This article was downloaded by: [The University of Texas at El Paso]On: 18 August 2014, At: 09:16Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Coastal ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucmg20

Perception of Urban WaterfrontAesthetics Along the Nile in Cairo, EgyptHISHAM S. GABR aa Department of Architecture, Cairo University, Cairo, EgyptPublished online: 24 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: HISHAM S. GABR (2004) Perception of Urban Waterfront Aesthetics Along the Nilein Cairo, Egypt, Coastal Management, 32:2, 155-171

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08920750490276191-1452

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

155

Coastal Management, 32:155–171, 2004Copyright Taylor & Francis Inc.ISSN: 0892-0753 print / 1521-0421 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08920750490276191

Perception of Urban Waterfront AestheticsAlong the Nile in Cairo, Egypt

HISHAM S. GABRDepartment of ArchitectureCairo UniversityCairo, Egypt

Evolving leisure needs and investment potentials have resulted in designing projectsalong the ecologically and culturally sensitive edge of the river Nile in downtownCairo, Egypt. This article examines perceived types of different design treatmentsalong the Nile waterfront, based on preference ratings of active river edge users.Seven perceived types of scenes were identified from cluster analysis of Q-sort dataobtained from 45 subjects and 20 color photographs. Results from the factor analy-sis of the same data indicate that level of nature content, level of neglect or care,manicured designs, and proximity to water are important factors that affect prefer-ential judgments of river edge design treatments. Riverfront users express higherpreferences when they can freely access the water. The findings support design de-velopments of the river edge only if they are in harmony with nature and withoutdenying the general public physical and visual access to the Nile.

Keywords architecture, Cairo, the Nile riverfront, urban waterfront aesthetics, visualpreferences

Introduction

The Nile waterfront in the city of Cairo, Egypt, has experienced numerous changes inthe form of designed projects to take advantage of the river’s potential for attractingvisitors and users by accommodating their various leisure and recreational needs. Sud-den and rapid exploitation of this—centuries old—inviolate river edge is the impetusbehind this research. Questions regarding the types, appropriateness, and impact of theserecent human-made changes are brought up among professional architects and urbanplanners.

Design interventions along the river edge differ greatly. To name a few: there arepublic and private, nature dominant and built, serviceable and unserviceable, and wateraccessible (physically or visually) and inaccessible. Generally, many of the changes alongthe Nile waterfront were private projects that have been directed for selected group ofindividuals such as engineers or police officers. The general public or nonmembers ofthe social or professional group are denied access to these private projects. Other changes

Received 15 July 2002; accepted 22 July 2003.Address correspondence to Hisham S. Gabr, Associate Professor, Department of Architec-

ture, College of Engineering, Cairo University, 43 Abdel Monem Riad St., Agoza, Giza 12411,Egypt. E-mail: hgabr@eng.cu.edu.eg

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

156 H. S. Gabr

have been in the form of privately owned or leased projects that are accessible to thegeneral public, such as cafeterias where guests are expected to pay for their leisuretime. The third type of change is the publicly owned and fully accessible places wherevisitors are free to wander along the waterfront without having to worry about spendingmoney. Recently, there have been rising concerns over the increasing number of pub-licly inaccessible projects along the Nile waterfront (the first type described above),because of the negative social consequences of denying the general public access to apresumably vital public domain. Other visual implications result from the visual block-age made by insensitive design of structures blocking the view of the Nile from themain street and sidewalk. Although this article does not delve directly into citizens’viewpoints on the privatization of the public domain of the Nile waterfront, it doesinvestigate how people perceive the changes occurring along the river edge, includingboth private and public. The ideological assumption being made is that the general pub-lic should have undeniable access to the river edge similar to situations in many water-front cities around the world. However, understanding people’s perception of the designinterventions should shed light upon desirable types of changes to be made along theriver edge.

Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine residents’ perception of andpreference for recent changes to the Nile waterfront by eliciting residents’ perceptualtypologies of different design treatments along the river edge. Knowledge of residents’acceptance of types and characteristics of these design interventions should guide archi-tects and planners in dealing with future interventions. Reflections upon private versuspublic design changes would perhaps be made possible.

