Page 152 - JCAU-7-1

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism Standards for rural residential façades and areas

However, comprehensive international standards for urban are more implicit, reflecting the spatial textures shaped by the
housing performance are often not directly applicable to rural living patterns and habits of Suzhou’s residents. Rural residents
living environments. In the previous studies, hierarchical engage with their environments through multidimensional
analysis has been a common method for evaluating rural perceptions – functionality, comfort, cultural identity, and
housing and environments, typically from the perspective a connection with nature – but often lack the terminology
of designers or experts. This approach, however, often to articulate these experiences. Compared to the façades of
overlooks the viewpoints of residents themselves (Zhang et rural dwellings, spatial layouts have a more direct impact
al., 2022). In contrast, researchers such as Kevin Lynch have on residents’ quality of life and emotional connections,
emphasized the importance of user-focused studies based highlighting the unique heritage of rural environments.
on human perceptions to guide design (Fu & Dai, 2016). Recognizing that respondents are primarily non-design
This study adopts a performance analysis approach professionals, the study identified six key components for
to examine user feedback, aiming to identify the key evaluation: entrance, wall, doors and windows, roof, details,
areas of concern for residents. Data were collected and environment. This restructured framework facilitates
through questionnaires, interviews, and field surveys to better understanding among respondents. Based on user
establish evaluation criteria and gather user assessments. perspectives, the study developed a subjective perception
Quantitative analysis was employed to capture direct model for rural building façades and environments in Suzhou,
feedback on the importance and performance of various encompassing a total of 14 evaluation indexes (Table 2).
factors, providing insights into the actual needs of residents
in the context of rural regeneration. 2.4. Sample size
To quantify the gap between the importance users assign The sample size for this study was determined based on
to specific evaluation factors and the perceived performance the Kendall sample estimation method (Qian et al., 2024).
of these factors, this study employs the importance- According to this method, the recommended sample size
performance analysis (IPA) method (Kwon et al., 2016). typically ranges from 5 to 10 times the number of variables.
Originally introduced by Martilla & James (1977) to assess For this study, 17 index layers corresponding to 17
automotive dealerships, IPA has since gained widespread variables were established, leading to an initial sample size
application due to its intuitive and easy-to-understand range of 85 to 170 participants. To account for potential
framework. Despite its versatility, the application of IPA in dropouts, a 10 percent increase was applied, resulting in a
analyzing rural living environments remains limited. final adjusted sample size range of 94 to 187 participants.
In this study, an IPA matrix was constructed based on Using data from the Suzhou migrant population
elements related to rural residential structures, including research report, it was observed that native residents
façades and surrounding environments. This analysis comprise 36.4 percent, while non-native residents account
identifies critical factors for façade regeneration and for 63.6 percent of the population (Gusuwang, 2018).
evaluates performance levels from the user’s perspective. The Based on these proportions, the sample size for native
findings provide targeted recommendations for stakeholders residents should range from 31 to 62 participants, and for
involved in future rural housing revitalization efforts. non-native residents, from 54 to 108 participants. After
considering a 10 percent attrition rate, the adjusted sample
2.3. Construction of the evaluation index system size range becomes 34 to 68 for native residents and 60 to
This study takes into account the current status, goals, and 119 for non-native residents.
demands of rural landscape construction in Suzhou. Data Suzhou comprises six districts (Gusu, Wuzhong,
collection included interviews, literature reviews, and field Xiangcheng, Huqiu, Suzhou Industrial Park, and Wujiang)
surveys, with expert opinions solicited from relevant fields. and four county-level cities (Changshu, Zhangjiagang,
Widely recognized perception elements were selected, Kunshan, and Taicang). Among these, Gusu district and
objectively summarized, and statistically processed. Field Suzhou Industrial Park with their 100 percent urbanization
research was conducted in Huayewei village in Suzhou’s rates, were excluded from the sampling framework. The
high-tech district and Jiuliqiao village in Wujiang district. remaining districts and cities were included, with survey
Based on comprehensive analysis, the study finalized the sample sizes distributed according to the proportion of the
selection of elements and indexes (Table 1). rural population in each district (Table 3) (Zhang et al.,

Traditional exterior indexes, such as form design and 2023). Accordingly, Kunshan and Changshu, which have
façade design, represent the most direct expressions of the highest rural population proportions, require the largest
architectural style, embodying the vernacular identity of local sample sizes, while Xiangcheng and Huqiu districts, with the
architecture. In contrast, spatial layout and functional indexes smallest rural populations, require the smallest sample sizes.

Volume 7 Issue 1 (2025) 4 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.5719