Material Experience in Architecture: The influence of materials on the

user experience
Andrea Wong
Taylors University
School of Architecture, Building & Design
Lakeside Campus
Malaysia
Abstract
Architectural spaces are experienced by the end user through the use of all their senses. We engage our sense of
sight in appreciating colours and light, we engage our sense of touch in experiencing the tactile finishes of
different materials and occasionally, the sense of smell comes into play to influence the experience depending
on the space in question. This multi-sensory approach to the built environment, and more specifically with
regards to the application of materials, is explored to a limited extent by designers and architects in particular.
This study aims to show the different aspects of material experiences that influences a users experience of a
space. A material experience model is explored where experiences can be defined as three types, namely,
aesthetic experience, meaningful experience and emotional experience. These experiences can be further
subdivided into material description categories to provide a comprehensive overview of the different aspects
that make up the material experience. Although the material experience model divides experiences into three
conceptual parts, users often experience these three experiences as three components of a single experience. It
difficult to isolate these experiences from each other while remaining engaged with the entire experience as
these separate concepts are interrelated where each concept affects the other. Architects have got to be aware of
the separate experiences that make up a material experience as well as the fact that users experience these three
aspects as a cohesive whole. The findings aim to provide a framework for future material selection processes
and enable architects and designers to make more informed design decisions regarding the application of
specific materials in architectural spaces in order to holistically impact the end user experience.
Key Words: Material experience, experience mapping, sensory test, keyword association

*****
Introduction
Users interact with architectural spaces through the application of all their senses. Steven Holl (2006)
in his essay Questions of Perception: Phenomenology in Architecture relates that architectureengages the
immediacy of our sensory perceptions. The sense of sight and touch provides users with an in depth experience
of a space in relation to its material application. Although there is extensive scientific research conducted on
materials and their effect on a buildings performance, yet there still remains a gap in the documentation of the
intangible aspect of materials in relation to shaping the user experience. Ideally, the understanding of material
experience in relation to architecture should play an increasingly important role in the design process, not as a
replacement to creativity and intuition but rather to act as a complement that enriches the meaning behind
designs (van der Linde, 2013). This notion is also implied by Peter Zumthor in Thinking Architecture, where
architecture involves making a meaningful whole out of many parts.
A general indicator to a successful architectural design is predominantly measured based on its form
and function. However, with a majority of designed spaces being occupied by people, a key indicator to a
successful design should also revolve around the thoughtful application of a building material and its influence
in shaping experiences. This paper aims to investigate the extent which a materials visual and tactile qualities
enhance a users experience of a space by using the Bamboo Playhouse as a material-rich case study.
The Bamboo Playhouse (Figure 1), designed by Eleena Jamil Architect, is a series of free-standing
pavilions located on a small island on the edge a lake that stretches through the Perdana Botanical Gardens. This
open structure is made up primarily of bamboos, making it an ideal case study in this material-centric research.
The bamboo pavilions are designed with openness in mind, allowing the space to be freely used by anyone. As
quoted from Dr. Eleena Jamil:

Andrea Wong

__________________________________________________________________
The intention was to create a playful structure. The use of bamboo tied up together to become columns
that branches out at the top evokes the idea of trees. Hence, moving around the playhouse would feel as
if moving around trees with the bamboo baskets akin to treehouses. (personal communication,
December 3, 2015)
Although the choice of bamboo as a material has been predetermined by the client from the outset, Jamil, who
has previously worked with bamboo in the Philippines, states that the choice of bamboo species for the
Playhouse is determined by specific characteristics. For instance, most species of bamboo are green when
freshly cut and tend to turn golden yellow after drying. This character exudes warmth these irregularities give
the Playhouse a special character which can be described as relaxed and warm. The tectonic application of the
material is also a careful consideration in the design. In order for the Playhouse to appear as natural as possible,
humble detailing such as the usage of green strings to lash joints (Figure 2) as well as the use of woven bamboo
mats (Figure 3) for the ceiling further iterates the design intention.
To provide a context to the research, the paper will define the notion of material experience in
architecture that translates into meaningful spaces. Next, adopting the sensory test and keyword association
method for visual (VIS), tactual (TAC) and general (GEN) stimulation of materials designed by Wastiels et al.
(2012), this paper aims to reveal the associations users make in relation to their interaction and experience
within the Bamboo Playhouse as a case study. Following that, this paper presents the findings obtained from the
tests in order to categorize the different material experiences encountered by users. The larger aim of this paper
is to highlight the impact of material experience on spatial design and to inform a holistic approach to the
architectural design process with the user experience in mind.