Waterfront Attraction and Environmental Aesthetics

The research literature on waterfronts is extensive and diverse. A growing number ofstudies have been conducted in response to the growing boom of waterfront revitaliza-tion and restoration efforts along the water edge of large and small cities, a boom thathave been documented and monitored particularly in the United States (Breen & Rigby,1994; Frederick & Stadler, 1991; Goodwin, 1999; Hershman et al., 1999; Petrillo, 1987;Richardson, 1986). Significant to this development is the public’s reclaiming of theircity’s water edge. Thousands of projects all over the world are promoted to bring peopleand the public back to their city’s waterfront, regardless of whether the waterfront is asea, lake, or river. People are attracted to the river edge and the water as part of theirintrinsic attraction to nature (Herzog, 1985; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Natural environ-ments, including waterfronts, provide ample opportunities and hence can afford a varietyof leisure activities and experiences. That is why the current waterfront development isshifting the uses of waterfronts from only transportation to more recreation-type activi-ties, such as tourism (Farrell, 1986; McGoodwin, 1986; Miller & Ditton, 1986) andmarine recreation (Rorholm, 1983).

The research literature on visual perception of environments is also extensive andcross-disciplinary. A subset of this literature is the specialized discipline or area of re-search concentration called environmental aesthetics: the methodical study of the per-ception of beauty in environments. The need to understand the interaction between peopleand the physical environment is a main goal of perception studies. The need to under-stand people’s response to or preference for types of design interventions is a main goalof aesthetic perception studies. If such goals are achieved, design implications that fol-low could be tremendous. Built environments could be designed in such a way as tobetter accommodate user needs and wants. Natural environments could be integrated

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

Urban Aesthetics of the Nile Riverfront 157

with built environments while maintaining and sustaining its ecosystems. Apart fromphilosophy and pure art, psychological and cognitive processes offer theoretical supposi-tions that often guide scientific research on visual perception and environmental aesthetics.Even though most aesthetic perception studies focus on visual perception and prefer-ence, environmental aesthetics involves the senses of sight, sound, smell, and touch.Additionally, environmental aesthetics has been studied with varying levels of method-ological rigor and applicability or relevance (Porteous, 1996). The more rigorous methodshave been conducted by the experimentalists and the planners, while the less rigorousmethods have been conducted by the activists and humanists. Alternatively, the higherrelevance paradigm belongs to the activists and planners and the lower relevance be-longs to the humanists and the experimentalists (Porteous, 1982). In a different but over-lapping early approach, Zube and his colleagues proposed four paradigms guiding stud-ies on the perception of environments and landscapes (Zube, Sell, & Taylor, 1982). Thefirst is the expert approach, where environments are assessed by skilled and trainedobservers and where the main purpose is design application. The second is the experien-tial approach, where the subjective experience of the observer interacts with the environ-ment in a holistic manner and where the main purpose is design application. The third isthe psychophysical approach, where the observer acts as evaluator and respondent tostimuli in the environment and where the main purpose is correlating environmentalcharacteristics with behavior. The fourth is the cognitive psychological approach, wherethe observer processes information perceived from the environment, which is in turnaffected by his or her sociocultural characteristics, and where the main purpose is elicit-ing meanings associated with environments.

Subsequent theoretical suppositions did not alter these paradigms (Moudon, 1992;Taylor, Zube, & Sell, 1987). Because assessment of environmental aesthetic quality isan explicit goal of this paper, the adopted approach combines Zube’s psychophysicaland cognitive psychological approaches in an attempt to assess users’ aesthetic prefer-ences in as rigorous and applicable away as possible.

Literature on environmental aesthetics extended its coverage onto coastal areas. Earlyresearch endeavors brought into focus the visual quality and aesthetics of developmentand the importance of public opinion representing users of the waterfront (Banerjee &Gollub, 1976; Nieman, 1977). Wohlwill (1978, 1982) brought into attention the visualimpact of development in coastal zone areas. Relying upon earlier work on experimentalaesthetics by Daniel Berlyne (1972, 1974, 1978) and others, Wohlwille brought up theissue of contextual compatibility as an important aesthetic visual requirement when de-signing along coastal areas. Similar arguments were corroborated by Blair and his col-leagues in their study on the visual effects of port redevelopment alternatives (Blair,Robertson, & Dingfield, 1982). Resource management and particularly visual coastalzone resources were the focus of another group of earlier studies (Smardon & Felleman,1982; Yapp, 1986). Implications for management and planning in general were the fo-cus of yet another group of studies (Al-Madany, Abdalla & Abdu, 1991; Fenton &Syme, 1989; Nassauer, 1983).

However, in recent years, there appears to have been a drop in studies on waterfrontaesthetics, thereby the need for this research. The objective of this paper is to diagnosethe Nile waterfront by identifying perceived types of design interventions following themethodological assumptions of typical landscape classification studies (Amedeo, Pitt, &Zube, 1989; Schroeder, 1991). Consequently, one could identify the design features thatmake up the types, identify relations between the design features, and predict user pref-erence response towards them. This paper deals mainly with identifying the perceivedtypes of design interventions along the Nile waterfront.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

158 H. S. Gabr

Research Methods

There were two data-gathering techniques used in this research: a Q-sorting task, followedby a photo questionnaire that assessed people’s preference among 28 color photographsof different Nile waterfront settings.

