCEL alkhresheh_m_Page_049.jpg
1aec22dd1d46502ebbb63d3e954dbf05
877774d50385a12eb490fd657dd5bf69356e7320
581 F20101115_AACDIC alkhresheh_m_Page_149.txt
2d40197266371b4765b8a0cd4f7c989d
3b00b7c2011fe36896cab0b9f4b652a52b93c81b
2183 F20101115_AACDGZ alkhresheh_m_Page_118.txt
ad2e3092c55e649cdcda5a022e78ca83
2e654b3524cdeaa2b9d3a0ec4de409e96175c14f
9831 F20101115_AACBZF alkhresheh_m_Page_175.pro
1482a71054b8313294c87c68e3b7120c
967376a69b1d924693a7275b7330ce5d821280a7
92538 F20101115_AACCDX alkhresheh_m_Page_032.jpg
41f8290adfb35e4081a588d2a8db81a6
edf8d45bd7b715831a75042432885aeb33cac593
53424 F20101115_AACBYR alkhresheh_m_Page_087.pro
e6b26c95fb1c40d4da86df8333f236e6
8dca7e97df59bf0474c7ad2c41881667ec6979fb
74074 F20101115_AACCFA alkhresheh_m_Page_065.jpg
d0d49beb4ef838f03acb5dd0698e1ae3
32c6cc8ea001b4e2b05a2f2554bfae2ea2ec6b7d
645 F20101115_AACDID alkhresheh_m_Page_151.txt
0536a1a606edfc899029bdb281cdd8b9
ee1b4af5f0178366cdf7f90c33bc2a2804c39115
1585 F20101115_AACDHO alkhresheh_m_Page_133.txt
d8a95fb806b3686c0bbf8ba9870e5e70
801e8186cb4e68181f2586cc90873a23963345ca
88098 F20101115_AACBZG alkhresheh_m_Page_044.jpg
f0692dbbc6db4757a04d09189b1aba3c
1ef0b4b20ceeee6b414ec4291e4cf39ff0b2be6e
87308 F20101115_AACCDY alkhresheh_m_Page_033.jpg
c0bbe7356d40818555155c33a4c47eda
06a6329bb834604873bca78b0867ec32f0efc162
F20101115_AACBYS alkhresheh_m_Page_054.txt
73444378130ffb1dfff6263f60faab1e
3f35051a59563a0e609ff23228dceea1bdb131ef
87665 F20101115_AACCFB alkhresheh_m_Page_066.jpg
5b24967d19f66ee48b736b49ecf23a38
3580aea800c2a7c925ebdb7751b58d4ef27f3dc3
80324 F20101115_AACCEM alkhresheh_m_Page_050.jpg
ee74a46c6d7b4769dbc039a25f75b169
fe4472b9b633f8b0eee82075d184a23fc08b7d9a
1693 F20101115_AACDIE alkhresheh_m_Page_153.txt
484ab7c87f812061cdc369278552a86e
ed42e23426cdbf53edb35ed23137d8058b2bf0bc
270 F20101115_AACDHP alkhresheh_m_Page_134.txt
a8eff58b019e544ab6d74e7d2ee56038
6c287de0d90f8e7114b368e8ade8b393ef30e81a
84787 F20101115_AACBZH alkhresheh_m_Page_040.jpg
807d45b1f69a87c8e47df57ff7175d3b
b6e8718cb842bcfbdcd825649697781e17eece62
90253 F20101115_AACCDZ alkhresheh_m_Page_035.jpg
2ffec1430b130ddf3d255aedfd0d279b
cff1a4723decd91565eb83cf3b42da904aa25599
3861 F20101115_AACBYT alkhresheh_m_Page_174thm.jpg
c64f3eed021542efe08fc5fc283f64d1
b2beee1223871498377d7c20a312f94f07fcd8bb
87003 F20101115_AACCFC alkhresheh_m_Page_067.jpg
f9ff24e700b826a450d441c22db319b3
fdfafdd2aa8afa5d166a2620d8349a9a01bf42ed
83371 F20101115_AACCEN alkhresheh_m_Page_051.jpg
021137e20f820bde8a6b478620c30f10
2a5833130b5bdfbf33b6f386e45a8c0f2d5448da
F20101115_AACDIF alkhresheh_m_Page_154.txt
787206dff277082ad1848ca009bf830f
d137f4c77383fb91ad0ed5f03d16be757742ba4b
343 F20101115_AACDHQ alkhresheh_m_Page_135.txt
c0c1ce401e33202de87dbee0a6ab79c3
961cf52788aa51bed6053990b244284beb5ac196
965 F20101115_AACBZI alkhresheh_m_Page_104.txt
a655c00818641bd20ac105532f259cf2
b4da67ca8e93c405f24838e4b798f25b6015e83c
5483 F20101115_AACBYU alkhresheh_m_Page_006thm.jpg
3f59f7d79b61d73dbbcd6e64ba92b09d
398c23a50a47308ca84c4a89c369e84fc660140c
78993 F20101115_AACCFD alkhresheh_m_Page_068.jpg
ac9c3939b666869d37ddb9852f95b1a3
081c62bdb2adad18ebab3b80801ee13403595cc9
93559 F20101115_AACCEO alkhresheh_m_Page_052.jpg
1ed32b0e8a673f22aa36a4b059a5d710
77641774f9b306468ff52355e3d5e0eadfe4266f
2291 F20101115_AACDIG alkhresheh_m_Page_155.txt
97a5b93aaa45875c2badd85ae8f49b00
d22a964e47e2d8b55254780e497cd50624447368
F20101115_AACDHR alkhresheh_m_Page_136.txt
eb56f2ef218b8ba1d2494fdfc59a5b1a
40880ca069691c747a653b5144de2982692e8487
6400 F20101115_AACBZJ alkhresheh_m_Page_131thm.jpg
e9bb11519a2822cba0d3f1d1b9ebd3b8
fb7762626d409fe11171fb6ad07b5802bb4ab14b
5357 F20101115_AACBYV alkhresheh_m_Page_063thm.jpg
460cb84116996447616d9362ea24d0a8
8fcd631e17fc6ed3d8a10d5cb2f55155b4b4096a
85505 F20101115_AACCFE alkhresheh_m_Page_069.jpg
e5c776b65d8ce61b05a5b1ac6c7b94eb
5b3485a956e91af6113ad2037974aef4ba66e318
88177 F20101115_AACCEP alkhresheh_m_Page_054.jpg
c7635a119ceeeb447b338971faf5b689
46a8a7eb7e8165ba81f4e723662fbb3698ae2111
1589 F20101115_AACDIH alkhresheh_m_Page_156.txt
b119c751da60dfa7376feb49b8c051e8
054ba9c8bbca843d9a133804235877f1fa0dfedd
2121 F20101115_AACDHS alkhresheh_m_Page_138.txt
597240d71aa6d3e2afe6fcbbde2c7f0a
b849d81891ae6de60abe7c652cb8c17aae5af777
5325 F20101115_AACBYW alkhresheh_m_Page_064.pro
5cea472504a90d680e6de6969b01cb8e
e18bfd68c73dc018ebd2f5984f917f18ad656400
85296 F20101115_AACCFF alkhresheh_m_Page_071.jpg
3fed821ce465df05f441857918359922
ecc09a1d170e9eed9809c618383b1ab0b65696b0
89726 F20101115_AACCEQ alkhresheh_m_Page_055.jpg
8f6fad49acab0d4c9ec60f44acac6fc4
e162f6996947306f89fbdfc5dc648ea278ab3790
16857 F20101115_AACBZK alkhresheh_m_Page_064.QC.jpg
2e067f3d85765a011b62f385b2eb73e1
e263d074da0afd931e08fef94e0ccf3f0836105b
1231 F20101115_AACDII alkhresheh_m_Page_157.txt
020608eca02aa96868a32aba74f7255e
2bad586df2c5681b48636a67e83463d33907544b
2242 F20101115_AACDHT alkhresheh_m_Page_139.txt
ea94258ecea2d89bf0c8c8c5ab93b8e5
22f474dfb7dde9a03e8d97e1b21d5f39c70c8ee9
F20101115_AACBYX alkhresheh_m_Page_120.tif
c4390b21ded5566f522dda791e4db111
465d2a196ebb40aa7ec78deff3abc4bd15ca3868
79193 F20101115_AACCFG alkhresheh_m_Page_072.jpg
d1454324756b5b29cf1bca5d414aade9
0ca12aadc8177d8e7b559eeb85776871d4ce885f
92738 F20101115_AACCER alkhresheh_m_Page_056.jpg
e797b2c843af8febc113cec3a5c67b74
4bd59293e207ea419c351e11be35257efb1b6314
1051957 F20101115_AACBZL alkhresheh_m_Page_011.jp2
4f37568c8cfb2381fb92b8d42150f24b
431fd48d34ec3aca5e700ef799e316cd0a3039a2
673 F20101115_AACDIJ alkhresheh_m_Page_158.txt
8a86e2fdc91c1675971deb7af7755335
584f445c08af50601bc8d9f4fb88f66dc553b1b8
2077 F20101115_AACDHU alkhresheh_m_Page_140.txt
0b0fbf6b204f9a430a6be5b117b2af32
feb9fe65893060c8b59a41bf6e80c7b4f44aedd1
29505 F20101115_AACBYY alkhresheh_m_Page_078.pro
c2f0cfc513b1e20754fc6de329e55585
1bee84d221118ccdd57d8217054e7c019588c9d7
78707 F20101115_AACCFH alkhresheh_m_Page_073.jpg
0d8cdb1b2eff2083a6a92745dfe2e31a
c9b01a92df8501bafbeb8ddec9194394894a5c0a
29003 F20101115_AACCES alkhresheh_m_Page_057.jpg
98bb567301f4f758c2e8bac74e1d163d
d6bb536c812f7d7ec82d4ca1a53e55f39858ef9c
803 F20101115_AACBZM alkhresheh_m_Page_152.txt
aa6078ac79cc6e1664905b2f8c315a72
12850284d081a1ea1d222f6ced79d4fcb3f33184
1088 F20101115_AACDIK alkhresheh_m_Page_159.txt
0c4e5e9ff22fb4cd1dbdeeb8c70449e5
5339d0f73c1739be12cbbf522a9308d3ba9f4289
F20101115_AACDHV alkhresheh_m_Page_141.txt
8f8f59973bdb9d8c86b9f2fe17daaaa0
943cf1ac1ffd6682e14cc4375e90bd0f0d201588
13067 F20101115_AACBYZ alkhresheh_m_Page_176.pro
e60b47d13a2e018fa665eaec180fed6a
86c9c80d992aea2ec16f409090f7211cb27b7513
86879 F20101115_AACCFI alkhresheh_m_Page_074.jpg
5b00f5265cc9eae4a4f4eebba0febc4a
ceb80ff2261586951454fa556298b371e126e8a9
84987 F20101115_AACCET alkhresheh_m_Page_058.jpg
508c03841576a669972dcaa7f321862f
8b12cb9a4bc2d8e082bc38422a1af31e07203bc8
5506 F20101115_AACBZN alkhresheh_m_Page_135.pro
7488be80ca94c2f64c9f3f71ee5b6b08
2e927de0ff486a03b4a5f8d4b3a5094c0d9918e7
1072 F20101115_AACDIL alkhresheh_m_Page_160.txt
8667ce69b243cae493002781842167c6
36828c7988bc2062bf2ede5039914a20386e3bc0
1957 F20101115_AACDHW alkhresheh_m_Page_142.txt
e0c926ab6540b31fcd893bda14276943
2ebe13aa195e079376793d6cc993a6295d150b12
87311 F20101115_AACCFJ alkhresheh_m_Page_075.jpg
0197b4820bc3c04ccbf97ffc32b8e26e
1b2e1fc3f6424f9be68566abdb0972b1d73321c2
66362 F20101115_AACCEU alkhresheh_m_Page_059.jpg
f492fdd26f8e6a601b9de00df6f41ece
2f3794e682dd914230fe4328595dfc1c34318e00
F20101115_AACBZO alkhresheh_m_Page_173.tif
ef3d5ebc1f5a223a2bfdfdb5f705dfa9
f18701b6c2018f07c74242d11711d915c5adb5a2
589 F20101115_AACDJA alkhresheh_m_Page_177.txt
fb35261d61dbc1e8c74f649945582fc4
da28f3de9763e989561fee62e7bbfcc7b91e65b7
1206 F20101115_AACDIM alkhresheh_m_Page_161.txt
83ea79e6a0d07914a672f74139c68033
cd98d6dea8557e418fc1a82cceefd2c6198ca954
1884 F20101115_AACDHX alkhresheh_m_Page_144.txt
dcb2d045de6253ec12e2fa38f9ac3923
6979efffc89e2a0ada25ad1d27702a2f92dc87c9
62230 F20101115_AACCFK alkhresheh_m_Page_076.jpg
ff71a2b2dfbfab88f4b6c7dcfa791df0
65ca0b9b040c62ce3714deebcd9f8060277d7406
93921 F20101115_AACCEV alkhresheh_m_Page_060.jpg
258b5a4ee92fe33cf8bcc9084e9f20c8
8b91aef2bffc96486420fee3e657a8e8499d6b57
3756 F20101115_AACBZP alkhresheh_m_Page_175thm.jpg
b7dd2875f15a7ee980429266988ce4ec
7117929d69c486ace49dfd781dc80a17e162c319
662 F20101115_AACDJB alkhresheh_m_Page_178.txt
9cea3ab80ac0ca6ab558fa84440f5900
a7e0d7c7efc008eec8de3a87fe7871579ceacff0
1141 F20101115_AACDIN alkhresheh_m_Page_162.txt
4430806e432f938d06b77202ae076b86
75bdfb14cd158a76ade4fe7a4c28d947f44fe14f
F20101115_AACDHY alkhresheh_m_Page_145.txt
529c1f1304da9f93d5ba3a27030f2f66
79f813c64ea34e96923313cdf135d88d588bf38e
94723 F20101115_AACCFL alkhresheh_m_Page_077.jpg
f86b78f26e133a1719f90ed71fecab9e
1ae09736d37faf91a89e06fc468cb65a27deea57
51521 F20101115_AACCEW alkhresheh_m_Page_061.jpg
9adf9cd6686a66cd081a572051d539d8
ba86aaa16e50e8aad3fb9b450bd3b84b9a33fe43
1111 F20101115_AACBZQ alkhresheh_m_Page_002.QC.jpg
1419226b45b90321c335510f648abd66
76aacfee5b211d7816ed3a677b889ace83cca6b2
751 F20101115_AACDJC alkhresheh_m_Page_180.txt
bd8538398710e30cfa8578e4737a177d
0f95138516c3c2733cc81f3f075559c5df0ac7db
2137 F20101115_AACDIO alkhresheh_m_Page_163.txt
7f0502f717aea09b3d08b819940b7b0f
34b97c1320e896226425f266b15fc2f1821cc6d3
1747 F20101115_AACDHZ alkhresheh_m_Page_146.txt
044842e49a1bedb54c61da3df38e7fb2
6b9ce2f2d7ff3f095159fa6d68a50c1da5f3e0f9
87141 F20101115_AACCGA alkhresheh_m_Page_094.jpg
9ddb4558e8bcb93e64dd3b6bebe029c3
a2eb4a5c7f0e740e3f883c3361b320fa2bc5c271
61434 F20101115_AACCFM alkhresheh_m_Page_078.jpg
39fe21667f4041cc7ecec3979cf43e0a
4a776aefb65111562db6fced07ac8c38174003b5
61325 F20101115_AACCEX alkhresheh_m_Page_062.jpg
57c44e5b5887825bba545b7a82a60ff8
471a47621c0647e24b088fb53b785669f99d3055
27820 F20101115_AACBZR alkhresheh_m_Page_044.QC.jpg
249db1f041f1dbea1f095bbedb471df2
25222e375da7be3c6e3b3eca44adec79ca049e4f
711 F20101115_AACDJD alkhresheh_m_Page_181.txt
08d9f5e18270759f85d3e9cb87f5f401
7f2f6113fd51cecfcf005d15d104d52ed62581e9
88588 F20101115_AACCGB alkhresheh_m_Page_095.jpg
fe3b9e65b420591b5dac100a8f549e05
565a3ef5b4134fb67ad28644489af898b212ab2b
54328 F20101115_AACCEY alkhresheh_m_Page_063.jpg
c42f1fd31cf40aad5ec851219f3f1044
f95c1319e62d8ee4cd8fcaa2a60ee0eb8f30cbf4
50120 F20101115_AACBZS alkhresheh_m_Page_015.pro
0517eadc6fb949a0a3351eb5c48dc0d2
d5c61a5eab8d173897b429c38573345a7d79cbfc
704 F20101115_AACDJE alkhresheh_m_Page_182.txt
038b4f463284700768e965824ae40ae6
ba11999a6c3bc5d7c889dd0f44129843f2d95dd0
1889 F20101115_AACDIP alkhresheh_m_Page_164.txt
a69c1aeab0f44a87e12c3b549def2530
9212958f4a1e28761fd3667c92b0fa76c9df0812
87391 F20101115_AACCGC alkhresheh_m_Page_096.jpg
dd3c36b0f98309362733025a887c4707
31a44a5009d70ad6e9adc4533141399b121a7fbc
63224 F20101115_AACCFN alkhresheh_m_Page_079.jpg
42a74ea64d5b439e745e63c3667b3870
c51764776fc61e9dd91daa00d1c02a230dd5bb9a
52039 F20101115_AACCEZ alkhresheh_m_Page_064.jpg
c8c0f44915fe635d6eba7de0a725256c
caf81104bbb4f66636387d2fe0fc74be71fd9cfb
37276 F20101115_AACBZT alkhresheh_m_Page_133.pro
97a8a97753ac906f1ac41a817718e4cd
c726c27c7adb3fb9d849a2ee947586f190c3858c
825 F20101115_AACDJF alkhresheh_m_Page_183.txt
4e4d032cc7b89aa40564524ecb4f89cc
46c84edd646ee3a6ea6b89c177866f0e9d1ba8b0
655 F20101115_AACDIQ alkhresheh_m_Page_165.txt
e94bf50c83f1e70a0b1be421d47c4055
a592490c12d2bbd16cb53aa03086ed43b54c2d25
82569 F20101115_AACCGD alkhresheh_m_Page_097.jpg
67fc730d7145ff46ecbbbd9d1b5336e4
b5ad49ab7b3d92bad1a4738d5f3b172c59a1b7ee
45763 F20101115_AACCFO alkhresheh_m_Page_080.jpg
8c2d87351d565735277e9a871fccb4df
28edbacdd071192f9359e2f72a335d52c59aafde
91600 F20101115_AACBZU alkhresheh_m_Page_006.pro
2668149c0837322806ee39d2eae9064f
f83be1da89a2d4c5b3e14667df15a23efdf4fc00
669 F20101115_AACDJG alkhresheh_m_Page_184.txt
73b83c7e0fc1e49efc33cacb30710ac0
c953fe6765774c02f1578c743ffac3c5c796cc89
602 F20101115_AACDIR alkhresheh_m_Page_166.txt
7376b0cd9bfdf2cd317f8a84a32accd0
f6575328c04d1a2011a6562bca8dc24eb60c64c0
86420 F20101115_AACCGE alkhresheh_m_Page_098.jpg
a5e1febfc52bb9751e9a1e7e1425ecab
b25091af66f0c9da87c83b800ae1d750492f10e1
38072 F20101115_AACCFP alkhresheh_m_Page_081.jpg
d28781844d0bf0513193f94d2f919905
8faf1603aa8f95a0701fa83a13231be4ee7c3934
28118 F20101115_AACBZV alkhresheh_m_Page_122.QC.jpg
22ff68654090782f10c0c353bcc269ef
094e3595627f17c19b745897255f911f01b465b9
801 F20101115_AACDJH alkhresheh_m_Page_185.txt
ad3fcb5bffa9bd7b72b304674a180c3f
0811a1f423102d0109c6c3c613a346e5dad781ba
363 F20101115_AACDIS alkhresheh_m_Page_167.txt
99e7bd93d1a26cfd0cf7ff7aff59080e
daa8e33927328a3624831455fcbaaf3eb700f8bd
78874 F20101115_AACCGF alkhresheh_m_Page_099.jpg
7a4edc08da5171bc01adaf0a4ab6aa3f
f6d4462723403dda5f050ac1cf786e09446971e6
46768 F20101115_AACCFQ alkhresheh_m_Page_082.jpg
81d0c650ef82ae108dd9f8fce9defc52
cd68065c73205ca9832c6878c2218de46dda6f6b
6370 F20101115_AACBZW alkhresheh_m_Page_031thm.jpg
b545bdd941d8e6c7bcc6530546b0a226
0648ea8768db78bccd8b222d991b53221aeb9dd7
2292 F20101115_AACDJI alkhresheh_m_Page_187.txt
031dcc2934a5c85541c17f4d4f76fc90
bbb6fafa29af9c0b0f34893be6f48deb2ccf1f17
1425 F20101115_AACDIT alkhresheh_m_Page_168.txt
958636d611a19a71fcaf498f9b043040
2661550edeb92b9c531a4bad44eed33d72f066d0
14525 F20101115_AACCGG alkhresheh_m_Page_100.jpg
bd708dab04a1964f9b77ceb727e95135
ca0405294a34c0d0832ca26d4d015484e0c595ed
46133 F20101115_AACCFR alkhresheh_m_Page_083.jpg
b2cca06cc6156edb7ddea3609b11b909
4f0f380e880ef46aaf8ddd5111edc2a894525a0e
54876 F20101115_AACBZX alkhresheh_m_Page_121.pro
2f0d9e01fcc83d7042ed1dd26a37efb0
1ef203499754227fc35bf710146c8d67c9cdd1c0
2438 F20101115_AACDJJ alkhresheh_m_Page_188.txt
b388434dda99b3f4a68a172abc99913c
1544e5d6298f76a78aab5f7dadfa62f1bf28780d
1334 F20101115_AACDIU alkhresheh_m_Page_170.txt
cb6f249d2bfc672239c3dc40af5749cd
6effbd992ec20a16aa5321dff183d66605cdbccc
114110 F20101115_AACCGH alkhresheh_m_Page_101.jpg
c832c06e9fb81ea8933ee9346f7245d0
03bf580d4e30e96c5b0181bfaabd79d6402f10c6
82831 F20101115_AACCFS alkhresheh_m_Page_084.jpg
ada4f690ec3bb2bf004c3dfbf4ee1597
f3deee7f399ab8e05cb2d3bd697e6e7299e6079e
6766 F20101115_AACBZY alkhresheh_m_Page_095thm.jpg
aa7b76ffd4346f43f0aa7a54db5fce90
766404ccfe69c51ef59269957502e15dd2430944
F20101115_AACDJK alkhresheh_m_Page_189.txt
de5d3b82231b710a5d5f2d79f9a96edd
13b11d8601be292728b0ac3da44321a5f891ea3c
1457 F20101115_AACDIV alkhresheh_m_Page_171.txt
901113d7991402a9fc79be837be938e2
cbb9e24247963b51f5ce7000a0fbb6d74692ae69
85312 F20101115_AACCFT alkhresheh_m_Page_085.jpg
9d4aefd02d611f04bf16b14fab6e2e43
e6c90fc0049a4c5b5f0e58fa9da81322bbe6583a
F20101115_AACBZZ alkhresheh_m_Page_070.tif
4a1245ff5588fa4037187a93e2afb685
ffa21044d6a1c401b1161cd2640e25500c04bcca
72700 F20101115_AACCGI alkhresheh_m_Page_102.jpg
ebc9510bfdeae8d015f5d174071af168
d47ebbb7f58ea016a851db65f0f6ec40be564cc4
2348057 F20101115_AACDJL alkhresheh_m.pdf
a4a6741d4f5d9ca9342a01e7a6e735ed
8fb59bcaa39f0f7908aee7aedb13276bf6642f5f
BROKEN_LINK
Prop.exe
Prop.exe
Prop.exe
Prop.exe
F20101115_AACDIW alkhresheh_m_Page_172.txt
c0bcb9d90b152dca68645d9b00992d4d
adebbf5fc82264486704b8df6dd72b15a92e930b
86784 F20101115_AACCFU alkhresheh_m_Page_087.jpg
7d80e4c7f34da22a1b62953b330fbcda
fe8a8cdb975418b6c807110ac54f41726910adb9
63589 F20101115_AACCGJ alkhresheh_m_Page_103.jpg
551af63f751c62ee6b79fb48439f74a2
95561f40b9f8f99d054a442c4176f62775f0147f
6727 F20101115_AACDKA alkhresheh_m_Page_047thm.jpg
b0df5f1512714be66a68c7b381d3084c
bdb184e3ff4288c514c36d7f27aa67062a3bed68
26363 F20101115_AACDJM alkhresheh_m_Page_040.QC.jpg
f6836c43b5aac470a1151d71935ec14f
ff47dc3708403aa27b3c590782c03b85dbf158b9
F20101115_AACDIX alkhresheh_m_Page_173.txt
04bb037455eaae7da5941e1c14c61b8c
eb78f32bf09d56350532e5e65c3d9de11cb1f54f
82690 F20101115_AACCFV alkhresheh_m_Page_088.jpg
eb943220df1d54d0df128f86f49fb3c2
267fd39b1038b349b9150008937fae7285bc780d
39177 F20101115_AACCGK alkhresheh_m_Page_104.jpg
0b64055eff61af48a0757b5425b8a908
2e34957c41627d71ad60aa152e67e55de4f8d6ea
26090 F20101115_AACDKB alkhresheh_m_Page_010.QC.jpg
81af4f6667b590726dbcb679eee13a40
bae58ccb06b9e372028364d0c03c6fa5f4a91c9b
17499 F20101115_AACDJN alkhresheh_m_Page_004.QC.jpg
d966d5500791d81a900292830d68c42a
56515a6a7ae8f74fed0eb9a13c4793bb6bba867d
592 F20101115_AACDIY alkhresheh_m_Page_175.txt
10f830f274111f407a67751d3ab97fa7
daf11145bb748f028475c58223fe9427217ef113
82282 F20101115_AACCFW alkhresheh_m_Page_089.jpg
6bea1860eb09800a38d2cbe9ebb2d806
a05466f628a53f827e7c315f548f66b8139193ca
81617 F20101115_AACCGL alkhresheh_m_Page_105.jpg
bb6cd2690728461c8ee24a9143e47792
e572d36dbec1307f301e432d3c1224e49b14cf74
6035 F20101115_AACDKC alkhresheh_m_Page_189thm.jpg
8a93c77ddc66f8445e680fd83be2ff64
a36f5f1e0efcb906410477999ccd6deeaf634704
25878 F20101115_AACDJO alkhresheh_m_Page_136.QC.jpg
b79d46840035f12fdfa1d23409d1ae0b
5d5b7d0f5fbf09cf2a6d86b059efa0d0d0ac66d3
F20101115_AACDIZ alkhresheh_m_Page_176.txt
6e42e0afe4fb937be15cd70bffb9dc08
97f9f89da55ec2a2a8bd9a25865002369da271e8
69880 F20101115_AACCFX alkhresheh_m_Page_090.jpg
b38ce492ac6da193b9a0157281f159d6
469764f3e5a2ae8f120020240696aadad2a588c2
87424 F20101115_AACCHA alkhresheh_m_Page_120.jpg
b3da0ff9d7049b2df518f2ddb0832272
be17a24718eaa86a3daa53917560273e6116e4ad
83484 F20101115_AACCGM alkhresheh_m_Page_106.jpg
5c9d167405ba12248c6b1d116aed3216
9837e189ad7ab231029c5471bd4f4dcedbc2caba
26591 F20101115_AACDKD alkhresheh_m_Page_049.QC.jpg
56063e2797d83a6646a574f26cdcdccf
0d588cc3fc60fbe4023231a810a4312a7bc527d0
6274 F20101115_AACDJP alkhresheh_m_Page_075thm.jpg
ae6252a305ac0670f5d3b77524a3a0e0
babdc63c784fb50578eefc2adf32fe4941f08ee5
85944 F20101115_AACCFY alkhresheh_m_Page_091.jpg
9e6ddc541185eab401eed5a3bad40897
6180e26dabda17400d4b186467bd846ce16ab669
90715 F20101115_AACCHB alkhresheh_m_Page_121.jpg
039534fdaa762cda10609649d2788f08
dfc069b1ca8381c1224c84e206e719c1f34f239c
71211 F20101115_AACCGN alkhresheh_m_Page_107.jpg
a827ae8e0c61553ab538275d661fbb71
7144f8891ed25eea5b75610efba63f82a1fdca3f
4022 F20101115_AACDKE alkhresheh_m_Page_132thm.jpg
f6b2208299d3c1c650f1c523c3d01a0c
ecb9e796c62556dbcf615b190d4a6346348159c6
86859 F20101115_AACCFZ alkhresheh_m_Page_092.jpg
870db44168e2e6235b78a1cd91a7cd72
490a5225098e59ad8e88577cf09d5bffeb7a4bb3
88456 F20101115_AACCHC alkhresheh_m_Page_122.jpg
c56844a4efb79f52ec057c98b973e80f
ca0d96ade5d1091bd3cc5e277cd73ccb993317f0
3912 F20101115_AACDKF alkhresheh_m_Page_180thm.jpg
1b4609c407b1e1496c04f47b336bb559
2c1e2604dbbc482ef15f031fae152b8768db21f5
6401 F20101115_AACDJQ alkhresheh_m_Page_084thm.jpg
e4c2bd7f17661cc76347eae546a975f7
471981f7932d329860ed26282907bef0c2be8820
88979 F20101115_AACCHD alkhresheh_m_Page_123.jpg
5cb2889ea46883b5ceea973b8f6e1669
88c674e773c89d0b5f145b6ff7a3645ec2a9abfe
21019 F20101115_AACCGO alkhresheh_m_Page_108.jpg
37342c1c491f238977575a24a3788448
1b92bd68c789ed784e867827574dd0499d968913
15991 F20101115_AACDKG alkhresheh_m_Page_132.QC.jpg
efea451c234e708e1611d7ee5534002d
be18670648012fb891efff59598f831e38a3278c
26720 F20101115_AACDJR alkhresheh_m_Page_115.QC.jpg
a12ada27738fe2bcb593fcfe0e5e53e4
ae6337636809ecaa6012bd103ef26bd8b30faba0
84706 F20101115_AACCHE alkhresheh_m_Page_124.jpg
6d1c8bbed339d4d7471235082ae06da0
b74f56037a8aaa3b1790d368ce22cefb7d2879c5
34360 F20101115_AACCGP alkhresheh_m_Page_109.jpg
f0168f9ee465aecad7b14510dc927cf0
d74af48a7a0ab17f4201ac2187802fdf988d90fa
14254 F20101115_AACDKH alkhresheh_m_Page_162.QC.jpg
e5a3c764fc3abc7a1a7dc9ea88b0f6b0
9437dd23d5bcbea5e7d76b44a8cd38fb6c65eb4d
12561 F20101115_AACDJS alkhresheh_m_Page_104.QC.jpg
6564590413ce8322875e6078bc8c6453
04e8ac5318e7c39da1f1f8f5b297a970338c5b6d
87666 F20101115_AACCHF alkhresheh_m_Page_125.jpg
6a84ca91a8ab495a4bd15c0d262bd0cb
8e46c9f8fc7218b0f4300cd6f69f7b4968f8fc7a
34849 F20101115_AACCGQ alkhresheh_m_Page_110.jpg
86c18de53d7f11662fae32b02c1dbc61
a20289fbccfcff30046db40fdef33095ec89a6b8
27593 F20101115_AACDKI alkhresheh_m_Page_045.QC.jpg
535ca1ded5636fd50e3d96535ce585bf
ec3a12be70dec9296de1a411af23b8c128af001a
5385 F20101115_AACDJT alkhresheh_m_Page_009thm.jpg
892a35029615d8724ffdf12c6c44d245
53042f416537990da429b35727782a9d52ab4183
92185 F20101115_AACCHG alkhresheh_m_Page_126.jpg
7e5a3bbd368fff748d3be2a07a91979c
5fcdea1614d3aff4de7af1d3898b4fc7bc283a98
41895 F20101115_AACCGR alkhresheh_m_Page_111.jpg
1a08b88b1e67b93e7bdf0745e60313c7
066ae9555bf1567a362e045aa161c111ea1f8584
28050 F20101115_AACDKJ alkhresheh_m_Page_187.QC.jpg
0a43efe52be9f7d8765e104748997e0d
0d5459a99f893e603c64aba6614896b914475f59
6508 F20101115_AACDJU alkhresheh_m_Page_093thm.jpg
70b3cd0ea59beacf00d7082b4c4614af
e7912d73ce3cb0b892336cb7448085bffcb0c02a
89254 F20101115_AACCHH alkhresheh_m_Page_127.jpg
d415ba497567b0676ebef3e65532f3f1
a4af29d9046be98ffce492bcbeed178c00bc0f97
42349 F20101115_AACCGS alkhresheh_m_Page_112.jpg
c1c7f31fa31f060f550f57a5864d427e
d158867dadc762de3e444da0da55ff8266e136f9
27163 F20101115_AACDKK alkhresheh_m_Page_021.QC.jpg
d5dbfbbaf93ad5afbf6c467d93c814a3
b19575ef21c091dfc42d65c3baf5dcdd01ab4670
4550 F20101115_AACDJV alkhresheh_m_Page_078thm.jpg
5804ce338a118a5cd372066200d42ffc
2aa02e7aabb07449811d25e5f4d6921ca6be2a47
90268 F20101115_AACCHI alkhresheh_m_Page_128.jpg
2927d7c4ac415d24b7f9117c8594bbf8
d78f4d83f07f9f34d2d9813f7ff98d18bd1eb9d1
31332 F20101115_AACCGT alkhresheh_m_Page_113.jpg
604c3521f1d32adb45d8c92518cf264c
88631c2b4f82cf5260a39b944417d239eb34f91f
3976 F20101115_AACDKL alkhresheh_m_Page_159thm.jpg
b25b5a77057088c1309a6cc070a34552
5148a57e8b15cc3878219684cd5608b8e860ce01
27548 F20101115_AACDJW alkhresheh_m_Page_067.QC.jpg
0b1e8a04778b47fca24abc4f1707bad3
6a219b6484626a1feeffb4bdea47e81d0877771b
88352 F20101115_AACCHJ alkhresheh_m_Page_130.jpg
7ecc4839dd51203d262d1b5cc8fc55e2
7bf2429baf53cc26ee1c12001fa4899b8cc619a6
82623 F20101115_AACCGU alkhresheh_m_Page_114.jpg
d4a9cc07db96117cee76248992a709d2
56ca27de2870128c93fee9fe0b9d2558909f48e4
4601 F20101115_AACDLA alkhresheh_m_Page_111thm.jpg
9592461e7ffa64f508b674881fc37d3b
dc681779beebdbb4c747577683a821c5c92c0d2f
5716 F20101115_AACDKM alkhresheh_m_Page_072thm.jpg
df13725ce5f6e6993b4af79dd0fc9379
65ae5cddc345aadf120c693cc41675e790f572c2
25488 F20101115_AACDJX alkhresheh_m_Page_050.QC.jpg
1e14d1bb84e69abdce6e5e2b8b4bfa21
bd756685fed00fb66ae4d3e9a63ebfab1c627ab8
85935 F20101115_AACCHK alkhresheh_m_Page_131.jpg
d01ea84898e8b0930240e73e24157bb4
a274f271ba3d12261fac85950fcd5fc03909915f
83023 F20101115_AACCGV alkhresheh_m_Page_115.jpg
534b986329fc8924f23deefe220791c7
46b6eedab78306ab06e50c4c16e7c8d0bbcd4010
4231 F20101115_AACDLB alkhresheh_m_Page_004thm.jpg
b987d188c8b9d631484c489ae273b047
1ddf0dc445cbd0c8dea4443d454e247ff9f9574b
4502 F20101115_AACDKN alkhresheh_m_Page_005thm.jpg
6e190a34da2f64f3062c9fe3d6312391
160097ad0c177a84fa170c9cf29f9fe7c46e787e
6657 F20101115_AACDJY alkhresheh_m_Page_120thm.jpg
d3e684f08abda68220b1c6db10281b7b
3d00d7ec69b314ea77a236c725f3d41c1f878bbb
51899 F20101115_AACCHL alkhresheh_m_Page_132.jpg
26bf5e757b9dfb6a4a74a23be3b7d5f5
f972b2fc45e7bda716708fd71093362360bb0f37
84008 F20101115_AACCGW alkhresheh_m_Page_116.jpg
d77616add141c07d4154364785b7208e
94b7367e69f4578a70957ecf51b9d5cd5c648dd8
3884 F20101115_AACDLC alkhresheh_m_Page_184thm.jpg
ddc90520c5498d0a19d1580a304a6077
7c7f87b9497158dff4420257b5f9f2f1248b0ee7
26537 F20101115_AACDKO alkhresheh_m_Page_077.QC.jpg
a4760d14adc15a0308d4dcad8078f8b9
c2f9446bf455b9d91cac8215782e0daf485c3b1f
27060 F20101115_AACDJZ alkhresheh_m_Page_140.QC.jpg
d71cf766e87468816bf4fcb4eb242202
466f025c46a60f5396b6ad0e350bcef7449a8404
77471 F20101115_AACCIA alkhresheh_m_Page_147.jpg
0a5371111492cd7f4c9f3f8345ed723f
632f7672d6c857eadeef46239a9d574fd92550df
69245 F20101115_AACCHM alkhresheh_m_Page_133.jpg
093676acfae06677dcfee5ed74983e4f
3807694e38145fbd88f72788b7b62fc2855febf0
89973 F20101115_AACCGX alkhresheh_m_Page_117.jpg
584dc19da88e4a497c0f35738613ef60
c00846095c371e5f435042c60ebc152fa4722b21
6955 F20101115_AACDLD alkhresheh_m_Page_126thm.jpg
fadabca13e93a332fe8d97c6dfd35ea0
f835a0d174091b6758994df2bb2152415ac88f6c
26860 F20101115_AACDKP alkhresheh_m_Page_069.QC.jpg
ea966aafe1a4b1ccb82863f48ac54ff8
48214328e8a9dec11f6f03fc46ff8113f1c45ae8
46015 F20101115_AACCIB alkhresheh_m_Page_148.jpg
cd9bdd00a4e979a49c7d29090c4d8e47
7215f6b9c8bf9bdd91e50badeeb984f554181344
21791 F20101115_AACCHN alkhresheh_m_Page_134.jpg
6899562b8386f102dfd995f372879a4d
55677453f63b38a8b8a2141cfa2c9bb018c76f70
88855 F20101115_AACCGY alkhresheh_m_Page_118.jpg
d9216fd820a6c1cee56566c3b5807791
ddfe4af6dce7a6b067bff7dfa6883e2aaa1e871b
23432 F20101115_AACDLE alkhresheh_m_Page_006.QC.jpg
bc58e277bf9e52d31bddbcf352619b8d
57ee1e806bd2bfe5f21b98cac87c5047287d2579
5380 F20101115_AACDKQ alkhresheh_m_Page_169thm.jpg
c06ca10e05e4426c05613cc80ea602a8
608ec033b3332b63914e1044f4e9e8d24b7af987
49536 F20101115_AACCIC alkhresheh_m_Page_149.jpg
4ee6a5ca38cfe4431b20e45a478fcd32
f1aff70d856a96a754707e8e3c1a739e8199fe6e
23652 F20101115_AACCHO alkhresheh_m_Page_135.jpg
733193b984e673ecd1b027854b76e58d
2202e2e4089704a8ed3b1a0d2ffb516c7c3dee40
92936 F20101115_AACCGZ alkhresheh_m_Page_119.jpg
8d95114b7bdaccbed88867c34b530e92
5cc88a05be92b700de8e2fbf72c58e4f12348af3
25819 F20101115_AACDLF alkhresheh_m_Page_114.QC.jpg
c365d18ed71d407998eabd7182adf60d
bafff53dd89702b3c85314c85cdcd63489357a4f
44411 F20101115_AACCID alkhresheh_m_Page_150.jpg
f7b2ba8214f077effe7b44eb4be260f3
79f01939d858043608b43220a66f43520130f77b
6378 F20101115_AACDLG alkhresheh_m_Page_039thm.jpg
74234a7be8d6d357b8a974421a3808e5
088f820838b5e818053f1c4b1f96cf8eaf3b17e9
4577 F20101115_AACDKR alkhresheh_m_Page_112thm.jpg
6d72f040e3d3d85673d7ec5a47b2ab06
678ea4a971dda36150897b18d47fd5bedf436727
48555 F20101115_AACCIE alkhresheh_m_Page_151.jpg
1eed0aa4b0b5229a6ddfeb340ad8069a
0f266c893a9a5e1daa68441f327edb2d9617b31d
81540 F20101115_AACCHP alkhresheh_m_Page_136.jpg
4023252cc52bd8697d14524aefff2a3f
3e7e3c3727b309701ff5f38da408e67e49bda01a
5408 F20101115_AACDLH alkhresheh_m_Page_059thm.jpg
1f9731cf551965de238ee42c0d67cd58
48aecfae67ccc352e661d93eb2aa0d659d81fc7b
32276 F20101115_AACDKS alkhresheh_m_Page_011.QC.jpg
c77507bff0adf2853368408a71400c65
4416863daf10a274750a751ec3ba1ad00fc16ff4
48363 F20101115_AACCIF alkhresheh_m_Page_152.jpg
e481ef03ed084128870f3cc8d589c383
bc2efac38d4363dd4d330805f497af79d1be22c0
88974 F20101115_AACCHQ alkhresheh_m_Page_137.jpg
80279bb6fa701c16b919914a31ae680c
d9617d0bed74d506c6346ae1df72df3bea953a3d
4367 F20101115_AACDLI alkhresheh_m_Page_148thm.jpg
6f3218ad767ccce5ccf56cae66f41d3e
0200577cee2eb0813cb4802776a057de48f7e610
4033 F20101115_AACDKT alkhresheh_m_Page_182thm.jpg
55c3c6228fa2abea512f77843c3e8a6c
9744bacc49c9039b386e36ef66df502cb52ad5a2
78635 F20101115_AACCIG alkhresheh_m_Page_153.jpg
cc6c53691f615d80e358d5b5642ed2a2
605025cd805030b6823402e1595a748c630d30f3
88266 F20101115_AACCHR alkhresheh_m_Page_138.jpg
569555747d3e6169fae9276fb1ace172
35e5588c204e949da0ab520ca62db8fcd67b9093
17515 F20101115_AACDLJ alkhresheh_m_Page_061.QC.jpg
8b916ef41611fe6871f1a7e6f24a6294
a93d0b3ebcbc6bbbf4d7ffc089f1ecea07b1c09b
5568 F20101115_AACDKU alkhresheh_m_Page_102thm.jpg
11b848ccd640241078ba2a3429da4854
6d9ce4f98d00e08c211522c5a6db86e03d7e8b21
105050 F20101115_AACCIH alkhresheh_m_Page_154.jpg
33216a7cf34f1d076d04f3164f35eecd
074db122bd1dc72950ba827793e861ab7db92d92
91248 F20101115_AACCHS alkhresheh_m_Page_139.jpg
ee5c0394f27434d31e6000f7ff3a4b41
771455f8300bc0b95944a0be520df496722eb651
6402 F20101115_AACDLK alkhresheh_m_Page_124thm.jpg
697db4b6c8f4bba6cc41994852d0292e
cc122f965ed890450c84c393803bd938d1260936
11625 F20101115_AACDKV alkhresheh_m_Page_184.QC.jpg
8d8e2c699b890ff8591bc38c72e670e0
a770606fb1a07a8a9005d5d8f8af11598aa8f70c
98781 F20101115_AACCII alkhresheh_m_Page_155.jpg
2564a6ec336a356e070309a91e64e5c5
bd6dd37139f016106947ae4dae2d8b8197f29774
85829 F20101115_AACCHT alkhresheh_m_Page_140.jpg
afc801f2abe639715cf34146b18a77fa
a8aa4d78d92876c1cac0723d393023646914790f
26216 F20101115_AACDLL alkhresheh_m_Page_084.QC.jpg
21e372d5107e6dcd7f2668882d2e1bbd
f1df9d21b24d7a3d487d28c797dffe48848b31cb
12317 F20101115_AACDKW alkhresheh_m_Page_018.QC.jpg
1f59ba573a39faaa84327f744d73f90c
a5599424ce6e998ed471722ab0ef7db3b27c177e
72815 F20101115_AACCIJ alkhresheh_m_Page_156.jpg
017214edef3ce9a4cbfed3accf6136a7
5dd0dcd1cb7f8d9f95445caa55ea102377c69dcf
88127 F20101115_AACCHU alkhresheh_m_Page_141.jpg
194ea2d0728d0469e4c3a5cdba634d10
ecfc7ec8daed63a85a465f552e8add1684dbf9a3
7494 F20101115_AACDMA alkhresheh_m_Page_011thm.jpg
c70ccfa9d8b2cf2fbf2d8b25667cbcfa
ce75e5f40abe97e5c6c9c878aafd7b43c1a1a53e
9829 F20101115_AACDLM alkhresheh_m_Page_008.QC.jpg
3661887c105bcf16b2a28b3297d2890e
7d726548bde3785b1d6269f90591673371f7f184
19822 F20101115_AACDKX alkhresheh_m_Page_103.QC.jpg
4d78464fa260145dc932d25a2d957477
c02b48cb1282dd191ee2a8243b8fbaad83060f88
37612 F20101115_AACCIK alkhresheh_m_Page_157.jpg
44e89c57e3c089c2176bf063c539dd16
f33e33e138eb37fdf32fee9bd25a701497565495
80085 F20101115_AACCHV alkhresheh_m_Page_142.jpg
0f6ca4562405d171a4e6df0d02b39418
bec7bac2809912b1dc4dbbcc02a5641f5cda5fdc
18801 F20101115_AACDMB alkhresheh_m_Page_133.QC.jpg
771cc00eb4b328cd60e38bbfa8be7d40
8f3e6c4dfdd00a77564c947021b5205ceb3bae2e
14018 F20101115_AACDLN alkhresheh_m_Page_185.QC.jpg
7327ed44542de4ff0bf8c40874f019b3
8f42d1dc6b7e27fbec5d156dacc912b235245243
4427 F20101115_AACDKY alkhresheh_m_Page_162thm.jpg
15cac8d6831d7fd0035272cba1fc8a99
dfc7d7990e8a089fa1075a39667f249ba6c13de9
37527 F20101115_AACCIL alkhresheh_m_Page_158.jpg
02d8e56173e7c953c10e9c75dabe3291
7795229452b781ec48dcfc40a9e2aa1753044344
87074 F20101115_AACCHW alkhresheh_m_Page_143.jpg
859eee8df80bbbc6d4a4b3a7f8d2a2b8
8a958ba08822b354f549b25f9edd6b2ff07a2d21
4333 F20101115_AACDMC alkhresheh_m_Page_166thm.jpg
897b99288d511d1c24feb70ec7af3283
3d2e7dd86718876015084e5e88506388a1a1e942
1001 F20101115_AACDLO alkhresheh_m_Page_016thm.jpg
780ac4c5e0b89fbba4d63150f7e1861e
ceaf79aeeeea7507ef4f94a52a1c03ee09f0e62c
5894 F20101115_AACDKZ alkhresheh_m_Page_144thm.jpg
caf2fc938b336b1bd43e530e112ccb5c
a1c719b371ab041c700d23a1c984f7d6368a2643
38504 F20101115_AACCIM alkhresheh_m_Page_159.jpg
e175ba9ba07e57dbd67f108df1795fd7
db18f47c3c250817a324ad1338c2247a066fde0b
77647 F20101115_AACCHX alkhresheh_m_Page_144.jpg
14d843f40f353c775fc49a0e20af9c97
4a01224aa0730db1ab346af5bf797445a7bb16f0
102937 F20101115_AACCJA alkhresheh_m_Page_173.jpg
2e80b3fd823b43786937aed54fd8f1ed
c52cce42629f576cdc039ed1bacc08b1637c4bec
24206 F20101115_AACDMD alkhresheh_m_Page_171.QC.jpg
72120e0b027242ef864f71a6da026ff1