The Material Experience

Pallasmaa (2005) aptly describes architecture by saying every touching experience of architecture is
multi-sensory. Therefore, in order to maximize potential for material experience in architecture, a materials
aesthetic attributes (Ashby & Johnson, 2002) and sensorial behaviour (Wastiels & Wouters, 2009) play an
important role in informing the users experience. Karana (2010) states that materials (in product design) are
symbols of belief; they convey meanings and elicit emotions. Similarly, materials in architecture are also
associated with symbolic significances (Sadalla & Sheets, 1993). Each material acquires its meaning through
its intrinsic and perceived characteristics. For instance, brick is seen as hard and durable whereas wood is seen
as softer and lighter. Through application of these materials, spaces can be designed to reflect these intrinsic
characteristics. In addition, careful manipulation of these materials can also subdue these intrinsic characteristics
to reflect experiences that differ from the materials perceived characteristic. For example, in a survey conducted
by Sadalla & Sheets (1993), concrete is rated as the most masculine material. However, by judicious
manipulation of form, finishing, colour and lighting concrete can be reflected as more feminine or more
masculine.
In addition, Malnar & Vodvarka (2004), suggest that materials possess inherent qualities and defines
these qualities as ranging from technical parameters such as, compressive strength and density, to sensory
aspects such as texture, colour and temperature. Malnar & Vodvarka also highlights a conflict that while
technical parameters are well known to architects, the sensory qualities are seldom referred to and perhaps are
inessential. Similarly, Fernandez (2006) notes that in order to streamline material selection in architecture,
materials are organized into a set of standardized systems such as timber frame systems, reinforced concrete
systems and modular prefabrication systems. These generalization of systems dominate the material selection
process, resulting in architecture that is essentially fabricated assemblies of standardized performance
attributes. Thus, architects are no longer preoccupied by the selection of materials but rather by the selection of
standardized systems ascribed to a material.
However, in a recent study on material selection conducted by Wastiels & Wouters (2008), a focus
group of architects were interviewed on aspects considered while selecting materials. Rather than preoccupation
with systems as suggested by Fernandez (2006), the architects considerations revolve around the contextual
aspect of a project. In other words, the existing site conditions play an important role in determining materials.
In addition, the sensory qualities of materials which concerns the intangible perception of the material
environment by users is also considered. To reiterate the conflict highlighted by Malnar & Vodvarka, this study
reveals the difficulties that architects face in articulating material experiences as there is no established
precedents to distinguish between different types of experiences and the materials that shape them.