The Q-sort was considered suitable for this research. Most of the photographs werejudged in a pilot test as generally “beautiful” scenes. Therefore, the Q-sort technique forceda judgment rating along a linear 5-step preference scale of 1 (most preferred) to 5 (leastpreferred) to discriminate between subtle preference judgments. Each subject was givena few minutes to skim the photographs. They were then asked to sort them by placingthem along a linear cardboard divided into 5 units representing the 5-point preferencescale (1, most preferred to 5, least preferred). After completing the sorting assignment, eachsubject answered a two-page questionnaire assessing their demographic and lifestyle,characteristics, and aesthetic characteristics of the chosen most preferred group of scenes.

Subjects were 45 Cairo residents who represented river edge users with a variety ofsocioeconomic and demographic characteristics and participation habits. All sorting tasksand interviews were conducted on a selected public location along the river edge indowntown Cairo during late spring mornings and afternoons, thereby obtaining a sampleof actively participating users.

The convenient sample was composed of 27 male (60%) and 18 female (40%)participants. Twenty-six (58%) of the subjects were between the ages of 30 and 44 yearsold, 13 (29%) were between 18 and 29 years old, and 6 (13%) were between 45 and 64years old. Thirty-three (73%) of the subjects were single or engaged and 12 (27%) weremarried. All forty-five were residents of Cairo or its suburbs. Seven subjects (16%)were students, thirty-seven (82%) were employed, and one was unemployed (2%). Two-thirds of the sample had a university degree and the remaining third had a high schooldiploma. Thirty-six of the subjects (80%) had visited the riverfront more than once, andnine (20%) were visiting for the first time. When subjects were asked to select fromamong a preset list of reasons for visiting the Nile waterfront, “for psychological com-fort” was selected as the top choice (38 times). Other reasons where selected as well: “toenjoy the water” (26 times); “to enjoy the breeze” (22 times); “to be with a friend” (15times); and “when feeling unpleasant” (12 times). Overall, the sample that is composedof entirely Cairo residents can be described as educated, young to middle age, frequentvisitors to the riverfront who seek primarily psychological comfort when visiting theNile. However, because of the convenient nature of the sampling process, one shouldexercise caution when generalizing the results of this research.

Twenty-eight, 10 × 15 cm color photographs of different interventions found throughouta stretch of approximately 15 km of waterfront in downtown Cairo represented designinterventions along the Nile edge. The scenes covered a range of interventions fromminimal changes to high levels of design modifications, a group of public and privatesettings, and a variety of architectural forms and treatments. The 28 photographs wereselected from a larger pool of 70 photographs. The selected scenes were all similar indepicting frontal views, having same focal distances, and maintaining clear photographicprints. The use of photographs as surrogates of real environments is generally consid-ered a reliable and valid simulation technique.1

Data Analysis

The resulting data was factor analyzed to look “for patterns among the variables todiscover if an underlying combination of the original variables (a factor) can summarizethe original set” (Cooper & Schindler, 2003, p. 613). The idea from the factor analysis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

Urban Aesthetics of the Nile Riverfront 159

is to reduce the data to a small number of factors that explain most of the varianceobserved in the larger set of data with multiple numbers of variables. Subsequently, thesample’s preferential judgment ratings for each of the 20 scenes2 were first correlatedwith the sample’s ratings for each and every other scene to produce a correlation matrixof coefficients indicating the covariance in preference between any two scenes. Thismatrix was factor analyzed to extract factors that may be embedded in the matrix andwhich are not immediately discernable from straightforward visual inspection. The re-sults are shown in Table 1. The factors represent classifications of settings based uponpreference. SPSS statistical software was used for the statistical analyses. Because clusteranalysis “identifies homogeneous subgroups or clusters” (Cooper & Schindler, 2003, p.613), it was therefore used to group similar scenes or reorganize the scenes into homo-geneous groups, based on preferential judgments in this case. The same 20 scenes werecluster analyzed to determine clusters of similar scenes to corroborate the results of thefactor analysis and also to explain the scenes with negative factor loadings within someof the factors.