fdff874997633bca3f4bac19449d76dfb900ff42
14694 F20101115_AACDLP alkhresheh_m_Page_112.QC.jpg
809b3f596d7880266c63515ed1d03f51
9f7d55c4d67c67134de0ba3f62a9d23d536da233
41651 F20101115_AACCIN alkhresheh_m_Page_160.jpg
461bea68e01627b30507036dc3835c86
c17b67acfd1f2da4c876887aa1c53f48e10e0563
86694 F20101115_AACCHY alkhresheh_m_Page_145.jpg
eabc2d8d7dfbc73ac970c227b8f2866f
9a7896360f7f980636e73965522760edcd0548b3
36219 F20101115_AACCJB alkhresheh_m_Page_174.jpg
0c4ac5967dec57b0e8f82ab204a7c959
75fbb7fcd7614a2a6d8c684559b3b958830688f8
27013 F20101115_AACDME alkhresheh_m_Page_116.QC.jpg
5b86c28a839620bf02a0a16307696163
dff33ef7605246e7dc7c8621019942eacfe4fdd9
5205 F20101115_AACDLQ alkhresheh_m_Page_042thm.jpg
a44eb13752e7fa6d3fc0ebc5ea55ecd3
3467c61f41c45d80d7ea1d79796f1cb618f8d6b6
46711 F20101115_AACCIO alkhresheh_m_Page_161.jpg
b3a8d874e1da54968b3d79393ce663cb
e2eae82c0e07fd9853e297a3c2e7fded3c550047
72033 F20101115_AACCHZ alkhresheh_m_Page_146.jpg
a034d4100b984301b130fe1bdd948da5
c728a8ca5b0bfb2acf741239ad27db4e2332ef77
35554 F20101115_AACCJC alkhresheh_m_Page_175.jpg
0a994f87b14dbfecef4b705be695850d
218449b80d6a38e279d7ee36816f95cde44d6af0
28046 F20101115_AACDMF alkhresheh_m_Page_022.QC.jpg
04ef1049b23e70dd29e868902e2fbc8b
161bfac495b433b5779eb3fc3cb479c490830439
26343 F20101115_AACDLR alkhresheh_m_Page_089.QC.jpg
510194ce72bcfa43c2bd7069a434e3b4
4dd1ba3c8c9c35adba4874bf9c8b09b29514478c
44098 F20101115_AACCIP alkhresheh_m_Page_162.jpg
4663943634b3e007877d2e7396f9d650
6e72dbfe061ca3b71998cbc799b86fdccdc7c2a8
42278 F20101115_AACCJD alkhresheh_m_Page_176.jpg
d4b81c403dd691634f14643f29c6960a
75a9b876282ae78ba10bec524454d574c532b38c
7629 F20101115_AACDMG alkhresheh_m_Page_134.QC.jpg
2aece0dce92c00294ec4868789c0c8b5
11aef0df73851aea2dff46c94aaf4941cd565d7d
36495 F20101115_AACCJE alkhresheh_m_Page_178.jpg
b98032e4ef54227b60faa3bae1b73bc9
19e910fc7fc97d47d8f88500e7491446e6d4043b
15364 F20101115_AACDMH alkhresheh_m_Page_161.QC.jpg
06d6e98bb9049a0c7ee793731b2d9898
cf209b0ecf98312a601552c31d34bab954164985
2360 F20101115_AACDLS alkhresheh_m_Page_165thm.jpg
6bb9ddee851ff6f121ea75bcf2966afd
3ec15563d73cbc372aab6280b3f8c31c57093069
94135 F20101115_AACCIQ alkhresheh_m_Page_163.jpg
22aed381f598c5c7bcdb604da86c6edd
9e5f5e0678f6643dd917044eadec858cef147af8
39072 F20101115_AACCJF alkhresheh_m_Page_179.jpg
a6a4e5754d4195c9c056321f3bba66cf
01ef6dd2eb7315033f0ea06acca5cd2cfe085ede
6398 F20101115_AACDMI alkhresheh_m_Page_028thm.jpg
bc6b359de503f3488d3996b401d0e935
19c0c78b56933b17d59c47aec76d75892318c6eb
5437 F20101115_AACDLT alkhresheh_m_Page_171thm.jpg
f0c4087cae874572e96d69694d9ffa09
a38196e161e399640314a612b1a2f8bf7deb377f
90901 F20101115_AACCIR alkhresheh_m_Page_164.jpg
5f1adbd8311180aaf88b97046e0b5650
5a3d1b98ddc23b43f5cd2cbced47497f733d8e26
38362 F20101115_AACCJG alkhresheh_m_Page_180.jpg
f6caf5fd605830be3943f9bbd7db321e
ab5ec3b2803c6fc55448541d5ff97feef7ed1eaf
6655 F20101115_AACDMJ alkhresheh_m_Page_137thm.jpg
5e9f7b4253944647a7bd932d5fc1cd56
b8db53ccfd4522f9d592e9172e310b32a5c3b518
16766 F20101115_AACDLU alkhresheh_m_Page_152.QC.jpg
aef0bec79906b969ffcd52e6360c29c2
d094f2b34659d717667b0ec82a077250a62c8f0e
31158 F20101115_AACCIS alkhresheh_m_Page_165.jpg
e14e1af668bf7632a0154c579ec2935f
d814a938e2588056caeb7aaba3b24fe522bdea78
38087 F20101115_AACCJH alkhresheh_m_Page_181.jpg
b9b2a74033bc860616dcd98ef6794d6c
406b9eb24031162c361e4b1322c45465fab2ff29
2253 F20101115_AACDMK alkhresheh_m_Page_057thm.jpg
9a4ebe34956e1401dd01801aab1eb1e7
0414895127d3d4b20536966ad352f5af00e4a4cd
6201 F20101115_AACDLV alkhresheh_m_Page_077thm.jpg
4a43214e31996f6b1ccf76127ae7a7cc
ac4db3020011667cd2af7b26a689c690f5c7b283
36245 F20101115_AACCIT alkhresheh_m_Page_166.jpg
e4daea5ce7990b2cd843da2926797c7f
cd28fe29567e65e96ea0eda7ad79a1ee4a32983d
41167 F20101115_AACCJI alkhresheh_m_Page_182.jpg
74f01e65c395b902437bdf3147792c25
c495a83ff229e69f8c30909456bc5646c067f922
9006 F20101115_AACDML alkhresheh_m_Page_060thm.jpg
f2eacebb78abdfa458775c9fe2a8c7bf
134746e9860dddc19a4252e259477b738bcd5c9f
25918 F20101115_AACDLW alkhresheh_m_Page_007.QC.jpg
91d4de4fe3ca7801fe4675d0d24db76f
a463cb97de5af21c1582da0929cdae681c04eaec
37647 F20101115_AACCIU alkhresheh_m_Page_167.jpg
d21063b42cffa11c9dd3e68f23837dfc
c2335994afe60dd16473675b4c37d1d0f4f09163
47856 F20101115_AACCJJ alkhresheh_m_Page_183.jpg
7682b86587fa7741b2fc3e9c689688f9
36ba00da2603c521b4ec982dedab02d517dfae7a
5224 F20101115_AACDNA alkhresheh_m_Page_107thm.jpg
7146193aae8c7197aca587670cc00286
87dab5d58621589bed064925447411a9888300f6
22319 F20101115_AACDMM alkhresheh_m_Page_015.QC.jpg
13e3cceff8d4b4fd3b3d9c0055c6998e
88658420b04c652f138dde3081c7925451db93b3
6731 F20101115_AACDLX alkhresheh_m_Page_023thm.jpg
fb82f08a49b0db74cf9398946bade2db
904a674ff06b3d2618ad13f8c69e29657d45dccb
78758 F20101115_AACCIV alkhresheh_m_Page_168.jpg
1ae7837b4a92223099ec88ac52321021
988415ab54a1134cf949a90643eacd255796c131
38475 F20101115_AACCJK alkhresheh_m_Page_184.jpg
a6001416947e9af36d1625e18aef5a81
a5151c4a469ee96c796edcc02bbd0723684a5d6a
8515 F20101115_AACDNB alkhresheh_m_Page_135.QC.jpg
08632865e2969ffaf18c7671a25670c0
c6f251e95a4d0dee825475c53051aaeb13715128
27714 F20101115_AACDMN alkhresheh_m_Page_033.QC.jpg
499b6fedb4d7780c05c62622645a97e3
42a318ad422ac8c7890bacfe6afce91d3bb56b05
27086 F20101115_AACDLY alkhresheh_m_Page_019.QC.jpg
b000fc58b04d4178b17b55b369e5d4f6
fde5cd57731f0753a752b8c9bcd8448702db4459
73120 F20101115_AACCIW alkhresheh_m_Page_169.jpg
2ff59732f3e01b32645cbb9a483cdb06
e6081eb6556973cbab0820f69e2086c07cd06aa3
44112 F20101115_AACCJL alkhresheh_m_Page_185.jpg
eceb8cc9c1468347f1b4c78d2263f95a
4361c16e263732dd27e659637db56c22cbc449bd
23917 F20101115_AACDNC alkhresheh_m_Page_144.QC.jpg
cc43fda79632f6f8be0c740ec33aa60e
040af3ed4f7bb111cb9dac15fa9c91f166be6549
6920 F20101115_AACDMO alkhresheh_m_Page_188thm.jpg
68319d662ea3f47a00b5e35e51bd93f0
eb5e069fa75bac880fddf1ef2343a647341615a6
6447 F20101115_AACDLZ alkhresheh_m_Page_046thm.jpg
c0f860968241b335f3124606a390038f
cf9a4cd6d91e582170e507e27fcb650f5a91c415
75849 F20101115_AACCIX alkhresheh_m_Page_170.jpg
a8b198d09230a8921ed21f995d830be5
d7a7e89caab09d22c1422819369e095ec5e2c3f4
1051984 F20101115_AACCKA alkhresheh_m_Page_013.jp2
1324f0bc240fb19e5f03d4793f8ae95c
4691a788710146016a04bed6a63d8105bf30c903
100465 F20101115_AACCJM alkhresheh_m_Page_186.jpg
a0af4d96449d1bbac9ea766df2d6e144
a147088126fe08163b916ac355a51bc9e442efcf
6342 F20101115_AACDND alkhresheh_m_Page_115thm.jpg
15d86ca61e783b7f5e803c7e90bc2863
b2b3c2295e883c91110316d8af9a1891c5d18436
5121 F20101115_AACDMP alkhresheh_m_Page_170thm.jpg
dcb1a42133867d0ee868416cd7d22e0c
a590210c53c2b5cedaf5745144ec00658f035ad5
78188 F20101115_AACCIY alkhresheh_m_Page_171.jpg
b58860cb7d30b53d657a63a6ea432cdf
8f1fe482c622e52415c01dcdadf0e088929e38fc
F20101115_AACCKB alkhresheh_m_Page_014.jp2
ff5f1ee604877b7853b2422a52d4a261
2e3e5c73f41a331b28e01118ef2fd54eb96dea3d
94552 F20101115_AACCJN alkhresheh_m_Page_187.jpg
f5283a8f3bcb7934e978e77847a89499
18823798d16cd3b1ff79b205d863353d1a594553
6153 F20101115_AACDNE alkhresheh_m_Page_114thm.jpg
27b376394f48e5a7e1551f0c53efbffc
0b2746a044800eade871ea471c6854192da43f7a
28149 F20101115_AACDMQ alkhresheh_m_Page_118.QC.jpg
1ea6ae0af2c3d9ec61f6101b51814909
ea994f5173c1b16cd2c5c7c72418661c86d0fbbb
105028 F20101115_AACCIZ alkhresheh_m_Page_172.jpg
cceae80a510725ab4c2a6e815a36fb54
3b40457beed37442ac9f6d9f57437c5cb68e3b9b
1051978 F20101115_AACCKC alkhresheh_m_Page_015.jp2
7e31e5f2781a35a7fae4342ee64cfa6d
66c903b64b3ccb9e9b46bb7e4358ce6933bad61e
102846 F20101115_AACCJO alkhresheh_m_Page_188.jpg
68dd54567a344b1573eb965b4d543a3a
338ae7f3920d672adfa24a16e03d21f842b529da
5881 F20101115_AACDNF alkhresheh_m_Page_007thm.jpg
ffb87bc0b6d6c282a7c5a9982f6b78c5
f1b88ba733095503ed1a1f7a706a74b23837d923
6690 F20101115_AACDMR alkhresheh_m_Page_052thm.jpg
9b4f41ff51cc1871f63d6544e6fd3967
177fed4a9ea40feb1d84bf82bee5af75452d0b39
108091 F20101115_AACCKD alkhresheh_m_Page_016.jp2
63a625cf2130e2296e1f5a65f065a329
c23792e95b39e73fcf58585aa302238e8225b16f
84921 F20101115_AACCJP alkhresheh_m_Page_189.jpg
c688c97f378ad41ea9292c674d558f8e
8a29237cfaa32cdc1c5188cd0f3b33a10be918d8
27054 F20101115_AACDNG alkhresheh_m_Page_038.QC.jpg
d85c8230a7f8fe5f06b219017debee75
5a0d3677fed5211b92959222a94b0183e2926910
22191 F20101115_AACDMS alkhresheh_m_Page_090.QC.jpg
a17be055434ff448cc3ef11e3f748879
4b871801150950f23c77096a0e9b8e573ded2aa7
105548 F20101115_AACCKE alkhresheh_m_Page_017.jp2
06e03a08be75614471ae14a207b50332
6e49e9d5ee6ce2b1c3ec19aa291d4e59b93f218f
56432 F20101115_AACCJQ alkhresheh_m_Page_190.jpg
70dae05d785604cea98c3e6afbe66425
717e259487be05129ff6d35e0d7be11df60ba895
26670 F20101115_AACDNH alkhresheh_m_Page_088.QC.jpg
c4ebe95e2777cf122ded7c4361603875
61e996d889b7253b33ed4dfae924ee9ecc1fc3fe
51373 F20101115_AACCKF alkhresheh_m_Page_018.jp2
be5656ce010b8a17c3430a679cb7d7cd
7478d85471c3400b7d8713af195d7210f929bf2b
26284 F20101115_AACDNI alkhresheh_m_Page_043.QC.jpg
7350ace692d5a9d72398e7670cbbfe04
8919eb9dbc7eb6b5f4acac5b8db4d6cee2737105
16777 F20101115_AACDMT alkhresheh_m_Page_083.QC.jpg
4e47fa117403f6bd8ed1852b350a7b3d
80817ec0283b501657619e4d82d6b7af84c0f8f7
111441 F20101115_AACCKG alkhresheh_m_Page_019.jp2
fe5ccc345747f6de7ba207fce380c3f9
31205ab75326a434476444334ad2be5754fecb2f
28133 F20101115_AACCJR alkhresheh_m_Page_001.jp2
0159f9885578f9d564404abb444e2ae5
6e9024bf20f3f63f35489ac9ccce9d05ef64bad3
1323 F20101115_AACDNJ alkhresheh_m_Page_100thm.jpg
fdd59683541e850864a9342b5a28b69c
9a7a31ec1e2bb770a4f3d70400fa95fce2e6179c
25069 F20101115_AACDMU alkhresheh_m_Page_164.QC.jpg
edb712a4e762fe0a667e6038790367e7
037ef6e8c12378e09a782c7c4c1cb300986fcf7f
112996 F20101115_AACCKH alkhresheh_m_Page_020.jp2
07b112d70b77f318da2512a9e7346786
8d1f299aab59cfac71ff08a6267cfc2f3c0ad352
5607 F20101115_AACCJS alkhresheh_m_Page_002.jp2
960ce1ae115507df357e824a8a3757a8
ba2fef5696d5a8d2370c97a4add8dfcc7a7f5b25
3918 F20101115_AACDNK alkhresheh_m_Page_081thm.jpg
46b0d1b0d5596f069314465ec7312165
919e1cbffafabd7d3da96278fda8ebc7e2abce3d
6460 F20101115_AACDMV alkhresheh_m_Page_070thm.jpg
382b10b59f31be80fae11fc769eed56a
bb843d803ab8b951304d0f8214612f8d10bd4c36
112680 F20101115_AACCKI alkhresheh_m_Page_021.jp2
5356e0c009d3f98ec554ef3a4a4a3e1c
238acd9da1e7f7b542200293dfae157746b564bc
6796 F20101115_AACCJT alkhresheh_m_Page_003.jp2
c05428ce73f5d1a2c707a997b9f8d688
af92f3d239e85910c62aa83a37bdc3f911ae5d05
2609 F20101115_AACDNL alkhresheh_m_Page_016.QC.jpg
de74d22e93061b81ab93d08e715c025d
db7c5d7508b63d0b5281afc09f0cfb3cbdb44fc7
6187 F20101115_AACDMW alkhresheh_m_Page_036thm.jpg
f72a142eae78aef34ba6176e3c90bd71
25d3ad887aff87fa5d1a245f6f594855c1929a0c
113956 F20101115_AACCKJ alkhresheh_m_Page_022.jp2
bd2d4542879eb181cb7c15f90849b228
d36e171a13d1b741622ccfb33b60c183dbd2fb61
1051976 F20101115_AACCJU alkhresheh_m_Page_005.jp2
7b2b6dd0405287856b1073a5888a9ba9
c2eeb6fa26bb3d37230308e3f8182564b7d6aec9
28430 F20101115_AACDOA alkhresheh_m_Page_056.QC.jpg
49cd2f08ddc34a0f5a6afa5abb708874
893c3780d1e76c25b7a52e9ea26e727e2825e3a5
6644 F20101115_AACDNM alkhresheh_m_Page_127thm.jpg
916a906fcaa4c83660a4c8a1c437fe62
d7f16d9e0ae65adf60c59c8bf93fa04ee0072bbf
29625 F20101115_AACDMX alkhresheh_m_Page_172.QC.jpg
10fc237e92721cd30b44a248cb185b71
fa774c69d7933a1c6c88e3fe126efca1a5a5b27f
110442 F20101115_AACCKK alkhresheh_m_Page_025.jp2
e43f5621c1bb975889f811c8f58d1768
001ae7c6c1965511d2a4b96e5bcf85fda0351a65
1051983 F20101115_AACCJV alkhresheh_m_Page_006.jp2
02e71b76fd1c86b4997fdbf648aa3721
9ebe83bc737e842d34aa9f07a3429e6124c7f87d
6243 F20101115_AACDOB alkhresheh_m_Page_021thm.jpg
a0b94fe45079e0e043657ac6d77b1ef2
57181af0c054538d01cd18d2edbe0063cf04be45
6369 F20101115_AACDNN alkhresheh_m_Page_067thm.jpg
a279b21dba54b92a6e18ee5b9560d383
6f5f829d49b6a8337369a2339b0befde8f716bb9
11816 F20101115_AACDMY alkhresheh_m_Page_174.QC.jpg
2d83606596c8cb2f618b5e5a8a8e2d14
2eb642b9884946756039d813a073afc4dfa5587d
104930 F20101115_AACCKL alkhresheh_m_Page_026.jp2
721a28c386d7ea694069644e377ff24d
cabcbc0da2f3fc90b14049061e94b5c536ee01b5
1051968 F20101115_AACCJW alkhresheh_m_Page_007.jp2
9bca50497eb3a4f4ee41b65fd9fe29eb
2d74f3fc2b7c0c2ad359e25d3f79cabd716e3149
27788 F20101115_AACDOC alkhresheh_m_Page_055.QC.jpg
fad67c92dccce3d8289b672ee1cf80f9
d3f2493e66c0bd550259ae65db100c958ae7afa8
6182 F20101115_AACDNO alkhresheh_m_Page_069thm.jpg
96043fc671b30920aaddffaa6d097349
e9b966d23f2b5b6786d6ba08f0ad012b40bcf913
12132 F20101115_AACDMZ alkhresheh_m_Page_180.QC.jpg
348a92762e34111553f7d7764f68f9fd
d3aa52d4d4db28b8deb944824c34d0356d1a23e6
107984 F20101115_AACCLA alkhresheh_m_Page_041.jp2
dcfa0e6ca2268efeefd0a755d71c481d
6ba74fcdafcb30535fb054f4eb71fa507d71774b
123850 F20101115_AACCKM alkhresheh_m_Page_027.jp2
06201db99d52267eaea35954f106c312
c967ed8f64b792d141d4a2f76e549d5eb4732212
829676 F20101115_AACCJX alkhresheh_m_Page_008.jp2
c1120ebe119ad471bf3561aa420048a4
6102bb9a22cbf15fa7fa96044ed2f44fafcedf21
6429 F20101115_AACDOD alkhresheh_m_Page_117thm.jpg
8f6a23feddfcf647fd54f73e71e8b69a
bd095eaad34b24fa61e0bd1bdc087de183466773
14412 F20101115_AACDNP alkhresheh_m_Page_148.QC.jpg
1ad6aaaa1e687825e6d4b284260a8075
c2f61de6f9ad094e0bfc2234e06dbe8f46d4054f
94070 F20101115_AACCLB alkhresheh_m_Page_042.jp2
bed03012e925fe1021118e10639787e6
e399e8dcf2ae6db1b54bc696185b08a13ed040c9
117313 F20101115_AACCKN alkhresheh_m_Page_028.jp2
54db0cd38984387c6ddcbab143989edf
cfebc3869fb4267a8aa9bdc8f252a5426bf90511
1051986 F20101115_AACCJY alkhresheh_m_Page_009.jp2
6d3aed6fd3e7ae4de66ef9f54004cd29
ff94d7c7f04bc252ca3946add49f168b18b5a033
5555 F20101115_AACDOE alkhresheh_m_Page_168thm.jpg
918f35bb1debb90ea64b7fa84c69ad7f
47f72cf2c6f793152228dc4df3441b8d001b2d0f
5012 F20101115_AACDNQ alkhresheh_m_Page_147thm.jpg
bfbe9f9ba59370eb4345905bbefe010c
c7556a9bfd7760c5e2712b9dbb782a5cec42efc6
107691 F20101115_AACCLC alkhresheh_m_Page_043.jp2
1a0e09c51ce8a07751f8f8a9fda90e39
077e7d832115e753d5ea30c380516966fd420c35
108736 F20101115_AACCKO alkhresheh_m_Page_029.jp2
2f4a2b32c6796a710c286bbb58cc5b47
80da6c2f5f39e25cccd07b66ba30bc8de5fa9a09
F20101115_AACCJZ alkhresheh_m_Page_010.jp2
4b6e06d1830c5766c6cb132da052de2c
61f49fffd3f378b9689f80343d1710baf613e990
30149 F20101115_AACDOF alkhresheh_m_Page_119.QC.jpg
6c457c851f13d36bd754ece2918cdb8a
4a9e331b8960ab20ef25afb94f62d4d6b4b9ac2e
30891 F20101115_AACDNR alkhresheh_m_Page_060.QC.jpg
bedee35931039e1b0fe8e76ad0baef56
eebba3a49671d3db6af7c24190ae9cf851c3a571
113024 F20101115_AACCLD alkhresheh_m_Page_044.jp2
827f9ffefbcd34aff918f12e8e11d12f
c75506ba8e40c28c07c7398f7a32bdb88b8e7d5c
112464 F20101115_AACCKP alkhresheh_m_Page_030.jp2
4575f04761c7dadb0896f277326fcb4c
f670f6a1720124f8ed7de323f8ef0db0b2df6595
28461 F20101115_AACDOG alkhresheh_m_Page_155.QC.jpg
64af1396b26dbb51948264422c136750
4234828853726b68e73769cfc0c42be5d1acdbc3
12957 F20101115_AACDNS alkhresheh_m_Page_167.QC.jpg
f25eef55eba0d91e45dcf59b6cdfe499
183fdbd545327b757d2b4284c0091c69d5db2f73
111544 F20101115_AACCLE alkhresheh_m_Page_046.jp2
ce1bf87c0ab6fe44c66ca1dbb5af3f88
413a20e530d4d28ebd9423c143919741249cfc1c
113893 F20101115_AACCKQ alkhresheh_m_Page_031.jp2
df87acd98135ababf70b403a0f4cf8b5
b19b439fe0c7c9eb87b8e6a6ff5b19839ad13f1b
4147 F20101115_AACDOH alkhresheh_m_Page_150thm.jpg
bfc5a8f7c1fb9536291754c7f2b619d1
9a8e6767ca9cb040039e9734378c0e280a8af765
23491 F20101115_AACDNT alkhresheh_m_Page_169.QC.jpg
575aabd03a84ed2043554969126ad598
381156571ffcda248cb6c7c3afdb39320a2dc14f
118623 F20101115_AACCKR alkhresheh_m_Page_032.jp2
f904cc1bbd3eaa4eb7ceb8a6f2cd1576
5909eb869899ddf702c0b5a557513dd520c61722
116438 F20101115_AACCLF alkhresheh_m_Page_047.jp2
68b7e4023736fbe5958ae7b1dacb22bf
89aeb641c872c91b82bba0e98e36e0cc6a6f6dfb
6798 F20101115_AACDOI alkhresheh_m_Page_034thm.jpg
c55fde88faf46f39c86287ea28f1df44
afa5c2ae806143a03543876b4db2114618795ae6
119760 F20101115_AACCLG alkhresheh_m_Page_048.jp2
275e883bb72830c29603e80c75484606
40a7863038a8363fa5f2d8b5645044d88c3da7c2
24659 F20101115_AACDOJ alkhresheh_m_Page_099.QC.jpg
50f6dcdabdd9aea867cc1e4d24a1a640
bbc88d4cf3982d5b461b22e41a1cdad370bc3256
6675 F20101115_AACDNU alkhresheh_m_Page_141thm.jpg
7998565c63610c88e2e7f7d2b8ffe84e
ce92259518c708b9b15692340002f522e7f0c1e2
116063 F20101115_AACCKS alkhresheh_m_Page_033.jp2
b52bd1858b2c41c75a270fe7f245e324
9cc2e9b23ad3aff0b0fe43394ef992dec43d53b5
113139 F20101115_AACCLH alkhresheh_m_Page_049.jp2
f963e7366e787660c433f3cca44591df
e7f6696c22ccfb9c13ebf27a1eb4f0bd26e50dcb
29270 F20101115_AACDOK alkhresheh_m_Page_188.QC.jpg
3ed23917d4f8a3b34824e325373d654a
fa5f5eb7359f658717dd5f0bf3984d875af1818a
467 F20101115_AACDNV alkhresheh_m_Page_002thm.jpg
93f773578a4853ebc2916b13ec026bc9
fd93632583a7840960c54d0c32b9971bbff53aaf
122015 F20101115_AACCKT alkhresheh_m_Page_034.jp2
258ba3dc6f420f180c45b0fab4aa3bfc
0fc4de725a16e8412f15f1c5cce6993f727612aa
106573 F20101115_AACCLI alkhresheh_m_Page_050.jp2
67abd2f7139af251373d982beeac8e62
d14995352dac88fb5c09e0bbc2810001ed98cab9
25476 F20101115_AACDOL alkhresheh_m_Page_163.QC.jpg
782c3b38d10ddbc717afe9bfa4efd026
dadc5a3eae21507c2279ad326b4077ed23dcc5f9
6184 F20101115_AACDNW alkhresheh_m_Page_025thm.jpg
4cbc25bddb2e9198a0c0c31345de8cdf
56a9ab9b190d18b0a323593442935e956db496c6
117671 F20101115_AACCKU alkhresheh_m_Page_035.jp2
52c1a131fc8b503d07f6d0e8cbd6d537
b641da0ce77ee736fed8763d365bfeacc33ad3a4
110779 F20101115_AACCLJ alkhresheh_m_Page_051.jp2
26a36ee4e8f7af77582f1315c55a428f
c246a098cf6066972c11c053c46c85dd9b39403b
5354 F20101115_AACDPA alkhresheh_m_Page_079thm.jpg
65a684b7c27d5d6566f4b86dc314ecf1
ca1037698b672bac6cccd323c480761ee9aca134
6394 F20101115_AACDOM alkhresheh_m_Page_145thm.jpg
d2760bd18208793a486a2baa4432b5b8
9bce0e678d3fbcfdf43c96c2eb8f2c5f62fa61c2
5955 F20101115_AACDNX alkhresheh_m_Page_153thm.jpg
9163a592d65ac742b3515d57f86b5963
5fed48c5f62fdcf0314d41f441291cacf1d77833
105899 F20101115_AACCKV alkhresheh_m_Page_036.jp2
42ef2c5578335a0bebbf11ee4f9b8eaa
82d76e13b9c027d75492603cc0544e50a8dc6efa
122904 F20101115_AACCLK alkhresheh_m_Page_052.jp2
c0575ff0e4faac21b1ffbad16d4351ed
22e50a68350ea39caeec86e709f9913e28c31bca
6410 F20101115_AACDPB alkhresheh_m_Page_058thm.jpg
df151c408d9127627736741a5a22e7e6
21b128bdb6124f6b30d4ced37a36232e975f8702
6340 F20101115_AACDON alkhresheh_m_Page_087thm.jpg
4125afb92574def1ac532c9394141bc2
8fba2cf52338211d3f07c9b776762a4fe76fa144
21623 F20101115_AACDNY alkhresheh_m_Page_102.QC.jpg
6f0d072293d4aafd5752a2f6fcd9fb3e
5b13d2d6c3a5bd2f904b6cc3a7a2b4ba3c0460fd
110818 F20101115_AACCKW alkhresheh_m_Page_037.jp2
2c76ce6a6fdd6cdd7d2a9e29ba35fd9d
feaf3baafd5371be49a3c60d162bd19cadcb3632
118399 F20101115_AACCLL alkhresheh_m_Page_053.jp2
b10eff20ddeb30b2e03eff8f9846e478
045f009741eac4757677fedbd1762c3ce0823437
3915 F20101115_AACDPC alkhresheh_m_Page_158thm.jpg
6b846596cd94c0690b82af8fcf0d5d88
349c1d646d494c399e9d07bf322d634864966a8d
12307 F20101115_AACDOO alkhresheh_m_Page_179.QC.jpg
d82079ed300cbf7b6f90b0e25a497ab2
6e288ecd4343773bc8343330ce51d8d1b11a1485
6753 F20101115_AACDNZ alkhresheh_m_Page_022thm.jpg
c0a52cfdd7dc3d7158d2a327bc5615ed
4366f57e403696579778f6a7368912496e95d848
113590 F20101115_AACCKX alkhresheh_m_Page_038.jp2
2670d2cb0c1024a16baec03b9e9f63c1
b5f742baa0adae583dbeaa6414a119aedf362b89
116788 F20101115_AACCMA alkhresheh_m_Page_070.jp2
2f8672eb322cc45587fac9fcfe020d83
32d7d48639947a4e3269d5ed72290172a1321004
117375 F20101115_AACCLM alkhresheh_m_Page_054.jp2
58e5c7aee1a42ef0db0fb67b46333c2e
dbb40ffe9d5884d24fa321d2286ae9dbcb5009ae
7613 F20101115_AACDPD alkhresheh_m_Page_001.QC.jpg
90b8af04d76a5263d8f67ee70903ba94
982f56627137a02e0d4f6da88af509d85f7c8482
30876 F20101115_AACDOP alkhresheh_m_Page_154.QC.jpg
f3bd132cdf4a70f2fee35eee1025c0d1
307ed31030ba0ef7b2949e4bf11b8811d5597f5b
112494 F20101115_AACCKY alkhresheh_m_Page_039.jp2
a3cd45b5ddb30e7113fa4d9376ee2e32
abfee15a91be0bf6b8fb3f6818a30300cd952940
108189 F20101115_AACCMB alkhresheh_m_Page_071.jp2
0f39dbc48f696c1a9005e397e0c317b7
1e14b7619850a9a5dd5da1c0bc6cf0960911cb49
116171 F20101115_AACCLN alkhresheh_m_Page_055.jp2
853712c89f668cecf9144f97ac1e3b2f
a7ae549654198e27dac76e32a7928110ca345f8f
5860 F20101115_AACDPE alkhresheh_m_Page_164thm.jpg
1f853dfbd5ac9d83f31a10c590c57a0a
bdbc041696f17393fbe9b2ae98211a40c30e78a2
12247 F20101115_AACDOQ alkhresheh_m_Page_177.QC.jpg
6cc5d28b9c2f120820a954c9328ceaa8
88043891efc32de30af57a437636f05568f72e97
111233 F20101115_AACCKZ alkhresheh_m_Page_040.jp2
b78b26d1253fe81134b4993bbe3525de
06b56d0eceb128f8c44f71bc87e0771c1ff87482
103938 F20101115_AACCMC alkhresheh_m_Page_072.jp2
92e98dc623b8d08c78535b245a4aeca7
de7e5946451dd1dbd178b7ff1a5b16d927179884
127563 F20101115_AACCLO alkhresheh_m_Page_056.jp2
81914765e1e73fd0db405cb587753be0
de0e3a09aa88d4f5279f3d837d0fba9f33fc3d5e
F20101115_AACDPF alkhresheh_m_Page_065thm.jpg
0017febb1af80b74880a14f54c18666c
25c31a1ed7c2a40b06cbc6346ac6f2d89b8d4a42
4693 F20101115_AACDOR alkhresheh_m_Page_151thm.jpg
e7792c24a48a7be85d780f6cbd7f3163
a4b20a33f0f113f556b599cf90082eedf30cb57b
104601 F20101115_AACCMD alkhresheh_m_Page_073.jp2
0e3f4b7b9593edffe6727f187b0d466d
0bcc803ccc034975e635e4c0d24d0d2c38195e76
39058 F20101115_AACCLP alkhresheh_m_Page_057.jp2
83345e5d73d1def455737ff6ec74929c
d08f3b84b487e045ae04c8b92d30bb2c84aabb7d
7340 F20101115_AACDPG alkhresheh_m_Page_154thm.jpg
f6f7303c54c64f70a49bc0247ca7b420
44257fb771175a67f9bceb5a4d20b380dd6847a7
26006 F20101115_AACDOS alkhresheh_m_Page_097.QC.jpg
97c28a081184fcb4aeeae6d340346a2e
8423d40ffe3f12c4c58cbba5792167ff0fd679ac
113085 F20101115_AACCME alkhresheh_m_Page_074.jp2
68ac974c30fbfa803d44bb8a4c3e9bc3
b8f163917fa96246b29991bb194b97fa90f6facc
91789 F20101115_AACCLQ alkhresheh_m_Page_058.jp2
73d92725357c7cf0d96bb683e06e8d30
2769e299ca501c566e401a9689b3d6ccbb64984c
12412 F20101115_AACDPH alkhresheh_m_Page_109.QC.jpg
c3c38fd2d3c8afcf136ca900bbc5ec86
4721f61b4d0613c2134e0bc16edd1590f92823a7
3937 F20101115_AACDOT alkhresheh_m_Page_157thm.jpg
0df907786c7adf370fb31828d2d3af92
e0785f963687ec311d03303926538d0248ae925f
83369 F20101115_AACCMF alkhresheh_m_Page_076.jp2
991b6d53289a0fd3b47c2a7eebf05534
d8770bce00a903a173f83be52c5d2e77e117b981
73676 F20101115_AACCLR alkhresheh_m_Page_059.jp2
648bc2b3cbfa419401c16e87424cc003
b0c92378f7b4dd3f93f1c10b855e614279e24572
25169 F20101115_AACDPI alkhresheh_m_Page_073.QC.jpg
d7662676caed0c5e9a02604d784bc35c
49e93297d76cdbc702efe19e13e3bc36ec4da69a
26339 F20101115_AACDOU alkhresheh_m_Page_030.QC.jpg
9323bf087a569bdbbfddf47ffb6e2b1a
bcd620f611f9419147dd96d63a40ed29b8738d54
117848 F20101115_AACCMG alkhresheh_m_Page_077.jp2
8e57dca42f037bfd34a173c880c7dcea
3b4dd28e4735f6e3f6b4001a560901dd029799f3
F20101115_AACCLS alkhresheh_m_Page_060.jp2
4141b8aae33a6b086cb471c5b5db7e0a
bef6b1c1d44226c8295f2ab51d50ed14059f67c6
6668 F20101115_AACDPJ alkhresheh_m_Page_035thm.jpg
9004fc800bdfcf0a2341b34b3442544c
59effc952ceb8b8be878e303700a1236fc573ffe
71540 F20101115_AACCMH alkhresheh_m_Page_079.jp2
002c2bc38959829204735bf166f92750
911eadcc08dc350ea3d814eefb33e43e26d76664
2967 F20101115_AACDPK alkhresheh_m_Page_135thm.jpg
a691176ddcabd9ed6c5ec5b227b0fff5
cd88fc8dfd60df9c80a9dea73007f8ec2e075c72
6616 F20101115_AACDOV alkhresheh_m_Page_044thm.jpg
9f9443feec9e65836e9444ea6315def4
7d381ef50f99aef5a270f1ebcf2eb5c8e2d6f843
47915 F20101115_AACCMI alkhresheh_m_Page_080.jp2
5063c24f8db998789724af913cc67be1
a5430da9e9e3364d8c3d45392e4b834b1e27d2da
942151 F20101115_AACCLT alkhresheh_m_Page_061.jp2
40b8564a3ad588432e43b3f4b93c740a
6dbbe0b6144daf5d3df88096e9be7a6aed910c11
5059 F20101115_AACDPL alkhresheh_m_Page_083thm.jpg
478270465dcc398a98d97e9652208e42
16afe15edef26fbf9c1afbb87cbb19dbf00bf719
4235 F20101115_AACDOW alkhresheh_m_Page_176thm.jpg
f720153b83df85b37c92f2541092367c
e66490f84141b5f33f0c5e232e53f32aac263cbb
493548 F20101115_AACCMJ alkhresheh_m_Page_081.jp2
72417a583e1b91e0e92e48f88af90a60
c8a0e7080ebf4e77e627f4434de6433b61dc4976
1051879 F20101115_AACCLU alkhresheh_m_Page_063.jp2
ac3fd2467c65cef2a24bb270315a6008
7cca612f52673c574913b5eb56cfcffd44cc489a
27382 F20101115_AACDQA alkhresheh_m_Page_020.QC.jpg
85526998c7253f97289c7b979ff3dfbc
709c109a6f8b38afdad7a2a871a6b84d0d3993a4
6661 F20101115_AACDPM alkhresheh_m_Page_173thm.jpg
a621e54a7bbb78b5d9e6a27c41e2af84
4fc6292c47bea41b2049b215649196f18bab7229
24266 F20101115_AACDOX alkhresheh_m_Page_153.QC.jpg
2ba4200ee4b7fb99194306607f363f3f
bb5647720363c39905f7e1066929702739327d45
661018 F20101115_AACCMK alkhresheh_m_Page_082.jp2
914ae3f02632455972948ba0976fb592
7ed0097e2cd735acc0d140dee040a446feea3c8e
97766 F20101115_AACCLV alkhresheh_m_Page_065.jp2
00418e906eed8251a481a7f981704456
c34311526705e445a753b03dd755c2e16119b104
6207 F20101115_AACDQB alkhresheh_m_Page_088thm.jpg
95b4e6ea0ff1b0b532bd35dd4cf9eac1
15da9bad75d193a4eb7e68bf47af12e0121397d9
6218 F20101115_AACDPN alkhresheh_m_Page_026thm.jpg
cc1b025a8e5f2ec40533c6cc228506c2
81edf254ad6ad4ebc6bc81c64bfe168e0c001157
27275 F20101115_AACDOY alkhresheh_m_Page_031.QC.jpg
f96be7682c0285f21f184975f9a288cf
423d567677c626b736bbb1ff2f02ace2223bf235
109724 F20101115_AACCML alkhresheh_m_Page_084.jp2
fbfe57df75ea4f7b0f5586c8c5206918
d5bd0c2616f347b741011bf7e52eafd9b9ac1241
112223 F20101115_AACCLW alkhresheh_m_Page_066.jp2
f10814b56b601c1046395857f3c0b12c
6e31cfc7d6092f44334b2056c6958c4d7403547d
3043 F20101115_AACDQC alkhresheh_m_Page_018thm.jpg
ff861be637311575fd90a78231f71758
8bf729f90651e81df22d59abab1a95b4c8c1c2e0
7742 F20101115_AACDPO alkhresheh_m_Page_108.QC.jpg
5548dc256920879e790258fe1a8efd66
2265f6e19dbff9976083a392029080856e9292f9
4316 F20101115_AACDOZ alkhresheh_m_Page_160thm.jpg
a6de50441c3c04a3a942c71400aff3b3
ef15079b70a0eb12414e88ab853d2615d9e536f2
73062 F20101115_AACCNA alkhresheh_m_Page_103.jp2
1765366dc1cc0507b568129623be1dd3
875d24525d130f6f49b0f4333a0bb905a7b60272
113901 F20101115_AACCMM alkhresheh_m_Page_085.jp2
8b5b69eb594a0f847738329942de126e
d4aa6598fc74ecd138b9eefe5d9fa607bad590fb
113539 F20101115_AACCLX alkhresheh_m_Page_067.jp2
e81ccb378b5ca56bc6562cdaf099e5ec
2c1d9562a95d955e328f8db4a26ea21716250487
6231 F20101115_AACDQD alkhresheh_m_Page_049thm.jpg
60cae89b29d32a9798fe42ade42c59a3
5ca8bb66bded536086a0a385b2df6ea238f89b09
26366 F20101115_AACDPP alkhresheh_m_Page_039.QC.jpg
9567e7aa38842daf0229048905cd43fa
01e437d6c2df4bf5e15c220136db63deaf1c70d1
43430 F20101115_AACCNB alkhresheh_m_Page_104.jp2
13e19aa94308c1052f08a2eceb5dd628
27281303819b25195d56d09fcc1946ef8ba10d18
107102 F20101115_AACCMN alkhresheh_m_Page_086.jp2
d54adc4254a9e28c50f969177eda92da
6979bdb0eb32214c0c4d8125a201831a1b57da8b
104185 F20101115_AACCLY alkhresheh_m_Page_068.jp2
813a840c968e0c98f1cd508e1363a0ed
437a57f5df58c57cfd5a099cb841bf54910e1b1b
28183 F20101115_AACDQE alkhresheh_m_Page_128.QC.jpg
08654816bcc95186502e2fa548a346ac
f54a92344c261aa76946a5d80c0b2b0d79084cf8
26540 F20101115_AACDPQ alkhresheh_m_Page_124.QC.jpg
dea71c788e7565ac80b168b39f5b45fc
98dc546d59628f2e693caa614132e0e6f0911c29
86636 F20101115_AACCNC alkhresheh_m_Page_105.jp2
f370e19d2a20f65171871560852f09a8
92057d47329074670081ad4cbe0979046bf70c2b
109016 F20101115_AACCMO alkhresheh_m_Page_088.jp2
842157cdcb90261ae5817e7f0bafcd69
97974b154e51109c2217e40b9bbc17b212f96887
111811 F20101115_AACCLZ alkhresheh_m_Page_069.jp2
1a0d3a5cebd057dcb579055cfe2bfcc9
c0c00452be800b36e407fb5f9869c778b6440fec
6576 F20101115_AACDQF alkhresheh_m_Page_187thm.jpg
73ff747852a82b14e90e55739faeae56
ecaab00bbe0dbd51719a0096db2c9e8f5f12f613
27225 F20101115_AACDPR alkhresheh_m_Page_098.QC.jpg
00341bd67e65cadf555a8527ea606b63
6742ad7925cbf78abee552673ef1a4fa95f4be71
90934 F20101115_AACCND alkhresheh_m_Page_106.jp2
952ce59ee157b9d2f9f9cf416d9d5e8e
ad1d450ac40185a4f98107441875e2324644b266
107278 F20101115_AACCMP alkhresheh_m_Page_089.jp2
d90546ae958dfce808221fbf03c2e761
981cd56230d79a2e12e0a8401717502811ef0ec8
6492 F20101115_AACDQG alkhresheh_m_Page_045thm.jpg
b0d0bda4b6d151b0c849a67e84bb589e
fa6406f48abe1dde1d6498662735a6568ed5272d
6267 F20101115_AACDPS alkhresheh_m_Page_038thm.jpg
4f26d6bad980628e164c16f4f10e0933
1ee3291349abb854d18b2ec21d401d752c4478f9
77430 F20101115_AACCNE alkhresheh_m_Page_107.jp2
203de9006c332e79aa77a5238d0a3689
40acbdfb1b57f8a451bebb545ee696d5f9deb9f2
113972 F20101115_AACCMQ alkhresheh_m_Page_091.jp2
9f845086e915407ee4873861fc87dfee
d0684a1becd96f7f18fe62cc405ffa2c33c3921f
13499 F20101115_AACDQH alkhresheh_m_Page_176.QC.jpg
f9ec3180232fc1ae62f035c375a0ba70
46133ac56b72fe258773de81288637f4fbcf5839
29569 F20101115_AACDPT alkhresheh_m_Page_052.QC.jpg
a26d188175cc0680fa6d21c037f60cde
30ed3eef4d86e770e433bfff0a49f8a578fdc5bf
260187 F20101115_AACCNF alkhresheh_m_Page_108.jp2
12410747c03ed6971cfd18dacd61f663
f9ed5bed016fa93ec7bebd9fbc502c34ac66f0c9
114708 F20101115_AACCMR alkhresheh_m_Page_092.jp2
638716782db34efe14059ac84f7a4837
ebac7fdaaf07e83d757d7a6054435d7fe0c5d80d
6696 F20101115_AACDQI alkhresheh_m_Page_128thm.jpg
b9dea23896e2e3cccfdc33513582d001
f4898258e40967ee23ffe2fb689c40ef724fbadd
6574 F20101115_AACDPU alkhresheh_m_Page_092thm.jpg
f0be997870396d55ac4cdaaee310c6f3
447a5ac951910659dccd98fa717607132bf1f390
448186 F20101115_AACCNG alkhresheh_m_Page_109.jp2
fdd449e084aec04cb2c92a2c19ce776f
6c26007eb59adbfe93f73c3c6a9632be41a5d19a
113711 F20101115_AACCMS alkhresheh_m_Page_093.jp2
743616c4ea3503f9c5cf6182b40b9255
020f0133d6a4df45f5d215935ff199bbf6c3a07a
13017 F20101115_AACDQJ alkhresheh_m_Page_157.QC.jpg
bdf8e4ecd503d938c490b57c4255387f
29cad109315271e2be24206855b51d216bb9fa22
6283 F20101115_AACDPV alkhresheh_m_Page_010thm.jpg
d9be0e250ba2248d1196b3a86b575831
fb0e72227b10aca5198ce9e875fe22624d125e38
674193 F20101115_AACCNH alkhresheh_m_Page_111.jp2
ed51620414bb0fb5592833a93b7fafb1
a04e57abb37621d78536dd2bd16cda0d45be570b
115344 F20101115_AACCMT alkhresheh_m_Page_094.jp2
bc02dea8bcd37bdf6b5ee06f53c64b27
892168b06ed0caeb45de1cbb0b2e3cb1ca4ae878
6387 F20101115_AACDQK alkhresheh_m_Page_143thm.jpg
a7ddc83ce71556fa7ded4c0fb91b02d7
6b7ed40273cdfafba3382aa0555776b54fc11452
711007 F20101115_AACCNI alkhresheh_m_Page_112.jp2
2565808d82a79e0c38455e6751dcd913
105cc9c9d3f62c58aedbd49692fed8a86d609b10
28211 F20101115_AACDQL alkhresheh_m_Page_095.QC.jpg
551bcf54e30f68b5869d3ce95cc84fae
635d4ef292070e200e69d0cd5c3a95af3056c2d4
29049 F20101115_AACDPW alkhresheh_m_Page_032.QC.jpg
28635d4e2734ec987310ca8ff975fd3e
266b26e0e29987d3aceb1c537525a697e20e636b
417941 F20101115_AACCNJ alkhresheh_m_Page_113.jp2
15ca8159d701911e14de0797faf81a05
b03dd45d4cd1a44d627815510d096e27aa923cee
115176 F20101115_AACCMU alkhresheh_m_Page_095.jp2
5b278518355785e682336e72ea475e26
c303c82c2ba6efda547f2cc04b7f2b2ea828039d