Andrea Wong
__________________________________________________________________

Due to this lack of information in the architecture to define the notion of material experience, parallels
are drawn from studies done in product design in order to gain a better understanding of these experiential
aspects and their importance to architects. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that there are fundamental variances
between both disciplines such as scale of projects, life span of designs as well as the different kinds of user
interactions (Wastiels & Wouters, 2008). There has been an emergence of studies on product experience
(Schifferstein & Hekkert, 2007, Desmet, 2003) that focuses on the sensory stimulations of products, the
meaning attributed to products as well as the emotions generated through products. Similar to architectural
designs, product designs must not only meet functional requirements but must also possess inherent
personalities and provide a meaningful user experience (Ashby & Johnson, 2002). Material experience is
defined as the experiences that users have with, and through materials (Karana, et. al., 2008). In product design,
material experience is derived from three types of experiences: aesthetic experience, meaningful experience and
emotional experience (Desmet & Hekkert, 2007; Schifferstein & Hekkert, 2008).
Aesthetic experience involves the degree to which materials delight our senses (Hekkert & Karana,
2014). These experiences are associated with physical characteristics of the materials and are stimulated by the
senses such as touch. The sensory system identifies these experiences including taking note of pleasurable
experiences stimulated by the senses. As a result, we learn to aesthetically appreciate material. Simplistically,
users like experiences that are good for them. Thus, aesthetic experience stems from the fundamental notion of
liking something (Hekkert, 2006; Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999).
Meaningful experience involves meanings or characteristics that an experience with a material may
evoke. Karana (2010) states that materials do not possess innate meanings unless users interact and experience
them in a particular context. In this respect, materials can inherit various meanings depending on the usermaterial interaction and the context it is experienced in. Though materials may manifest different meanings,
some materials are more readily associated with certain meanings. For instance, metal is more readily associated
with meaning professional whereas timber is warmer and more familiar (Karana, 2010). The meaning ascribed
to materials is relational, influenced by interaction between a user and the material in question.
Emotional experience involves emotional responses that may originate from materials (Karana, et al.,
2014). It is widely agreed that an appraisal model fittingly depicts the progression to developing an emotional
response to a material or product, (Scherer et al., 2001, Desmet, 2008). These theorists have subscribed to the
idea that emotions are elicited through evaluation or appraisal of materials, resulting in generalized conclusion
as to the potential harm or benefit of the material to a persons concerns. In other words, emotional responses
towards a material are evoked through interpretation of the material rather than the material itself. For instance,
users may experience comfort and nostalgia when in contact with wood as the material stimulates memories
reminiscent of a time or place of the past.
Although this experience model defines the underlying processes of these three types of experiences as
conceptually separate, they often appear as three components of a single experience (Hekkert & Karana,
2014). As such, it is often difficult to separate and categorize these experiences while remaining engaged in the
experience as a whole. Furthermore, these experiences are interrelated where each experience informs another
(Desmet & Hekkert, 2007). Similarly, although it is helpful for designers to tackle design considerations in
material experience separately as suggested by the above model, users experience materials as a complex,
multisensory whole (Camere, et al., 2015). Therefore, in order to design a holistic material experience,
designers must remain aware of this key factor throughout the design process.

Materials and Methods: Phenomenological Experience of Materials

In order to map the different material experiences of users within the Bamboo Playhouse, this research employs
a qualitative research methodology. Applying the theory of phenomenology, this study uses the existential
phenomenological research method, which entails the specific experiences of persons or groups involved in an
actual situation (von Eckartsberg, 1998). According to von Eckartsberg (1998b), the basis of this approach is
the analysis of information provided by research respondents to questions posed by the researcher that prompts
and guides their recollection. The phenomenological method is employed as it affords the researcher unique
insights into descriptive accounts from respondents that reveal their own thematic meaning-organization.
However, in order to employ this research method, assumptions must be made as to the data collected from
respondents in order to generalize the information received. This approach assumes that there is a certain

Material Experience in Architecture: The influence of materials on the user experience

__________________________________________________________________
uniformity in the meanings presented by respondents in mapping the material experience within the Bamboo
Playhouse.
The keyword association exercise is modelled after research methods employed by Wastiels et al. (2013). In a
study conducted by Wastiels to assess the dominance of vision in the architectural material selection process,
she employs the sensory test where participants were required to assess a set of building materials in three
different sensory conditions: vision only (VIS), touch only (TAC) and general (GEN) meaning both vision and
touch. Next, participants were asked to provide keyword associations for each material within the three sensory
conditions. According to Wastiels et al., these three sensory conditions, vision only, touch only and general,
were derived from studies conducted by Karana et al. (2009) that reflects the effectiveness of these sensory
properties in attributing meanings to materials, providing the basis for material experience.
In this study, a suitable variation of the sensory test and keyword association exercise will be employed in 2
parts. In the first part, a sample of 10 participants who are users of the Bamboo Playhouse is selected to
participate in the sensory test and keyword associations exercise. Participants were required to evaluate the
Bamboo Playhouse through the three sensory conditions and provide 5 keywords each in response to each
sensory condition. Explanation for keywords were given by participants should their intended meanings be
unclear. This is to help generalize the information received.
The second part involves the compilation of keywords received from each participant. These keywords are first
categorized into the three types of experiences under the material experience model defined by Desmet and
Hekkert (2007). Based on the definitions of the types of experiences, these keywords are further subdivided into
5 categories of material descriptions as modelled by the study conducted by Wastiels et al. (2013). In this model,
keywords are organized into elements as follows:
-

