Page 154 - JCAU-7-1

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

Table 2. Reconstruction of evaluation indexes based on building façade components
Evaluation object Elements Indexes
Rural residential 1. Entrance 1. The entry is identifiable.
façades in Suzhou 2. Accessibility features and accessibility of the building (e.g., wheelchair ramps, handrails, etc.).
2. Wall 3. The indoor temperature is suitable.
4. Traditional local exterior wall forms are used.
5. No wet spots, water damage, or mildew inside the house.
3. Windows and 6. Whether the indoor lighting condition is good?
doors 7. Doors and windows are made of excellent-quality materials and reflect local cultural
characteristics.
8. Whether the outdoor view of the rural building is good (whether the distance from the front
building is sufficient)?
4. Roof 9. Traditional roof forms are used.
5. Detail 10. Use the local traditional patterns, lines, or decorations (animal, wall decoration, etc.).
6. Environment 11. Is there any traditional public space around the building (ancestral hall, cultural wall, etc.)?
12. Is there any modern public space around the building (chess room, fitness space, recreation
space, etc.)?
13. Whether the building is in harmony with its surroundings?
14. Are the pipelines around the building in order (electrical wires, water pipes, TV telephone lines, etc.)?

Table 3. Relationship between sampling spatial distribution and sampling quantities across Suzhou districts

District Rural population (thousand people) Percentage Sampling quantity (people)
(%) Native residents Non‑native residents
Wuzhong 312.1 13.75 5 – 10 8 – 16
Xiangcheng 49.6 2.19 1 1 – 2
Huqiu 61.8 2.72 1 1 – 3
Wujiang 374.3 16.49 5 – 12 10 – 20
Changshu 432.7 19.06 7 – 13 12 – 23
Zhangjiagang 358.9 15.81 5 – 11 9 – 19
Kunshan 435.9 19.20 7 – 13 12 – 23
Taicang 244.6 10.78 3 – 7 7 – 13
Total 2,269.9 100 34 – 68 60 – 119

2.5. Questionnaire design and survey solicited to refine the wording of the evaluation indexes,
minimizing potential biases that could affect the results
The survey questionnaire for this study consists of
two parts. The first section collects demographic (Zhou et al., 2024). Refer to Appendix for the details of the
data, including respondents’ place of birth, age group, questionnaire.
educational background, and other relevant personal The questionnaires were distributed through an online
details. The second section evaluates respondents’ platform (SoJump), and by July 31, 2024, a total of 165
perceptions of the current state of rural house façades and responses were collected. Of these, 65 responses were
environments in Suzhou. A five-point Likert scale was from native residents and 100 from non-native residents,
employed for evaluation, with importance categorized as satisfying the specified sample size criteria. The collected
“very unimportant,” “unimportant,” “neutral,” “important,” data were analyzed to calculate the average scores for the
and “very important,” corresponding to scores of 1 – 5. importance and performance of evaluation factors, which
Similarly, performance was rated as “very dissatisfied,” were then plotted on an IPA chart. This approach facilitated
“dissatisfied,” “neutral,” “satisfied,” and “very satisfied,” the IPA evaluation of rural house façade indexes in Suzhou
also assigned scores from 1 to 5. Expert opinions were (Wu et al., 2023).

Volume 7 Issue 1 (2025) 6 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.5719