24570 F20101115_AACDRA alkhresheh_m_Page_017.QC.jpg
735c4962bdd89fe3ac4967314c6359be
d55337ec54fce183792865ddcb77f0f3d70da8fe
27385 F20101115_AACDQM alkhresheh_m_Page_023.QC.jpg
044e76ca8ad37383a6d0ca6b365306c2
dcf62d868e9b33b37363b26e76e113d9b59cd27c
6296 F20101115_AACDPX alkhresheh_m_Page_041thm.jpg
f7f8e7d70fbfb1ac19e491aa6e17105b
ae2f630894fdec60df334c6c453d91434a25bef8
106616 F20101115_AACCNK alkhresheh_m_Page_114.jp2
42e75a43abd6e395f8fc775a5a9b3853
46d625f47147ed72f4b340172f6828113bfbd668
109400 F20101115_AACCMV alkhresheh_m_Page_097.jp2
b824c7208fd61502c760a8efce0be4b6
c08c4c4c6c3646968ab4d53ac9430c88df575da9
6333 F20101115_AACDRB alkhresheh_m_Page_024thm.jpg
4038970ae9a5df59b2c538f5658351ee
d02e15bb1ca2e7021fec32c5841cbcaa6edc907a
6543 F20101115_AACDQN alkhresheh_m_Page_030thm.jpg
e03c9d894880668d4abf8fa95e1b7f49
12cf842d68ef7a74af96a030c5b9b795eeceab27
10923 F20101115_AACDPY alkhresheh_m_Page_113.QC.jpg
a4c1eba03803e2c2bdc2d6b36caa065b
876450601a9b12c7eb4f743fca1bb43b7942abde
109527 F20101115_AACCNL alkhresheh_m_Page_115.jp2
73dda963c291b070606baf9fab451eb4
6fc751714e40ceefc535fcb3eb592c19fac28688
113940 F20101115_AACCMW alkhresheh_m_Page_098.jp2
67700c879ee09c951f0d945c9be888a4
0f1cb9bd6b55a17f49316839f914fe2e78298f41
26760 F20101115_AACDRC alkhresheh_m_Page_024.QC.jpg
b1099c108919f30aa6ded3e866b89c1e
660240ca3ec0c5f1c754192ae554adda3046f30c
27350 F20101115_AACDQO alkhresheh_m_Page_066.QC.jpg
b1c0934e43bbbb98cd89cec32d2891ea
cc2972e150d3925ff66e698a2d117e3b4e3ea2e2
1784 F20101115_AACDPZ alkhresheh_m_Page_001thm.jpg
1be0016bdfa879cf7b73a86a5f461283
6d2877c2bae5c09cf92ab40d22c53a4e4e68577f
110348 F20101115_AACCNM alkhresheh_m_Page_116.jp2
e3e97f7fdc8cf00bbc6f08a1909dd641
eac8436f8b2988bbfb0e1c624c5bcc26b39c0584
104879 F20101115_AACCMX alkhresheh_m_Page_099.jp2
9bd1c0dfa28ca1aedb61c4cbfe985d46
2b16badafe124024469bc0eaaed718e948af2a0f
68892 F20101115_AACCOA alkhresheh_m_Page_132.jp2
35810868a52fb1b76df2e5209c53ec7f
58e68beba3973cefadc67e671aa7957d8c52036d
26594 F20101115_AACDRD alkhresheh_m_Page_025.QC.jpg
e93e94ae81fed2e4734e6b0df3dcea1c
d05551850d009c8833c8004d99723a6454b6b2d1
27523 F20101115_AACDQP alkhresheh_m_Page_091.QC.jpg
6d965160a2e6a394e58320ecdacb3e8b
7a7147539df311100019e10ac42a6179b4be4ca2
118111 F20101115_AACCNN alkhresheh_m_Page_117.jp2
99383e01cdda020139376199b41e3406
40258bbb8602f45346dd0f8a595c0d3f81e4df28
16014 F20101115_AACCMY alkhresheh_m_Page_100.jp2
9a7c2f6517091bec0c3c0df9f1ecdcb5
b2c3ec7870f726ab9e98d5c29a7dd1da347012ba
82689 F20101115_AACCOB alkhresheh_m_Page_133.jp2
78ffe9556808ff03f0b6e3ff2bb48f59
18aa0f1920bab2ceb6eaf764238f8186e93f6ada
24942 F20101115_AACDRE alkhresheh_m_Page_026.QC.jpg
2203054d4c15f64d08ac51afa566da58
da81c1c146604ae5df51b0d1802e16778eb3bec4
25140 F20101115_AACDQQ alkhresheh_m_Page_041.QC.jpg
1fc094fc176f3525c0ad17ef86234b8f
1d6d7692d08aeb5b5d5edc2d98ee8f62c4f8c912
116880 F20101115_AACCNO alkhresheh_m_Page_118.jp2
1cace438e9ee6e39872eb15acc0e2359
94309710455dd4fcc07b3ad0e4ef1b8aeefcc5bb
86012 F20101115_AACCMZ alkhresheh_m_Page_102.jp2
7be6a86185c63736c57c7976669bbc96
ba04bc2f6e8bb32d173372fa190656fc337bd745
285680 F20101115_AACCOC alkhresheh_m_Page_134.jp2
843b380c9793f15bf9145f1fb3db2538
7aac10f0cccb1fd655390b5c4c7f3088529ffd06
6566 F20101115_AACDRF alkhresheh_m_Page_027thm.jpg
c6b0f251846a6f884021808c2bd7265f
03169ad733fe62b00161a2504ce7fbecd0b8b523
26357 F20101115_AACDQR alkhresheh_m_Page_046.QC.jpg
fcdef194368d42a421ce2e01fa85c0aa
07f95bc33fd4ba0da2d14350df281a02f5bfe194
120986 F20101115_AACCNP alkhresheh_m_Page_119.jp2
62fe910f33c91cb5572ea2cd0283eb56
fb5f43e0d1c345d73ebc22035d7c3b9fb3c48d0a
314387 F20101115_AACCOD alkhresheh_m_Page_135.jp2
e1014d545003f4c3d31856491826d7ee
3a557e4f4985e5087768e1f1abea96384762e0a3
27834 F20101115_AACDRG alkhresheh_m_Page_028.QC.jpg
a1e80d3b5966d077f3a087b4a662d942
83a1b5a4669e5628c8387fc07976394882c2042f
288454 F20101115_AACDQS UFE0019676_00001.xml
eafd2b43c9720d89fa589601cafabea2
f2d4b040186d0c040058644e467a28ccedb54860
116268 F20101115_AACCNQ alkhresheh_m_Page_120.jp2
72d2409ea6d1fe3ea9d6f4a4f8dbeee6
44786c3f938a57aa0f4ddddd3ca10d75a879a93f
106682 F20101115_AACCOE alkhresheh_m_Page_136.jp2
cb17a73e2a6b8b226c865aeb8541bca6
aa0278d1cd9db4758865ac85fc102d1384c0359f
26196 F20101115_AACDRH alkhresheh_m_Page_029.QC.jpg
6d3bc6096b166d68b4ed360e454ca3cd
65a978909b9936c87667c5f08b3ca3f351dee631
588 F20101115_AACDQT alkhresheh_m_Page_003thm.jpg
5fc427a1c8c1c19dcbb50ba659ae1f41
a559e66415f6605715ceac13c7c9c88f8e8ed643
117357 F20101115_AACCNR alkhresheh_m_Page_121.jp2
caa8dbc729d95ea54592cce6fd15ec83
30ec053951134622e80db7c257110619cddbe771
115868 F20101115_AACCOF alkhresheh_m_Page_137.jp2
538181d83c676a8e548724a032ae46a7
5f5611394db4f32e05161cde946482fadb48c417
6636 F20101115_AACDRI alkhresheh_m_Page_032thm.jpg
3c6bd1a566d8a2625fcd20253a86b810
25fd9ca38bd98a2d3282a3f3fc5cde41ceb96fe3
18352 F20101115_AACDQU alkhresheh_m_Page_005.QC.jpg
4ceb4a853ee7a11833bff1de9f86510c
83299da47de06adb8080bcdaffb5c589db414618
1051985 F20101115_AACCNS alkhresheh_m_Page_122.jp2
d7f0003793f3cfa1b646ab264dcd8b4f
2d2bf63921f5115aabbd42a98e27855bf1dba232
114757 F20101115_AACCOG alkhresheh_m_Page_138.jp2
f4af83244b98c9ee1858510a72583e26
94ac6de6f80ebf078b21268a1447ab7f0213af7d
F20101115_AACDRJ alkhresheh_m_Page_033thm.jpg
3d31410bcc8716e1db0c531f2d4905ae
e0f9474cf9f9b1f4462339a5f1fb8fffb00892ea
2512 F20101115_AACDQV alkhresheh_m_Page_008thm.jpg
b768d587eb0f439e14183f9ef6c0bfd8
4d4d4e892bdcfdf8430ed1f3fa725ac2f14efb42
116395 F20101115_AACCNT alkhresheh_m_Page_123.jp2
d27c1c7fe8b349e933bf7e9e3cd54c6e
56348afe69646ea606707f7dcc46bc8db16deb11
112802 F20101115_AACCOH alkhresheh_m_Page_140.jp2
2b6622b299593190d13eace72d2fe4f8
9d313498aba2e2a9e5b47421e5e95b00f0149b1a
29415 F20101115_AACDRK alkhresheh_m_Page_034.QC.jpg
b090efc08c6c5c69e5e284096c27ad2b
ab465d22f0851c2237568e5911086b8546ca14a1
5617 F20101115_AACDQW alkhresheh_m_Page_012.QC.jpg
0ce7509c12e95c33663dc089e1b48917
e3a4fd2a2d6a2b45a6d1e4625390460c70e16827
115321 F20101115_AACCNU alkhresheh_m_Page_125.jp2
e545b66a36289b210f3b816fd0a3b36a
777c9b3f5b178dda8370ddb7d1999e6733112b03
117117 F20101115_AACCOI alkhresheh_m_Page_141.jp2
0658c7f879c491082baef02c5ecdfcdb
f5ba3d3946f5b306206030c59d4e2b37c14c2893
28782 F20101115_AACDRL alkhresheh_m_Page_035.QC.jpg
95063626147a062bd195b6c3c51d7d1d
2ea55d299f0fb5c86d880b45d5ce31b24a8e63f9
105682 F20101115_AACCOJ alkhresheh_m_Page_142.jp2
b54503fef5999e2ddb518704ac592873
15b7b23fbfd0091b34a3fa17bd6cc3d56eb7cf73
6606 F20101115_AACDSA alkhresheh_m_Page_055thm.jpg
8c998e937b3ca10dea7d50a88e41323a
ac63062bb7ca41617b69d47157a060630b86fe42
25864 F20101115_AACDRM alkhresheh_m_Page_036.QC.jpg
5bcb4af041b84a14f935608950c1d742
f39f1bec554475bd96b1907ef89c08885f40a6ba
24074 F20101115_AACDQX alkhresheh_m_Page_013.QC.jpg
295551fbd1c706ca52db6426ec55b10a
832dfdb506acc958e4b847467ea917ec48193b00
121762 F20101115_AACCNV alkhresheh_m_Page_126.jp2
f5c62040a00f307b0fdee6eaa6bb9f85
3fb8836ae7c01b400c7b83895f98d985f26831a8
114457 F20101115_AACCOK alkhresheh_m_Page_143.jp2
d95c974026dd8f3ccd04f6a700bc3b1e
73ad7a654352ff4d494bb45cb4ca411490588b4b
6411 F20101115_AACDSB alkhresheh_m_Page_056thm.jpg
bf7215a9162626ddf08ff692249a9920
6353d40c87863f04e2aa6f6c92a27ba2e3dfb07b
6270 F20101115_AACDRN alkhresheh_m_Page_037thm.jpg
5e370717d756a25596bfdedd51df62fc
464a793a75487485542956fde3974b8d95627755
29157 F20101115_AACDQY alkhresheh_m_Page_014.QC.jpg
9528f2ee7fdc1318d3e2b2a77f8ac282
e657fe60b89b3f5a0f3d372833507c6c870c0fcc
115977 F20101115_AACCNW alkhresheh_m_Page_127.jp2
ab2f55165be3cef78d7f20193dee4be4
1b76f2e29b4eb2df0fea94fe5217ea92f0699ba3
102357 F20101115_AACCOL alkhresheh_m_Page_144.jp2
a9667a54d57f565d5e2d56a2753be0c9
7aa2c2b9dab2c5b5958ea04ba3594c94d8f971ba
26067 F20101115_AACDSC alkhresheh_m_Page_058.QC.jpg
955b224ed1d7efc68c0c309e9be8f6e1
1e2beaab68184e214d5cb89899259c7391d2eb81
26519 F20101115_AACDRO alkhresheh_m_Page_037.QC.jpg
801bb676a9393e1bd10232583f32ada5
8aba4e3dfd7b138191c82db52212734f8602b012
5539 F20101115_AACDQZ alkhresheh_m_Page_015thm.jpg
c50feb795becff01ca3a42ed77a90a2a
c1988e300429e0cc53fba9d2eba43c02e8003dc3
120374 F20101115_AACCNX alkhresheh_m_Page_129.jp2
7eb2f035f7bfc6659ca8165b44d410dd
2ccb7d2b9f71168bbe088f5ac810aa899d2a882d
611909 F20101115_AACCPA alkhresheh_m_Page_160.jp2
4283cd477679ff997d51ebda65d2ace3
8231e5b4bce2c4cdd37780c5e8c056aa984c8f91
114156 F20101115_AACCOM alkhresheh_m_Page_145.jp2
289ad72fe65d56d0095a06631f60aa38
46c5b5c3a7f66facb38e55fbd40961535e5297ba
20449 F20101115_AACDSD alkhresheh_m_Page_059.QC.jpg
9a55511b519af216413caa09dde4d5d4
8513e1557fbcb6970735984fbb6a4fc0f710eb4f
6206 F20101115_AACDRP alkhresheh_m_Page_040thm.jpg
f785cc5d03ac7c153965ac7a19d74485
7d50d46a7a8354619ea2228091374d983be27853
115297 F20101115_AACCNY alkhresheh_m_Page_130.jp2
947d0117db71c8465a78d831f2ef2d26
26cd54c2a865a3abe378c6c8ca0e89c9763f1d97
665764 F20101115_AACCPB alkhresheh_m_Page_161.jp2
943d98da5472966f30a1a6a6a3189e6d
52cdbe83a947dd83c6fc2c194205e3b24d99ed1f
94188 F20101115_AACCON alkhresheh_m_Page_146.jp2
dd2997ff5fd99d4e2030b45e16fa0727
945eff1c7d938c49bcade1a744f29e67df145882
5797 F20101115_AACDSE alkhresheh_m_Page_062thm.jpg
3dab6ac888a4a36e5ec9e26837cc433d
c17b907b8d2130e5088873f94f9c844a866cb65e
6457 F20101115_AACDRQ alkhresheh_m_Page_043thm.jpg
5ea8f1f1217868afaa403b719e9c83cd
2bd259d00d10f4442f4c6b41af0982773c4387f8
111799 F20101115_AACCNZ alkhresheh_m_Page_131.jp2
ee9cf154bcf58709fd4bf1547b566486
62eb518fc3b884a83c8ef8ed063d4810659c4f88
648795 F20101115_AACCPC alkhresheh_m_Page_162.jp2
2c3a140816a65ccd3b8717b5ba030e5a
3d5b31148ec4f1f651439ef5f25f06198c07d2d4
F20101115_AACCOO alkhresheh_m_Page_147.jp2
41f4598ed9618bad3bd6f8852515d2ca
183f1fb310ec6e1b033c62109194a1d1d9a7f210
19321 F20101115_AACDSF alkhresheh_m_Page_062.QC.jpg
c01d228738b67efa75fb2a1fc218245d
fd940ce26b4204f7ab27823167ae701288721b11
28390 F20101115_AACDRR alkhresheh_m_Page_047.QC.jpg
0c27b8481bfa210ec9aba465a2388dfd
7c8fe4bdd5f748fd9ce7a7604748db71892b2b1b
126351 F20101115_AACCPD alkhresheh_m_Page_163.jp2
e152fe01a82b1093492aeaa7ccb33075
c4da19f661b18326c4911f075f7a2ed56f0ddfd9
883176 F20101115_AACCOP alkhresheh_m_Page_148.jp2
0ccc8a0f754fff27f9989646d4f80430
475229bd7874759a1e5c8eb309d6696e43122f17
17806 F20101115_AACDSG alkhresheh_m_Page_063.QC.jpg
e9bb60cb517e6b8f482feb344e3ddb78
1f2ce5830551aa06da2637e9869e9ede2b8d2782
28527 F20101115_AACDRS alkhresheh_m_Page_048.QC.jpg
5c2790a8660f4199e8be23dfb06e6022
ae59a0a0e24c52778143cbb6cb9d38fbc2bfb60b
119501 F20101115_AACCPE alkhresheh_m_Page_164.jp2
f03784bb7223c4f18857d9ad9869cd79
59695d3509e318bb806bb0f7caa7c20eb135d443
974136 F20101115_AACCOQ alkhresheh_m_Page_149.jp2
690985a897b3ac6ee8612f63254405cb
72ad05bd460259a734b95e924351618da69f0cf7
F20101115_AACDSH alkhresheh_m_Page_064thm.jpg
9c660debc01be27b6c940319cde51acf
dc4935ada48eb981f961922753265828296f7c95
6312 F20101115_AACDRT alkhresheh_m_Page_050thm.jpg
b8cb60bd36d453e6c341262617acb737
ebb64bd4d578a72dea0e5db3c56bc8db0233b626
39565 F20101115_AACCPF alkhresheh_m_Page_165.jp2
0eb757a4cddabfdfd32ce6afdd699509
be22f034708479bdca73eca8e5dc251108688931
919660 F20101115_AACCOR alkhresheh_m_Page_150.jp2
501c162aa75f0ab68b1bd89784bb2912
74a45b216cbd680f447235267bd862fbc416efd7
23204 F20101115_AACDSI alkhresheh_m_Page_065.QC.jpg
7ffe90a0f2fdbc05893366fff9bc5952
1e33595e270ab478e7fe49ba0fab21f999a4490b
6177 F20101115_AACDRU alkhresheh_m_Page_051thm.jpg
42129f0acc0346fd3d457d4986afaed9
73a18a2eabb9efd2b71e62d816ee18f0b333f6d2
486419 F20101115_AACCPG alkhresheh_m_Page_166.jp2
284e6bbcb9db8260c5ad4e0eb0e9d6e3
1af6cc3a9f5f24b613665f4e7820f09411875bd5
734447 F20101115_AACCOS alkhresheh_m_Page_151.jp2
9a106eb6bfd8ea4c5fa1315bd19eb78c
a482ec4891b92aed1402ffbb16b10f39e818fe55
6360 F20101115_AACDSJ alkhresheh_m_Page_066thm.jpg
9d787776e7d7e37c9c6cca4bac97944c
63d324ca364b2a58c548ed4d53f37839760c2f61
25751 F20101115_AACDRV alkhresheh_m_Page_051.QC.jpg
398c02360a13af59328da67c1b2597c9
8fdede5f02db9789de2f51827d99212f7c7f0a18
465686 F20101115_AACCPH alkhresheh_m_Page_167.jp2
8de109e949eb83aec5b50887d1d86b51
29c2d47680f6227b9da28144003e91201b29fd67
88704 F20101115_AACCOT alkhresheh_m_Page_153.jp2
2c2fe9b76752c2ec505cc916aca27ccc
e0c7cb5a75bf848735cffc6dd574e63d3c9e41d5
5936 F20101115_AACDSK alkhresheh_m_Page_068thm.jpg
eff8b96dd6d11241912b9506a8c509e2
d9975e9670124199308179cbfbeb0b1be6b26750
6545 F20101115_AACDRW alkhresheh_m_Page_053thm.jpg
bd6ce8d4ce11fd8569d2847154ee71ae
227086195bf305cb9da47390c87f899751d09be9
84978 F20101115_AACCPI alkhresheh_m_Page_168.jp2
be21b8b5781eb5a78d474d852667f49d
3ddbd0837073802b58ad216d9f75aa0038efe0dd
119541 F20101115_AACCOU alkhresheh_m_Page_154.jp2
159da5638996bf623f4d4fa8fdcd3e9f
5b3c7aeda947aeb133b795808747b78a09de1ff7
24296 F20101115_AACDSL alkhresheh_m_Page_068.QC.jpg
595729ef176647daa8462e19f354540f
971aa3e05b4fd24229a99289ee5bb0ff4d4f11a0
28753 F20101115_AACDRX alkhresheh_m_Page_053.QC.jpg
8855abb84670350c82fd46d7cd8d9f12
be2b4d835f49f75d4027ad99dbe25bdab7a91fc5
81388 F20101115_AACCPJ alkhresheh_m_Page_169.jp2
e50e0d6e08a52f27fa36596aa22903fa
49b34df54c307b12710bf1dd32ae72e4b839444b
114298 F20101115_AACCOV alkhresheh_m_Page_155.jp2
bbca2dfdf1b2beed480356f053e8bbe5
73bd563a361cb5d362ddc35ee35c07ffa4c9c033
F20101115_AACDTA alkhresheh_m_Page_085thm.jpg
4991f76ce701007c8ec8b3ccdaec3d76
c5bda3c3c17266e679e7cbca201cd4df7a1a60f3
27491 F20101115_AACDSM alkhresheh_m_Page_071.QC.jpg
7a157a8130eed4b53281e3114fd1d64f
d2366c6934e1ff4fede6b34e1e260bbd9daa068f
83493 F20101115_AACCPK alkhresheh_m_Page_170.jp2
6ef3d68a20b3c43bd14f1d2731d04c51
d37ae114e89cd54dc05f3e42678af51248480d59
26379 F20101115_AACDTB alkhresheh_m_Page_085.QC.jpg
ddda99b12a65100b3dd412b857835ddd
d2a1aeec2861a6b030e4c6697a01e67a202707fc
25174 F20101115_AACDSN alkhresheh_m_Page_072.QC.jpg
b155debe20a5ff49693a5cea11bde302
def75f7b8ac8a63f544f8656677267d9a5f6d9a7
6663 F20101115_AACDRY alkhresheh_m_Page_054thm.jpg
536ba104f71cff92f3bd8679c101a2e0
60ce9c1f73f31e9eb08b658a756cd3c5a2ae97c4
86318 F20101115_AACCPL alkhresheh_m_Page_171.jp2
f649db842b49a9577907c00b501cdba0
7f342fc4c71b7c93a3d87cf620e2e5808211914a
79426 F20101115_AACCOW alkhresheh_m_Page_156.jp2
991fd1af6ce767f7e8dda16baf00219f
535b68d891f41fd049e6d7c675cf635bdff7b8ca
6114 F20101115_AACDTC alkhresheh_m_Page_086thm.jpg
e745462817045d2f624873af4e93fb0f
2c203a30a141116fe3e8c2486d55046077d9c1df
6022 F20101115_AACDSO alkhresheh_m_Page_073thm.jpg
4e0d73a6739fc215ac5dda870a4629a6
9dee226614653e336d38da283f7292d06940c36e
27787 F20101115_AACDRZ alkhresheh_m_Page_054.QC.jpg
4a7de60a45b4ca446a2631f51c2ec4c9
518eba73ee29d5a8fd94cd999c8909aeed9290b4
135629 F20101115_AACCQA alkhresheh_m_Page_186.jp2
a5f343571471072455f57052daad769b
3bcacf93bc21145c9327a3d86ccf4f27c93e2d2b
114520 F20101115_AACCPM alkhresheh_m_Page_172.jp2
8d04c6c4e87ccf6a7e94e36ee86349ee
d59a5cdadec089a6808b893efdec72cf4528db55
517846 F20101115_AACCOX alkhresheh_m_Page_157.jp2
7afe5873a340f6a030652d4261107e4c
5940a59f23352ad2981ca649c78cb0e04755d27b
27812 F20101115_AACDTD alkhresheh_m_Page_087.QC.jpg
fb4f3963e4ee7e2244b2f01630723744
afa7357ba249f1a1c2b1ba5add06ede2321c33aa
27767 F20101115_AACDSP alkhresheh_m_Page_074.QC.jpg
5aaf3db1e89e03460c1254fa5acc6238
225dcbdf3b26aca6ecb96d918c351981fe37e1d8
130595 F20101115_AACCQB alkhresheh_m_Page_187.jp2
fea968938d25900d6ca8caf126b7be50
7feceac1c82b51d2aab563957eb55fe12fa2df2b
111910 F20101115_AACCPN alkhresheh_m_Page_173.jp2
59523fea4514ddfd569629b39a63c090
84d57bdb7692cee3afd5140bfe3d834fa17ee28b
539173 F20101115_AACCOY alkhresheh_m_Page_158.jp2
96f9f004b36dff616ddc19aa4c4c4f3c
ceb5121d40e2e6a3d56d0d31c210826d6aacd171
6181 F20101115_AACDTE alkhresheh_m_Page_089thm.jpg
b1cb2eeafee87c1be8eea576d37ea624
cd97162e420fe0ebaeaaf14a40bc308caff1b521
28121 F20101115_AACDSQ alkhresheh_m_Page_075.QC.jpg
664b36ad991a03aee3f76c3b6027d277
6546dab5f440fea297e3ae885deb96511120d95d
509145 F20101115_AACCPO alkhresheh_m_Page_174.jp2
0079a7da688a42a2a18b76fa43f17f08
97ee83b3d939b20f398e8dc218d3718c0b95244d
555730 F20101115_AACCOZ alkhresheh_m_Page_159.jp2
94e2bb175d532a0c142009052845d534
3c36f719bf0d443507839654c8759f0aab1b92ab
136497 F20101115_AACCQC alkhresheh_m_Page_188.jp2
72d8634d29f8e613c219af91fe56ce3f
648b7193d69e87bdd1ed58546ebde06dc656d949
F20101115_AACDTF alkhresheh_m_Page_090thm.jpg
c0a8ab25ccd4748df822b845e18d6920
70e403c3e0798c722ce38cd3b87deaa838c40f87
4824 F20101115_AACDSR alkhresheh_m_Page_076thm.jpg
0d14150ed5aec790ed3c66f3484c7454
b870526c75b6c0078dbfc75e4c8267c9902560fd
489927 F20101115_AACCPP alkhresheh_m_Page_175.jp2
e54142d39dcf1efd6962d65d047f9445
0086781e8f7ca338555d300529f8ef8c8c336565
71999 F20101115_AACCQD alkhresheh_m_Page_190.jp2
1a29ba277ecf89c67aa90cbe749f2f9d
ae71530bc18fae3707a691d8f1793de0a128577f
6627 F20101115_AACDTG alkhresheh_m_Page_091thm.jpg
0b0d1177839cd32288e423d75728b62c
08f979a7a06c517e43034e36e3f58100cb527dde
19602 F20101115_AACDSS alkhresheh_m_Page_076.QC.jpg
b6f448dee424ec0b6f451ad1386628fb
73445cb669ddb01b45500aa3163e33b8334ead7a
618782 F20101115_AACCPQ alkhresheh_m_Page_176.jp2
cdaca6ec5718a0931409a39c5f5579d0
297e654a06abe81a1dc5c5aab32fed3498692862
F20101115_AACCQE alkhresheh_m_Page_001.tif
b3b3561c2045316ae872df41db48bcfc
0353df59751d629e37867835e00365d80e681aee
27455 F20101115_AACDTH alkhresheh_m_Page_092.QC.jpg
afc73ec9194acee3c6040e250d6c9bd0
10e66d112349fd557394ce151f82063834a04a89
18792 F20101115_AACDST alkhresheh_m_Page_078.QC.jpg
4c0c3516498e65f30c4f62c24153eb99
890101ca02c7abfcb18490effdb8cb38c1275b96
548986 F20101115_AACCPR alkhresheh_m_Page_177.jp2
703d7afe3e2cba9b1e731fa155f80a54
ea75fad4bc0436826a9a2dd7844c07a637487a3d
F20101115_AACCQF alkhresheh_m_Page_002.tif
c934ec687682c7199b50a8ca72051733
7e180640739a1746953769bb925c2ecfda2157f2
F20101115_AACDTI alkhresheh_m_Page_093.QC.jpg
a34f7a5e98a2e28f86fb7d3b926e121b
a94fd9007784206411b0d9019e1903bd25cf00f2
20290 F20101115_AACDSU alkhresheh_m_Page_079.QC.jpg
795681e9ed6072ba96eb725588c86d5c
fbe8619dd688dc7d4b91721b0e9e7b2e826f6ded
488987 F20101115_AACCPS alkhresheh_m_Page_178.jp2
f719d129611f88d7a3610f315e45b953
e1d780f64141d09de8bde8f44252ac064d844ac4
F20101115_AACCQG alkhresheh_m_Page_003.tif
eea0ed84e6f8c39ac5331c2ecdf88e0d
a845cfb957c8b60c7af1a11723e0d7aedd588d03
27125 F20101115_AACDTJ alkhresheh_m_Page_096.QC.jpg
eecb54f0234489a1e8a8594d0d1c1db5
89f180d88ad9ad269e8ab33f718042b5ae50194a
3484 F20101115_AACDSV alkhresheh_m_Page_080thm.jpg
d4e5398e7e8c3f100e5ee7e7c23bccb7
1bc5894465f6d845c306659fb7b390be1dc6a073
538793 F20101115_AACCPT alkhresheh_m_Page_179.jp2
562b21818c3575e6db0c18921f270a1a
7a93339af2735c830e7aa9dafa277965c903f420
F20101115_AACCQH alkhresheh_m_Page_004.tif
40ff1b3694bc11f5106da1e2ee68ae68
74184ee0f886a80b0a43cef9ae621c78b60ca87e
6067 F20101115_AACDTK alkhresheh_m_Page_097thm.jpg
f1d8cba5a7ea3f339bc3519941f37701
df896bc8e400d43d3e60bc4e3937aa18cfa3d006
13895 F20101115_AACDSW alkhresheh_m_Page_080.QC.jpg
de0403ae8ef88586ac7e5bddb0ea465c
e0c58cf0b296c64cc96406a69063d3d2198023ec
547098 F20101115_AACCPU alkhresheh_m_Page_180.jp2
4948ba09c9cdd6449eb0a6d42206ff51
b79271681bddde3b4fa811a08794c4208a374cc9
F20101115_AACCQI alkhresheh_m_Page_005.tif
6d147a73842ff21dd6d97882630d08fd
6d09e46471b931d801de33abf5fd6aaf2a0b412b
6784 F20101115_AACDTL alkhresheh_m_Page_098thm.jpg
142968f8c8efd89061a2340641e9e391
a6d64656605d87cbc12f28c0e135dc95600ce5b0
12841 F20101115_AACDSX alkhresheh_m_Page_081.QC.jpg
b1f224fc237e9bb8aa8e6072330fe765
43e71935c499301ea61f6a90f919cb55024b0325
535760 F20101115_AACCPV alkhresheh_m_Page_181.jp2
6fc7d0e7b71309e26495b1267aa5fb6b
8d6b388e438762118d41ce1e41759397e6b9058e
F20101115_AACCQJ alkhresheh_m_Page_006.tif
af540636c0ef11db84c8e49ef4760916
a5ac16d60dc68d4619b030240ee3c8dd6f95c2f8
12692 F20101115_AACDUA alkhresheh_m_Page_110.QC.jpg
3da93cf6d3bb8040b4b8428280376e84
adbce2601b6859971c0acb0fbbe99ca4e547c374
F20101115_AACDTM alkhresheh_m_Page_099thm.jpg
eedfccdaebbe2636164e11e50cfd373d
bce2f5e76ef149d5ea2c81012b03d215395c54fb
4236 F20101115_AACDSY alkhresheh_m_Page_082thm.jpg
c6f014a1796112ddeb343478fb4e94cd
0b2aa34ef50176ae6624aa214857d9bbcac26953
565610 F20101115_AACCPW alkhresheh_m_Page_182.jp2
a4fdf9893c8500b13fef69f440b3cf56
50bf9ea7d0b5c26131e661059e1c938dce59c3af
F20101115_AACCQK alkhresheh_m_Page_007.tif
8fbfdea14414a04a6797d5b5c97cfcc2
c593067b057c920ee3f920dd61d76a875184f47b
14624 F20101115_AACDUB alkhresheh_m_Page_111.QC.jpg
8b8c2059a9403774a91d9117b1fabce9
05adaab07242164fc23e653ecc43f6b4f10bd016
4809 F20101115_AACDTN alkhresheh_m_Page_100.QC.jpg
9c1f49807cefe19b092816817875e67b
8cd843b168a4010359b1133effa228d9a3971928
F20101115_AACCQL alkhresheh_m_Page_008.tif
69970372fa274ff67a959561a75e2e84
dc6a95ba57cf77939e8f504cd3fafd18d40b5ff7
3821 F20101115_AACDUC alkhresheh_m_Page_113thm.jpg
9e26fa79315bde771180f5a4b5338358
faedeefca6f10ecac9db1333964b5b0573da28f3
6546 F20101115_AACDTO alkhresheh_m_Page_101thm.jpg
03c816c87129837f791268bdf086a659
2f311dfc9001cc00a7ee8e2bfedc7fc97d1d3ffe
15006 F20101115_AACDSZ alkhresheh_m_Page_082.QC.jpg
d36a431cecc95242a05bd80c2c178f98
6773f727ebf6e3c84302785a2e828d452634f0e4
680628 F20101115_AACCPX alkhresheh_m_Page_183.jp2
2271e35a5c744e19a981b226969f66bb
fd23048d67a398e19ce210adc05e898b5d917676
F20101115_AACCRA alkhresheh_m_Page_026.tif
dd3ab7e214017042561563d5b3318a22
97bd231758497652ccfc6fb3b0f269d5c8a2b2ba
F20101115_AACCQM alkhresheh_m_Page_010.tif
76ddb9c732bb936c63fa28f5da889934
8e16c86bf9c1984f44e498edd7fd3db7bed8ded6
6406 F20101115_AACDUD alkhresheh_m_Page_116thm.jpg
cb6838578477aa2d452a6ce30046c7cb
d72b5fe72dde94a0c11ffc4c483595e64d636066
31388 F20101115_AACDTP alkhresheh_m_Page_101.QC.jpg
decd38f4b52b6df5196b7ade064bad8f
98b55c5193caf93c9d36924c07ea881554f380f0
532164 F20101115_AACCPY alkhresheh_m_Page_184.jp2
5b70ec7cbcac14ab19dedc599467dd38
4615392ee8ebf0a0c6781b88df1ee6ce0a5ef6c2
F20101115_AACCRB alkhresheh_m_Page_027.tif
779076286c266a3407c4f40200a032d9
c24d225ad802ad3b15d454900762c11c152fe94f
F20101115_AACCQN alkhresheh_m_Page_011.tif
bc59735081e2cb315bf9951532cc6288
3faa7e359b6943108948789b7734c74afc3af2cc
28965 F20101115_AACDUE alkhresheh_m_Page_117.QC.jpg
764ce13491c8ef1ed4a6f34cd8fb4e4b
c2c5e12532e26d65d7aff90bf87857543662bfcb
5131 F20101115_AACDTQ alkhresheh_m_Page_103thm.jpg
c5108acd983aca9090b6c75b85e1771d
bbd59e907da9327a8928870ae41b7c0b34b01b88
658177 F20101115_AACCPZ alkhresheh_m_Page_185.jp2
e591c49d8d1f6748c0b8b9874f12e0b2
0fc5d7c8a16364420dcf13a6e2e5aaf719fecb4d
F20101115_AACCRC alkhresheh_m_Page_028.tif
f8136d6f0d56de264265e7e4befa485b
196ac631faa4bc0d92d42fded5a1926bc218072e
F20101115_AACCQO alkhresheh_m_Page_012.tif
45d5865922049cd1f39084c9fb093a51
557ddf5559ec73e8f3d669d499ddf7231b8fb0a1
6469 F20101115_AACDUF alkhresheh_m_Page_118thm.jpg
e537b2db7e3587023fd9c61e3fc1a632
1cec22f4e9436612fd3e608277d60a9e646a1e7f
3208 F20101115_AACDTR alkhresheh_m_Page_104thm.jpg
08be52f94fedd9f5f72caa68c5102f20
25b299ba256e3eb9d2d4a262ec7897b6dfb484ae
F20101115_AACCRD alkhresheh_m_Page_029.tif
476b99d3c9f5bf1ef02a0edb55a9c514
a0c8a9e3ae7f6ee9b72783969c6479a1a5bd485a
F20101115_AACCQP alkhresheh_m_Page_013.tif
ac6cb2b8bfc2b6e06d7de1a4363ada70
3135ca92a4b9c12a726c9d098789d665bf95d5b8
6824 F20101115_AACDUG alkhresheh_m_Page_119thm.jpg
b1c5091ae9433fb066525077fe6a4ac7
a40edb6f456fa6a5f243299661061f551df0d30c
5973 F20101115_AACDTS alkhresheh_m_Page_105thm.jpg
91a086bca97290524e479ac208354d0f
526921d5f80b7d2c41eea16f75514be6f07cf05b
F20101115_AACCRE alkhresheh_m_Page_030.tif
fb238afd9a51703b33e474984a8c383b
904f7b4f44c90ecc7d029facdf022b3f7d467e0f
F20101115_AACCQQ alkhresheh_m_Page_014.tif
d4b63d2c470971fa8c1910e3d0fc8a62
542e2956cab78bbe13d74673eb60db77e41e92f5
28559 F20101115_AACDUH alkhresheh_m_Page_120.QC.jpg
9095eeb581609f621f054021dac3566b
2311e6d1c8b24b33799d04670c07c11446cae8e7
24027 F20101115_AACDTT alkhresheh_m_Page_105.QC.jpg
47bded18e0f01d3afb238f6107e53fc1
7e57a5ed512923d1801be190c09144ec8edda0f2
F20101115_AACCRF alkhresheh_m_Page_031.tif
999feba26cb5579f0cf8e54a5efa8b64
c61e82903e26dffe82509b2b090476812b0b6913
F20101115_AACCQR alkhresheh_m_Page_015.tif
d8d838fbc005909e80ba0ddae10d65fb
e65ae8b0ac9dc594d9e8b47c392427c4f48ab046
28272 F20101115_AACDUI alkhresheh_m_Page_121.QC.jpg
198d6c0c89fcbdb38a9487b2565a7ed5
f0ead8abb390a1f8a03d7262828bb04cbe587e82
6151 F20101115_AACDTU alkhresheh_m_Page_106thm.jpg
83df6ab0ec6f09abf8738209ae79342a
5b4e705c7a3a7dedb8e3260d2145f16a85fa38f2
F20101115_AACCRG alkhresheh_m_Page_032.tif
82022485c0a0c3d0af6de963c9ec5aab
59074be9a93225ffb145a6674924fecaa918db18
F20101115_AACCQS alkhresheh_m_Page_016.tif
c7c3df1245a0afd5ac4551d649008795
6e2e4a5df26f4400fa528d3b4990eea393519d6c
6656 F20101115_AACDUJ alkhresheh_m_Page_123thm.jpg
17fb9ad416a505c713a9370b40893217
eee536723c7b88868c4a1ac101563c43791143e3
24524 F20101115_AACDTV alkhresheh_m_Page_106.QC.jpg
a3ef23817aee7ad2d88413f885358423
5503f87bd3cba1bd90a77e57b70d43e87cdf764b
F20101115_AACCRH alkhresheh_m_Page_033.tif
9ee4878e8db68de8a00ca0ac4900e8a2
a402a4d4f50bc179b2ca2b95401b920a47a984d7
F20101115_AACCQT alkhresheh_m_Page_017.tif
00c93ff5283705b23e0f060d252ad1a0
feb241b93934f5379131354cb3be0532d30f3b8f
27453 F20101115_AACDUK alkhresheh_m_Page_125.QC.jpg
76f7dc1a67694d5182a2d3cb741f7138
e9972e4184d9d188abb6811fb427de316b66e949
20535 F20101115_AACDTW alkhresheh_m_Page_107.QC.jpg
7857b2d421576d0340cfdd5d6e2b8abe
b0649692e0e9a1902991323eae57f2d0703d71ab
F20101115_AACCRI alkhresheh_m_Page_034.tif
5ec018a6a7f898ca459dba75a810687d
86150023895060ef2500df9c39fc9b496996a65c
F20101115_AACCQU alkhresheh_m_Page_018.tif
a37b8beb9c32fb5ebf4ab96def54224c
470992c085e86afeb1d6f80f027f169bb57e2fc0
29304 F20101115_AACDUL alkhresheh_m_Page_126.QC.jpg
1a5f141e98cf3369766c8426c41f2a4a
aa903b6da1158f9b1aa8d5d5dc292231310f0c48
2625 F20101115_AACDTX alkhresheh_m_Page_108thm.jpg
8ebfe308fb297abb10a5dcf9d9171252
7023a5ee0b760c32e83214d075f7e6167ea56446
F20101115_AACCRJ alkhresheh_m_Page_035.tif
235c900d59bd1bbd0bcaf179d3c57482
aab98d030c46d65d98140bc0291123056ceefd28
F20101115_AACCQV alkhresheh_m_Page_019.tif
1b3e050e3e95ce5ef8a5e8bbae631f7b
04b57647b709ca800a4c4af2503466444c91d469
24930 F20101115_AACDVA alkhresheh_m_Page_142.QC.jpg
ad780607a9a2eaa773caba9456fcf4c3
aeeb6938430ab7d03308cfc275ecf1fe817759c9
27267 F20101115_AACDUM alkhresheh_m_Page_127.QC.jpg
55b416fea38f9bb2ff518e7be4be3b47
9677857902cf389291eed58efee5c1aea3e1cc15
4330 F20101115_AACDTY alkhresheh_m_Page_109thm.jpg
46716484fc6eb91a849d610cbe132573
5cbcda8b8e31766732f70b1c0bb8a9d307990ab2
F20101115_AACCRK alkhresheh_m_Page_037.tif
4df7328d7f55f2a3485c05b2b3818ccf
ff9c9a6c9e3bfed0affc2adca81475c72e401b89
F20101115_AACCQW alkhresheh_m_Page_020.tif
afac7d5b7e7319bca212eb412fb850ca
d563806a01ecc51a3a1dc6e5545e6bd1e5bcc217
26870 F20101115_AACDVB alkhresheh_m_Page_143.QC.jpg
7d3c826795c5539613cc96730fb5f2cf
00f917b1d698bb3597d114106c1924c05f2fdfa7
6725 F20101115_AACDUN alkhresheh_m_Page_129thm.jpg
ac8705ac609cd6f856f944a6348a65e7
193ac8b6b438132099da618b9eef8ba51e8884f9
4305 F20101115_AACDTZ alkhresheh_m_Page_110thm.jpg
d98ae635086db397838f5c4cc3142531
dd3f6ebc6bf1d333d747ccf4ca0a582070fa8c21
F20101115_AACCRL alkhresheh_m_Page_038.tif
03ad33b1a3bf6ecece9d1289c78e3f60
eed432365bf209e115c393ce9dd7479788c9e430
F20101115_AACCQX alkhresheh_m_Page_021.tif
3a35f917db155ce708d52f5d14de7a0f
f55bd8abf27424d575417dc0aa89114e2a85816a
26668 F20101115_AACDVC alkhresheh_m_Page_145.QC.jpg
f6742e8f61b4f2f07cea95eb193e2e63
a1a5ffae3c648e1cc2404285d4eca8675f6f5d4b
6590 F20101115_AACDUO alkhresheh_m_Page_130thm.jpg
e2149522276583ad770cc23661ba1d98
38d4e2c90eb94211cf85733b93e1e0869bafa629
F20101115_AACCSA alkhresheh_m_Page_053.tif
e5cedf1cc431770fd99354e1ce6583e4
5e26f5ae13eb4f20f24a4b2d005b1ae2392dd46c
F20101115_AACCRM alkhresheh_m_Page_039.tif
aa7df18c54f9aa5ff495738967e092ea
96e645279a598b2c27af924ead5b61c197cf8b6f
22567 F20101115_AACDVD alkhresheh_m_Page_146.QC.jpg
4bca9cc9c9d7f12343e15b36d65a9ad8
4978e4cebc5d82aebffe42a689a1db4efdb081a4
28598 F20101115_AACDUP alkhresheh_m_Page_130.QC.jpg
946cad64ca31c0cf686a1600aed3ce7b
43dbf09e63f9d739a579ea27697a71f5597e6c36
F20101115_AACCSB alkhresheh_m_Page_054.tif
8416ae789de0b1a5c7565fcfd3974fd8
01ddeedbac114bd8f90f85ce5447096424f054dc
F20101115_AACCRN alkhresheh_m_Page_040.tif
0596871b331ddaf9fc880251da8d7d18
df6e8b5b0e65ca56f250689f9f54e2b75f232dc0
F20101115_AACCQY alkhresheh_m_Page_022.tif
62f0451f6a9222ff8692f3ef2c2a89a2
aad68738f8cd0b616387502373397b4c5d0f449d
20545 F20101115_AACDVE alkhresheh_m_Page_147.QC.jpg
b36fb7ee9e57e29702076d685465a7df
61125ad16e702ccf382c431cd29a9645f8070fec
27116 F20101115_AACDUQ alkhresheh_m_Page_131.QC.jpg
cc1030f3d0f1ffc40f1a028202a756e8
eff500100375bb47651d969ab43f7e6b797f46ff
F20101115_AACCSC alkhresheh_m_Page_055.tif
56e7a41ac4592dc9af6ae5eb965ebf75
135cf598eccb0de21b13436cf38df1aed56d9efc
F20101115_AACCRO alkhresheh_m_Page_041.tif
f535c1528c521327bafacdb9fa0e8645
c16c0bfd195118312c307823e55a1efde882628a
F20101115_AACCQZ alkhresheh_m_Page_025.tif
3211465aa0c9f330a7688714ce483c48
2ff66ea822c2ce074eb4bac5fcc8d2577d302ceb
F20101115_AACDVF alkhresheh_m_Page_149thm.jpg
2b0d881b3893dc9b44e02fbcf36b0312
e844fc388b1831db3895a1429a17f9437561b0c7
2671 F20101115_AACDUR alkhresheh_m_Page_134thm.jpg
b58734cc0d48ebea08a61bf7e2af70a6
534bdac2ab2ff3f2402583677b308f231e5a1e3d
F20101115_AACCSD alkhresheh_m_Page_056.tif
fc084b2ffb2a7188335e00b5d5a61b81
6cb95517f050d320a5a2616657067aa019c1b65e
F20101115_AACCRP alkhresheh_m_Page_042.tif
7965ab561cd87050e26ff4041d0984d2
b9df5b2d0a13d389cc9783342505f5bc1f5f5647
15284 F20101115_AACDVG alkhresheh_m_Page_151.QC.jpg
a7eb7f5138da256b7bc38426ba6fc449
9fcd2617dd2e268a1ca4bb1bfba524fb5855f37f
6019 F20101115_AACDUS alkhresheh_m_Page_136thm.jpg
aca345ba29c7bd8a1fb44e98e6e0fdbc
05fc84d007f02b7bdbc829f402f5ffba6fb87b22
F20101115_AACCSE alkhresheh_m_Page_057.tif
22f89f1393be5c7bc4798aa920a6677a
24cbeaead081f8f726cd96d8f70af93062f85b00
F20101115_AACCRQ alkhresheh_m_Page_043.tif
09ae8c7ce723aaa8d9e6fb952780166a
dc56d1ce55283b0e71d01bfbaa2a534544ce2872
4675 F20101115_AACDVH alkhresheh_m_Page_152thm.jpg
686d5aa54d1bdd870a9ae7d5a76d752d
e58984b125e26470df4b065b179cb45b346d259e
6263 F20101115_AACDUT alkhresheh_m_Page_138thm.jpg
1ba7fd9fc1f18e41c89771c4868540f4
8ff6d31057686492d97f1699ff17a13bec6f8373
F20101115_AACCSF alkhresheh_m_Page_058.tif
0da72b7cbc086774255342016a041753
9d4a7f353ca7c0f582dd93a4ea879475c36f8c21
F20101115_AACCRR alkhresheh_m_Page_044.tif
49cdb48e95891aa2a7f3ad5da043cc6b
3b90040df83962ad1418720ddcca830a0581ab19