Sensory (S) aspects of the material that can be sensed

Technical (T) Material and manufacturing aspects
Expressive meaning (EM) Values and personality characteristics attributed to the material
Associative meaning (AM) Associations requiring retrieval from memory and past experiences
Emotions (E) Emotions elicited by the material

These description categories were analysed to identify the most common type of material experience. Users
material experiences were also compared against the architects initial design intention to determine correlations
between design intensions and the translated user experience. In order to identify the architects design intention,
contextual research is carried out, involving literature review of existing materials relating to the Bamboo
Playhouse as well as a brief interview via email correspondence with the architect. In addition, the data is then
evaluated based on the experience of individual users to investigate the relationships between each description
category. The data gathered from the sensory test and the keyword association formed the main data for
mapping the material experience of users in the Bamboo Playhouse.

Results and Discussion (1123)

The findings from the keyword association and experience mapping exercise is synthesized and categorized into
comprehensive tables as shown below (Table 1 and 2). These experiences are then analysed as subdivided
categories and as whole experiences of individuals to reflect the impact that materials have on the user
experience.

Categorizing material experiences

The notion of material experience may be divided into three types of experiences according to the material
experience model (Desmet and Hekkert, 2007) and further subdivided into 5 categories of descriptions (Wastiels
et al., 2013). The following Table 1 depicts the findings of the keyword association of the responses of 10
participants in the visual (VIS) and tactile (TAC) evaluation.

Andrea Wong

__________________________________________________________________

Aesthetic experience
Categories
Sensory
test
Visual
evaluation
(VIS)

Tactile
evaluation
(TAC)

General
impressions
(GEN)

Sensory
Descriptions (S)

Meaningful experience

Emotional
Experience
Emotion (E)

Technical
Descriptions
(T)
Total: 24
light (5),
flexible (2),
detailed (2),
slim (1),
minimalist (1),
ventilated (1)

Expressive
Meaning (EM)

Associative
Meaning (AM)

Total: 16
exciting (2),
harmonious (1),
open (3),
graceful (1),
unique (2),
attractive (1),
invisible (1)

Total: 23
clean (1),
natural (1),
creative (1),
honest (1),
modern (1),
timeless (2),
forest (1),
affordable (1),
personal (1),

Total: 20
surprising (1),
calm (1),
fun (5),
comfort (2)

Total: 8
rough (4),
smooth (6),
cool/cold (5),
soft (2),
glossy (1),
warm (1)

Total: 12
light (3),
strong (3),
hollow (2),
detailed (2),
slim (2)

Total: 11
pure (1),
simple (1)
open (2)

Total: 10
clean (5),
welcome (3),

Total: 9
comfort (3),
personal (3)
fun (1)

Total: 19

Total: 12

Total: 4
iconic (1)

Total: 8
forest (1),
hometown (1),
treehouse (1),
personal (2)

Total: 7
calming (1),
comfort (1)
welcoming (1)
playful (1)

Total: 27
warm (3),
rough (1),
bright (2),
glossy (2)

Total: 1
Total:5
Table 1: Keywords divided according to the material experience model