6452 F20101115_AACDVI alkhresheh_m_Page_155thm.jpg
528b58233d1b3123e7b1ec90200b1758
02a5fbb11c70506dd55bb21edd98a0e47cb4d436
28240 F20101115_AACDUU alkhresheh_m_Page_138.QC.jpg
e88629e101946dc9e5d56bf11c4f846b
ec8e981c69b8aa674ab1d5867ce5b56ff87a5c3e
F20101115_AACCSG alkhresheh_m_Page_059.tif
0509f1d1a0d97b9c6c95425b676576d5
6a826b99c666dcbf35f5d7bfc384f4ad432cc764
F20101115_AACCRS alkhresheh_m_Page_045.tif
bdbc29ce666e463ca85332642e0d8ece
b213313136a2ecc110beb9616c3e899446989cec
4718 F20101115_AACDVJ alkhresheh_m_Page_156thm.jpg
1649ab9ef9d2b28ceea218fec234affa
54f93a9750ef054317fa00b03a36a54b201fa43e
F20101115_AACDUV alkhresheh_m_Page_139thm.jpg
da5623c286bfd48266b46299ccb0d795
a85d2df5a107cb7cd54d4c31e2df87621bfa1fee
F20101115_AACCSH alkhresheh_m_Page_060.tif
8d700c1cc5453f66556071aa3dae77b7
a61a510a704e7df0c90b573d67acc4b5ed4b6576
F20101115_AACCRT alkhresheh_m_Page_046.tif
dd5ac9d66a90ed50c8f3fd74e7a5d74c
836334a779c79e1116b128d1e606295371e0c53a
13136 F20101115_AACDVK alkhresheh_m_Page_159.QC.jpg
18bbd3f291196179317f25550f43124d
d9e9bb9eec2d9efb5c8de10783b09a5a32e23d0a
29315 F20101115_AACDUW alkhresheh_m_Page_139.QC.jpg
85b3e064231bf0615632991374e3ae51
9b4ad422ed01872895377fb1f5369325979e2b15
F20101115_AACCSI alkhresheh_m_Page_061.tif
96cb901d5f7d581f922301727879d89d
25e3985c4b06fc20bc6f3297a49252bdbd7d628d
F20101115_AACCRU alkhresheh_m_Page_047.tif
9a66c3ff2ecc4098634539f13e701b1c
ec9ad0ca131f53a7a2507f562277db96b73ee607
14451 F20101115_AACDVL alkhresheh_m_Page_160.QC.jpg
b0ffee6e01beec0526e1e1206a935c40
c559c34ba3646e8fc4432cc39201e3b2cceafbf0
6538 F20101115_AACDUX alkhresheh_m_Page_140thm.jpg
fcd248ae0bfe8c4b71c11a81f27aa132
5117b63775d398880e876b4b092ad1822139bf84
F20101115_AACCSJ alkhresheh_m_Page_062.tif
02fc51b49dd0b0b2fccec81df2d1e4d9
14acc8a4b8f800dc6d4833de0c9295174a682d8b
F20101115_AACCRV alkhresheh_m_Page_048.tif
4f70c64e71b8e1a9ca293ea29052a463
c52f5fabb0244aaeb73b3d24711b07227c6f0b39
14500 F20101115_AACDWA alkhresheh_m_Page_183.QC.jpg
380602af027466fce4e855ae89a0c489
389454d3088c5ef9111874af10b9a6f527de3b24
4690 F20101115_AACDVM alkhresheh_m_Page_161thm.jpg
9f5249a7bd086d3d8767452d941ca199
7e7cb086a2f29ca080420a3b6f1328d4465f44db
27556 F20101115_AACDUY alkhresheh_m_Page_141.QC.jpg
9d62617898c01385cf5c9dadbdd49a84
25b0f030353c6b5eccae665c59dd911bbd2a51b4
F20101115_AACCSK alkhresheh_m_Page_063.tif
b9901626242cd26f4f93a87d08e73be3
8fd8fcd4ef981fa966695f9a47e1acee526d2e22
F20101115_AACCRW alkhresheh_m_Page_049.tif
4841ea9798ba22491316637e2b6a4564
917fa22f4e02dbea0709d23da1bfc42bbdca02ff
6777 F20101115_AACDWB alkhresheh_m_Page_186thm.jpg
5bafa93c857a481e289814b73d978529
7aba86ed36e1d0b3598310e69ca8fec879f38902
5925 F20101115_AACDVN alkhresheh_m_Page_163thm.jpg
870d5cbb1d37c764d0d69639fd552de5
7339a5dff8ec349f795bb71cf978e4b65ff036ad
6131 F20101115_AACDUZ alkhresheh_m_Page_142thm.jpg
3b54192208268e6f13c8e60c93857553
56a5600033aa1f53e9909166275f22746460b7f2
F20101115_AACCSL alkhresheh_m_Page_064.tif
c5b2954711a346f7552edd13537e88bd
78b5fa8be5f3a7a14ba77866dd0660f77a6f7455
F20101115_AACCRX alkhresheh_m_Page_050.tif
f022ee9b0e9f377de8ebee2fa30705f0
0dee33f53a7243f9a4217f69b0873b273b4ea193
29663 F20101115_AACDWC alkhresheh_m_Page_186.QC.jpg
8120b830b323d433eb6e5f391feac4ec
7a86309272758c79115e742487ac45f9915b4e60
9187 F20101115_AACDVO alkhresheh_m_Page_165.QC.jpg
bc8782c6a9a57108d2534fee8f9e1b70
42cf7cae204cfdd306485fe7e66c353a702e9272
F20101115_AACCSM alkhresheh_m_Page_065.tif
a5cd79163ad55f3c16d3c18dee2a9ea4
4d7455f0438dabdded4ab1b814c8b21cd77ad714
F20101115_AACCRY alkhresheh_m_Page_051.tif
8584fc0d69bcaf5d3c7f62c5638f9a32
f446b3eb8270fc6d6ec0028e2f9a4d252b9fb215
F20101115_AACCTA alkhresheh_m_Page_084.tif
8448dd8a3536d1a89e4b335273fba00a
87db4303a38c50b4e500d16eec8cdb465fd5d07f
24536 F20101115_AACDWD alkhresheh_m_Page_189.QC.jpg
a9917efc2114b408566584a37e3f786a
670d386f42b79923a0427321626d0dd9c0b111d7
13043 F20101115_AACDVP alkhresheh_m_Page_166.QC.jpg
6bea883e99a81cb00be2b7ca295d31d7
b5abc8efc95f6bdfedfb235b741fec166d218f08
F20101115_AACCSN alkhresheh_m_Page_068.tif
31cf08f19331b499d6665811918242eb
f92411cb16e79e02a9fdee2cc333929899ba4d4a
F20101115_AACCTB alkhresheh_m_Page_085.tif
299b82b0d0a6a96c15e71e8bb5cee914
043899640dec2c12ec5f7af558006574608ae787
4113 F20101115_AACDVQ alkhresheh_m_Page_167thm.jpg
4c0d1ab505217b311c179a96fbbb8922
8e11883c869cf37efac4e75376b2d0e31aa6c7de
F20101115_AACCSO alkhresheh_m_Page_069.tif
9b4327fea480b9f9aa80feac2277255a
9246f1e17df4fe3670adbe2e79c93b524cf159e8
F20101115_AACCRZ alkhresheh_m_Page_052.tif
13be9f1a969c6ba857b64d462a557eed
42a3c5d414ebf59a74d9fd36cbfa7ceccbe5c6c0
F20101115_AACCTC alkhresheh_m_Page_087.tif
e9e1d96549fa471fc7243eb367bb61b7
c8efc897d04893cc8812fd3479f6e3c393691dd5
23438 F20101115_AACDVR alkhresheh_m_Page_168.QC.jpg
51cfb60428397a3fae3c809c45fd8ed7
0a81ba8283f1317902a8e4c7cd1ade0c63f40593
F20101115_AACCSP alkhresheh_m_Page_071.tif
d6c1a733614a0f446fe36dd763d03fb7
7307985bdb41b5e6ae924ae92d5b704bfdc1115a
F20101115_AACCTD alkhresheh_m_Page_088.tif
35ecdf4b834e9d61b72a8049a646f015
ec7911c56b47af947395bc7337b736a6c86f6b83
6456 F20101115_AACDVS alkhresheh_m_Page_172thm.jpg
e3b98181c2e729dadc7ff3bfcdcf8a49
b564f930a6264f99f5df36839d696d854be29825
F20101115_AACCSQ alkhresheh_m_Page_072.tif
6219b93625bb3c105137cb404aebb7ee
1ce01b67283dfce355d2f7d45b76b7567d081280
F20101115_AACCTE alkhresheh_m_Page_089.tif
be9e94cc466cd3ac9f2ddb56eb9ec055
a6bb838aefb713e4a127dfd6532ad45ddbce5fee
29681 F20101115_AACDVT alkhresheh_m_Page_173.QC.jpg
318c02bdf65c01900205a07dd9269ccd
04c009642ff06ddd16eec3d0efeb489adb25374b
F20101115_AACCSR alkhresheh_m_Page_073.tif
8f80793545b0e6cd9e18b276a450c9be
1bd0b0f02e2a46e9bf12169d1e77cdb76658f690
F20101115_AACCTF alkhresheh_m_Page_090.tif
d37588307588d6e1beb2cc7a02d84984
17e7d2f8c5ef1a3d5aa0e74bfa74fc7f8e6498ec
11264 F20101115_AACDVU alkhresheh_m_Page_175.QC.jpg
6c970f6cec4c4fd38896bed7163d6193
54dd46485944dc625e0af14a598d08b6e1cfb606
F20101115_AACCSS alkhresheh_m_Page_074.tif
05bb281d11a4ed8f8cad0db5244a2538
4a5295cf2df5c78ec57bd66dc0b85cf822720031
F20101115_AACCTG alkhresheh_m_Page_091.tif
c92a10fa742a4c4d7acb1cfb9df2fa3c
0e92e13ad67397c1572552624e6400078df15bc3
F20101115_AACDVV alkhresheh_m_Page_177thm.jpg
1b1052d22059a71ed4000b645f833143
34c41d093124fd525910dcf9b12ae51596d45d2e
F20101115_AACCST alkhresheh_m_Page_075.tif
cea09b90a7aa93a2396ad86415060d0c
1d60abed772732b5b1f9b595355b3f6e0ccc1dfb
F20101115_AACCTH alkhresheh_m_Page_092.tif
9b0183cb54b7ba6fadb10f75f7c03f25
ffbfe362907510f201431305212767bc6e3f7a70
3695 F20101115_AACDVW alkhresheh_m_Page_178thm.jpg
b20bcc038804299bb0c710176fe76798
ed900c36b3abd5de7e0ec36e6c8260b55c209547
F20101115_AACCSU alkhresheh_m_Page_076.tif
a7d9bc8258999c3703d1032a18eaaa79
ea544f98b5ef77febd34ac259126cce5c6456e21
F20101115_AACCTI alkhresheh_m_Page_093.tif
bca0ad89d04ee262c9cc7ac364938e05
1067be35082f8d518776b41fd26155560ac65f06
3999 F20101115_AACDVX alkhresheh_m_Page_179thm.jpg
5992865f9d35b2e279fbf663f606c8ce
d61fd593768862c14bcbbf31d77e53d5a8ef0158
F20101115_AACCSV alkhresheh_m_Page_077.tif
c91793e9aee9444a177a48788318086d
3c4c11dd76a2745d180cbee1ad919157cd5ff484
F20101115_AACCTJ alkhresheh_m_Page_094.tif
7f5f87c668365f33633c8ac81125df99
5276c228c9615710b00ec4da75f5cf66366b903e
3980 F20101115_AACDVY alkhresheh_m_Page_181thm.jpg
f4a67466e13f15b714c09f22afdef683
135d39a596394532d6b259078f32788916ac3699
F20101115_AACCSW alkhresheh_m_Page_079.tif
3a13b7ab2adeb10f4c1b36fe6380df3b
8cece1eefcbe6d06199a6ebc3afd4b2ae284d67e
F20101115_AACCTK alkhresheh_m_Page_095.tif
04e46fc043485aad78d3e60bdbc778ab
55a2a11a91729ec97e941c668775901c3b6780be
11979 F20101115_AACDVZ alkhresheh_m_Page_181.QC.jpg
5abc40628541d802034075dca388dce3
d72402a5762c6c9ca1f98c85c8bffaec7c9689f6
F20101115_AACCSX alkhresheh_m_Page_080.tif
a3017cb1b07e7451be7b8f7831f9e5e1
d2e1b3b721a33d2bb39958b4f4d997a6761ec3a8
F20101115_AACCTL alkhresheh_m_Page_096.tif
1bff6046871e4ee0125b26883c3b2eac
cc02d35e8c613df555b8843a7a8af42bafca94eb
F20101115_AACCSY alkhresheh_m_Page_081.tif
481db2a201081f74d3bf20fff6939011
93ec53366c511f3569767770e3fe462c9e994c06
F20101115_AACCUA alkhresheh_m_Page_112.tif
fc956585ddddb4697aaa8dc432386a2b
05f8901ab128b74a834a907823c868faf05dd6c8
F20101115_AACCTM alkhresheh_m_Page_097.tif
5ee230f602f6ef9ed0292fc4b877d6b8
5bcfafb2ff12ab809a8f82f4e9333082e1a58732
F20101115_AACCSZ alkhresheh_m_Page_082.tif
bb6e13859129675ff901cd26d8ff9b2b
19fa25b9fd21e20c8eb416f4f670b94399fb6a96
F20101115_AACCUB alkhresheh_m_Page_114.tif
8d2673639eacd95188382261ded327e8
a0231f62ad8c29b41862402b2e2c14e4cb3fc455
F20101115_AACCTN alkhresheh_m_Page_098.tif
e3def7ef75490376ace336ab136b3fe6
43a242f7649d6691bb2aa63660714f25fda6d0ed
F20101115_AACCUC alkhresheh_m_Page_115.tif
5d8bb09af8bfe3661e62a9104c130e58
12461084e5ef72d141885f41acd8dada7bbca4ac
F20101115_AACCTO alkhresheh_m_Page_099.tif
288b4706b0d7b6f949309d5d1bac011c
1473ba2a3554b38e08610451bd29be67d01c9545
F20101115_AACCUD alkhresheh_m_Page_116.tif
22a113781463b959668d1b40d8fc06f4
a4ccdc98cb61c8e24a2159871a8a2d9ad9e685d0
F20101115_AACCTP alkhresheh_m_Page_100.tif
6e0a046fd109afc68222afbd2b4982da
6f8fe344b87a5850faa85ef04a11669f7ead3e4b
F20101115_AACCUE alkhresheh_m_Page_117.tif
5ccb897d80044bd991a821cc0ffeb2dc
fc7257fbcf82476ecaaeb0a8567408916a4e9aab
F20101115_AACCTQ alkhresheh_m_Page_101.tif
951b5c63c4159be818e70ba14ee0ba36
218e6019f86c2452341f9070844e545dffcdeae8
F20101115_AACCUF alkhresheh_m_Page_118.tif
10745ee79eeef3cb6ab84a292e286a17
5cafbdfa978f22e85537a17c45412bb0dcf20915
F20101115_AACCTR alkhresheh_m_Page_102.tif
78d83746e22c1afb498626ed4c49f790
168a921ae1d62e49a5b1e0f0df6225d4e7a7f5d2
5293 F20101115_AACDAA alkhresheh_m_Page_100.pro
2b58703a8aaa5acd3c54ee80d507346f
cabbb535dd4bf1a7140b137d743b3bce7a2b2db1
F20101115_AACCUG alkhresheh_m_Page_119.tif
a4aa6103d6ee1d5d12a21b886a6f6398
49dd8ababbfe68a97a29d49dad21e689151326ab
F20101115_AACCTS alkhresheh_m_Page_103.tif
7ff2fe01124ca7622cd4911702c73c8b
a2f85e4c34cb9d3003428e70260778827cc9ef1f
63756 F20101115_AACDAB alkhresheh_m_Page_101.pro
2511cc6e2135bebadc453e236f31e857
64846b62b43684e5d9db0be7cedac608116979e3
F20101115_AACCUH alkhresheh_m_Page_121.tif
2db9241049b57a4d9783da310e892069
dd87e9531272df4a8d0b5ab1058b08adad75de3f
F20101115_AACCTT alkhresheh_m_Page_105.tif
eb062f5075a494169586139368f0bd03
edad335cf09366ee5de863dce0547c911db0ca9d
35567 F20101115_AACDAC alkhresheh_m_Page_102.pro
4ea228de26cca53de5d963da470df661
bb8470bc3c2fdd20c71e2cbe38bb7086dfe5f8f0
F20101115_AACCUI alkhresheh_m_Page_122.tif
2f9c6d93671773ab5c0ffed7584d2260
802c9bde44cc698481a3bd58c915c12d00872230
F20101115_AACCTU alkhresheh_m_Page_106.tif
42524f0378a09d61fff23ba99fdd4e2b
a0be8f68ef75e88616aa8e526e6018221e61f70d
30618 F20101115_AACDAD alkhresheh_m_Page_103.pro
6f2e7e00f0d4fc5c8a76efcbbf1210c3
18a8273b2df65ec198461d75c8008dbc4da27f93
F20101115_AACCUJ alkhresheh_m_Page_123.tif
b388e743bf726622be08e93d4052a7f3
ac9b6fcf7f3a1f5720ad01572158e7b9803db825
F20101115_AACCTV alkhresheh_m_Page_107.tif
e75c036cde19cd1b03c4d12879a5e2b1
20455c9d67090de3f18e8fc0b7745001b53b38f3
19119 F20101115_AACDAE alkhresheh_m_Page_104.pro
6c691b9688c718cdc2dd04e350a303f4
eb542861d75c36544971f9d9a7f1ec34e57fb00c
F20101115_AACCUK alkhresheh_m_Page_124.tif
1166915e296ec687c7c7f22c3e9b4780
276a946c41473878f6abfe08fefdaca49d0ed9dc
F20101115_AACCTW alkhresheh_m_Page_108.tif
21b60c37e209945b68e97690d9cf6a59
f698313f498a7de853bd9593debe9912f9853ddd
41327 F20101115_AACDAF alkhresheh_m_Page_106.pro
660f106248fb495259bb3160f12f7f85
fdf76122037b42c4c54a04bf1cc06537656e56fe
F20101115_AACCUL alkhresheh_m_Page_125.tif
0464aa9ec62606a39b755be113679b65
f217247905a5e60fdc31281554531396633ca62a
F20101115_AACCTX alkhresheh_m_Page_109.tif
e0662e8b9d42400d9808030e91d0ddf6
2511e85b5914c953d7eefa00aeb0d1bbc7c71c59
33815 F20101115_AACDAG alkhresheh_m_Page_107.pro
44e9de60e81ad2688a4b66f926b3c498
68a3b57d71039d463e5d90657e696954c3b51d16
F20101115_AACCUM alkhresheh_m_Page_126.tif
8eb3723c23a630678474305427c441d1
7f8df0eab5c7f7e980c88f99cb9a8654b6bdd411
F20101115_AACCTY alkhresheh_m_Page_110.tif
2eed648b0275af4f2906c397457ecdc8
e00433d45966e9b6242acdcd078b73f492aae916
F20101115_AACCVA alkhresheh_m_Page_143.tif
60ba3e85d0c6c0f57225fdcfed4db111
38e91219ca37a7fd9a1d1c0ad2dc57fa1efe3df6
F20101115_AACCUN alkhresheh_m_Page_127.tif
2a7a5fd77e5b2b4667732b0424f4f1c3
040acacf725240488ce24c3df8db87525d78b57f
F20101115_AACCTZ alkhresheh_m_Page_111.tif
8bb32df27afbc6eb7148f560a5ef4972
b236c7eff9b81edc92fc59f1574b1996b755066b
3355 F20101115_AACDAH alkhresheh_m_Page_108.pro
c0a2041cbed0925530df72899254133c
500956f8ee1d40a8e181ff676c20534b175b9da5
F20101115_AACCVB alkhresheh_m_Page_144.tif
ede7ec39495937955830fc27bed5b410
154a2e1eb7c7d3be092a1b60e2992290eabcb6f2
F20101115_AACCUO alkhresheh_m_Page_128.tif
9a978960b714acc8cdcc0a3c4b427294
833c3b4f3065fc92b2aca555631f779dd23610f5
8768 F20101115_AACDAI alkhresheh_m_Page_110.pro
9ca53319308877a55127899e5af0ff5b
883a54feaa56cb404aeba2d1243849959f4c63e0
F20101115_AACCVC alkhresheh_m_Page_145.tif
c405bb95ec819b3819a3acf455f4a20d
b171a0cbf34bc15bfb36d7dc72d21d97cff55692
F20101115_AACCUP alkhresheh_m_Page_131.tif
d32dc85b46903862697a1c8325ae99b8
069bb8fad06b279ef81db694a122d9ff50a738b8
8998 F20101115_AACDAJ alkhresheh_m_Page_111.pro
d3a73d2bd9a378c84cb575e19c762e4a
18510dbef7f41371163f3ace112faa6a0be9ba40
F20101115_AACCVD alkhresheh_m_Page_146.tif
f01b660505328fe58ce499551358a3e8
9add11de6d7fa100e3cfb36b5d4b7125e99da93b
F20101115_AACCUQ alkhresheh_m_Page_133.tif
1559647b63af90b12a30f81b072503e9
4a1880ab8656f2c87efadcd29b6612ce3dab4e38
8022 F20101115_AACDAK alkhresheh_m_Page_112.pro
6e206a4d22abb97b39e6a52861d3e74c
7693a4819f130297e889587605251c3f8beb1474
F20101115_AACCVE alkhresheh_m_Page_147.tif
21e75744fd14daa56a5dde3c898a6e75
a1c75b7fe6413e026c95914d37c3d7109c88ef9e
F20101115_AACCUR alkhresheh_m_Page_134.tif
a324cd1b85cd73c7e39bba133fc28242
b0445aef4f3022735ab664caf5e43c0be950e8c4
52831 F20101115_AACDBA alkhresheh_m_Page_131.pro
fae04d9e3e4eeb5ad665841c56cd6ab3
7c97de0b505c6ab3bed04f02b8d37f1d1912174d
50055 F20101115_AACDAL alkhresheh_m_Page_114.pro
8266ebe8e242a6f3fcd2dfb6cd775298
559d4423ac693ec4db74db27afe991eb89ff8823
F20101115_AACCVF alkhresheh_m_Page_149.tif
c583064ddcbd7659c5f1de8ada5815c2
66ad7a151263e1d4c1b59c7af4e4ab6703db07cd
30436 F20101115_AACDBB alkhresheh_m_Page_132.pro
b49063b5a3754a5b2d06b42eb4b5cda3
05f08e994dc27b0b7fbec941c96b684aae027d64
F20101115_AACCUS alkhresheh_m_Page_135.tif
285eda4725c7f1ba9c2a92d5ddb8db17
a43df1c63158f89029d33d656190002a6b8f2dac
51768 F20101115_AACDAM alkhresheh_m_Page_116.pro
3383dcba0f72bccf53eeac30b9c1c209
9a2c88e62514bb941b70bb369530bf7f79cc43c1
F20101115_AACCVG alkhresheh_m_Page_151.tif
63caad0c75b5d1d2d3cc39a4f90e55cc
23deed65605dfed952a5207d580883d975109e03
4664 F20101115_AACDBC alkhresheh_m_Page_134.pro
62db54506dd5ef289416a022168f3fdf
84137638061c37e2ce45db42fa8bf954a18abc71
F20101115_AACCUT alkhresheh_m_Page_136.tif
3902a63d6dee4fa2209daa8bd7a27476
8838928a4ca14ef0dacf35b691b1b34e009f374b
56073 F20101115_AACDAN alkhresheh_m_Page_117.pro
c3e99c2b6279e8d973503b9196061a29
918cfe25165a072ede3dcfb3645c5e8b7b656276
F20101115_AACCVH alkhresheh_m_Page_152.tif
a495c12d9af565b6bf3ad0b7c938c6ff
6e5c65c162fdd99e93f082dfd02b6478d69f85d6
49067 F20101115_AACDBD alkhresheh_m_Page_136.pro
3ef6314ee3d9c82cc1bc56fa0cc85127
a50b3f48ccfaa3e469f5ae90ff12ae3792eaeb1b
F20101115_AACCUU alkhresheh_m_Page_137.tif
37a7d0c732e08bdb0cda56ed10fb0970
f7de8c1298d76572d56a77dba3da11cc82a1763a
54615 F20101115_AACDAO alkhresheh_m_Page_118.pro
de948e61248588ab6ab62e4a532646d6
de8b2bd3e4b59d7070c2c923776a211324cd771e
F20101115_AACCVI alkhresheh_m_Page_154.tif
da1932ad15f166d13460e81356349090
9b15fd83d3aa6d47b0b7a215b0db49ba70b4200f
54725 F20101115_AACDBE alkhresheh_m_Page_137.pro
a8ce6e4198a615b5405004630ee0a43f
46d9942d4259f3749d47f45794b17850d0407a14
F20101115_AACCUV alkhresheh_m_Page_138.tif
0beb0584a43938a5ba2057dcc9cb1403
0223af4c70c50f7df7df4deca1557113dc9916d0
57171 F20101115_AACDAP alkhresheh_m_Page_119.pro
909a06a8163f558ba4a1fc5dcda37deb
273d6bccab163992196178b4b15ab03631923831
F20101115_AACCVJ alkhresheh_m_Page_155.tif
d0bea3cbbe592e771d628777959a1df2
1e8d2da951ce8355c15194b5950bddbba35c6875
57287 F20101115_AACDBF alkhresheh_m_Page_139.pro
029e5806fc26ac0f07e18f1c48dc823f
982804af14492c4b40decc85f7386bdf161561d5
F20101115_AACCUW alkhresheh_m_Page_139.tif
231f16c3046fc3a72d5fb792e504e3ea
9f67d50e37204fede48066040ac0d069f150f4ce
54845 F20101115_AACDAQ alkhresheh_m_Page_120.pro
d191c51dffe53a93a851cefbc478291a
dd84d06994e9f631cdecf5e5757b8df8b0b48e3c
F20101115_AACCVK alkhresheh_m_Page_156.tif
1a53e7ede4651f06e83ed5e032a38a3d
0126d960fb86d88146de9e16ff14f6667cacb6ff
52717 F20101115_AACDBG alkhresheh_m_Page_140.pro
5e8c13245ca2d59da59c1b84de790796
004eec86f490360469518b9561300869e0a43505
F20101115_AACCUX alkhresheh_m_Page_140.tif
de2399efe8a8b64f8f1aa5a82e537edf
67bf7279d1fcf4e407ac23a097e3ace206b30f90
54188 F20101115_AACDAR alkhresheh_m_Page_122.pro
e69b4663c79ff9df02e579de1fa3bac1
6b4c267e9d204c425d6c2bfd567f76b388871711
F20101115_AACCVL alkhresheh_m_Page_157.tif
a23257c21ecfc986f0e55fb31d9f5f9c
5b3d4ac49e696f5287ef7e222508840e4a9bebcb
54798 F20101115_AACDBH alkhresheh_m_Page_141.pro
bda27e5888a6ba5690ebd2c33a3ea317
9df958f81fb6a528b593fcf6c11a40aa70b44aef
F20101115_AACCUY alkhresheh_m_Page_141.tif
fef492f984bb0eaa1de95bfe73640fb4
f0d5da0ca2185a6eed5a038cf38c885df2956d2d
F20101115_AACCWA alkhresheh_m_Page_174.tif
bae38fcff2d953383778f10b4c4c059c
a13ece506700167d44a78a5efb152b2eb905b81f
54599 F20101115_AACDAS alkhresheh_m_Page_123.pro
be61df4d2127f7c7b62969a861e98f34
8cf08bd10b0efcbc4438aa275bed43170c019496
F20101115_AACCVM alkhresheh_m_Page_158.tif
ed55d1e0fd307b2a7de3f3a5fedb52a5
3f3372830c6dab6112b2058f93c696a5218e47df
F20101115_AACCUZ alkhresheh_m_Page_142.tif
b05478e3539708d028aba8f86784e826
a6b31d9fd9c2ec5a84031a6adeebb38c3d0840dc
F20101115_AACCWB alkhresheh_m_Page_175.tif
4ec7fe541212e78df101ab98f9ec58d7
31fdb9f7f43732ca82edff66184216ca9b431f56
51906 F20101115_AACDAT alkhresheh_m_Page_124.pro
4b0fd63889a18b957c114c8b1b7e88a0
217a2294d726cd754609348192c90c1c6b26c4a3
F20101115_AACCVN alkhresheh_m_Page_159.tif
e12892a02d895b7f7cc8e3beb6474170
7bc96598eee208f1f0976a23ae053bc150abcbae
49286 F20101115_AACDBI alkhresheh_m_Page_142.pro
6289d1693dd994a63b474e6dc02a25b7
b72c13a127398e3e9d56286247ce5e4f5faae8aa
F20101115_AACCWC alkhresheh_m_Page_176.tif
e8ac4447dde7b4c261bb107a3a79b505
d66dd343513ac44da1b7159bb653b77f6def03d2
53779 F20101115_AACDAU alkhresheh_m_Page_125.pro
4bda405bc6cfcbcc720ab69eac62cc5d
2197529c611391fc8a64f3e6beba63fa702b727e
F20101115_AACCVO alkhresheh_m_Page_160.tif
6684e2b64db621d42ad56bf06fbbd981
e42ecefbb66dab4dbf85eb5eadfb9d3c286c19a8
53469 F20101115_AACDBJ alkhresheh_m_Page_143.pro
ce3375de8e65d5d84ab8f923546d5404
898c8cb4694df387d076b3509a0ba2ee46caa566
F20101115_AACCWD alkhresheh_m_Page_177.tif
f175267eba215a54e3591aa38859a3a2
6a2e0f837557f72d7c5fd05a25c150dd24759e89
57400 F20101115_AACDAV alkhresheh_m_Page_126.pro
6f22eb3defa9c93bbaff8898677640f0
3ff1ff46759325d5b1c48a22cd3f83870480ed8a
F20101115_AACCVP alkhresheh_m_Page_161.tif
e09512387ec53675888f8d69c48b82d1
14388f2e730e400543073a230cb4043401ef0b43
47181 F20101115_AACDBK alkhresheh_m_Page_144.pro
bc752236f06a958d3cd0025203862211
8529056c31f919418e0ba93ce553932fd5646cda
F20101115_AACCWE alkhresheh_m_Page_178.tif
6732d6286b2dece77b139481ef6e308d
9636e990f8981146481c6d98ade583d89316c773
F20101115_AACDAW alkhresheh_m_Page_127.pro
2cc2586e820806767130b4940d665e8f
3347deed12566c893e2d2598f59124eda53f9c70
F20101115_AACCVQ alkhresheh_m_Page_162.tif
24ec9adcd141df5e9893028f1a5cfb02
2d9f81e7c8bb2924bcea7dd078571644d4b838e8
51208 F20101115_AACDCA alkhresheh_m_Page_163.pro
44a3315dc20f1cc27127081f9ef82c4f
3dbee29b99589db0f7359b324cde1c8f904655f5
52549 F20101115_AACDBL alkhresheh_m_Page_145.pro
23fe32ada76299ee2e6b07b2936665fe
03e842586a405319116b8d5abb3642848d2cbe4c
F20101115_AACCWF alkhresheh_m_Page_179.tif
3c9726319315123ae79fcbcf6d8871c3
3e57a6554a6df74de916d61dee4f450c87a83c7e
55765 F20101115_AACDAX alkhresheh_m_Page_128.pro
9569939070b87dae51d1be883c9b11b3
d650b9b6fa17a111aea0334fdc06be3b96d5dc0b
F20101115_AACCVR alkhresheh_m_Page_163.tif
7e591779c165c5788f8eee032f78ad9a
52b92524431aefa1aa3950b21be5f43f8c8f51cc
45466 F20101115_AACDCB alkhresheh_m_Page_164.pro
06ce9639fcd97e2d102869a7dca51acf
912a22cfe73019a0821b9411e652ecbae371f696
43975 F20101115_AACDBM alkhresheh_m_Page_146.pro
2c061729303e1d3e94cfc12e8e143aa0
9e998055a8f8878afb3085502f24f03cf53160ea
F20101115_AACCWG alkhresheh_m_Page_180.tif
1e6bc7aa13ae7329962f352049317488
1e4e6e9b16249ea85a583a13b9deaaaa5a308b08
56593 F20101115_AACDAY alkhresheh_m_Page_129.pro
c0df2e5718327bb94d902a32c8ae612c
3587daaacea6e3191c22a6bf30cea19d1b9c6daf
F20101115_AACCVS alkhresheh_m_Page_165.tif
5226c3e66b05e9a48487a619622c69cb
6361a64fa72f604b88d25d5b607817a744de5cbd
F20101115_AACDCC alkhresheh_m_Page_165.pro
a3af54aa44df0dbab56ab22fdf0116f4
1af9d7e243209de2807c82659c494df2f5f428e0
41937 F20101115_AACDBN alkhresheh_m_Page_147.pro
a921dff38d171cb60a9f49f17b4621dd
8b267337b47327e66632ee062619ddcec5ef4fac
F20101115_AACCWH alkhresheh_m_Page_181.tif
d551ab2a0cbcf9e15f311535755f3a39
7eaafdd5540d8946e09a52ae8ff7f7c796f4e18a
54345 F20101115_AACDAZ alkhresheh_m_Page_130.pro
b652a5ef37a2e917782e68f53af903e2
9b72db814b0b3f352ccbbcd67869e2d6402db6a0
F20101115_AACCVT alkhresheh_m_Page_166.tif
b0346109a9e5d0676619c1bcd929f9aa
aaef353f2693aa0e6c2c8258ed09566fa75fb993
6926 F20101115_AACDCD alkhresheh_m_Page_166.pro
e3c393e5b45573074ee31604f681be0f
035385c8ead791c2068b36e74981c9cc3d964872
4044 F20101115_AACDBO alkhresheh_m_Page_148.pro
442ddb08ee4f7ba980b3e562704aba07
436380f53af329901e6257e7daef8b1a4151a5e1
F20101115_AACCWI alkhresheh_m_Page_182.tif
dc7cf253ba2db09c2621adb3a3d2e63b
7b19d3b7dee3374cb969239520b1a9710a8882e2
F20101115_AACCVU alkhresheh_m_Page_167.tif
1a3845f4964b5958457ee3f6812b30ff
59564e4b9a660d75f15d0095a96257630c60114a
6876 F20101115_AACDCE alkhresheh_m_Page_167.pro
8a4f04c822de0f42168bf14bdd76e25b
715f88474cfc1801095b4f6fbcf717838244b1a2
11750 F20101115_AACDBP alkhresheh_m_Page_149.pro
1fbb3fb1ac61cf9f5be2f8162aa76177
1ce86fa56f0ab334ff13d8bb81d55c3a1ef3a4b0
F20101115_AACCWJ alkhresheh_m_Page_183.tif
af65a8504e2d0b281fdac28a7392058f
9f148f27a942192f67c25b432a7f1fb9935514df
F20101115_AACCVV alkhresheh_m_Page_168.tif
301a0592f9e1335700a87776c5f29512
c6bd59317a602e54d75cdd2ff6cd5dd64e26a256
30773 F20101115_AACDCF alkhresheh_m_Page_169.pro
3faf6ae5d32852f54239e799d7921a66
00faad68ddcf958c28c6313ad533603211ca98d5
19078 F20101115_AACDBQ alkhresheh_m_Page_150.pro
b6dd3d35f267319522f0843b708b9029
8eebbda120663b17f09285541cf94fc6984aeeb5
F20101115_AACCWK alkhresheh_m_Page_184.tif
d320ce67c56faa2a5eb6de4cf6951989
0b78531ca19ec3fb3cc4680d04dfb04b2f366b4c
F20101115_AACCVW alkhresheh_m_Page_169.tif
b9c172ae4c02f54e1d84b54d94b2219f
629e106f800cd7cdd310756abef7c7ed983e5484
31398 F20101115_AACDCG alkhresheh_m_Page_170.pro
86bc90ab06d15f5b47b2cec59c23e416
28c5f2f0d376bb983c5f59ebe08ee0a8bc0a4abd
35638 F20101115_AACDBR alkhresheh_m_Page_153.pro
3c04cae9a98438dcc926e9fde5a6793c
fc9bafd2b00b642a6caf7821da220acc49091f02
F20101115_AACCWL alkhresheh_m_Page_185.tif
6e96c237a77e5c36abe59c553d62d938
58f51e35b5b92954506ccb7f0c76141b37c71084
F20101115_AACCVX alkhresheh_m_Page_170.tif
60bb819aa33291c665c7e401e39a0717
c9b71a5a147c845ecc3e8833f25306710c9cbdab
34284 F20101115_AACDCH alkhresheh_m_Page_171.pro
918485d48f49cc01cbc46c7d838d3ed8
b37e5785eca049fda18a343c859b299da4a0aff5
49932 F20101115_AACDBS alkhresheh_m_Page_154.pro
da5f4a51e819b7c2d7000c966523a790
d8709e39998da6eff448ec8e8e202a398cea4af0
60490 F20101115_AACCXA alkhresheh_m_Page_013.pro
6b3a193757dd5a7e99834979df0e68be
f16a7a756378e333d07fc6c6796e0d2bc8ad3073
F20101115_AACCWM alkhresheh_m_Page_186.tif
78acce744cb5606d2afebf16f9e5e80a
e512466ef42a0d9a186b8e5b855e8a13bf152d93
F20101115_AACCVY alkhresheh_m_Page_171.tif
21d87d1361a353198748392e413baa5b
d42101b7a7d350454fd33cdf2ac0efac75ab56f5
50355 F20101115_AACDCI alkhresheh_m_Page_172.pro
d00f62e21b2c373a6ca8f75b96eb6683
a416089c74db9b843ac60e21aae5112a4a0f6c81
50738 F20101115_AACDBT alkhresheh_m_Page_155.pro
095bf497cf4910bb33f33dc23aa1b599
3e91fad4da87139e317dd46f123c616614fb9b74
71556 F20101115_AACCXB alkhresheh_m_Page_014.pro
82ab2aa2a7b6998f9759fe537088e5dc
1cfa16d9b9ebea4e2156f9efae65df4e4d2d698f
F20101115_AACCWN alkhresheh_m_Page_187.tif
b42875d51e3b7f71a0776ea1333325d1
7765809db2f06a0236cf4025e9d06dee749814fd
F20101115_AACCVZ alkhresheh_m_Page_172.tif
98f7a0559a4429d2c9b577ea3a5750d7
50dafd92fbdf3d4259307a26bc7159bcc5f776cc
34793 F20101115_AACDBU alkhresheh_m_Page_156.pro
18a5d506c24a505135b0ddf6b6cd8ba4
27834afd7f5aa326c6258927892cd74e3878a716
47609 F20101115_AACCXC alkhresheh_m_Page_017.pro
1782492f0cead3b363872fef322c8b3b
892b8f13ec89374f411e6e179241107d4048e0ad
F20101115_AACCWO alkhresheh_m_Page_188.tif
71bc2884582c5c49440c49687aef8f50
76ab59d18468e02067384d80ec7a544552da5311
46393 F20101115_AACDCJ alkhresheh_m_Page_173.pro
fba68c53fc78e300217c180fbff9e01f
b40b6f9b20644314fa060f9617486a8e80e09173
13604 F20101115_AACDBV alkhresheh_m_Page_157.pro
19573c17fc6d58db6458a3414ec43a02
e76604156d1b6909329a9678d1f9d3258721d20f
22196 F20101115_AACCXD alkhresheh_m_Page_018.pro
cd0d562a189011f0c3674c8df304d0cc
873e1c576acbd823b0870a7a27d2dd153ff46e68
F20101115_AACCWP alkhresheh_m_Page_189.tif
b291f43a744720584612f690e6278663
2cb098348d8972f55fe3df4f5f7178dc4bd5d6d1
10478 F20101115_AACDCK alkhresheh_m_Page_174.pro
e3144a200dd07345b0da5e496296d03a
a52d5bf526737e1d00d545cccb22ba52bf3ec689
13135 F20101115_AACDBW alkhresheh_m_Page_159.pro
1544566f83391791ef1d5d00624eedb8
f660fd3def9b1e6640169661095b729d2b663959
51883 F20101115_AACCXE alkhresheh_m_Page_019.pro
d84371f8c8b25fc76d082cafecd3ec91
0a9655e9e15150de36b140c7a165ff5881360c3b
F20101115_AACCWQ alkhresheh_m_Page_190.tif
9009f0b5a26c20301a7d2a49c2758924
3111e1b382e51a65afd9bd6c0d6da0e1123ae47b
119 F20101115_AACDDA alkhresheh_m_Page_003.txt
f04236bd75cfac513f33cc23fa093fc2
48b391955c9e715f873052c5a94d0c7ee586c5b8
11375 F20101115_AACDCL alkhresheh_m_Page_177.pro
891d200a107ea0b525b2cd02f44218aa
ede8696746ff6eb493846d8137a75c3f37bad805
14273 F20101115_AACDBX alkhresheh_m_Page_160.pro
b6c9e84d3db3dff43a81767336d78987
fc9580ad359fea44c2269a6e0730910d9343a186
51644 F20101115_AACCXF alkhresheh_m_Page_020.pro
c00f667d7fbb8d47222cd53acc4eafdf
37b55dc9a76e77cd679de9e5cfeaaa177b4f6459
9553 F20101115_AACCWR alkhresheh_m_Page_001.pro
be50ad9c88208d2777219e96dbd0c670
89d1a465fa9bccddd5fdd9caa989d41791151236
1280 F20101115_AACDDB alkhresheh_m_Page_004.txt
1f810d174050ed8312996fedc3dda785
d54486a6109680697833065640bde0aad3fe6e1a
12426 F20101115_AACDCM alkhresheh_m_Page_178.pro
01a57e8be50d18399de361cab53d6d39
3c268b62519f9a3e947bfeb9bb5b9464b4f0d994
16974 F20101115_AACDBY alkhresheh_m_Page_161.pro
45d20793d529f34c18a6792ac5d4992b
1a3239f9c46dfd99ec759b3998c5a9ce719a8b23
52732 F20101115_AACCXG alkhresheh_m_Page_022.pro
cb27c926b299be447fa4f80bd0458d75
ab95c779fbc29547281a55d3b0fdf0150dd1a116
990 F20101115_AACCWS alkhresheh_m_Page_002.pro
1d3606f17becf6424305c02b411c5d6a
d740e94cd145767384ffe4caeed310c7cc34c632
3262 F20101115_AACDDC alkhresheh_m_Page_005.txt
b0a48e192b4e42bcac7ac3015f4c3981
585515f02724c6eb642ad24aef34d54648d8ff0d
12680 F20101115_AACDCN alkhresheh_m_Page_179.pro
a95146bb28e3255181be4b3e7c2e2ae3
42894119c45b232be9f62e8471e0b97a3155bc4a
16930 F20101115_AACDBZ alkhresheh_m_Page_162.pro
9af5a00a75a2a13557e1561487abe81a
2844d560ade3c466a889e1bb3cfd9bd3c4fc0b8e
53871 F20101115_AACCXH alkhresheh_m_Page_023.pro
3f462ba7acc8e18977ceaacca1633041
257c4ab74fca522353bdb71145235877f0b4ee85
30958 F20101115_AACCWT alkhresheh_m_Page_004.pro
7577ce544ffcba7778f7fe44b2c61995
5865c7d5cf67997fc29e550f2a93e1c55c82d775
1715 F20101115_AACCAA alkhresheh_m_Page_105.txt
3e3b31c5f887df626a22fd0bdd6a3cc7
7c743d387f2fa868ff2fdc59fd383ce0b87a4fab
4196 F20101115_AACDDD alkhresheh_m_Page_006.txt
34b2b95a92a2aac49589797801f2d8b8
ab7314ec583676819a00e8780747fe8a49746f7c
12478 F20101115_AACDCO alkhresheh_m_Page_180.pro
ff32949576fe96e2bfdfd12f83e70231
711f119f62e210e11faba587b81598c698f21109
51800 F20101115_AACCXI alkhresheh_m_Page_024.pro
050daefeace377b81696ed2a77d0f42e
11ec0543ae1cbdde05c0f934f39267850c2cb7ee
92971 F20101115_AACCWU alkhresheh_m_Page_007.pro
0c4f2db35e6aee81fda7cdeb1e0de986
810a347735563d8e32cd065b35307d66c87513f9
89421 F20101115_AACCAB alkhresheh_m_Page_053.jpg
4b6a84c68165d4610cada80780ae6710
ce5c4e42a0f3cd61388f7c5c75f1a3fe466f9cb0
4108 F20101115_AACDDE alkhresheh_m_Page_007.txt
83af8b2209d6f9b7a7795c31ca5b153a
399eafb02a510acb24e7eb9a03786397e1d741ae
11234 F20101115_AACDCP alkhresheh_m_Page_181.pro
148f6b45b5dd021faf22927a9d1e79fc
40b388a40ed4415018335df3753c2afb1ba4752b
50903 F20101115_AACCXJ alkhresheh_m_Page_025.pro
b49dca04c46d475c0b6d87e81420aa78
6636a31d03d37b6de2bde8ba10a6f50dee537d8a
18294 F20101115_AACCWV alkhresheh_m_Page_008.pro
e2e0a1f724004601f84ba6da75bb97e0
0dc6eb1f97b163a212a333cac4e2784093137405
28643 F20101115_AACCAC alkhresheh_m_Page_129.QC.jpg
a95023c083b5079e75a034930622f8e2
7a9b926468b39357cb93fd1fd0bdc9dab26b0ace
766 F20101115_AACDDF alkhresheh_m_Page_008.txt
7b6467769258c24f307b1cba252570a9
9a2271c82cb21c0124d2db56822dfa513fa6d3f4
13582 F20101115_AACDCQ alkhresheh_m_Page_182.pro
b47b42c3fa1f02019b6b65e4554cd207
879c0ed3806d9e5f617bc33f09bac5cf2b9ae65a
48937 F20101115_AACCXK alkhresheh_m_Page_026.pro
4dc5c6629e3851a1d491099ccf229eef
5d9c737baa569ff021a23c8a585986ca9457a48f
56780 F20101115_AACCWW alkhresheh_m_Page_009.pro
3896058412b5d741e113fc54800b86c9
c90edb68f8c0c2d764382bdeba64a63b10979628
85681 F20101115_AACCAD alkhresheh_m_Page_021.jpg
c6a6bb8446c3c5c9c42f5cbcc1b988bc
289f2d4954d2f7f02aad4a85a6b565f917c8a227
2411 F20101115_AACDDG alkhresheh_m_Page_009.txt
d4410d52a8adeb3063c1d3599af141f5
70b3d1d4beaac9bd3c365ca8e4ae0cd35f297dd4
16667 F20101115_AACDCR alkhresheh_m_Page_183.pro
fb91d9e23d7b1b039d3230cfa480260d
de84d6ad2a8528539d2fb9280db2af5a943d45b9
58447 F20101115_AACCXL alkhresheh_m_Page_027.pro
8338ea19116995ee3caff4e50c274551
aa9c0f748fbbc60141b84db9304344506221e24a
66120 F20101115_AACCWX alkhresheh_m_Page_010.pro
69e5a045d2085b4c426ccd68d30076dc
cdd789d9fb3a2bed2194407b2b97dc7152227e83
1021527 F20101115_AACCAE alkhresheh_m_Page_064.jp2
63f24e5185de19f2c9f6b630717e1203
d92deab4052a89f2f8b4d344ddd38acae1f5a6c5


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019676/00001

Material Information

Title: Enclosure as a Function of Height-to-Width Ratio and Scale: Its Influence on User's Sense of Comfort and Safety in Urban Street Space
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0019676:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019676/00001

Material Information

Title: Enclosure as a Function of Height-to-Width Ratio and Scale: Its Influence on User's Sense of Comfort and Safety in Urban Street Space
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0019676:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





ENCLOSURE AS A FUNCTION OF HEIGHT-TO-WIDTH RATIO AND SCALE: ITS
INFLUENCE ON USER' S SENSE OF COMFORT AND SAFETY
IN URBAN STREET SPACE




















By

MAJDI M. ALKHRESHEH


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007
































O 2007 Maj di M. Alkhresheh

































To my father and my mother
To my wife and my children









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my supervisory committee for their sincere academic support and guidance. My

gratitude is extended to Dr. Richard Schneider, my supervisory committee chair, for his

continuous academic support. I thank Dr. Ilir Bejleri, for all the professional, academic and

Financial support; he has opened new horizons and learning opportunities in front of me, and

made my academic journey a fruitful one. I am also indebted to Dr. Ruth Steiner for her help

and guidance during the development of my research proj ect. I thank Dr. Fazil Naj af for his

continuous assistance and advice that stems from his limitless willingness to share his expertise

to his students.

Outside my doctoral committee, two persons contributed profoundly to the development of

my way of thinking. I am indebted to Dr. Joseli Mecedo, who guided my first steps to philosophy

of inquiry, and to Dr. Paul Zwick, who provided constructive remarks for my research

methodology.

I thank the Fulbright Program for sponsoring of my first 2 years in the PhD program. I am

equally indebted to the University of Mutah in Jordan for their Einancial support during the last 2

years of the program.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ................. ...............9..............


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............13....


LIST OF OBJECTS .............. ...............16....


AB STRACT ................. ................. 17.....__.....


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............19.......... .....


Research Purpose ................. ...............19.................
Research Significance ................. ...............20.................
Research Problem .............. ...............20....
Urban Streets .............. ...............21....
Enclosure and Ratio............... ...............22.
Enclosure and Scale............... ...............24.
Research Hypothesis .............. ...............25....


2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............. ...............26....


Theoretical Constructs ................. ...............26.................
Urban Design ................. ........... ...............26.......
Meaning of the Environment ................. ...............28................
Perception ................. ...............29.................
Urban Scale .............. ...............30....
U rban Space.............. ......... ..... ... .................3
Social, Physical, Behavioral and Probabilistic Approaches ................. .....................31
Social approach .............. ........... ..............3
Physical approach and the picturesque tradition ................ .......... ...............32
Aesthetic and behavioral approach .............. ...............33....
Probabilistic approach ................ ...............34........... ....
Plazas and Streets .............. ...............35....
Urban Street................ .... ............3
Enclosure in Urban Street Space .............. ...............36....
M ethodological Strategies .............. ...............3 8....
Environmental Simulation ................. ...............38.................

Computer Simulation.................... ............ .......3
Computer Simulation and Method Validity .............. ...............39....
Cognitive and Psychophysical Approaches............... ...............4












3 RESEARCH METHOD .............. ...............42....


Research Variables .............. ...............43....

Independent Variables ................. ............. ...............43....
Within-subj ect independent variables ............__......___....._ ............4
Between-subj ects independent variables ................. ...............45................
Dependent Variables .............. ...............46....
Sense of comfort. ................. ...............46..............
Sense of safety ........_.._......... .... .._ ... .. ....... ...... .........4
Perceived enclosure, perceived height and perceived width ........._...... ........._.....47
Research Procedure ..................... .... ... ... .. .. .. ..............4
Existing Context and Control Measures over Potential Confounding Variables ............48
Street length............... ...............49.
Vacant land plots ................. ...............50........... ....
Set backs ................. ...............50.................
Viewing point ................. ...............50.................
Skyline ................. ...............51.................
Street furniture ................. ...............51.................
Creating 3D M odels .............. .. ...............52..
Extracting Images and on-Screen Survey ....._.._._ ............. ....___ ...........5
Participants' Sampling................ ...............5
Coding Data and Statistical Analysis .............. ...............56....


4 RESULTS: PERCEIVED ENCLOSURE .............. ...............65....


Normal Distribution and Reliability Tests ......__................. ...............66.....
Normal Distribution Test.............. ...... ............ ...............6
Test of Reliability: Simulated vs. Perceived Heights and Widths ................. ...............66
Perceived Enclosure........................ ....... ... .. .... ............ ........6
Perceived Enclosure and Within-Subj ect Variables: Height, Width, Ratio and Scale....67
Repeated measures: test of variance .....__.....___ ..........._ ...........6
Ratio association .............. ...............68....
Scale association .............. ...............69....

Height association .............. ...............69....
W idth association .............. ...............70....

Regression analysis .......................... .. ... .. .. .. .................7
Perceived Enclosure and between-Subj ect Variables: Gender, Age, Design
Background, Type of living area, Height of buildings in living area, and Width of
streets in living area. ............. ...............71.....
Gender ................. ...............72.......... .....

A ge .............. .. .. ...............72.
Design background ................. ...............73.................
Type of living area ................. .............. .................. ................73
Height of buildings in living area ................. ...............74...............
W idth of streets in living area .............. ...............74....
Sum m ary ................. ...............75.......... ......












5 RESULTS: SENSE OF COMFORT AND SENSE OF SAFETY ................. ................ ..84


Relationship of Comfort and Safety .............. ...............84....
Choices Responses for Comfort and Safety .............. ...............84....
Rating Responses for Comfort and Safety ................ ... ........ .......... ........ ........... ......8
Comfort and Safety and within-Subject Variables: Height, Width, Ratio and Scale......86
Repeated measures: tests of variance ....__ ......_____ .......___ ...........8
Ratio association .............. ...............87....
Scale association .............. ...............88....

Height association .............. ...............88....
W idth association .............. ...............89....

Regression analysis ....................... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..................8
Comfort and Safety with between-Subj ect Variables: Gender, Age, Design
Background, Type of living area, Height of buildings in living area, and Width of
streets in living area. ............. ...............91.....
Gender ........._.___..... .__ ...............9 1....

A ge .............. .. .. ...............92.
Design background ........._.___..... .___ ...............93.....
Type of living area ......__. ..........._. .........___......_ ....___.......93
Height of buildings in living area ......__....._.__._ ......._._. ...........9
W idth of streets in living area .............. ...............95....
Comfort and Safety with Perceived Enclosure ....._.__._ ..... ..___.. ......_._...........9
Summary ........._.___..... ._ __ ...............97.....

6 DI SCU S SION ........._.___..... .___ ...............114....


Experimental Computer Simulation ........._._.. ....__. ...............114..
Perceived Enclosure. .........._..... ......__ ...............116....
Simulated and Perceived Enclosure ...........___........___ ....__. ...........16
Perceived Enclosure with Reference to Literature ........__..........._. .................1 17
Comfort and Safety .............. .. ............ ...... .. .._......... .........1
Simulated Variables and Sense of Comfort and Safety ....__. ............... .... ...........1 18
Comparison of Comfort and Safety ............... .... ..... ......... ...............119 ....
Sense of Comfort and Safety with Reference to Literature ................. ............... .....120
Theoretical constructs and sense of comfort and safety ................. ................ ...120
Empirical literature and sense of comfort and safety .................... ............. .......122
Demographic Differences and Sense of Comfort and Safety with Reference to
Literature ............... ... ....... ........ ................. ... ..........12
Comfort and Safety and Participants' Qualitative Input .............. .....................2
Urban Planning and Design Implications ................. ...............126.....___ ...
Methodological Limitations............... ...............13

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....__ ................ .........__ ......136


Conclusions................ .. ..................13
Connection to Urban Design Theory ....__ ......_____ .......___ ...........13
Perceived Enclosure .............. ...............138....











Sense of Comfort and Safety ................. ...............139........... ...
M ethodological Notes .............. ...............142....
Recommendations............... ............14


APPENDIX

A ON- SCREEN SURVEY ................. ................. 147........ ....

B PERCIEVED ENCLOSURE ACROSS DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES .....................153

C WEIGHTED FREQUENCIES OF COMFORT AND SAFETY RESPONSES ..................1 63

D SENSE OF COMFORT AND SAFETY ACROSS DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES....168

LIST OF REFERENCES ............ ..... ..__ ...............186..

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............ _...... ._ ...............190...











LIST OF TABLES


Table page


3-1. Height and width levels. ............. ...............58.....

3-2. Spaces clustered in 9 groups............... ...............58.

3-3. Ratio level s. ............. ...............58.....

3-4. Ratio categories .............. ...............58....

3-5. Scale levels .............. ...............59....

3-6. Scale groups............... ...............59.

3-7. Summary of independent and dependant variables..........._... ......_. .........___...59

4-1. Test of skewness and kurtosis for normal distribution. ................... ...............7

4-2. Correlations of simulated heights and widths with perceived heights and widths............ .77

4-3. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosure scores across 42 spaces,
sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank. .............. ...............77....

4-4. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosure scores across 9 groups of
spaces, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank. ................. ....._.._............... ...78

4-5. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosure scores across 14 ratio
categories, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank. .................... ...............7

4-6. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosure scores across 3 scale
groups, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank. ............. ...............78.....

4-7. Ratio correlation. ............. ...............79.....

4-8. Scale correlation. ............. ...............79.....

4-9. Height correlation. .............. ...............79....

4-10. W idth correlation. .............. ...............79....

4-11. Logistic regression model for perceived enclosure. ............. ...............80.....

5-1. Correlation of sense of comfort and sense of safety. ...._.._.._ ......._.._ ................1 00

5-2. Friedman test of repeated measures of comfort and safety scores across 42 spaces.......101











5-3. Friedman test of repeated measures for comfort and safety scores across 9 groups of
spaces. ............. ...............102....

5-4. Friedman test of repeated measures for comfort and safety scores across 14 ratio
categories. ............. ...............102....

5-5. Friedman test of repeated measures for comfort and safety scores across 3 scale
group s ................ ...............103................

5-6. Ratio correlations ................. ...............103................

5-7. Scale correlations. ................. ...............103...... ......

5-8. Height correlations. ............. ...............104....

5-9. W idth correlations. ............. ...............104....

5-10. Logistic regression model for comfort ................. ...............105..............

5-11. Logistic regression model for safety .............. ...............105....

5-12. Correlations of perceived enclosure with sense of comfort and safety. .................. ........ 106

5-13. Influences of independent variables on dependent variables ................. ................ ...106

6-1. Qualitative responses. ........._.._.. ...._... ...............133.....

B-1. Mann-Whitney test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of men and women
across 3 ratio categories ...._._ ................. ...............153 ....

B-2. Mann-Whitney test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of men and women
across 3 scale groups............... ...............153

B-3. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of the 3 age groups
across 3 ratio categories. ........._..... ...............153..._._._ .....

B-4. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of the 3 age groups
across 3 scale groups............... ...............154

B-5. Mann-Whitney Test for differences in perceived enclosure scores of designer and
non designer groups across 3 ratio categories............... ..............15

B-6. Mann-Whitney Test for differences of perceived enclosure scores of designer and
non designer across 3 scale groups. ............. ...............154....

B-7. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the types
of living area across 3 ratio categories. ....__. ...._.._.._ ......._.... ...........5










B-8. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the type
of living area across 3 scale groups. ................ ............. ......... ........ .......155

B-9. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the
height of buildings in the living area across 3 scale groups. ................ ............... .....155

B-10. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the
height of buildings in the living area, across simulated heights. ................ ..................155

B1.Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to widths of
streets in the living area across 3 scale groups. ............. ...............156....

B-12. Kruskal Wallis test for differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to widths of
streets in the living area across simulated widths. ............. ...............156....

C-1. Frequencies of choices for most comfortable and safest spaces, ranked by weighted
frequencies. ............. ...............163....

C-2. Frequencies of choices for least comfortable and least safe spaces............... .................164

D-1. Mann-Whitney test for differences in comfort and safety scores of men and women
across 3 ratio categories ................. ...............168...............