Total: 4

As a whole, users experience a space and its materials predominantly through the aesthetic experience, which is
derived from a materials physical attributes. This can be observed from table 1, where a majority of the
keywords, totalling 51, were categorized under the aesthetic experience, be it sensory descriptions (S - 27
words) or technical descriptions (T - 24 words). These keywords were derived from the visual (VIS) and tactile
(TAC) evaluation where users were asked to use their sense of sight and touch in experiencing the space and its
material. Sensory descriptions (S) are generally elicited through this evaluation, with a total of 27 keywords
with examples such as smooth and cool being the most widely used. Physical qualities of a material are easily
accessible attributes that users can readily experience.
A detailed look at the categories in table 1 reflects that while users generally provide sensory related
descriptions regarding the material experience, a majority of users derive their experiences through
associations requiring retrieval from memory and past experiences (Wastiels, et al., 2013). A total of 23
keywords are made up of experiences of associative meanings (AM). For instance, 2 particular users described
the space as evoking a memory they once had of trekking through a bamboo forest whilst another user
associated the space with a childhood memory of a hometown due to the colour tones of the material which is

Material Experience in Architecture: The influence of materials on the user experience

__________________________________________________________________
reminiscent of an old timber shophouse. This implies that individual users experience different associative
meanings in their material experience due to their different cultures, past memories and experiences.
In addition, a fairly large sample of users provided technical descriptions (T) such as visually light, structurally
hollow and strong to describe their material experience. This is because these technical descriptions are physical
attributes that are readily noticeable to users through visual and tactile evaluation.
From the findings categorized in table 1, an average sampling of keywords falls under the emotional experience
(E) category with a total of 20 words, implying that the material does elicit an emotional response from users.
This could be due to the architects design intention for the Bamboo Playhouse. As the playhouse is designed as
a public pavilion for all in a Botanical Garden, its design is intended to evoke a sense of welcoming playfulness
in visitors aside from merely functioning as a place of rest. This intention has been successfully translated by the
architect through the tectonics of the material and the play of levels through platforms and installations (Figure 4
and 5.) Keywords given by users such as fun, welcoming and playful reflect the successful translation of the
architects design intention in the Bamboo Playhouse.
It can be noted that the expressive meaning (EM) under meaning experience contains the least keywords
provided by users. This could also be due to the architect, Eleena Jamils design intention for the Bamboo
Playhouse to blend harmoniously with the greeneries of the Botanical Garden (personal communication,
December 3, 2015). In this respect, the material itself, though being the dominant feature of the design, assumes
no personality or character of its own, but rather, lends itself to forming a playful and relaxed material
experience as intended by the architect. As such, the material does not readily convey values, personalities or
characteristics.
Material experience as a complex whole
Whilst the notion of material experience may be subdivided into comprehensive counterparts to understand the
relationship and influence one aspect has on another, this research has found that an appropriate interpretation of
a users material experience is derived from a holistic understanding of the individual aspects that make up the
experiences. As reflected in Table 2, the keywords provided by any one individual participant covers all the
types of experiences highlighted in the material experience model (Desmet and Hekkert, 2007) as well as the
material description categories (Wastiels et al., 2013).
To further iterate this point, Participants A, C, D, F, G, and H have all provided keywords that fall into all 5
material description categories that is derived from visual evaluation, tactile evaluation as well as general
impressions. Participants B, E, I and J, on the other hand, have all provided keywords that fall into 4 out of the 5
material description categories. These results imply that an individual experiences a space and its materials as a
complex, multisensory whole. (Camere et al., 2015)

Participan
t
A
B

Visual evaluation (VIS)

Light (T), rough (S), light
(T), fun (E), bright (S)
Open
(EM), exciting
(EM), fun (E), light (T),
flexible (T)
Graceful (EM), open
(EM), personal (AM),
warm (S), fun (E)
Unique (EM), detailed
(T), slim (T), bright (S),
light (T)
Attractive (EM), unique
(EM), clean (AM), glossy
(S), detailed (T)
Natural (AM), glossy (S),
flexible (T), open (EM),
creative (AM)

Tactile evaluation (TAC)

General impressions (GEN)

Clean (AM), smooth (S), cool

(S), light (T), strong (T)
Smooth (S), soft (S), pure (EM),
comfort (E), personal (E),

Iconic, memorable (EM)

Smooth (S), hollow (T), cool

(S), welcome (AM), clean (AM)

Feeling
welcomed
familiar (E)

Smooth (S), cool (S), strong

(T), hollow (T), open (EM)

Freedom and playfulness (E)

Welcome (AM), smooth (S),

cool (S), strong (T), comfort (E)

Invokes a memory of a
bamboo forest once visited
(AM)
Feels like a treehouse (AM)

Smooth (S), fun (E), light (T),

clean (AM), detailed (T)

Calming, peaceful (E)

and

Andrea Wong

__________________________________________________________________
G

Honest (AM), minimalist Welcome (AM), open (EM), Reminiscent of hometown

(T), harmonious (EM), detailed (T), soft (S), personal because of wood tones (AM)
ventilated (T), invisible (E)
(EM)
Warm (S), fun (E), Rough (S), slim (T), glossy (S), Feeling of familiarity and
timeless (AM), comfort clean (AM), simple (EM)
comfort (E)
(E), exciting (EM)
Warm (S), bamboo forest Rough (S), cold (S), rough (S), Relatable personal scale of
(AM), calm (E), comfort slim (T), personal (E)
material application (AM)
(E), timeless (AM)
Fun (E), surprising (E), Rough (S), warm (S), comfort Personal character of material
affordable (AM), light (E), light (T), clean (AM)
(AM)
(T), modern (AM)
Table 2: Keywords divided according to individual user experiences

In addition, Desmet and Hekkert (2007) argued that though aspects of material experiences are categorized into
three primary types, these experiences are interrelated where one aspect informs another. A holistic analysis of
an individuals material experience clearly enforces this argument. Relationships can be mapped between
individual categories of experiences, implying that one experience may inform another.
For instance, Participant C and Participant H both express emotions (E) of comfort and familiarity in the
Bamboo Playhouse. Participant C uses the words personal (AM) and open (EM) to further describe the
experience which. On the other hand, Participant H also uses words such as timeless (AM) and simple (EM) to
describe the Bamboo Playhouse. Both participants also share similar sensory descriptions (S) in noting that the
Bamboo Playhouse exudes warmth. In this case, the combination of different aspects of aesthetic experience
and meaning experience expressed by both participants have led to a similar association in emotional experience
of comfort.
Furthermore, in the case of Participant B and Participant D, both express the technical description (T) of
lightness as well as openness (EM) in the structure of the Playhouse. At the same time, both express similar
emotions (E) of freedom and peace whilst in the Bamboo Playhouse which may imply that the tectonic
manipulation of the material gives rise to the notion of serenity. The common use of keywords to describe a
material experience may have been a driving factor in leading both participants to perceive the space and
material similarly.
The presentation of the findings through the experience mapping and keyword association exercises have
reiterated the opinions of researchers in industrial design regarding the material experience in that though
experiences may be categorized, it must be read as a whole in order to be correctly interpreted.

Conclusion
While material experience remains unchartered territory to a majority of architects in the industry, this material
experience model may aid architects in designing meaning driven spaces. Through the conducted research, it
can be concluded that the application of materials in architecture can indeed enhance the user experience by
evoking sensory responses, meanings as well as emotions in an individual. The parallels in terms of the end
users material experience shared by both industrial design and architectural design is an informative tool that
can aid architects in designing spaces with material experience in mind. Hence, architects can utilize the
material experience model to map design intensions of materials. This allows for a comprehensive analysis of
the different make ups of a material experience and provides architects with insight as to the different aspects by
which materials may be experienced. When architects begin to intentionally design for the different paradigms
of material experience, architects can create richer spaces to enhance the end users experience.