D-2. Mann-Whitney test for differences in comfort and safety scores of men and women
across 3 scale groups ................. ...............168...............

D-3. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores of age groups for 3
ratio categories. .............. ...............169....

D-4. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort scores of 3 age groups across 3 scale
groups ................. ...............169................

D-5. Mann-Whitney test for differences in comfort and safety scores of designer and non
designer groups across 3 ratio categories............... ..............17

D-6. Mann-Whitney Test for differences in comfort scores of designer and non designer
groups across 3 scale groups ................. ...............170........... ...

D-7. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the types
of living area across 3 ratio categories ................. ................ .....................171

D-8. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the type
of living area across 3 scale groups. ................ ............. ......... ........ .......171

D-9. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the height
of buildings in the living area across 3 scale groups. ............. ...... ............... 17

D-10. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the height
of buildings in the living area across simulated heights. ................ ........... ...........172










D1.Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to widths of
streets in the living area across 3 scale groups. ............. ...............173....

D-12. Kruskal-Wallis test for differences in comfort and safety scores relative to widths of
streets in the living area across simulated widths. ............. ...............173....











LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

3-1. Existing context: Main Street, Downtown Gainesville, Florida. .............. ........_.......60

3-2. Street length. ........_................. ...............61......

3-3. Vacant land plots. ............. ...............61.....

3-4. Viewing point. Human-eye level from one side of the street ................. .....................61

3-5. Street furniture ................. ...............62........_......

3-6. Texture correction............... ...............6

3-7. Texture mapping ........._._.._......_.. ...............63....

3-8. Facade articulation. ........._.._.. ...._... ...............63....

3-9. Examples of 9 images from the matrix. ........._._. ...._... ...............64.

4-1. Correlations of perceived measures with simulated measures. ................... ...............8

4-2. Relationship of perceived enclosure and ratio. ...._.._.._ ..... .._._. ......_...........8

4-3. Relationship of perceived enclosure and scale. ......._............... ......_.. ...........82

4-4. Relationship of perceived enclosure and height, clustered by width. ............. .... .........._..83

4-5. Relationship of perceived enclosure and width, clustered by height. ............. ..... ........._..83

5-1. Relationship of sense of comfort and safety. ........................... ........108

5-2. Comfort and safety relationships with ratio. ............. ...............109....

5-3. Comfort and safety relationship with scale, for ratio values in the range of (0.5 to 2). ...110

5-4. Comfort and safety relationship with height, clustered by width ................. ................11 1

5-5. Comfort and safety relationships with width, clustered by height. ................ ...............112

5-6. Relationship of perceived enclosure with both comfort and safety ................. ...............1 13

6-1. Curve estimation to predict safety using perceived enclosure. ............. .....................13

6-2. Curve estimation to predict safety using proportions of scene covered by walls.............135

A-1. Survey introductory page ................. ...............147...............











A-2. Survey page 2; extreme cases. ............. ...............148....

A-3. Survey page 3. Choices of most comfortable three spaces, most uncomfortable
space, most safe three spaces, and most unsafe safe............... ...............149.

A-4. Survey page 4. Rating comfort, safety and enclosure levels and perceived height and
width. This page was repeated 42 times for each case. ............. .....................5

A-5. Survey page 5. Participants' reasoning of their responses. ................ ......................151

A-6. Survey page 6. Demographic differences of gender, age, profession, and nature of
living area. ........... ..... .._ ...............152...

B-1. Differences in perceived enclosure scores of men and women across 14 ratio
categories. ............. ...............157....

B-2. Differences in perceived enclosure scores of men and women across 3 scale groups. ...157

B-3. Differences in perceived enclosure scores of the 3 age groups across 3 ratio
categories. ............. ...............158....

B-4. Differences in perceived enclosure scores of the 3 age groups across 3 scale groups. ..158

B-5. Differences in perceived enclosure scores of designers and non designers cross 3
ratio categories. .............. ...............159....

B-6. Differences in perceived enclosure scores of designers and non designers across 3
scale groups. ........... ..... .._ ...............159...

B-7. Differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the types of living area across 3
ratio categories. .............. ...............160....

B-8. Differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the type of living area across 3
scale groups. ........._.._.. ...._... ...............160....

B-9. Differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the height of buildings in living
area, across 3 scale groups. .............. ...............161....

B-10. Differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the height of buildings in living
area, across simulated heights. ........._.._.. ...._... ...............161...

B1.Differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the width of streets in living
area ,across 3 scale groups. .............. ...............162....

B-12. Differences in perceived enclosure scores relative to the width of streets in living
area across simulated widths ................. ...............162........... ...

C-1. Ratio and weighted frequencies of choices ................. ...............166........... ..











C-2. Scale and weighted frequencies of choices ................. ...............167........... ..

D-1. Differences of comfort and safety mean ranks of men and women across 3 ratio
categories.. ............ ...............174.....

D-2. Differences in comfort and safety scores of men and women across 3 scale groups......175

D-3. Differences of comfort and safety mean ranks of age groups across 3 ratio
categories.. ............ ...............176.....

D-4. Differences of differences in comfort and safety scores of 3 age groups across 3
scale groups............... ...............177

D-5. Differences in comfort and safety scores of designers and non designers across 3
ratio categories.. ............. ...............178....

D-6. Differences in comfort and safety scores of designers and non designers across 3
scale groups............... ...............179

D-7. Differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the types of living area across 3
ratio categories.. ............. ...............180....

D-8. Differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the type of living area across 3
scale groups............... ...............18 1

D-9. Differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the height of buildings in the
living area across 3 scale groups............... ...............182

D-10. Differences in comfort scores relative to height of buildings in living area across 7
simulated heights. ............. ...............183....

D1.Differences in comfort and safety cores relative to the widths of streets in the living
area across 3 scale groups.. ............ ...............184.....

D-12. Differences in comfort and safety scores relative to the widths of streets in the living
area across 6 simulated widths............... ...............185










LIST OF OBJECTS

Object page

5-1 Probabilities calculator ................. ...............113...............









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ENCLOSURE AS A FUNCTION OF HEIGHT-TO-WIDTH RATIO AND SCALE: ITS
INFLUENCE ON USER' S SENSE OF COMFORT AND SAFETY
IN URBAN STREET SPACE

By

Majdi M. Alkhresheh

May 2007

Chair: Richard Schneider
Major: Design, Construction, and Planning

Urban street spaces in today's cities are merely byproducts of planning and design

decisions including buildings' heights, density, and transportation regulations. The resulting

spaces have 2nd-order functions that impact their users' sense of comfort and safety; among the

2nd-order functions is the sensorial value of enclosure. Literature suggests strong relationships

between enclosure of urban spaces and user' s senses. My research examined how height-to-

width ratio and scale influence perceived enclosure, and how enclosure influences comfort and

safety in urban street spaces.

Because of methodological difficulties to achieve this goal in real-life urban streets, my

research used computer-simulated urban street spaces. Different software packages were used to

build the simulated 3D models. A total of 42 different degrees of simulated enclosure were

produced and integrated as still images in an on-screen survey. The survey involved 83

participants who responded to questions about the degrees of comfort, safety, and perceived

enclosure relative to each image. Data were collected and tested using non-parametric statistical

tests of variance, association and regression.

My research showed that enclosure has a linear association with height-to-width ratio and

scale of urban street space, and that it has a curvilinear association with both senses of comfort









and safety. My research found a certain degree of enclosure that satisfies ideal comfort and

safety perceptions. This degree of enclosure corresponds to the ratio value of (3/4) and scale

value of (1,600 sq. ft). Thresholds of urban street ratio and width values were established in my

research; below which urban street spaces are not perceived to be comfortable or safe. While my

research confirms the relationship between simulated enclosure and perceived enclosure

suggested in previous empirical work; it does not confirm the suggested linear relationship

between perceived enclosure and safety. My research proposes a non-linear relationship instead;

where moderate degrees of enclosure correspond to higher levels of comfort and safety, while

both high and low degrees of enclosure correspond to lower levels of comfort and safety.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Research Purpose

Urban design literature suggests that enclosure in urban street spaces impacts users'

perceptions of comfort and safety. This literature also suggested that the value of enclosure is a

function of height-to-width ratio, and it proposed ideal ratios for urban street spaces. However,

such suggestions are without empirical basis. The purpose of my research is to conduct an

empirical investigation on the influence of enclosure of urban street space (as a function of

height-to-width ratio and scale) on users' sense of comfort and safety. The main question of my

research is how does enclosure influence users' sense of comfort and safety in urban street

space? By answering this question, my research contributes to space-morphology inquiry,

toward integrating users' impressions, opinions, and needs, relative to enclosure as a function of

both ratio and scale, into the theory and practice of urban planning and design.

Strategies for establishing good physical public spaces, including urban streets, stress the

concept of "positive urban space" promoted in recent urban design literature. The positive urban

space is an explicitly eligible and defined space; it is in balance with its defining masses. One

maj or aspect of such balance is what scholars often refer to as enclosure. Enclosure is a

perceived sensorial value evoked by spatial compositional characters of urban space. It is the

degree to which containment is felt as a result of the surrounding defining surfaces (Garcia et al.,

2006; Stamps, 2005a; Zacharias, 1999).

Knowledge about people's perception of enclosure in urban street space can be

transformed into practical planning and design strategies and guidelines. Professionals, informed

about the influence of enclosure of urban street space on users, will be able to advance policies

that are conducive to a balanced degree of enclosure, including connecting values of street









widths, building heights, and buildings setbacks together, to create a perceptually comfortable

and safe urban environment for the users.

Research Significance

The significance of studying enclosure is threefold. First, enclosure relates to sense of

comfort, which has an impact on people's decisions in their urban experience. This notion is

expressed in numerous theoretical bodies of inquiry such as urban design, environmental

psychology and visual aesthetics (Carmona et al., 2003; Im, 1984; Isaacs, 2000; Jacobs, 1993;

Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Lynch & Hack, 1975; Moughtin, 1992; Nelessen, 1993; Salingaros,

1999; Stamps& Smith, 2002). Second, enclosure relates to safety and survival as expressed in the

theory of prospect and refuge (Appleton, 1975; Gibson' s, 1979; Stamps, 2005a; Stamps, 2005b).

Third, a finding in neurophysiological research indicated a strong relationship between certain

regions of the brain and the value of space enclosure, such that the "response [of the human

brain] is reduced if the surfaces in the scene are rearranged so that they no longer define a

coherent space" (Epstein & Kanwisher, 1998, p. 598). The later was also reported by scholars

who investigated enclosure in urban streets (Stamps, 2005a).

Research Problem

In today's cities, streets' compositional variables of ratio and scale that produce the sense

of enclosure are only byproducts of other design and planning considerations. Enclosure may be

a byproduct of the morphological characteristics of the original layout of the city, building-

heights standards, or transportation planning and engineering strategies. Basically, enclosure can

be a byproduct of any planning and design decision that has to do with the width of the street and

the height of the buildings, however, it is seldom the product of an intentional urban design

strategy that involves the three-dimensional perspective of the urban street, and that relates width










and height together. The street in today's city is designed as two-dimensional entity instead of a

three-dimensional space.

There are few empirical works that studied the role of enclosure in urban spaces in general,

and in urban street spaces in particular. When faced with decisions concerning heights of

buildings, and widths of streets, urban planners and designers need concrete, clear, and practical

information about enclosure as an important component in urban space quality. To make the

informed decisions in reference to the concepts expressed above, they need to know how the

compositional values of the urban spaces impact users' senses of comfort and safety. To

mention one phenomenon of such assertion; Gehl (1987, p. 93), describing new streets, noted

that "it is as if the planners and architects have a strong tendency, whenever in doubt, to throw in

some extra spaces, just in case, reflecting the general uncertainty concerning the proper handling

of small dimensions and small spaces."

The research problem consists of three aspects; first, streets have not received sufficient

space-morphology analysis proportionate to their significance in cities. Second, scholars in urban

planning and design literature have suggested different and, in some cases, conflicting values

concerning the recommended ratios for an ideal urban space enclosure. This means that the

decisions in urban design concerning enclosure in urban spaces are mostly based on an intuitive

approach. Third, the scale of urban space has not received any empirical investigation as an

element that might influence enclosure. Below is an explanation of each aspect of the research

problem.

Urban Streets

Within the boundaries of today's cities, most of the public realm belongs to streets. Streets

have the immediate scale above the private domain, and in contrast to plazas, they exist

everywhere in the urban milieu. Streets are significant because, morphologically, they are the









foundation of the urban pattern. They, socially, bring people together and provide the physical

setting for socioeconomic activities (Jacobs, 1993), they invite more recreation for people than

parks (Appleyard, 1981), and they are preferred places for children to play (Whyte, 1980).

Streets, culturally, embrace the physical and historical identities of an urban area (Ouf, 2001) and

provide the first impression a visitor has of a community (Nelessen, 1993). Streets, visually,

impact the image of the city and contribute predominantly to its spatial structure (Carmona et al,

2003). Although streets have these important roles in the public realm, there is not enough

research concerning their three-dimensional characteristics.

Enclosure and Ratio

Literature suggests that users' preference of urban space enclosure is an inverted U-shape

relationship (Carmona et al., 2003; Jacobs, 1993, Nelessen, 1993). Extreme high values of

enclosure evoke claustrophobia and confinement, while extreme low values of enclosure evoke

discomfort because of lack of psychological shelter. There are preferred values of enclosure in

the middle. There is a lack of empirical work that explain the relationship between the value of

enclosure in urban street space (as a function of ratio of the height of the defining buildings to

the width of the street) and the related user' s sense of comfort, safety, and judgment of enclosure

itself.

Scholars have suggested different, and sometimes conflicting, positions on preferred

enclosure values in urban space. Most of these suggestions stemmed from theoretical constructs

(Lynch & Hack, 1975; Bacon, 1967; Jacobs, 1993; Moughtin, 1992; Nelessen, 1993, Carmona et

al., 2003). These theoretical constructs reported a relationship between enclosure and the

compositional qualities in urban spaces. The most emphasized compositional quality was the

ratio of the height of the defining buildings in urban space and the width of that space (R =

HW)>.









For urban street spaces, these scholars suggested ideal height-to-width ratios of (1:3 to 1:2)

(Lynch & Hack, 1975), (1:1) (Alexander et al., 1977), (1:2) (Moughtin, 1992), (1:2 to 1:1)

(Nelessen, 1993), and (2:1 to 2.5:1) (Carmona et al., 2003). They also suggested minimum ratios

of (1:1) (Carmona et al., 2003), (1:5) (Nelessen, 1993), (1:6) (Duany & Plater-Zyberk, 1992) and

maximum ratios of 4:1 (Nelessen, 1993).

There is a reasonable body of empirical work that has researched the concept of enclosure

in different settings; especially as it relates to interior spaces. However, few empirical inquiries

were devoted to enclosure in urban settings including the works of Stamps (2005a), Stamps &

Smith (2002) and Im (1983, 1984). An examination of these works called for further

investigation. To start with the earliest, although was concerned only with squares, Im (1993) has

reported preferred values of height-to-width ratio of (1 : 6.7) or (15%) in urban spaces that

virtually contradict all urban design literature. Im's study itself states that "the desirable range

[of height-to-width ratio] needs to be investigated further in future research" (Im, 1983, p. 95).

Methodological limitations in Im' s study; such as the range of ratio tested from (1:12.5) to

(1:1.2), and the possible confounding variables in the existing sites that were examined, might

explain the unexpected result.

Stamps & Smith (2002) investigated enclosure in urban settings by means of presenting

stimuli of scenes selected from photographs of Parisian streets taken in the 1860s. Their work is

an important contribution to the question of enclosure in urban spaces; nevertheless, there are

some methodological caveats. First, to predict enclosure, their protocol used the variables of

proportions of walls and ground as calculated from perspective views. Such variables of

"proportion of walls" and proportion of ground" do not translate directly into concrete

information and do not amount easily to the knowledge of urban designers.









Second, because Stamps & Smith (2002) used existing stimuli, some confounding

variables like lighting conditions and architectural styles were not controlled. Third, there were

possible biases in the viewpoints of the used scenes, as they were not created for the purpose of

the experiment. This last caveat was reported in a recently-published work by one of the authors

(Stamps, 2005a).

Stamps (2005a) investigated the impression of enclosure and safety in urbanscapes. The

study used three virtually reconstructed historical Greek sites. The experiment was highly

sophisticated in terms of control over the variables, processing of stimuli, and other

methodological strategies. No biases in viewing angles and no natural confounding variables

existed attributable to the reconstruction of the scenes using CAD. Nevertheless, all buildings

were assigned the same height of 6m (20 ft), which resulted in limited variations in the

independent variable "proportion of walls".

Enclosure and Scale

Enclosure, as suggested in literature, is a function of ratio and scale as well. Spaces with

the same ratios and different scales do not have the same sense of enclosure. The ratios

suggested above are sometimes associated with certain heights and widths, and sometimes are

just stated alone. These ratios that are associated with specific recommended heights and widths

have another unrevealed value; the value of scale. Obviously, reporting the ratio out of its

context means that the scale value; indicated by height or width, is either thought of as

insignificant, or it is just not calculated. The baseline of this argument is that if a height-to-width

ratio of 1:2 is recommended to design good urban street space, then a height of 10 feet to a width

of 20 feet is expected to yield the same sense of enclosure as, for example, a height of 100 feet to

a width of 200 feet, as both of them have the same ratio, which is most likely incorrect.









The scale of the urban street space is an important value that could influence the sense of

enclosure. Huge streets are rarely perceived as a whole entity in the selective phase of human

perception, nor are they sensitive to human and intimate scales. Streets with small scale have

many advocates; especially those streets that belong to historical cities (Carmona et al., 2003;

Jacobs, 1993). Researchers suggested some embedded social and functional values in scale;

"small space makes people deal with each other" (Jacobs, 1993, p. 15) and "facilitate shopping"

(Moughtin, 1992, p. 142), they make it easy for shoppers to move from one side of the street to

the other for window shopping. Safety is another embedded psychological value attributed to

enclosure; "narrowness and enclosure and intimacy bring a feeling of safety" (Jacobs, 1993, p.

15). So far, this relationship of enclosure and scale is not investigated, and no works have yet

related scale and ratio together as predictors of the sense of enclosure, nor explored the way they

both affect each other in the urban space.

Research Hypothesis

The hypothesis of my research is that different simulated geometric dimensions of urban

street spaces will evoke different estimations of enclosure values, and consequently different

feelings of comfort and safety. A cause-effect relationship is hypothesized; wherein change in

the values of simulated enclosure will change perceived enclosure, which in turn will change

sense of comfort and safety.

Chapter 2, first, reviews the theoretical constructs pertaining to urban design, the meaning

of the environment, environmental perception, urban scale, urban space, social and physical

meaning of urban space, urban street space, and enclosure in urban street space. Second, it

reviews previous methodological strategies pertaining to the investigation of urban environments

using environmental simulation.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This review of literature is composed of two parts; a review of theoretical constructs,

organized in nine categories, and a review of methodological strategies; organized in four

categories. In the first part, the epistemological constructs of urban design will be reviewed,

followed by a review of meaning of the urban environment to its users, and the way they

communicate with it. Since such communication is limited to users' subj ective faculties,

perception will be discussed next. For the reason that the real perception experience happens

only at local levels, urban scale is reviewed after perception. Smaller scales are public spaces just

outside our private domains; therefore, urban space will be reviewed next. The dilemma of social

vs. physical meanings of urban space and the probabilistic approach will then be reviewed. The

role of urban streets and plazas in cities will then be discussed, while enclosure in urban street

space will be reviewed in the final section.

In the second part, the four categories pertaining to methodological strategies that establish

grounds for the method of the current research will be reviewed. These categories are

environmental simulation, computer simulation, computer simulation validity, and cognitive and

psychophysical approaches.

Theoretical Constructs

Urban Design

Urban design is defined as "the interface between architecture and planning" (Moughtin,

1992, p. 1). It could be conceived as the design beyond the borders of single land properties. It is

involved in the relationship of space and mass entities that exist in the public realm and most

importantly, buildings, streets and plazas (Carmona et al., 2003). While urban design started

from a primarily aesthetic concern about the arrangement of buildings in space in a deterministic









manner, it evolved into a multidisciplinary subj ect concerned with the quality of the public realm

(Carmona et al., 2003). The term "urban design" is an "action-oriented" term (Moudon, 1992, p.

334), and because of the term "design", it necessarily implies what should be done. While some

scholars like Kallus (2001) and Whyte (1980) criticize this notion Carmona et al. (2003, p. 3)

stated that "the idea that urban design is about making better places is unashamedly and

unapologetically a normative contention about what it should be, rather than what it is at any

point of time."

The arguments against the normative approach stemmed from the fact that it is based in a

moral context. Designers, basing on their intuitive capacities, produce designs as functions of

their moral stand and subj ective visions about the world, and consequently, the resulting urban

environment may not respond to socio-economic, functional and psychological needs of the

users. This happens when designers provide solution without an explanatory component.

However, if designers conducted informed decisions based in socio-economic, environmental,

and cultural contexts, no harm is seen in envisioning what should be done as opposed to what is.

Moudon (1992, p. 334) describes the dilemma of the normative approach as "a gap

between knowledge and action." She asserted that urban designers need to pay more attention to

substantive research rather than making quick prescriptive inference from it. Moudon (1992)

listed 9 substantive research concentrations pertaining to urban design:

Urban history studies; design process and resulting forms
Picturesque studies; visual attributes of the environment
Image studies; people' s perception of the environment
Environment-behavioral studies; interaction between people and their surroundings
Place or social studies; environment meaning and symbolism
Material culture studies; obj ects values to society
Typology-morphology studies; the impact of two-dimensional geometry of space
Space-morphology studies; the impact of three-dimensional space geometry
Nature-ecology studies; the relationship between cities and natural environment









These 9 approaches represent different epistemological constructs concerning urban design

knowledge. Each of these approaches is either taking a different philosophical stand, or working

at a different urban scale. This classification does not imply strict borders between these research

approaches because they overlap. My research on enclosure can best be understood in the

context of two of the nine overlapping approaches, namely the "space- morphological approach"

and the environmental -b ehavi oral approach".

Meaning of the Environment

The decisive prerequisite for building substantive knowledge in urban design is to

understand the meaning of the environment for its users. This understanding provides designers

and planner with the needed explanatory component. To do that, urban planning and design

research needs to examine the relationship of the physical environment and its users; which

elements influence emotions, attitudes, preferences, and behavior (Rapoport, 1982). From an

urban design point of view, the physical environment is a range of "designed obj ects" that have

multiple meanings. Krampen (1979) noted that the design obj ect has a "hyletic" dimension; its

material aspect, a semantic dimension; its "morphic" nature and a functional dimension; its

"synthetic" aspect. The physical environment communicates, in addition to the primary functions

of design obj ects, the secondary acquired function of meaning. My research is concerned with

the "morphic" nature or the physical form of the environment that is conveying the secondary

meaning.

Rapoport (1982, p. 19) explained the communication with the environment and noted that

physical environment encodes information and users decode them. He stated "while people filter

this information and interpret it, the actual physical elements guide and channel these responses."

Thus, the meaning of the environment is partially a function of the physical environment. On the

other hand, some scholars; like Carmona et al. (2003 p. 96), noted that the meaning of the









environment is rooted in the physical environment, however, it is not a property of it, it is a

function of "our subj ective institution of it". But it is also asserted by other scholars that there is

a certain degree of similarity between the physical world and the perception of it (Zimring &

Dalton, 2003).

The dilemma whether physical environment is an isolated entity that exists outside our

perception or it is only a part of our perception could be resolved by emphasizing that the

communication itself is cognitive, and consequently, a perception dimension actually exists. To

understand the relationships of a space enclosure and the senses of people who use that space,

their perception is unavoidable within environment-behavioral studies.

Perception

Perception is a mechanism by which man makes sense of the environment. It is the first

step in communication that involves sensing the environment. Next is cognition; which is

encoding it; followed by evaluation, and Einally taking action (Rapoport, 1997). Similarly,

Carmona et al. (2003) classified this process into cognitive; acquiring information and storing

them, affective; adding our feeling to them, interpretative; associating meaning to them, and

evaluative; judging them.

Krampen (1979) suggested a different classification of the process of perception.

Perception starts, first, by the selective phase that is determined by scale, where recipients decide

a scale level usually a manageable scale within the cone of vision. Second, there is the synthetic

phase where structural or compositional relations are perceived. Third, there is the analytical

phase; where structural or compositional relations are analyzed to their components. The selected

scale is an important factor that governs how we perceive our surroundings. Humans maximize

their acquisition of the information to control their navigation globally. They selectively focus










their attention to a local scale, by maximizing their local acquisition, and start the process of

perception, cognition, evaluation and taking action.

Urban Scale

Researchers classified urban scale into regional and local, and suggested that the quality of

the urban environment at the local scale is dominated by buildings and streets, while the regional

scale is concerned with the whole city and beyond (Nichol & Wong, 2004). Researchers also

suggested that human scale is a crucial concept toward understanding how people relate to the

environment (Moughtin, 1992; Nelessen, 1993; Nichol & Wong, 2004; Salingaros, 2000;

Sternberg, 2000). Gehl (1987) noted that the quality of the urban environment depends on the

design of individual spaces and their details, even down to the smallest component. Salingaros

(2000) asserted that urban environments need strongly connected smaller scales, and loosely

connected larger scales. Sternberg (2000, p. 275) combined scale in an integrative concept, he

stated "as I walk, I react to the scale of a building in relation to the scale of others and to that of

my own body, in all their proportionate interrelationships, lightening my awareness of self in

space."

The meaning of the environment is communicated primarily at the local scale where the

experience materializes. While users are navigating space, it is what relates to human scale that

matters the most for them. Some scholars went far to suggest that the smallest elements in the

environment accessible to users at arm length are those elements that ultimately determine the

order in the built environments (Salingaros, 2000). Since the concern of urban designers is the

shaping of the environment at scales larger than individual buildings or one plot of land, then it is

the smallest scale of urban space directly above the scale of buildings and private ownerships

that matters the most. It is the line where private and public realms meet.









Urban Space

Urban space is the realm where urban life takes place; it is "the three-dimensional

extension of the world around us, the intervals, distances, and relationships between people and

people, people and things, things and things" (Rapoport, 1982, p. 179). Urban spaces such as

streets, squares, piazzas and parks are central to our awareness in cityscape; they are the urban

designers' raw material (Taylor, 1999). Madanipour (1996), drawing on previous work, noted

that urban space could be defined in two ways social space, and built space. Social space is the

spatial form and the output of social institutions. Built space is "the physical space, its

morphology, the way it affects our perceptions, the way it is used, and the meaning it can elicit"

(Madanipour, 1996, p. 10). Hillier & Hanson (1984) emphasized the need for a theory on the

relationship between societies and space. Space, along this line of thought, is seen as a function

of the social structure, and society is seen as a function of the spatial structure.

Urban space is the habitat where meaning of the environment is communicated. It is the

physical and social extension of our private physical and social domains. When we step outside

our private domains, we know that we are exercising our desire to communicate as social beings,

and we expect other to communicate with us. It is in the urban space that such fundamental

human experience takes place. This experience is a social phenomenon manifested in a physical

setting. To what extent social activities and physical setting influence each other is an ongoing

debate among scholars.

Social, Physical, Behavioral and Probabilistic Approaches

Social approach

Urban space needs the presence of people for other people to j oin; people attract people

(Whyte 1980). Some scholars criticized what they call the abstracted morphological reading of

urban spaces, and suggest a more subj ective and social reading (Kallus 2001). Kallus proposed









taking urban design from merely viewing the city as a spatial structure to viewing it as it holds

the relationship between space and social process, wherein a city as a space of habitation is not

ignored. She asserted that the failure of the postmodern discourse is caused by the inability to

understand urban space as a primary form of habitat.

For these scholars, the physical aspect of urban space including its volumetric relationships

and visual details is of little relative importance (Zacharias, 2001). The basic assumption for

advocates of the social meaning of space is that aesthetic, geometric and visual quality of urban

space is not significant in comparison to other aspects of urban space; like socioeconomic and

functional ones. The antithesis of this position is the picturesque tradition a line of thought that

goes back through Camillo Sitte's famous work to ancient cities.

Physical approach and the picturesque tradition

Cities through history have always incorporated aesthetic, geometric relationships, and

visual dimension in their designs. As early as the plan of Ur in Mesopotamia, the Hippodamian

grid-plan in ancient Greek cities, the principle of the Cardo and Decumanus in Roman cities,

through Pope Sixtus V' s plan for Rome in the 16th century, aesthetic principles of city

organization had existed. The tradition was pursued after the medieval era by works like

L'Enfant' s plan for the city of Washington in the late 18th century, Haussmann' s scheme for

Paris and Nash' s plan for London in the 19th century (Bacon, 1967; Mumford, 1961). Cities were

planned according to the aesthetic qualities of vistas, maj estic spatial compositions, ceremonial

axes, and monumental buildings.

Sitte (1889) emphasized aesthetics principles; however, he moved another step toward

defining long vistas and creating stationary spaces to serve for street intersection as virtually

closed nodes (Mumford, 1961). Although Sitte's approach is often criticized for emphasizing

aesthetics values only, some scholars believe that he is the founder of urban design (Moughtin,










1992). The notion of "serial vision" promoted by Cullen (1961) considering the urban setting as

a series of unfolding views is the basis for the new urbanism notion of positive spaces where

spaces are defined using buildings; that is, to design space between buildings. Cullen asserted

that a city is not a pattern of streets but a sequence of spaces defined by buildings (Salingaros,

2000). However, there is no evidence that this is true in today's streets.

Aesthetic and behavioral approach

Researchers still maintain that aesthetic quality is a factor of success of urban spaces.

However, it is through a behavioral channel that such notion is made. It is not the aesthetic

principles of creative design that cities need, nor is it the artistic and architectural composition of

mass and void under light. It is rather how those principles are tied to people's needs. Isaacs

(2000) suggested that the urban form is capable of evoking an engaging aesthetic experience. It

occurs when people enj oy the space and linger in it, maintaining the concept that aesthetic

experience is a social phenomenon.

Along the same line, Nasar (1990) noted that the visual quality of the urban environment

can evoke emotions of fear, pleasure and excitement, and influence our social status. He also

stated that the visual quality "may influence behavior, in attracting people to pleasant places and

repelling them from unpleasant places" (Nasar, 1990, p. 41). Carmona et al. (2003) synthesized

the earlier literature, and concluded that urban space is an aesthetic entity and a behavioral

setting.

Since urban space is the extension of our private physical and social domains, both

domains should fit to make a successful space. Fit or misfit between people and urban space can

range from safety, to health, to economy, to social connectedness, to aesthetic discomfort

because of unattractive urban areas (Marans & Stokols, 1993). The question of how important is

the physical-aesthetic dimension relative to socio-economic, functional and other utilitarian









aspects of urban space is a question of the importance of the visual-behavioral dimension in

urban space. Considering the behavioral dimension, there is a line of reasoning pertaining to the

importance of the physical environment that could be found in a probabilistic approach promoted

by Gehl (1987) in his book Life between Buildings.

Probabilistic approach

The probabilistic approach pulls together the physical approach and the social approach.

The physical approach holds that aesthetic and visual dimensions of the environment influence

the social environment in a deterministic manner, while the social approach holds that there is an

insignificant effect of the physical environment on the social life. Gehl (1987) proposed a

solution for this dilemma. He classified outdoor activities into three types: necessary; like

shopping and going to work, optional; like stopping for a cup of coffee and reading the paper,

and social; which is a mixture of necessary and optional activities. He argues that when the

outside environment is of "poor quality", only necessary activities take place, however, when

the environment is of "high quality", necessary activities will happen with the same frequency as

in poor environments, but they tend to linger more because of good physical conditions.

Moreover, good physical conditions invite more optional activities. The social activities are, for

him, the "resultant activities" that will also intensify as optional activities intensify.

Other scholars have promoted this line of thought, and have maintained that necessary

activities will occur regardless of the physical quality, while optional activities will occur only

when the environmental quality is good (Isaacs, 2000; Appleyard, 1981). Moirongo (2002)

emphasized that optional activities of human beings happen only in favorable exterior conditions

and that these activities are especially dependent on exterior physical conditions. This indicates

that if urban space quality is poor, only strictly necessary activities will take place. Isaacs (2000,

p. 145) noted that "physical design is only one of the factors" and that social and economic










issues, urban infrastructure and life-style have much to do with drawing people to a certain urban

space, yet, "once [people are] in that location, physical design will probably have influence on

how they spend their time there, and on their attitude toward the place."

The essence of this approach is that physical design can influence the social constitution of

space in a probabilistic way. The least influenced activities by the physical setting are necessary

activities as they only tend to linger. However, the optional activities are the most sensitive, and

depending on the physical setting, they either occur or do not occur, while the social activities

are resultant of both, and consequently are influenced to the extent that they encompass optional

activities.

The physical setting that is argued to influence other aspects of urban life in a probabilistic

way is the outside extension of our private realm, the immediate urban scale that communicates

to us at our human-scale, and the visually perceived field of information of our choice. It is

therefore the three-dimensional urban space, in shapes of plazas and streets.

Plazas and Streets

It is argued that streets and plazas are the basic elements for organizing cities through the

entire history of human settlement (Gehl, 1987). Carmona et al. (2003 p. 147) stated that

"although positive urban space come in different forms and shapes, there are two main types

'streets' ... and 'squares'." Evidently, this argument is supported by the many ceremonial axes

and squares in the history of human settlements; including the Greek Agora, the Roman Forum,

the Roman Cardo and Decumanus, and the medieval and renaissance European plazas and

avenues. Scholars in the post modern era, facing the products of the modern discourse including

new technologies, new materials and new sources of energy in cities, have many problems to

deal with. These include sprawl and decentralization of land use (Nelessen, 1993), the vanishing

social function of public space (Carmona et al., 2003), the implementation of the "traffic control









schemes" rather than the "townscape scheme" (Appleyard, 1981, p. 277), the large and

impersonal nature of outdoor spaces, the disappearance of streets and squares, and the general

ambiguity concerning the appropriate handling of small dimensions and small spaces (Gehl,

1987).

Although plazas have played a maj or role in creating a social arena for urban dwellers

through history, in today's cities, it is the street that shapes their experience and communicates to

them more often. Unfortunately, Cullen's (1961) concept of serial vision is inapplicable, and

today's streets are linear elements with no termination, and segmentation of the street into more

stationary places is rare. It is evident that most of our city spaces belong to streets, and many

scholars have pointed out the significant role of the street in today's urban setting (Appleyard,

1981; Carmona et al., 2003; Jacobs, 1993; Moughtin, 1992; Nelessen, 1993).

Urban Street

It is important to distinguish the difference between the term "road" and the term "street".

While "road" indicates movement and destination and implies a journey, "street" maintains this

definition too, but it exhibits an additional attribute of running in urban areas between two rows

of buildings and has an enclosed three-dimensional space (Moughtin, 1992). (Carmona et al.,

2003 p. 147) define the street as "a linear three-dimensional spaces enclosed on opposite sides by

buildings."

Enclosure in Urban Street Space

When streets, as a type of urban spaces, and by the definitions mentioned above, have to be

enclosed by two rows of buildings, it becomes reasonable to conclude that their attribute of

enclosure is of a great importance in contributing to the quality of city space. Previous research

suggested that the ratio of the height of the defining surfaces to the width of the street is an










important predictor for the degree of enclosure (Alexander et al., 1977; Carmona et al., 2003; Im,

1983; Lynch & Hack, 1975; Moughtin, 1992; Nelessen, 1993).

Enclosure implies the impression of safety. The correlation between perceived safety and

enclosure is strong; "r = .82" (Stamps, 2005a, p. 121). (Jacobs, 1993, p. 15) suggested the same

relationship and stated that "narrowness and enclosure and intimacy bring a feeling of safety".

Safety implication of enclosure is derived from the "prospect and refuge" theory. Previous

research suggested that vision is related to survival instincts in humans; such that one needs to

see the enemies and not to been seen by them; "an unimpeded opportunity to see is called a

prospect whereas an opportunity to hide is called a refuge" (Stamps, 2005a, p. 105). The baseline

of this theoretical conception is that humans, even when not endangered, have a cognitive

capacity that is synchronized to recognize spatial regions as safe or not safe.

Drawing on previous literature, Carmona et al. (2003 p. 141) noted that "the ideal street

must be a completely enclosed unit! The more one's impressions are confined within it, the more

perfect will be its tableau: one feels at ease in a space where the gaze cannot be lost in infinity."

This notion was suggested in literature, especially in the aesthetic discourse; it asserts that streets

needs to be enlivened with nodes, and certain breaks should take place to create sequential units

of cognition; however this is not the case in current street systems. The pattern of today's streets

yields to the functional and utilitarian concepts of connectivity, as suggested by the New

Urbanism movement. Unlike plazas that have an additional aspect of enclosure called

"openness", which is the relationship of length to width, streets do not. Most street spaces today

have only two geometric dimensions that contribute to the sense of enclosure, namely height and

width.









Methodological Strategies

Since actual urban environments have numerous variables that could predict their qualities,

it is virtually impossible to conduct a test of cause-effect relationship without risking the

presence and influence of confounding or hidden variables. Because empirical inquiries need

more controlled testing conditions, the use of computer-simulated environments has proved to be

helpful, where the independent variables can be manipulated to measure user' s responses.

Environmental Simulation

Our world is a perceived world; we know it through our perceptual capacities. Even when

we experience our "real" surroundings, and learn about our environments, we do that with

certain simulation capacities. Kaplan (1993 p. 62) noted that "humans can and do act on the basis

of very incomplete information." The less complete the information around us, the more room

for our capacity to reconstruct reality into something we know and understand. Kaplan (1993, p.

61) also noted that "much of what we know is learned from something other than actual place

and therefore involved some form of simulation." Our imaginative capacities allow us to picture,

for example, a city we never visited, and a house we never entered. Simulating real worlds, then,

is a tool to support an already existing human ability to visualize the environment even if it is not

really here. Simpson (2001, p. 361) supports this theoretical approach and stated "realistic

simulated images cut across traditional cognitive boundaries and reach those who may not be as

adept at processing more abstract two-dimensional imagery."

Environmental simulation is defined as "the creation of a desired set of physical and

operational conditions in a controlled process or setting through a combination of graphic and

mental images, technical assumptions, and direct experience" (Clipson, 1993, p. 24). It involves

the production of an image as close as possible to a real setting, the introduction of these










representations to prospective users, and the collection of their judgment (Bosselmann, 1993,

1998).

Environmental simulation in urban design could be categorized from a methodological

point of view into applied and experimental. Applied simulation is used to support planning and

design processes including assessing future development, user participation, and training.

Experimental environmental simulation, on the other hand, is for urban planning and design

research; which involves inquiring, testing hypotheses, and building theories (Ozel, 1993).

These hypotheses are about environmental influence on users responses, which will be used to

assess relationships expected to happen in real settings (Marans & Stokols, 1993).

Computer Simulation

There are different ways that are used to simulate urban environments including sketches,

scale models, photographs, videos and computer simulations (Marans & Stokols, 1993). The use

of computer simulations allows for the production of as many variables as needed, and as many

levels of manipulation as needed, with less time and money. Because of the speed of data

processing and high storing capabilities, computer simulation is one of the most feasible means

that could be used to learn about certain phenomenon in the urban environment (Ozel, 1993;

Simpson 2001; Zacharias, 2001).

Computer Simulation and Method Validity

Some scholars have expressed doubts about validity of computer simulation in

representing real-life situations, especially social ones that may not yield to simulation, rendering

the whole process ineffective. This calls for an external validity or "social validity" where

simulation should be able to represent social environments. However, it is also suggested that

this validity is only necessary in "community decision-making contexts than ... for validating the

scientific rigor of investigations" (Marans & Stokols, 1993, p. 16); especially if the scientific










rigor needs to isolate the social variables from the physical variables, such as the case of my

research.

Some scholars suggested that it is even better to use simulation than the real context.

Kaplan (1993, p. 77), basing this claim on previous research, noted that "the understanding or

working knowledge of a building provided by the simulation techniques was actually more

useful than that provided by the visit to the building itself." The internal validity of

environmental simulation in research and hypothesis-testing purposes has been discussed by

scholars as the reason why simulation is used in the first place. For possible confounding

variables, scholars noted that using simulation in experimental procedures decreases the

likelihood of respondents being biased by extraneous variables (Marans & Stokols, 1993).

Kaplan (1993) using the same argument, talks about the internal validity of simulation of

Berkley Simulation Proj ect, and pointed out that familiarity had a strong impact in real-life

settings than in simulation.