References
Ashby, M. F. & Johnson, K. (2002). Material and design: the art and science of material selection in product
design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Material Experience in Architecture: The influence of materials on the user experience

__________________________________________________________________

Camere, S., Schifferstein, H. N. J., Bordegoni, M. (2015). The Experience Map. A tool to support Experiencedriven Multi Sensory design. In: DesForm 2015. Milan, Italy.
Desmet, P. M. A. & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design; 1:
57-66.
Fernandez, J. E. (2006). Material Architecture: Emergent materials for Innovative buildings and ecological
construction. Amsterdam; Boston: Architectural Press.
Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science 48: 157-172.
Hekkert, P., Karana, E., (2014). Designing Material Experience. Materials Experience. 3-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-099359-1.00001-1
Holl, Steven. (2006). Questions of Perception: Phenomenology in Architecture. Questions of Perception:
Phenomenology in Architecture, 39-43 (Tokyo, Japan a+u Publishing Company Limited, 41.
Karana, E., Hekkert, P., Kandachar, P., (2008). Materials experience: descriptive categories in material
appraisals. In: International Conference on Tools and Methods in Competitive Engineering 2008. Izmir,
Turkey.
Karana, E., Hekkert, P., Kandachar, P., (2009) Meanings of material through sensorial properties and
manufacturing processes. Materials and Design, 30 (2009), 2778-2784.
Karana, E. (2010). How do materials obtain their meaning? Journal of the Faculty of Architecture. doi:
10.4305/METU.JFA.2010.2.15
Karana, E., Pedgley, O., Rognoli, V., (2014). Introduction to Materials Experience. Materials Experience. pp.
xxv-xxxiii. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-099359-1.02001-4
Malnar, J. M. & Vodvarka, F. (2004). Sensory Design. University of Minnesota Press.
Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses (2nd ed.). Academy Press.
Ramachandran, V. S., Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: a neurological theory of aesthetic experience.
Journal of Consciousness Studies 6: 15-51.
Sadalla, E. K. & Sheers, V. L. (1993). Symbolism in building materials: Self-representational and cognitive
components. Environment and Behaviour, 25(2), 155-180
Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A., Johnstone, T(Eds.), (2001). Appraisal Process in Emotion: Theory, Methods,
Research. Oxord University Press, New York.
Schifferstein, H. N. J. & Hekkert, P. (2008). Product experience. Oxford, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Van der Linde, G. (2013). An Introduction to Psychological Research in Architectural Practice. Payette.
Retrieved from http://www.payette.com/post/1995998-an-introduction-to-psychological-research-in
Von Eckartsberg, R. (1998a). Introducing existential-phenomenological psychology. In R. Valle (Ed.),
Phenomenological inquiry in psychology (pp. 3-20). New York: Plenum.
von Eckartsberg, R. (1998b). Existential-phenomenological research. In R. Valle (Ed.), Phenomenological inquiry in
psychology (pp. 21-61). New York: Plenum.
Wastiels, L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., Wouters, I., Heylighen, A. (2013). Touching Materials Visually About the
Dominance of Vision in Building Material Assessment. International Journal of Design 7(2) 31-41
Wastiels, L. & Wouters, I. (2009). Material Considerations in Architectural Design: A Study of the Aspects
Identified by Architects for Selecting Materials. In: Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference
2008, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.

List of Illustrations

Andrea Wong
__________________________________________________________________

Figure 1: Marc Tey Photography, 2015. View of the Bamboo Playhouse. Retrieved December 10, 2015 from
http://www.archdaily.com/

Figure 2: Author, 2015. Close-up of bamboo joints.

10

Material Experience in Architecture: The influence of materials on the user experience

__________________________________________________________________

Figure 3: Author, 2015. Close-up of bamboo ceiling.

Figure 4: Sectional elevation of Bamboo Playhouse. Retrieved December 10, 2015 from
http://www.archdaily.com/

11

Andrea Wong
__________________________________________________________________

Figure 5: Marc Tey Photography, 2015. View of bamboo baskets at the Bamboo Playhouse. Retrieved December
10, 2015 from http://www.archdaily.com/