Realism is an important factor in creating valid simulation. Because urban environments

are sophisticated phenomena, realism in creating simulation for these environments is

proportionately difficult. It is only by determining the purposes of the simulation are we able to

approach certain levels of realism. Previous research suggested that realism is the "technical

accuracy" where the simulated environment is rendered with high quality and close resemblance

to reality, (Karjalainen & Tyrainen, 2002, p.15). Bosselmann (1993, p. 284, 285) noted that

realism was established in the Berkeley Simulation Laboratory where "simulated environments

yielded the same responses as the real ones." While applied simulations need the highest possible

degree of realism, experimental simulations have a degree of realism corresponding to the main

purpose of the experiment; which is not necessarily the highest.










Cognitive and Psychophysical Approaches

Since environmental simulation should be based on the purpose of the research, it is

convenient to explain two models of simulation that relate to my research the cognitive model

and the psychophysical model. The cognitive model involves asking respondents about their

impression of a certain subj ective value of the environment. Respondents have more interpretive

power over the stimuli. The inquiry concerning how simulated enclosure relates to perceived

enclosure, for example, needs to use of this model. The psychophysical model, on the other hand,

assumes respondents as passive recipients. When there is a need to know how enclosure

influences comfort, for example, it is necessary to use the psychophysical model (Karj alainen &

Tyrainen 2002).

This chapter reviewed urban design literature covering 9 theoretical and 4 methodological

concepts pertaining to urban streets. The theoretical part presented epistemological constructs of

urban design, meaning of the urban environment to its users, perception, urban scale, urban

space, the dilemma of social vs. physical meanings of urban space, the probabilistic approach,

urban streets vs. plazas and enclosure. The methodological part presented environmental

simulation, computer simulation, computer simulation validity, and cognitive and

psychophysical approaches.

Chapter 3 explains the method of my research. It states the research independent and

dependent variables and their measurement scales. It presents the research procedure; including

exiting context and control measures taken to eliminate potential confounding variables, creating

the three-dimensional models, extracting images from the three-dimensional models, on-screen

survey, participant sampling and survey implementation, and collecting the data upon

participants' responses.









CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHOD

My research is mainly concerned with measuring the influence of simulated enclosure, as a

function of the independent variables of height-to-width ratio and scale on users' sense of

comfort, sense of safety and perceived enclosure. It explores, as well, the potential influences of

demographic differences (gender, age, design background, type of living area, height of

buildings in living area, and width of streets in living area) on user' s sense of comfort, sense of

safety and perceived enclosure in urban streets. To achieve control over the different potential

confounding variables that exist in the real-life urban streets, three-dimensional computer models

were created to simulate urban street spaces and to allow for manipulating the independent

variables of the street space.

An exiting area in Downtown Gainesville, Florida was selected to serve as a real-life

reference for the simulation. A segment of the main street with a length of 2500 ft, 20 urban

blocks was digitized, and extruded into 3D geometric models. Texture were collected and

applied to the 3D models. A total of 42 stimuli were extracted as images from the models and

integrated into an on-screen survey to collect responses of perceived enclosure, comfort and

safety .

This chapter explains the research method; first it presents independent and dependent

variables. Second, it presents the research procedures; including controlling the existing urban

context, three-dimensional models, extracting images and integrating them into an on-screen

survey, and finally collecting and coding response data.









Research Variables


Independent Variables

There are two sets of independent variables in my research. The first set is independent

variables that were simulated by computer models relative to the geometric characteristic of the

urban street space. These independent variables are "space variables" or "within-subj ects"

variables. The "within-subj ects" independent variables are those variables that held data across

stimuli like ratio of height to width. The second set contained the demographic or "between-

subj ects" independent variables. The "between-subj ects" independent variables are those

variables that hold data across participants like gender.

Within-subject independent variables

The research used two within-subj ects independent variables; height-to-width ratio and

scale. These two variables are functions of the height and width of the simulated space. The

height, denoted by (H) is the average height of the defining buildings of the street space,

measured from ground to the highest point in the vertical defining wall. Width, denoted by (W),

is the width of the street measured from the face of the buildings on one side of the street to the

face of the buildings on the other side. Height and width together produce different values of

height-to-width ratio and scale.

Width measurement scale. Nelessen (1993) recommended widths for urban streets as 20

ft for the alley, 64 ft for the main streets, and 86 ft for the boulevard. A review of maj or cities of

the world using Google Earthe revealed that widths of maj or urban streets can go up to 1 10 ft in

New York, 100 ft in Chicago, 100 ft in Austin, 90 ft in LA, 74 ft in London, 74 ft in Amsterdam,

85 ft in Rome, 120 ft in Berlin, 120 ft in Tokyo, 90 ft in Baghdad, and 110 ft in Cairo. The

average street driving lane is 10 ft (Godley et al., 2004; Chandra & Kumar, 2003), and the

minimum sidewalk width is 5 ft (FHWA, 2005).









Based on these figures, a width of 20 ft one lane and two sidewalks for the minimum

value of the width scale, and a width of 130 ft 12 lanes and two sidewalks for the maximum

value of the width scale were used. Initially, an interval of 10 ft was decided to increment the

width scale; however an interval of 10 ft is intangible at the upper levels of the width scale.

Consequently, instead of using scale levels of 20 ft, 30 ft, 40 ft and so on, it was found more

convenient to use the 6 width levels of 20 ft, 30 ft, 40 ft, 60 ft, 90 ft, and 130 ft. This eliminated

unnecessary levels of width and reduced the number of levels to more manageable ones, (Table

3-1).

Height measurement scale. It was assumed that the minimum value of the height scale is

15-20 ft, which is the height of a typical ground floor. The maximum value of the height scale

was decided based on the maximum value of ratio that the research needed to include. A

maximum ratio was decided to go beyond what literature has reported. Therefore, it was found

suitable to use a maximum ratio of 6: 1. Since my research used a maximum street width of 130

ft; thus the maximum height was 6 x 130 = 780 ft, or 78 floors. However, each street width had a

maximum height corresponding to the maximum ratio, which meant a maximum height of 120 ft

for the width of 20 ft, 180 ft for the width of 30 ft, 240 ft for the width of 40 ft and so on.

Gehl (1987) suggested that above the fifth floor, things and events are out of touch with the

ground level. Since the difference of narrow intervals in the upper levels of the height scale is

insignificant; that is, the difference between floor number 70 and 71, for example, is assumed to

be minimal as perceived by respondents, it was decided to use height categories of 20 ft, 30 ft, 40

ft, 60 ft, and divide the remaining distance above the sixth floor into three equal intervals at

heights HS, H6, and H7. A matrix of 42 spaces has resulted form the 7 variations of height and

the 6 variation of width, (Table 3-1).










Groups of spaces. The matrix of (6 x 7 = 42 spaces) was clustered into (3 x 3 = 9) groups

of spaces. While the matrix of 42 spaces is convenient for analysis of association, the 9 groups

were convenient for analysis of variance, (Table 3-2).

Ratio measurement scale. Inheriting from the aforementioned variation of width and

height, the height-to-width ratio, henceforth called ratio, (R) = H/W, varied in the range of a

minimum value of 20/130 or (0. 15) to a maximum value of 780/130 or (6.00), producing a total

of 42 different ratio levels, (Table 3-3). The resulting 42 different ratios were clustered into 14

categories; pertaining to the ranges of 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 1, 3/2, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6,

(Table 3-4).

Scale measurement range (scale). The range of the scale variable, (Sc) = H W was

varied in the range of a minimum value of (20 ft 20 ft) or 400 sq. ft, to a maximum value of

(780 ft 130 ft) or 101,400 sq. ft, (Table 3-5). It was necessary to select three groups of small

scale (low, narrow), medium scale (medium (H), medium (W), and large scale (high, wide) for

variance analysis. This selection reduced the effect of ratio and provided a clear scale variation,

(Table 3-6).

Between-subjects independent variables

The research used six between-subj ect independent variables; gender, age, design

background, type of living area (urban, suburban and rural), height of buildings in living area,

and width of streets in living area. These variables were included to test for the influence of

demographic and experience differences on perception of dependent variables of comfort, safety

and perceived enclosure in urban street space.

Participants were students and employees from the University of Florida based on a

convenience sample. The sample size was 83 participants (mean age = 29.8 and standard

deviation = 8.8); 64% were men (53 men, mean age = 29.6 and standard deviation = 8.5) and










36% were women (30 women, mean age = 30, standard deviation = 9.3). For design background

variable, 52 (63%) of the participants had no design background, while 30 (37%) had design

background.

For the type of living area, (45.1%) of the participants live in urban areas, (46.3%) live in

suburban areas, and (8.5%) live in rural areas. The distribution of the participants as for the

average height of buildings in their living area was (41%) for "1 to 2 floors", (22.9%) for "2 to 4

floors", (15.7%) for "5 to 6 floors", (10.8%) for "6 to 7 floors", and (9.6%) for "over 10 floors".

The distribution of the participants as for the average width of streets in their living area was

(43.4%) for "1 to 2 lanes", (48.2%) for "2 to 4 lanes, (7.2%) for "5 to 6 lanes", and (1.2%) for "7

to 10 lanes".

Dependent Variables

My research used five dependent variables; sense of comfort (C), sense of safety (S),

perceived enclosure (EP), perceived height (HP) and perceived width (WP).

Sense of comfort

Literature suggested a strong relationship between enclosure and feeling comfortable in

urban spaces. Alan Jacobs envisioned successful urban spaces as livable, safe and comfortable

(Jacobs, 1993). Alexander et al. (1977) tied comfort to enclosure for streets, they reported "...it

should be noted that pedestrian streets which seem most comfortable are the ones where the

width of the street does not exceed the height of the surrounding buildings" (Alexander et al.,

1977, p. 178). The Essex design guide suggested that a ratio of 1:1 is the minimum for

comfortable space, and a ratio of 1:2.5 is the maximum that can be tolerated (Moughtin, 1992).

Drawing on the prospect and refuge theory, sense of comfort was found to be an excellent

measure of the theory' s notion concerning enclosure. The theory ties enclosure to aesthetic

appreciation and feeling of comfort at the higher levels for human needs. A preference variable is









reasonable too, nevertheless, to ask "how comfortable is this space?" would help respondents

envision being in the space, but to ask "how do you prefer this space?", could be understood as

"how do you like it as an image?"; risking respondents' separation from the scene. The variable

"sense of comfort" is considered from the psychophysical model. Therefore, enclosure was

predicted without directing respondents' attention to it.

Sense of comfort measurement scale. A six-point Likert scale was used to collect

responses for sense of comfort. The scale consisted of six levels on an ordinal scale. Respondents

rated comfort level from (1) through (6); where (1) is the lower level of comfort or the least

comfortable and (6) is the higher level of comfort or the most comfortable.

Sense of safety

In contrast to sense of comfort, sense of safety is related to the basic level of human need.

The prospect and refuge theory suggests a strong relationship between enclosure and sense of

safety. It was useful to examine sense of safety and enclosure and compare the results to sense

of comfort and enclosure to understand this connection between them. It was also important to

test the suggested relationship that empirical literature reported so far (Stamps, 2005a). Similar

to sense of comfort, the variable "sense of safety" is considered from the psychophysical model.

Sense of safety measurement scale. A six-point Likert scale was used to collect responses

for sense of safety. The scale consisted of six levels on an ordinal scale. Respondents rated safety

level from (1) through (6); where (1) is the lower level of safety or the most unsafe and (6) is the

higher level of safety or the safest.

Perceived enclosure, perceived height and perceived width

The three dependent variables "perceived enclosure", "perceived height", and "perceived

width" are from the cognitive model. The purpose of including perceived enclosure is to test the

validity of the simulated enclosure, and to be able to relate to previous empirical literature that









used perceived enclosure only. Scholars have used cognitive variables as both dependent and

independent for visual communication experience (Heft & Nasar 2000; Stamps, 2005a).

Perceived enclosure was used as both dependent and independent variable in my research. Ratio

and scale were used to predict perceived enclosure, while perceived enclosure was used to

predict comfort and safety. The purpose of including perceived heights and widths is to test to

what extent are the simulated height and the simulated width of the streets perceived by

respondents as assumed by the research, which is a reliability test.

Measurement scales of perceived enclosure, perceived height, and perceived width. A

six-point Likert scale was used to collect responses for perceived enclosure. The scale consisted

of six levels on an ordinal scale. Respondents rated perceived enclosure level from (1) through

(6); where (1) is the lower level of enclosure or the most open, and (6) is the higher level of

enclosure or the most closed. Interval scales were used to collect responses for perceived height

and perceived width. Respondents estimated height and widths in feet. Both independent and

dependent variables are summarized in (Table 3-7).

Research Procedure

The procedure for my research had of five phases. First, selecting an existing environment

to serve as a context for the computer simulation and conducting control measures over potential

external confounding variables, second, creating three-dimensional (3D) models of 42 different

height and width combinations, third, extracting 42 still images pertaining to the desired viewing

point, and integrating them into an on-screen survey, fourth, sampling participants and

conducting the survey, and fifth, collecting and coding data and conducting statistical analysis .

Existing Context and Control Measures over Potential Confounding Variables

A street section with 10 segments, a length of 2500 ft, and a width of 60 ft, was selected

from Main Street in Downtown Gainesville, Florida. This section was used as a real-life context









to serve as a reference when constructing all contextual elements that are not varied. The street

section is intersected by 9 perpendicular streets, creating 20 blocks on both sides of the street.

Blocks areas vary from 45, 500 to 1 13, 000 sq. ft, with an average of 75, 000 sq. ft. The widths

of the perpendicular streets vary with values of 25 ft, 50 ft, and 60 ft, (Figure 3-1). Sizes of urban

block and shapes were maintained, and real textures were extracted from the existing buildings

and used in the 3D models.

Some of the street elements that were simulated for the context of my research had

potential effects on the independent variables. These elements influence the perception of

enclosure and some measures were taken to modify them accordingly. These elements are street

length, vacant land plots, viewing point, skyline, and street furniture. The way these elements

were modified is explained below.

Street length

This element is about what street length would better serve the purpose of the simulation.

Scholars analyzed segments of streets, reported streets of certain lengths, and sometimes

suggested the ideal segment length. The acceptable walking distance for most people could be

considered a determining factor, as it was noted that it should be about 400 to 500 meters (1,300

to 1,600 ft) (Gehl, 1987; Nelessen, 1993). Moughtin (1992) noted that an elegant and well-

proportioned street is 300 m long by 30 m wide (984 ft x 98 ft) and three-storey high (Moughtin,

1992).

Based on the above suggestions; an optimum street length of 1000 to 1,600 ft with 4-6

segments was initially decided to be used in my research, (Figure 3-2A). However, such a length

did not satisfy all different conditions of the manipulation of the independent variables- wider

streets needed more length to be portrayed properly using the same viewing point. It was found

that a street length of 2500 ft with 10 segments was more appropriate to maintain enough









information and allow for wider streets to be displayed in the same manner as narrower ones,

(Figure 3-2B).

Vacant land plots

Vacant land plots, mainly surface car parking, were expected to influence the sense of

enclosure in urban street spaces because they break the continuity of the building wall that

defines the street, (Figure 3-3A). My research maintained a continuous wall on both sides of the

street. Vacant plots in the real-life street were filled with buildings, and a zero setback was

maintained along both sides of the street. Additional buildings were given modified textures

from existing ones. Widths of building footprints facing the street were maintained above 100 ft,

which allowed for varying the heights of the building realistically, (Figure 3-3B).

Set backs

Although at heights approximately twice the width of the street, a set back should take

place as suggested by the legacy of American skyscraper tradition (Willis, 1986), this study did

not integrate setbacks. If setbacks were included, they have to vary with the width of the street

which could have resulted in a confounding variable. It is logical to expect that less sense of

enclosure could be predicted by including setbacks, however, such comparisons are beyond the

scope of my research.

Viewing point

My research was limited to the pedestrians' viewing point. The viewing point was at

human-eye level, taken from one sidewalk of the street. This viewing point was selected to

capture one view of the space that reveals the nature of its enclosure, and it was maintained

constant at all levels of independent variables, (Figure 3-4). Other viewing points; like views

from vehicles, bicycles and other operated modes of movements were beyond the scope of my

research. This viewing point was captured in the form of still images to be used as stimuli.









Previous studies have shown the reliability of using still images (Stamps, 1999 & Heft &

Nasar, 2000). Concerning validity of using image stimuli, previous research reported that on-site

vs. photographs stimuli and color slides vs. computer-generated stimuli have correlated strongly

at "r > .83" (Stamps, 1999, p. 736). Concerning static vs. dynamic representations, it was found

that static displays, contrary to expectations, were significant in stimulating response of

preference than dynamic displays (Heft & Nasar, 2000).

Skyline

Stamps (1999) reported that buildings skyline predicts user' s preference for buildings. It

was necessary to maintain this component constant within a range of optimum levels across all

buildings on both sides of the street. Roof lines were kept straight, and, for each stimulus, a

random variation between adj acent buildings was used. The range of variation was 1 to 4 ft and

was applied in the parapet walls. It is important to emphasize that, although the skyline varied

across adj acent buildings in the same stimulus, it was not varied across stimuli.

Street furniture

As my research depends enormously on perception of scale, clues of scale should exist to

the extent that they do not have the potential to bias responses. These clues of scale were

introduced by representation of people and the use of a real textures and material from the site. In

contrast, although trees are important elements in urban streetscape, they play a maj or role in

defining spaces and manipulating enclosure, so they were not included in the models.

Because the dependent variables comfort and safety were to be investigated as predicted

from enclosure values only, the presence of realistically modeled sidewalks, lanes, and cars have

a profound confounding influence. It was decided to reduce that influence by providing simple

clues about the width of the street with gray neutral material, (Figure 3-5).









Creating 3D Models

All 20 blocks, the street segment, and the closest segments of the intersecting

perpendicular streets were digitized in ESRIO ArcMapTM Software based on an aerial image of

the city. The two-dimensional shape file was exported to AutoDesk VIZ" software using DXF

format. In AutoDesk VIZ four initial 3D models were created; a ground model, a ground-floor

model, a typical floor model, and a parapet wall model. Ground floors were extruded to a height

of 16 ft, typical floors to 10 ft, and parapet walls extrusion ranged from 1 to 4 ft. All empty plots

were filled, and a straight continuous street wall was maintained.

In the context of simulating urban environments, real site photos were used to produce a

realistic simulation. Texture mapping (the application of real photos on modeled geometries) is

an inexpensive technique that proved to be successful in conveying the desired level of details

(Shoide, 2000). Texture mapping is preferred in urban environments because high degree of

realism can be achieved with smaller file sizes compared to geometric detailing.

An average of 3 pictures was taken for each segment facing the main street. Weather

conditions were observed to insure sufficient sun light, a digital camera was used with a storage

capacity of 60 megabytes, and a map was prepared to keep track of photos and the corresponding

facades. A reasonable high image resolution was used to allow for more flexibility in the photo-

editing process, even though this resolution would have to be reduced later before application to

the geometries; a minimum of 640 x 480 pixels was used as an initial image resolution. The time

needed to collect the textures for all segments was 4 hours taken from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM.

Adobe" Photoshop" software was used to prepare the images for texture mapping. The

photo-editing session had three steps; correction of perspective effect, removing obstacles, and

optimizing image sizes. Correction of perspective effect was done by editing the image so that its

orthographic depiction was restored and real dimensions and proportions of the facades were









reconstructed. Removing obstacles involved removing trees, shrubs, cars and any other street

elements that hide portions of the facade in the original photo. Optimizing image sizes involved

reducing the sizes of the images to an optimum value that preserves good image resolution, while

maintaining manageable file size. A value of 100 pixels for each floor was found to be

convenient for such purpose, (Figure 3-6). Each corrected image was divided into three parts

corresponding to the facade levels of ground floor, typical floor and parapet wall. Textures were

then applied to 3D models in AutoDesk VIZ", (Figure 3-7).

Since the viewing point is at human-eye level; it was found that more details should be

added because, at the level of the ground floor and closer to the camera, texture mapping was not

enough. Therefore, the initial 3D model was exported using 3DS format to SketchUp @ Last"

software, which, in contrast to AutoDesk VIZ", allows for direct editing on the surfaces of

facades after texture application. Facade fenestrations, awnings, window hoods, and cornices

were articulated, (Figure 3-8). Next, a total of 42 3D models were created relevant to a matrix of

(7 x 6); a height variation of 7 levels, and a width variation of 6 levels.

Extracting Images and on-Screen Survey.

Each of the resulting 3D models was then exported to a convenient software package with

a powerful rendering capacity, namely Bryce 5.5 in DAZ" software. The camera setting for the

desired view was at human-eye level with an FOV of 46.72, and shadows were automatically

generated after setting a virtual sun from south-east direction; which simulated 10:00 AM. A

total of 42 different images were extracted from the models to be integrated in an on-screen

survey, (Figure 3-9).

The on-screen survey was designed to collect information about the aforementioned

independent and dependent variable that are functions of either participant perceptions or

demographic differences. Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0" was used to design 6 pages to be










displayed for participants. The first page was an introductory page, where participant are

introduced to the research concept and informed about what they are expected to do. In this page,

as well, participants were asked to enter the number that was assigned to each one of them,

(Figure A-1). The second page displayed the 4 most extreme cases of the 42 space images;

lowest and narrowest, lowest and widest, highest and narrowest, and highest and widest. The

purpose of this page was to help participant calibrate their judgment by comprehending the

maximum values of the height and width scales, (Figure A-2).

For participant perceptions of comfort and safety, two methods were used to collect

participant responses. First, the choices' responses; where participants were asked, in the third

page of the survey, to select the most comfortable three spaces, and the most uncomfortable

single space. Similarly, and in the same page, they were asked to select the safest three spaces, in

addition the most unsafe single space. Participants were asked to do that by browsing all 42

different cases by clicking on a button relative to each case. Upon clicking on one button, the

relative image was displayed in an area designated for the images in the interface. When

participants arrived at a decision, they simply dragged and drop the selected image into an empty

box designated for that exact response, (Figure A-3). These responses were called "choices

responses" to able to distinguish them from the second set of responses which were called

"ratings responses".

Second, in the fourth page of the survey, two questions were asked for each individual

image relative to level of comfort and level of safety. While choices responses were collected for

frequencies of choices of each case, rating responses were collected for case-by-case rating of

images that were arranged in a random order. In addition, this page included three more

questions for each individual image. These three questions were about perceived enclosure,










perceived height and perceived width. A total of five questions were included in this page. A

radio-button ordinal scale was provided for the first three questions of comfort, safety and

enclosure, and two text boxes were provided for the last two questions of perceived height and

perceived width. In the estimation part, participants were given the choice to either enter their

estimations using feet or meters, (Figure A-4).

In the fifth page, participants responded to questions about their own perspective of why

some spaces are more comfortable than others, and some are safer than others, (Figure A-5). The

last page was about demographic information of gender, age, design background, type of living

area; urban, suburban, or rural, heights of buildings and widths of streets in the living area,

(Figure A-6).

Participants' Sampling

A total of 100 packages were prepared to be handed to potential participants. Each package

contained one CD of the digital survey material, namely, an execution file and a folder that

contained all 42 images. In addition, the package contained an incentive of $6.00, participant

number note, and two copies of the form of consent. Using convenience sampling, each

participant was approached individually and briefed shortly about the nature of the survey. A

total of 84 participants from students and employees of the University of Florida have agreed to

participate in the survey. Upon their initial approval, participants were given the survey package,

where they signed one copy of the consent form. Because each participant response was to be

collected in a text file that will write itself on his or her c:\ drive, they were asked, upon the

completion of the survey, to email the file to the researcher.

The 84 students and employees who accepted to participate responded during a period of

two months. Only one response was found to be unusable because the survey was not completed.

The total number of participants (n) whose answers were ultimately coded was 83 participants.









Coding Data and Statistical Analysis

Each of the 83 participants entered 42 responses for each dependent variable. The total

observations for each response were 83 x 42 = 3,486. All observations were organized into two

different working Hiles; a participants' fie, and a spaces' file. The data in the participants' fie

were coded so that n = 83, and was used for analysis of repeated measures and between-subj ect

variance. The spaces' fie, on the other hand, was created by aggregating the within-subj ect

variables and using the mean ranks where (n = 42), and was used for analysis of association and

regression for within-subj ect variables.

Analysis of variance, association and regression were carried out using the following

groups and categories of spaces clustered to serve the purpose of different types of tests:

* For analysis of spaces variance, 42 spaces were used; each was identified by its height, width
and ratio by the format "space (H, W, R)". For example, a space with a height of 20 ft, a
width of 20 ft, and a ratio of 1, was identified as "space (20, 20, 1)".

* For analysis of space groups variance, 9 space groups were used; each groups of spaces was
identified by the format "group (Height, Width)". For example, "group (Medium (H),
Medium (W))" is the central group of the 9 space groups.

* For analysis of ratio association, 14 ratio categories were used; each ratio category was
identified by the ratio value that the category clustered around, in the format of "ratio (R)".
For example, the category of ratios (0.88 to 1.25) was identified as "ratio (1)".

* For analysis of ratio variance, 3 ratio groups were used; (1/6 to 1/3), (1/2 to 2), and (3 to 6).

* For scale analysis of association, 19 spaces; which satisfy the condition (0.5 <= R<=2).

* For scale analysis of variance, 3 scale groups were used; each scale group was identified in
the format of "scale group (scale)". For example the smallest group was identified as "scale
group (small)".

My research used 5 types of statistical tests; non parametric Freidman tests were used to

examine differences of repeated measures, non parametric Mann-Whitney U tests and Kruskal-

Wallis tests were used to examine differences or variance, Spearman correlation coefficient (rho)









for ordinal association tests were used to examine correlations, and logistic regression tests were

used to predict dependent variables using independent variables.

This chapter presented the research method. It presented first independent and dependent

variables, then it presented the research procedure pertaining to existing urban context, the three-

dimensional models, extracting images and integrating them into an on-screen survey, and

collecting and coding response data. Chapter 4 presents the results of statistical analysis

concerning the influence of independent variables on perceived enclosure.









Table 3-1. Height and width levels.
Width (ft)
W1: 20 W2 : 30 W3 : 40 W4 : 60 W5 : 90 W6 : 130
Height H1: 20 20 : 20 20 : 30 20 : 40 20 : 60 20 : 90 20 : 130
(ft) H2: 30 30 : 20 30 : 30 30 : 40 30 : 60 30 : 90 30 : 130
H3: 40 40 :20 40 :30 40 :40 40 :60 40 :90 40 :130
H4: 60 60 : 20 60 : 30 60 : 40 60 : 60 60 : 90 60 : 130
HS: varied 80 : 20 100 : 30 120 : 40 160 : 60 220 : 90 300 : 130
H6: varied 100 : 20 140 : 30 180 : 40 260 : 60 380 : 90 540 : 130
H7: varied 120 : 20 180 : 30 240 : 40 360 : 60 540 : 90 780 : 130

Table 3-2. Spaces clustered in 9 gop
Width (ft)
W1 :20 W2 : 30 W3 : 40 W4 : 60 W5 : 90 W6 :130
Height H1: 20 Low, Narrow Low, Medium(W) Low Wide
(ft) H2: 30
H3: 40 Medium(H), Narrow Medium(H), Medium(H), Wide
H4: 60 Medium(W)
HS: varied High, Narrow High, Medium(W) High, Wide
H6: varied
H7: varied

Table 3-3. Ratio levels.
Width (ft)
W1: 20 W2 : 30 W3 : 40 W4 : 60 W5 : 90 W6 :130
Height H1: 20 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.33 0.22 0.15
(ft) H2: 30 1.50 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.33 0.23
H3: 40 2.00 1.33 1.00 0.67 0.44 0.31
H4: 60 3.00 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.67 0.46
HS: varied 4.00 3.33 3.00 2.67 2.44 2.31
H6: varied 5.00 4.67 4.50 4.33 4.22 4.15
H7: varied 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

Table 3-4. Ratio categories
Width (ft)
W1 :20 W2 : 30 W3 : 40 W4 : 60 W5 : 90 W6 :130
Height H1: 20 1 2/3 1/2 1/3 1/5 1/6
(ft) H2: 30 3/2 1 3/4 1/2 1/3 1/4
H3: 40 2 3/2 1 2/3 1/2 1/3
H4: 60 3 2 3/2 1 2/3 1/2
H5: varied 4 3 3 3 2 2
H6: varied 5 5 4 4 4 4
H7: varied 6 6 6 6 6 6









Table 3-5. Scale levels
Width (ft)
W1 :20 W2 : 30 W3 : 40 W4 : 60 W5 : 90 W6 :130
Height H1: 20 400 600 800 1200 1800 2600
(ft) H2: 30 600 900 1200 1800 2700 3900
H3: 40 800 1200 1600 2400 3600 5200
H4: 60 1200 1800 2400 3600 5400 7800
H5: varied 1600 3000 4800 9600 19800 39000
H6: varied 2000 4200 7200 15600 34200 70200
H7: varied 2400 5400 9600 21600 48600 101400

Table 3-6. Scale gop
Width (ft)
W1 :20 W2 : 30 W3 : 40 W4 : 60 W5 : 90 W6: 130
Height H1: 20 Small
(ft) H2: 30
H3: 40 Medium
H4: 60
HS: varied Large
H6: varied
H7: varied

Table 3-7. Summary of independent and defendant variables.
Independent variables Type Dependent variables Type

Within-subject (space) Pschophysical
Height to width ratio R IOrdinal Comfort C Ordinal
Scale Sc Ordinal Safet S Ordinal
Between- subj ects Cognitive
(demographic)
Gender Nominal Perceived enclosure EP Ordinal
Age Interval Perceived Height HP Interval
Design Background Nominal Perceived Width WP Interval
Type of OAL Nominal
Height of buildings in AOL Interval
Width of streets in AOL Interval

























































"L P 1A B

Figure 3-1. Existing context: Main Street, Downtown Gainesville, Florida. A) Site aerial image.
B) Example of context architecture.


60

























Figure 3-2. Street length. A) Length of 1320 ft. B) Length of 2500 ft. With wider streets, there
was a need to double the length of the simulated street.















Figure 3-3. Vacant land plots. A) Existing empty land plots. B) Empty plots filled.


Figure 3-4. Viewing point. Human-eye level from one side of the street.

























Figure 3-5. Street furniture. A) Lanes, sidewalks and median are realistically represented. B)
Reduced realism; neutral material.






















Figure 3-6. Texture correction. A) Original image. B) Corrected image.





Figure 3-7. Texture mapping


Figure 3-8. Facade articulation. A) Before facade articulation. B) After facade articulation.







































Figure 3-9. Examples of 9 images from the matrix. A) 20ft x 20ft. B) 20ft x 30ft. C) 20ft x 40ft.
D) 30ft x 20ft. E) 30ft x 30ft. F) 30ft x 40ft. G) 40ft x 20ft. H) 40ft x 30ft. I) 40ft x
40ft.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS: PERCEIVED ENCLOSURE

My research used 42 images of simulated urban street spaces that were extracted from

three-dimensional computer models, designed to investigate the influence of enclosure, as a

function of ratio and scale of urban street spaces, on user' s sense of comfort, sense of safety and

perceived enclosure. Each of the 83 participants responded to all 42 images, resulting in a total of

3,486 observations for each dependent variable. Consequently, for analysis of variance of

between-subj ect variables, n was 83, and for analysis of association and regression of within-

subj ect variables, n was 42.

This chapter reports results from variance, association and regression statistical analysis of

the dependent variable perceived enclosure. Analysis of variance answers the question; whether

or not there was a difference in perceived enclosure responses for the different groups and

categories of the independent variables. Analysis of associations answers the question; how does

the magnitude of perceived enclosure change, and in what direction, when the magnitudes of

independent variables change. Regression analysis answers the question; which independent

variables are best predictors of perceived enclosure.

Before presenting result of perceived enclosure, results from tests of normal distribution

and reliability will be reported first. The normal distribution test was used to decide the

appropriate type of statistical analysis to be used in my research. The reliability test was

conducted to examine whether simulated dimensions are actually perceived as designed, which

examines the validity of the simulation method.









Normal Distribution and Reliability Tests


Normal Distribution Test

It was necessary to first decide whether to use parametric or nonparametric statistical

analysis in my research. To use parametric statistics; including T-test, ANOVA, Pearson

correlation coefficient (r), etc., dependent variables should be normally distributed. If this

condition is violated, equivalent nonparametric analysis should be used including; Mann-

Whitney U test, Friedman test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Spearman correlation coefficient (rho), etc.

Dependent variables of perceived enclosure, comfort, and safety were not normally distributed

based on the rule that skewness and kurtosis, divided by their standard errors, should not exceed

5.5 for dependent variables to be considered normally distributed (Morgan & Griegro, 1998;

Pallant, 2001), (Table 4-1). Normal distribution conditions were violated; therefore only

nonparametric tests were used in my research.

Test of Reliability: Simulated vs. Perceived Heights and Widths

Reliability tests were conducted for the computer simulation method used in my research.

Using this test, it can be established that heights and widths of the simulated spaces of urban

street spaces are actually perceived by participants as assumed by the simulation. For simulated

heights with perceived heights, a strong positive correlation was found at rho = +0.904, a = 0.01,

n = 3,486. The alternative hypothesis, H : simulated heights are strongly associated with

estimated heights, was supported.

For simulated widths with estimated widths, a strong positive correlation was found at rho

= +0.771, a = 0.01, n = 3,486. The alternative hypothesis, H : simulated widths are strongly

associated with estimated widths, was supported. These findings indicated that, for purposes of

conveying the differences in the magnitudes of urban space dimensions to participants, the

computer simulation method that was used in my research is reliable, (Table 4-2), (Figure 4-1).









Perceived Enclosure

The influence of both sets of independent variables on the dependent variable "perceived

enclosure" will be discussed. The influences of within-subj ects independent variables of height,

width, ratio and scale, on perceived enclosure are discussed first, followed by influences of

between-subj ects independent variables of gender, age, design background, type of living area,

height of buildings in living area, and width of streets in living area.

Perceived Enclosure and Within-Subject Variables: Height, Width, Ratio and Scale

Repeated measures: test of variance

Friedman test for repeated measures on an ordinal scale was conducted four times for

analysis of perceived enclosure for the 42 spaces, the 9 groups of spaces, the 14 ratio categories,

and the three scale groups.

For the 42 spaces, the test was conducted to answer the question whether or not there was a

difference in perceived enclosure scores across the 42 spaces. The test result was significant, P =

0.000, n = 83, df = 41. The alternative hypothesis, H : there is a difference in perceived enclosure

responses across the 42 spaces, was supported. The highest perceived enclosure mean rank

(37.59) was received by space (120, 20, 6), the 2nd highest perceived enclosure mean rank

(34. 14) was for space (180, 30, 6), and the 3rd highest perceived enclosure mean rank (33.82)

was for space (140, 30, 4.67). The lowest perceived enclosure mean rank (4.97) was for space

(20, 130, 0.15), (Table 4-3).

To account for randomness caused by the large sample of 3,486 observations, the 9 groups

of spaces were tested. Friedman test was used to answer whether or not there was a difference in

sense of perceived enclosure scores across these 9 groups. The test result was significant, P =

0.000, n = 83, df = 8. The alternative hypothesis, H : there is a difference in perceived enclosure

responses across the 9 spaces groups, was supported. The highest perceived enclosure mean









rank of (8.41) was received by group (High, Narrow), the lowest perceived enclosure mean rank

(1.31) was for group (Low, Wide), (Table 4-4).

For categories of ratio, the test result was significant (P = 0.000, n = 83, df= 13), the

alternative hypothesis, H : there is a difference in perceived enclosure responses across the 14

ratio categories, was supported. High ratios of 5 and 6 received the highest perceived enclosure

mean rank, while low ratios of 1/6 and 1/5 received the lowest perceived enclosure mean ranks,

(Table 4-5).

For scale groups, the test result was significant, P = 0.000, n = 83, df= 2, the alternative

hypothesis, H : there is a difference in perceived enclosure responses across the 3 scale groups,

was supported. The scale group (Large), received the highest rank (2.22); followed by group

scale (Small), with a mean rank of (2. 16). The least mean rank (1.62) was received by the group

scale (Medium), (Table 4-6). It should be noted here that with the 3 scale groups, the ratio

variable is in effect; this is explained more in the coming tests of association. In other words,

without controlling for ratio, scale does not have a significant influence on perceived enclosure.

Ratio association

There was a high significant positive correlation between perceived enclosure and ratio at

rho = 0.84; the relationship was linear. When the correlation was conducted after controlling for

scale, a higher positive correlation resulted at rho = + 0.936, (Table 4-7), (Figure 4-2). There was

strong statistical evidence to conclude that as ratio increases, perceived enclosure increases. This

result means that the dependent variable perceived enclosure can be used as independent

variable, as suggested in chapter 3, where dependent variables like comfort and safety can be

examined in relation to it.









Scale association

Perceived enclosure and scale were correlated without controlling for ratio, no significant

correlation was found; rho=-.049. After statistically controlling for ratio, a negative over all

significant correlation was found at rho = 0.683. When selecting only cases which satisfy the

condition (0.5 <= R<=2), no significant correlation was found. When the cases with ratio range

of (1 to 2) were selected, perceived enclosure correlated negatively with scale at rho = -0.620, (P

= 0.03, n = (12*83)). Selecting cases with only ratio value of (6) revealed a higher negative

correlation between perceived enclosure and scale at rho = -0.943, (P = 0.005, n = (6*83)),

(Table 4-8), (Figure 4-3). There was enough statistical evidence to conclude that, by controlling

for ratio, perceived enclosure decreases as scale increases. There was evidence that the scale

variable can predict perceived enclosure only when ratio variable is controlled, which rendered

the scale variable as a function attached to ratio and can not operate alone.

Height association

There was a statistically significant positive correlation between perceived enclosure and

height; rho = +0.508, (P = 0.001, n = 42*83). However, when a partial correlation was conducted

between perceived enclosure and height controlling for width, the correlation was higher; rho

=.774, and when the correlation was conducted for spaces at width levels of (20 to 30 ft), the

correlation was at rho=-.75, (P = 0.001, n = 15*83), at width levels of (40 to 60 ft) the correlation

was at rho=-.921, (P = 0.000, n = 14*83), and at width levels of (90 to 130 ft) the correlation

was at rho=-.898, (P = 0.000, n = 13*83), (Table 4-9), (Figure 4-4). It can be concluded that

perceived enclosure increases as height increases, and that height is a better predictor of

perceived enclosure after controlling for width, and that height has the highest influence on

perceived enclosure at width range of (40 to 60 ft).









Width association

There was a statistically significant negative correlation between perceived enclosure and

width in general; rho = 0.677, (P = 0.000, n = 42*83). However, when a partial correlation was

conducted between perceived enclosure and width controlling for height, the correlation was

stronger; rho = -.858, and when the correlation was conducted for spaces at height levels of (20

to 30ft), the correlation was at rho = 0.965, (P = 0.001, n = 10*83), at height levels of (40 to 60

ft) the correlation was at rho = 0.989, (P = 0.000, n = 11*83), and at width levels of (> 60 ft)

the correlation was at rho = -.881, (P = 0.000, n = 18*83), (Table 4-10), (Figure 4-5). There is

enough evidence to conclude that perceived enclosure decreases as width increases, and that

width is a better predictor of perceived enclosure after controlling for height, and that width has

the highest influence on perceived enclosure at height range of (40 to 60ft).

Regression analysis

Logistic regression predicts the presence of a dependent variable based on independent

variables (Morgan & Griegro, 1998; Pallant, 2001); it allows for the prediction of a discrete

outcome of success (e.g., comfortable) or failure (e.g., uncomfortable). Logistic regression was

used to predict the presence of closedness based on within-subjects independent variables. The

dependent variable perceived enclosure was recorded into two binary values of 0 and 1, where 0

represents the absence of closedness, and 1 represents the existence of closedness. Perceived

enclosure scores of I and 2 were recorded into 0; perceived enclosure scores of 5 and 6 were

recorded into 1, while perceived enclosure scores of 3 and 4 were not included. The total number

of selected cases was 1949.

Ratio, scale, height, and width variables were all fitted in the model, and they were able to

estimate 87.63% of responses correctly. Since these variables are all functions of height and

width, it was logical to reduce the number of variables to the minimum that could predict the









same percentage that the complete model predicted. Since ratio had the highest estimation

capacity among the 4 variables, 3 tests were conducted combining ratio with each of the other 3

variables. The tests results revealed that ratio and scale estimated 86.4% of the responses, ratio

and height estimated 86.4% as well, while ratio and width estimated the same percentage that the

full model estimated, 87.63%. Based on that, it was decided to include only ratio and width in

the final model. It is important to note that the notion of scale is still included, but represented by

width combined with ratio; i.e., for each ratio and width values there is only one scale value.

What supported this decision is that it is more practical to report the relationship as a function of

ratio and width as indicator of scale, instead of ratio and scale.

The model is significant (P = .000, n = 1949, Cox & Snell's Pseudo R2 = .522), (Table 4-

11). The probability that a space of ratio (R) and width (W) will be perceived as closed or not

can be calculated using the constant and the B values reported in the regression model, (Eq. 4-1).

For example, if a space has a ratio of 1, and a width of 20 feet, then P(Ep) = 0.717, and if a space

has a ratio of 6 and a width of 40 feet, then P~pE) = 0.986. A calculator was created where ratio

and width values can be input and probability of closedness can be obtained.


141
(Ep) 1 + -(-3.5799 +0 .5716 R-0.0309 W)(41


Perceived Enclosure and between-Subject Variables: Gender, Age, Design Background,
Type of living area, Height of buildings in living area, and Width of streets in living
area.

For this analysis, the 3 ratio categories and the 3 scale groups were used to examine

differences of perceived enclosure of different demographic groups. In addition, perceived

enclosure scores of different demographic groups for the 42 spaces were extracted and were

correlated.










Gender

A non parametric test; namely Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine whether men

and women differ in terms of their perceived enclosure. For the 3 ratio categories, although

women have higher perceived enclosure mean ranks for higher ratios than men, the test result

was not statistically significant. The null hypothesis, Ho: women and men have the same

perceived enclosure across the 3 ratio categories, could not be rej ected, (Table B-1), (Figure B-



For the 3 scale groups, there was no statistically significant difference, the null hypothesis,

Ho: men and women have the same perceived enclosure across the 3 scale groups, couldn't be

rej ected, (Table B-2), (Figure B-2). The correlation between perceived enclosure scores of men

and women, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .97, (P = .000, n = 42), which indicates a high level

of consensus

Age

Age was recorded into three categories; (< 24), (25 to 31), and (< 31) for the purposes of

variance analysis. Kruskal-Wallis test, which is a non-parametric test of variance for variables

that have more than two levels, was conducted to test the difference in perceived enclosure

responses of the 3 age groups. For ratio categories, although the older two groups tended to have

higher perceived enclosure than the youngest group for higher ratios, the test result was

statistically insignificant. The null hypothesis, Ho: the 3 age groups have the same perceived

enclosure scores across the 3 ratio categories) couldn't be rej ected, (Table B-3), (Figure B-3).

For scale groups, the test result was statistically insignificant, the null hypothesis, Ho: the 3

age groups have the same perceived enclosure scores across the 3 scale groups, couldn't be

rej ected, (Table B-4), (Figure B-4). The range of correlations between perceived enclosure










scores of the 3 age groups, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .97 to .98, (P = .000, n = 42), which

indicates a high level of consensus.

Design background

A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to examine the variance in perceived enclosure

responses of designers and non designers. The test result was statistically insignificant. The null

hypothesis, Ho: designers and non designers have the same sense of perceived enclosure scores

across the 3 ratio categories, couldn't be rej ected, (Table B-5), (Figure B-5).

For scale groups, the test result was statistically insignificant. The null hypothesis, Ho:

designers and non designers have the same sense of perceived enclosure scores across the 3 scale

groups, couldn't be rej ected, (Table B-6), (Figure B-6). The correlation between perceived

enclosure scores of designers and non designers, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .97, (P = .000, n

= 42), which indicates a high level of consensus.

Type of living area

Kruskal Wallis test was conducted to examine the difference in perceived enclosure

responses between inhabitants of the three types of living area; urban, suburban and rural. The

test result was statistically insignificant. The null hypothesis, Ho: inhabitants of the three types of

living area have similar perceived enclosure across the 3 ratio categories, couldn't be rej ected,

(Table B-7), (Figure B-7).

For scale groups, the test result was statistically insignificant. The null hypothesis, Ho:

inhabitants of the three types of living area have similar perceived enclosure across the 3 scale

groups, couldn't be rej ected, (Table B-8), (Figure B-8). The range of correlations between

perceived enclosure scores of inhabitants of the 3 types of living area, for the 42 spaces, was at

rho = .94 to .96, (P = .000, n = 42), which indicates a high level of consensus.










Height of buildings in living area

The dependent variable "height of buildings in the living area" was recorded into 4

categories "1 to 2 floors", "3 to 4 floors", "5 to 6 floors", and ">6 floors". This variable was

analyzed using the scale groups and the simulated heights. Kruskal Wallis test was conducted to

examine the difference in perceived enclosure responses between the four groups. The test result

was statistically insignificant. The null hypothesis, Ho: inhabitants of areas with different heights

of buildings have the same perceived enclosure across the 3 scale groups, couldn't be rej ected,

(Table B-9), (Figure B-9).

For simulated heights, the simulated height range of (30 to 60 ft) received significantly

lower perceived enclosure mean ranks by those who live in buildings higher than (6 floors) than

those who live in buildings with lower heights. The alternative hypothesis, H : height of

buildings, that people are accustomed to, influences perceived enclosure at simulated heights of

(30 to 60 ft), was supported, (Table B-10), (Figure B-10). Nevertheless, the range of correlations

between perceived enclosure scores of inhabitants of areas that have the 4 heights of buildings,

for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .92 to.97, (P = .000, n = 42), which indicates a high level of

consensus.

Width of streets in living area

The variable width of streets in the living area was recorded into 3 categories "1 to 2 lanes",

"3 to 4 lanes, and ">4 lanes". There was no significant difference between perceived enclosure

scores relative to the three levels of the independent variable "width of streets in the living area".

The null hypothesis, Ho: width of streets, that people are accustomed to, does not influence

perceived enclosure at all scale groups, was not rej ected, (Table B-11i), (Figure B-11i).

For the simulated widths, the test revealed no significant differences between perceived

enclosure scores, relative to the 3 levels of width of streets in the living area, at all simulated









width levels. The null hypothesis, Ho: width of streets, that people are accustomed to, does not

influence perceived enclosure at all simulated width levels, was not rej ected, (Table B-12),

(Figure B-12). The range of correlations between perceived enclosure scores of inhabitants of

areas that have the 3 widths of streets, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .95 to.98, (P = .000, n =

42), which indicates a high level of consensus.

Summary

The simulated heights of urban street spaces used in the method of my research correlated

with participants perceived heights at (rho = 0.904), and simulated widths correlated with

perceived widths at (rho = 0.771). Simulated heights and widths are actually perceived by people

as designed. These findings strengthen the premise that such computer simulation method is

reliable for purposes of conveying geometric and spatial information of urban streets spaces for

participants in an experimental setting.

There is a difference in perceived enclosure responses across different urban street spaces.

Space (120, 20, 6) was rated as the most enclosed spaces, while space (20, 130, 0. 15)was rated

as the most open one. Ratio influences perceived enclosure; high ratios of (5 and 6) received the

highest perceived enclosure mean ranks, while low ratios of (1/6 and 1/5) received the lowest

perceived enclosure mean ranks. Perceived enclosure has a high positive correlation with ratio

(rho = 0.84); as ratio value increases, perceived enclosure increases. There is a difference in

perceived enclosure responses across different scales of urban street spaces. Controlling for ratio,

there is a negative correlation between perceived enclosure and scale (rho = 0.683); as scale

value increases, perceived enclosure decreases.

There is a difference in perceived enclosure responses across different heights of urban

street spaces. Controlling for width, there is a high positive correlation between perceived

enclosure and height (rho=-.774); as height increases, perceived enclosure increases. There is









also a difference in perceived enclosure responses across different widths of urban street spaces.

Controlling for height, there is a high negative correlation between perceived enclosure and

width (rho = -.858); as width increases, perceived enclosure decreases. The probability that a

space ratio (R) and width (W) will be perceived as comfortable or not, can be calculated using

the constant and the B values reported in the regression model using the equation (4-1).

Except for height of buildings in living area, which influences perceived enclosure at

simulated heights of (30 to 60 ft), all demographic variables of gender, age, design background,

living area, and width of streets in living area do not influence perceived enclosure of urban

street spaces. Perceived enclosure has correlated, within all demographic groups, in the range of

(.92 to .98), which indicates a clear consensus between different demographic groups on

perceived enclosure.

Chapter 5 will present results of the statistical analysis for the two dependent variables

sense of comfort and sense of safety. The high correlation between these two variables suggests

minimal differences between them. It would be useful to report results of comfort and safety

together. Findings from statistical analysis of repeated measures, variance, association and

regression, will be reported similar to perceived enclosure analysis in this chapter.









Table 4-1. Test of skewness and kurtosis for normal distribution.
Perceived enclosure Comfort level Safet level
N Valid 3486.00 3486.00 3486.00
Missing 0.00 0.00 0.00
Skewness -0.033 -0.317 -0.326
Std. error of skewness 0.041 0.041 0.041
Kurtosis -0.961 -0.643 -0.580
Std. error of kurtosis 0.083 0.083 0.083

Table 4-2. Correlations of simulated heights and widths with perceived heights and widths
Height Width
Spearman's rho Perceived height rho 0.904**
Perceived width rho 0.771**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000
N 3486 3486
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4-3. Friedman test of repeated measures of perceived enclosure scores across 42 spaces,
sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank.
Space Mean rank Space Mean rank
Space(120,20,6) 37.59 Space(60,40,1.5) 23.24
Space(180,30,6) 34.14 Space(220,90,2.44) 23.00
Space(140,30,4.67) 33.82 Space(780,130,6) 22.58
Space(100,20,5) 33.70 Space(540,130,4.15) 19.46
Space(240,40,6) 33.07 Space(300,130,2.31) 18.74
Space(40,20,2) 32.19 Space(40,40,1) 17.14
Space(60,20,3) 31.65 Space(60,60,1) 16.53
Space(30,20,1.5) 31.34 Space(40,60,0.67) 16.49
Space(100,30,3.33) 29.82 Space(20,30,0.67) 16.21
Space(80,20,4) 29.24 Space(30,30,1) 15.77
Space(540,90,6) 28.97 Space(60,90,0.67) 15.64
Space(20,20,1) 28.73 Space(30,40,0.75) 14.14
Space(180,40,4.5) 27.78 Space(20,40,0.5) 13.75
Space(3 60,60,6) 27.37 Space(30,60,0.5) 13.61
Space(20,20,1) 26.24 Space(40,90,0.44) 9.73
Space(120,40,3) 25.16 Space(30,90,0.33) 8.38
Space(60,30,2) 24.20 Space(20,60,0.33) 8.07
Space(260,60,4.33) 23.66 Space(40,130,0.31) 5.90
Space(3 80,90,4.22) 23.65 Space(30, 130,0.23) 5.36
Space(160,60,2.67) 23.58 Space(20,90,0.22) 4.98
Space(40,30,1.33) 23.39 Space(20, 13 0,0. 15) 4.97
Friedman test N 83
Chi-Square 567.839
df 41
Asymp. Sig. 0.000










Table 4-4. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosure scores across 9 groups of
spaces, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank.
Group Mean Rank Friedman test
Group(High, Narrow) 8.41 N 83
Group(Medium(H), Narrow) 6.98 Chi-Square 509.928
Group(High, Medium(W)) 6.66 df 8
Group(Low, Narrow) 6.06 Asymp. Sig. 0.000
Group(High, Wide) 5.51
Group(Medium(H), Medium(W)) 4.46
Group(Low, Medium(W)) 3.07
Group(Medium(H), Wide) 2.55
GropLw, Wide) 1.31

Table 4-5. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosure scores across 14 ratio
categories, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank.
Ratio Mean Rank Friedman test
5 13.15 N 83
6 12.21 Chi-Square 858.301
2 10.69 df 13
1 1/2 10.61 Asymp. Sig. 0.000
3 10.27
4 9.57
1 8.36
2/3 6.86
3/4 6.07
1/2 5.45
1/3 3.78
1/4 2.79
1/5 2.66
1/6 2.54

Table 4-6. Friedman test of repeated measures for perceived enclosure scores across 3 scale
groups, sorted by perceived enclosure mean rank.
Scale group, Mean rank Friedman test
Large scale 2.22 N 83
Small scale 2.16 Chi-Square 18.735
Medium scale 1.62 Df 2
Asymp.Sig. 0.000










Table 4-7. Ratio correlation.
Ratio
Spearman's rho All values Ctrl. for scale
Perceived enclosure rho 0.840** 0.937**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000
N 42 42
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4-8. Scale correlation.
Scale
All ratios Ctrl. for For For R = 6
Spearman's rho ratio 0.5 <= R<=2
Perceived
enclosure rho 0.049 0.937** -0.620* -0.943**
Sig.(2-tailed) 0.757 0.000 0.032 0.000
N 42 12 12 6
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4-9. Height correlation.
Height
All widths Ctrl. for For W = For W = For W =
Spearman's rho width 20 to 30 40 to 60 90 to 130
Perceived
enclosure rho 0.508** 0.774** 0.748** 0.921** 0.898**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000
N 42 15 14 13
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4-10. Width correlation.
Width
All heights Ctrl. for For H For H For H >
Spearman's rho heights 20 to 30 40 to 60 60
Perceived
enclosure rho -0.677** -0.858** -0.965** -0.989** -0.881**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 42 13 11 18
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).










Table 4-11. Logistic regression model for perceived enclosure.
Listic regression model
-2 Log Likelihood 1258.637 Cox & Snell R^'2 0.522
Goodness of Fit 5766.163 Nagelkerke R^'2 0.522
Chi-Squae df Significance
Model 1440.048 2 0.000
Block 1440.048 2 0.000
Ste 1440.048 2 0.000
Classification for perceived enclosure, the cut value is .50
Predicted
0 1
Observed 0 1 Percent correct
0 0 846 168 83.43%
1 1 73 862 92.19%
Overall 87.63%
Variables in the equation
Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig R ExpB
Ratio 0.5716 0.0280 417.7694 1 0.000 0.3925 1.7711
Width -0.0309 0.0022 201.6351 1 0.000 -0.2720 0.9696
Constant -3.5799 0.2636 184.3899 1 0.000










50.0~


40.0

30.0

20.0


~'~'~'~'~'~'d'd'~
hlboohl~hl~~b
33C~C~MICi


Height


Width


Figure 4-1. Correlations of perceived measures with simulated measures. A) Simulated heights
correlated with perceived heights (rho = +0.993). B) Simulated widths correlated with
perceived widths (rho = +0.986).




40.0 -.


20.0



10.0



0.0


Ratio


Figure 4-2. Relationship of perceived enclosure and ratio.









40.0-

30.0-

20.0-

10.0-

0.0,


30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0


10.0l
O


Scale


Scale


40.0


30.0


20.0

10.0


Scale


Scale


Figure 4-3. Relationship of perceived enclosure and scale. A) Perceived enclosure and scale for
all ratio values. B) Perceived enclosure and scale; selecting cases with ratio values of
(0.5 to 2). C) Perceived enclosure and scale; selecting cases with ratio values of (1 to
2). D) Perceived enclosure and scale; selecting cases with ratio values of (6).


\/Si~\s"











40.0



30.0W Width 2

3030
20.00



10.0

90
a 0.013







40.0 13





3 30




4 0.0 4




60


10.0 6110

18136


a 0.0 361-780


O O O O O O



W idth

Figure 4-5. Relationship of perceived enclosure and width, clustered by height.









CHAPTER 5
RESULTS: SENSE OF CO1VFORT AND SENSE OF SAFETY

This chapter reports results from variance, association and regression statistical analysis for

both dependent variables sense of comfort and sense of safety. Results of statistical analysis for

the influence of both sets of independent variables on both dependent variables are presented.

Influences of within-subj ects independent variables of height, width, ratio and scale, are

presented first, followed by influences of between-subj ects independent variables of gender, age,

design background, type of living area, height of buildings in living area, and width of streets in

living area.

Relationship of Comfort and Safety

The relationship between sense of comfort and sense of safety will be reported first. Then,

the influence of all independent variables on both dependent variables, sense of comfort and

sense of safety, will follow. The latter will be presented in two folds; first, a descriptive overview

pertaining to choices' responses, second, a thorough statistical analysis pertaining to rating's

responses of each individual space.

The two dependent variables of comfort and safety were correlated using Spearman's rank

correlation coefficient (rho). The test result revealed high positive correlation of the mean ranks

of the two variables at (rho = 0.96, P = .000, n = 42), (Table 5-1), (Figure 5-1). Based on this

finding, results for both dependent variables of comfort and safety will be reported together.

Choices Responses for Comfort and Safety

In choices' responses, participants were asked to select from a pool of 42 spaces the most

comfortable 3 spaces, the least comfortable space, the safest 3 spaces, and the least safe space. It

is important to note that this set of responses is only for frequency analysis and visual

assessment, with no statistical tests. Responses for the 3 most comfortable spaces and 3 safest










spaces were weighted, and a total aggregated response was obtained satisfying the formula

[Choice 1 42) + (choice 2 41) + (choice 3 40)]. The respondents agreed that the most

comfortable space was space (20, 40, 0.5), and space (30,30,1) was the safest space, the second

most comfortable space was space (30,40,0.75) and the second safest space was space

(40,40,1i). The third most comfortable space was space (40, 30, 1.33), and the third safest spaces

was space (30, 20,1.5).

All three most comfortable and all three safest spaces belong to ratio range of (0.5 to 1.5),

height range of (20 to 40), width range of (20 to 40), and small scale range of (400 to 1,600),

(Table C-1). Space (120, 20, 6) was the least comfortable and the least safe space, followed by

space (20, 130, 0. 15), followed by space (780, 130, 6). The first two most uncomfortable and

unsafe spaces have the extreme ratio values of (6, 0. 15), and the third most uncomfortable and

unsafe space has the extreme scale value of (101,400 sq. ft), (Table C-2)

The relationships between ratio categories and the weighted frequencies of comfort and

safety choices were visually investigated. The relationships were not linear; spaces with low or

high ratios were the least frequently selected spaces as most comfortable and safest, while spaces

with medium ratios were the most frequently selected spaces as most comfortable and safest.

Ratios value of (3/4) received the highest frequencies as the most comfortable ratio, followed by

ratio (1), on the other hand, spaces with ratio value of (1) received the highest frequencies as the

safest ratio, followed by ratio (3/4) and (3/2), (Figure C-1).

The relationships between scale groups and weighted frequencies of comfort and safety

choices were visually investigated. The relationships were not linear; spaces with scale range of

(400 to 1,600) were the most frequently selected as most comfortable and safest. Spaces, larger









than (1,600), were less frequently selected; the larger the space the less comfortable and the less

safe it was, (Figure C-2).

Rating Responses for Comfort and Safety

A detailed analysis, including statistical tests, of the influence of within-subj ects

independent variables of height, width, ratio and scale, on comfort and safety responses will be

presented first, followed by the influence of between-subj ects independent variables of gender,

age, design background, type of living area, height of buildings in living area, and width of

streets in living area.

Comfort and Safety and within-Subject Variables: Height, Width, Ratio and Scale

Repeated measures: tests of variance

Friedman test was conducted four times to examine variance of both comfort and safety

responses; for the 42 spaces, for the 9 spaces groups, for the 14 ratio categories, and for the 3

scale groups.

For the 42 spaces, Friedman tests were conducted to answer the question whether or not

there was a difference in the sense of both comfort and safety scores across the 42 spaces. The

tests results were significant (P = 0.000, n = 83, df= 41). The alternative hypothesis, H : there is

a difference in both comfort and safety responses across the 42 spaces, was supported. Both

highest comfort and safety mean ranks (32.77 and 30.88 respectively) were for space (40, 40, 1).

The lowest comfort and safety mean ranks (10.3 and 11.79 respectively) were for space (120, 20,

6), (Table 5-2).

For the 9 groups of spaces; Friedman tests were used to know whether or not there was a

difference in both comfort and safety scores across the 9 spaces groups. The tests results were

significant (P = 0.000, n = 83, df = 8). The alternative hypothesis, H : there is a difference in

both comfort and safety responses across the 9 space groups, was supported. The space group









that received the highest comfort and safety mean ranks (6.92 and 6.6 respectively) was space

group (Medium (H), Medium (W)). The lowest comfort and safety mean ranks (3.10 and 3.6

respectively) were for space group (High, Narrow), (Table 5-3).

For ratio categories, the tests results were significant (P = 0.000, n = 83, df= 13). The

alternative hypothesis, H : there is a difference in both comfort and safety responses across the

14 ratio categories, was supported. High ratios of (5 and 6) and low ratios of (1/6 and 1/5)

received the lowest mean ranks, while ratios of (3/4 and 1), in the middle received the highest

comfort and safety mean ranks, (Table 5-4).

For scale groups, the test result was significant (P = 0.000, n = 83, df= 2). The alternative

hypothesis, H : there is a difference in both comfort and safety responses across the 3 scale

groups, was supported. Group scale (Medium) received the highest comfort and safety mean

ranks (2.36 and 2.34 respectively). The lowest comfort and safety mean ranks (1.43 and 1.48

respectively) were received by the group scale (Large), (Table 5-5).

Ratio association

Both comfort and safety mean ranks were correlated with ratio under the assumption of

linear relationships, the result was a significant low negative correlation at rho = -0.31 for

comfort, and an insignificant negative correlation at rho = -0.49 for safety. However, the

relationships of ratio with both comfort and safety were found to be not linear. The ratio (3/4)

was found to be the cut point about which both relationships behaved differently, (Figure 5-2).

Spearman's correlation tests were conducted selecting only values of ratio (< 3/4), there was

statistically significant high positive correlation between ratio and both comfort and safety at rho

= +0.92 (n = (12*83)).On the higher side of the ratio range (R>3/4), high statistically significant

negative correlations were found at (rho = -0.84) for comfort, and at rho = -0.85 for safety (n =

(30*83)), (Table 5-6).









Scale association

Scale relationship with both comfort and safety was found to better be analyzed if values

of ratio were controlled. Scale across all variations of ratio was not efficient, because ratio

superseded scale relative to comfort and safety. A group of 19 spaces were selected that satisfy

the condition (0.5 <= R<=2), to isolate the ratio effect as much as possible. With such selected

spaces, scale was found to have a non-linear relationship with comfort and safety, (Figure 5-3). It

is important to note that, even with this selection of the 19 spaces, there was still an influence of

ratio.

Both comfort and safety mean ranks were correlated with scale for the 19 spaces, still the

results were statistically insignificant negative correlation at rho = -.244 for comfort and at rho =

- 0.240 for safety (n = 19*83). However, when the test was conducted after selecting only values

of scale (<1,600), which is the value of scale that received the highest mean ranks of comfort

(32.8) and safety (30.9), there were statistically significant positive correlations at rho = 0.77 for

comfort, and at rho = 0.66 for safety (n = (10*83)). On the higher side of the scale range

(>1,600), statistically significant negative correlations were found at rho = -0.75 for comfort, and

t rho = -0.78 for safety (n = (10*83)), (Table 5-7).

Height association

There were statistically significant low negative correlations at rho = -0.334 (P= 0.03, n =

(42*83)) between height and comfort, and at rho = -0.46 (P = 0.002, n = 42) between height and

safety. When the correlation was conducted for spaces with widths (< 40 ft), the results were

higher negative correlations at rho = -0.66 (P= 0.001, n = (22*83)) with comfort and at rho = -

0.68 (P = 0.000, n = 22*83) with safety. Comfort and safety correlations with height for spaces

with width values (> 40 ft) were statistically insignificant, (Table 5-8), (Figure 5-4).









Width association

There were no statistically significant correlations between both comfort and safety with

width in general. When the correlations were conducted for spaces with heights (<60 ft), a

negative correlation at rho = -0.585 (P = 0.03, n = (19*83)) resulted with comfort, however, there

was still no significant correlation with safety. The correlation of both comfort and safety with

width for spaces with height values (2 60 ft) were not statistically significant, (Table 5-9),

(Figure 5-5).

Regression analysis

Both dependent variables comfort and safety were recorded into binary values of 0 and 1;

where 0 represents the absence of comfort or safety, and 1 represent the existence of comfort or

safety. Comfort and safety scores of I and 2 were recorded into 0, scores of 5 and 6 were recorded

into 1, while scores of 3 and 4 were not included. The probability of a space being comfortable

or not, and safe or not, falls between 0 and 1, for all possible values of the independent variables

(Agresti & Finlay, 1997).The total number of selected cases was 1803 for comfort and 1795 for

safety. It is important to note that this reduction in cases had no impact on the distribution of

scores across all levels of independent variables.

Ratio, scale, height, and width variables were all fitted in a logistic regression model to

predict sense of comfort and safety Ratio and width alone were able to estimate 63.3% of

responses, which is only 1% lower than the complete model, so it was decided to use them alone

in the final model. It is important to state here that height and scale are still present in this

analysis, because for each combination of ratio and one width, there is only one height and one

scale values, e.g., for a ratio value of 1, combined with a width of 20 ft, the only possible values

of height is 20 ft, and the only possible value of scale is 400 sq. ft.









Unlike the relationship with perceived enclosure, ratio and width relationships with

comfort and safety are not linear; which means that transformations for values of ratio and width

should take place before fitting them together in the final model, (Eq. 5-1), (Eq. 5-2), (Eq. 5-3),

and (Eq. 5-4).

Ycoert) = -0.2218 + 0.3265R 0.0281R2 +.0005R3 (5-1)

Y,,coir,, = 0.4633 + 0.0995W 0.0085W 2 (5-2)

Y,, = 0.0407 +0.2799R -0.02732 +.0007R3 (5-3)

Y,,, = 0.4347 + 0.1I157W 0.0088W2 (5-4)

Transformed ratio value, Rt, and transformed width value, Wt, were fitted in the regression

models. The models were significant, and were able to estimate 74.88% of participants' comfort

responses, and 71.36% of participants' safety responses correctly, (Table 5-10) and (Table 5-1 1).

The probability that a space of ratio (R) and width (W) will be perceived as comfortable or

not, can be calculated using the constant and the B values reported in the regression model,

(Eq.5-5). The probability that a space of ratio (R) and width (W) will be perceived as safe or not,

can be calculated using the constant and the B values reported in the regression model for safety,

(Eq. 5-6). If, for example, a space has a ratio of 1, and a width of 20 feet, then P~comfory = .8337,

and P(Safety) = .8197. A calculator was created where ratio and width values can be entered and

probabilities of comfort and safety can be obtained, (Obj ect 5-1).



(comort +-(-3.5334+4.0027*Rt +2.7887*Wt)
(5-5)


P-
(SaEfety) (-4.7196 +4.9733 *Rt+2.8563 *Wt) (5-6)










The thresholds for comfort and safety probabilities were calculated at fixed width value of

40 ft. The ratio values (<1/4) and (>4) have probabilities (<0.50) of being comfortable, and the

ratio values range of (<1/4) and (>7) have probabilities (<0.50) of being safe. It is important to

note that spaces have wider span of being safe than being comfortable. In other words, at fixed

width of 40 ft, ratio values in the range of (5 to 7) are felt safe but not comfortable based on the

approximate curve estimations and regression model.

Comfort and Safety with between-Subject Variables: Gender, Age, Design Background,
Type of living area, Height of buildings in living area, and Width of streets in living
area.

The 3 ratio categories and the 3 scale groups were used to examine differences among

comfort and safety scores of the between-subj ects variables.

Gender

Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to examine the difference in both comfort and safety

responses of men and women. For the 3 ratio categories, although the mean ranks suggested that

women felt less comfortable and less safe with both high and low ratios, and more comfortable

and safer with medium ratios than men, the tests results revealed no statistical significant

difference. The null hypothesis, Ho: women and men have the same sense of both comfort and

safety across the 3 ratio categories, could not be rej ected, (Table D-1), (Figure D-1).

For the 3 scale category, there was a statistically significant difference between both

comfort and safety scores of men and women for the scale group (Large) at (a = 0.01, n = 83);

with higher men' s comfort mean rank of (47.2) and safety mean rank of (47.01) than women's

comfort mean rank of (32.8), and safety mean rank of (33.15). Moreover, there was a statistically

significant difference between safety scores of men and women for group (Small) at (a = 0.01, n

= 83). Men's safety mean rank for group (Small) (37.6) was lower than women's safety mean









rank (49.77). The alternative hypothesis, H : women and men have different sense of comfort

and different sense of safety across the 3 scale groups, was supported, (Table D-2), (Figure D-2).

However, the correlation between comfort scores of men and women, for the 42 spaces,

was at rho = .84, (P = .000, n = 42), while the correlation between safety scores of men and

women, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .74, (P = .000, n = 42). This indicated a reasonably high

degree of consensus between men and women comfort and safety responses in general.

Age

Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to examine the differences in both comfort and safety

responses of the three age groups. For the 3 ratio categories, there was a statistically significant

difference between comfort scores of the 3 age groups for the ratio category (1/2 to 2) at (a =

0.01, n = 83); with lower comfort mean ranks of the younger group than the older two groups.

The alternative hypothesis, H : the 3 age groups have different sense of comfort across the 3

ratio categories, was supported. For safety responses, the test result was statistically insignificant.

The null hypothesis, Ho: the three age groups have the same sense of safety across all ratio

categories, was not rej ected, (Table D-3), (Figure D-3).

For scale groups, there was statistically significant differences between both comfort and

safety scores of 3 age groups for the scale group (Small) at (a = 0.05, n = 83); with lower

comfort and safety mean ranks for the younger group than the two older groups. The alternative

hypothesis, H : the 3 age groups have different sense of comfort and different sense of safety

across the 3 scale groups, was supported, (Table D-4), (Figure D-4).

The range of correlations between comfort scores of the 3 age groups, for the 42 spaces,

was at rho = .71 to .93, (P = .000, n = 42). The range of correlations between safety scores of the

3 age groups, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .75 to .86, (P = .000, n = 42). The lower correlation










was for youngest with oldest. This indicated a reasonably high degree of consensus between age

groups' comfort and safety responses.

Design background

A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to examine the variance in both comfort and safety

responses of designers and non designers. For the 3 ratio categories, there was a statistically

significant difference between both comfort and safety scores of designers and non designers for

the ratio category (3 to 6) at (a = 0.01, n = 83). The comfort and safety mean ranks of non

designers were lower than those of designers. For ratio category (1/6 to 1/3) there was a

statistically significant difference, (a = 0.05, n = 83), between designers and non designers scores

of comfort only. The comfort mean rank for non designers was higher than the comfort mean

rank of designers. The alternative hypothesis, H : designers and non designers have different

sense of comfort and different sense of safety across the 3 ratio categories), was supported,

(Table D-5), (Figure D-5).

For scale groups, there was no statistical evidence of any significant difference in both

comfort and safety scores of designers and non designers for the three scale groups. The null

hypothesis, Ho: design background does not influence sense of comfort nor does it influence

sense of safety for 3 scale groups, was not rej ected, (Table D-6), (Figure D-6). The correlation

between comfort scores of designers and non designers, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .79, (P =

.000, n = 42). The correlation between safety scores of designers and non designers, for the 42

spaces, was at rho = .69, (P = .000, n = 42), this indicated a reasonably high degree of consensus

between design background groups' comfort and safety response.

Type of living area

Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to examine the difference in both comfort and safety

responses relative to the inhabitants of the three types of living area; urban, suburban and rural.









For the 3 ratio categories, there was a statistically significant difference between comfort scores

of three types of living area for the two smaller ratio categories (1/6 to 1/3) and (1/2 to 2) at (a =

0.05, n = 81). For the ratio category (1/6 to 1/3), the comfort mean rank was higher for "rural"

than "suburban" and "urban", the difference between "urban" and "suburban" was not

significant. For the ratio category (1/2 to 2), the opposite was true, the comfort mean rank for

"rural" was lower than "suburban", which is in turn lower than "urban". The alternative

hypothesis, H : inhabitants of the three types of area have different sense of comfort across ratio

categories, was supported. For safety, although safety mean ranks suggested that inhabitants of

rural areas feel safer with smaller ratios than those of urban and suburban areas, the difference

was not strong enough and the test result was insignificant,(Table D-7), (Figure D-7).

For the 3 scale category, there were statistically significant differences between both

comfort and safety scores of inhabitants of the three types of areas of living for the scale group

(Small) at (a = 0.05, n = 81); with higher comfort and safety mean ranks for "urban", than

"suburban", and higher comfort and safety mean ranks for "suburban" than "rural". The

alternative hypothesis, H : inhabitants of the three types of living area have different sense of

comfort and different sense of safety across the 3 scale groups, was supported, (Table D-8),

(Figure D-8).

The range of correlations between comfort scores of inhabitants of the 3 types of living

area, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .53 to .92 (P = .000, n = 42). The range of correlations

between safety scores of them, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .47 to .93), (P = .000, n = 42).

Low correlations for both comfort and safety scores were for "rural" with both "urban" and

"suburban", while high correlations were for "urban" and "suburban". This indicated a low

degree of consensus between comfort and safety responses of groups of area of living.









Height of buildings in living area

The dependent variable "height of buildings in the living area" was recorded into 4

categories "1 to 2 floors", "3 to 4 floors", 5 to 6 floors", and ">6 floors". This variable was

analyzed using the scale groups and the simulated heights. For scale groups, there was no

significant difference between comfort and safety scores of inhabitants of areas of all four levels

of "height of building in the living area". The null hypothesis, Ho: inhabitants of areas with

different heights of buildings have similar sense of comfort and similar sense of safety across the

3 scale groups, was not rej ected, (Table D-9), (Figure D-9).

For the simulated heights, and relative to the 4 levels of height of buildings in the living

area, a statistically significant difference in comfort scores was found only at heights (2 60). At

the simulated height (>60), the comfort mean rank of participant who lived in areas with

buildings (>6 floors) was higher than those with buildings heights (< 6 floors). The alternative

hypothesis (H : Height of buildings, that people are accustomed to, influences sense of comfort

at different simulated heights. The null hypothesis, Ho: height of buildings, that people are

accustomed to, does not influence sense of safety at all simulated height levels, was not rej ected,

(Table D-10), (Figure D-10).

The correlation between comfort scores of inhabitants of areas that have different heights

of buildings, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .80to .91 (P = .000, n = 42). The correlation between

safety scores of inhabitants of areas that have different heights of buildings, for the 42 spaces,

was at rho = .71 to .91) (P = .000, n = 42). This indicated a reasonably high degree of consensus

in comfort and safety responses regardless of the height of buildings in living area.

Width of streets in living area

The variable "width of streets in the living area" was recorded into 3 categories "1 to 2

lanes", "3 to 4 lanes, and ">4 lanes. This variable was analyzed using the scale groups and the









simulated widths. For scale groups, there was no significant difference between both comfort and

safety scores relative to the three levels of the independent variable "width of streets in the living

area". The null hypothesis, Ho: width of streets, that people are accustomed to, does not

influence sense of comfort and does not influence sense of safety across the 3 scale levels, was

not rej ected, (Table D-11i), (Figure D-11i).

Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant differences between both comfort and safety

scores, relative to the 3 levels of width of streets in the living area, at all simulated width levels.

The null hypothesis, Ho: width of streets, that people are accustomed to, does not influence sense

of comfort and does not influence sense of safety at all simulated width levels, was not rej ected,

(Table D-12), (Figure D-12).

The range of correlations between comfort scores of inhabitants of areas that have the 3

widths of streets, for the 42 spaces, was at rho = .79 to .97 (P = .000, n = 42). The range of

correlations between safety scores of inhabitants of areas that have the 3 widths of streets, for the

42 spaces, was at rho = .75 to .91) (P = .000, n = 42). This indicated a reasonably high degree of

consensus in comfort and safety responses regardless of the width of streets in living area.

Comfort and Safety with Perceived Enclosure

Perceived enclosure was used in chapter 4 as a dependent variable, in this section it will

be treated as a predictor for comfort and safety. The purpose of this swapping is, first, to examine

the notion, stated in literature, that it is possible to replace the variable perceived enclosure,

which is from the cognitive model, by the variables ratio and width, which are from the

psychophysical model, which means less interpretative power is given to participants. Second, to

create a connection with some empirical work that is already done in this Hield that had only used

"perceived enclosure"; this point will be explained more in chapter 6.









Since perceive enclosure had a high positive correlation with ratio (rho = 0.840), and

relatively high negative correlation with width (rho = 0.677), it was expected to have the same

predicting capacity of sense of comfort and safety that ratio and width had. The relationship

between perceived enclosure and both sense of comfort and sense of safety is not linear, (Figure

5-6). Perceived enclosure was correlated with both sense of comfort and sense of safety. No

significant correlation with comfort, and negative weak correlation with safety was found (rho =

-0.394). Correlations were then conducted about the ratio value of (3/4). There was statistically

significant high positive correlation between perceived enclosure with comfort (rho = 0.896), and

with safety (rho = 0.890) for ratio values (<3/4), and statistically significant negative correlation

with comfort (rho = -0.620), and with safety (rho = -0.625) for ratio values (>3/4), (Table 5-12).

Below the ratio value of (3/4) both sense of comfort and sense of safety increase as perceived

enclosure increase, and above ratio value of (3/4), both sense of comfort and sense of safety

decrease as perceived enclosures increase. Curve estimations were conducted to approximate the

relationships of both comfort and safety with perceived enclosure, (Eq. 5-7), (Eq. 5-8).

corarms), = 7.2863 + 1.943 5 E, .0507 E,? (5-7)


Years)jt = 13.2918 +1.3261* E, -.0373 E,' (5-8)

Summary

Sense of comfort for different enclosure degrees is very similar to sense of safety; they

correlated at rho = 0.96. Ratio influences senses of comfort and safety in urban streets spaces.

Urban street spaces with ratios of (3/4 and 1) evoke the highest sense of comfort and safety,

while streets with high ratios of (5 and 6) and low ratios of (1/6 and 1/5) evoke the least sense of

comfort and the least sense of safety. Urban streets with ratio value of (3/4) have the highest









sense of comfort and safety. Sense of comfort and safety increases as ratio increases, until ratio

value of (3/4), above that, sense of comfort and safety decreases as ratio increases.

Scale influences senses of comfort and safety in urban street spaces. Providing that urban

street spaces have ratios within the range of (1/2 to 2), sense of comfort and safety increases as

scale increases until scale value of (1,600) square feet, above that, sense of comfort and safety

decreases. Outside the ratio range of (1/2 to 2); the ratio effect starts to strongly influence sense

of comfort and safety and to supercede scale. The probability that a space of certain values of

ratio and width will be perceived as comfortable or not and safe or not, can be calculated using

comfort and safety probabilities, (Eq. 5-5) and (Eq. 5-6)

Women and men have a consensus at rho = .84 for sense of comfort and at rho = .74 for

sense of safety for urban street spaces. The difference between them is that women feel more

comfortable and safer in small spaces than men, and the opposite is true. Age groups have a

consensus at rho = .71 to .93 for comfort, and at rho = .75 to .86 for safety. The difference

between them is that across different ratios and scale of urban street spaces, older people (>24)

feel more comfortable with ratios in the range of (1/2 to 2) and scales (<1,600) than younger

people (<24).

Designers and non designers have a consensus at rho = .79 for comfort and at rho = .69 for

safety. The difference between them is that designers feel more comfortable and safer with

higher ratios in the range of 3 to 6 than non designers. Non designers feel more comfortable with

lower ratios in the range of 1/6 to 1/3 than designers.

Inhabitants of the 3 types of living area, urban, suburban and rural, have a consensus at rho

=.53 to .92 for comfort and at rho = .47 to .93 for safety. The difference between them is that

inhabitants of urban areas feel more comfortable with higher ratios than those of suburban and










rural areas, while inhabitants of rural areas feel more comfortable with lower ratios than

inhabitants of urban and suburban areas. Inhabitants of urban and suburban areas feel more

comfortable and safer with smaller spaces than those of rural areas, and the opposite is true.

Sense of safety, on the other hand, is not influenced by the type of living area. Inhabitants of

urban, suburban and rural areas have the same sense of safety across all ratios of urban street

spaces.

Inhabitants of areas with different heights have a consensus at rho = .80 to .91 for comfort

and at rho = .71 to .91 for safety. The difference between them is that people who are

accustomed to higher buildings, (<6 floors), feel more comfortable with higher buildings, in

general, than those who are not. Inhabitants of areas with different streets widths have a

consensus of at rho = .79 to .97 for comfort and at rho = .75 to .91 for safety.

Perceived enclosure predicts sense of comfort and safety in the same manner that ratio

does. Perceived enclosure correlates positively with both sense of comfort at rho = 0.896 and

sense of safety at rho = 0.890 for ratio values (<3/4), and negatively with sense of comfort at rho

= -0.620 and sense of safety at rho = -0.625 for ratio values (>3/4).

To further summarize, ratio and scale of urban street spaces influence sense of comfort and

safety; sense of comfort and safety is the highest in spaces with ratios closer to the value of (3/4),

and with scales closer to the value of 1,600 sq. ft. Most demographic differences have smaller

influences on sense of comfort and safety relative to stimuli differences. Gender, age, design

background, height of buildings, and width of streets have a relatively high consensus among

them; generally at rho >0.7, type of living area exhibited lower consensus levels, e.g., at rho =

0.47, (Table 5-13).










Table 5-1. Correlation of sense of comfort and sense of safey
Safety
Spearman's rho Comfort rho 0.960**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 42
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).