Table 1Principles component rotated factor matrix

Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Eigenvalue 3.06 2.49 2.04 1.60 1.43 1.40 1.09 1.02

Scene 9 .82Scene 6 .79Scene 8 –.59

Scene 10 .81Scene 4 .77Scene 7 –.58

Scene 19 –.78Scene 1 –.73Scene 11 .55

Scene 20 .74Scene 3 .74

Scene 12 .79Scene 18 –.56Scene 5 .54

Scene 17 .76Scene 15 .69

Scene 13 .89Scene 16 –.46

Scene 2 .88

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

160 H. S. Gabr

Factor analysis and cluster analysis are statistical techniques that permit objectiveanalysis of research data. However, the interpretation of the statistical results from thetwo methods remains the burden of the researcher, who could possibly introduce subjec-tive interpretation of the statistical results. Three methods were used to reduce as muchas possible any subjective bias that may affect the findings, particularly when visuallyinterpreting the scenes. The first was to use the descriptions provided by some of thesubjects in their interpretation of the scenes. The second was the use of a predeterminedset for analyzing visual design quality, common in the architectural and urban designliterature (Ching, 1996; Krier, 1988), to visually analyze the scenes in a way that ex-plains the statistical results. The design quality set included two levels: the design ele-ments and the design principles. Design elements are the physical features apparent inthe scene, such as water, street, trees, buildings, and their characteristics such as shape,size, and texture. In other words, they are the visual cues that are observable in thescene (Sanoff, 1991). Design principles are the organizational attributes of the designelements when put together in the scene, such as composition, contrast, proportion, unity,rhythm, and emphasis. Nonphysical features such as building function and meaning,were excluded from the list to reduce subjective interpretation. This method guided theinterpretation of the statistical results from both the factor and cluster analysis.

The third method was the use of expert judgment to triangulate and assess reliabil-ity of the visual analysis of the scenes. This method was applied to the results of thecluster analysis. Four architects, with at least 20 years of experience teaching design andvisual studies, were independently asked to rank their agreement with the positioning ofeach of the 20 scenes in their respective cluster group. However, the experts were nottold that the cluster groups were the results of statistics but instead were responding to aquestion for each scene. For example, they were asked to what extent scenes 2, 6, and 9are dominant with elements of nature and landscape (referring to cluster 1). An integerwithin a scale of one (totally agree) to 5 (totally disagree) was used to answer a similarquestion for each scene. Average agreement was computed for each scene, for eachcluster, and for all scenes together.

Results

Dimensions Affecting Perception of Waterfront Design Interventions

The results in Table 1 show the eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 that ac-counted for 76.5% of the variance. As is common in factor analysis, the meaning of thefactor is determined by the commonalties or differences among variables—in this casethe scenes—that are associated or loaded highly on this factor. Each factor was inter-preted and described in terms of the similarity pattern embedded within the physicalfeatures of the scenes or characteristics they seem to typify. In addition, each factorwas labeled to relate to previous research and to communicate with designers andarchitects.

Factor 1: Content Level of Raw Nature. The first factor depicts the dimension of humanintervention versus nature (scenes 6, 8, and 9). Scenes 9 and 6 load highly along thisdimension, representing rugged river edge characterized with unspoiled, natural-appear-ing elements of nature, mainly trees, greens, even old-looking sailboats. Minimal humanintervention appears to the viewer, with few background buildings appearing far fromthe coast. The overall image of these two scenes is a rural one with nature dominant ina setting empty of people.

Scene 8 loads high on this factor but in an opposing fashion. This scene depicts a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

Urban Aesthetics of the Nile Riverfront 161

very high level of human intervention along the river edge in terms of overpoweringusage of the shore, represented in ships and plenty of sailboats and in terms of massivebuildings as the backdrop of the scene in close proximity to the shore. The scene repre-sents a setting with indications of very high density of buildings and people. Nature inthis scene suddenly becomes minimal in effect.

Factor 2: Neglect vs. Care. The second factor depicts the dimension of negligence versusattention devoted to the shore (scenes 4, 7, and 10). Scenes 10 and 4 demonstrate highlevels of negligence to the river edge. They are scenes of empty embankments of dirt,irregular and broken stone siding. Grey is the dominant color. Indifference to river edgetreatment is apparent. The shore is empty, abandoned, unused, with no people in sighteven though apartment buildings and traffic form a close backdrop to these two settings.

In contrast, scene 7, which loads high but negative on this factor, shows strongattention, exploitation, and use of the shoreline in the form of a two-level building andboat launching area. The river edge is designed with care. Nature and low rise buildingsform the backdrop.

Factor 3: Manicured Harmonious Architecture. This factor shows buildings terraceddown to the water, in harmony with nature and low-rise background buildings (scenes 1,11, and 19). The water surface is clear of obstacles, trees and greens are dominant andeither penetrate or act as the background to the buildings. Scene 11 depicts the shorelineas obstructed by a ship; the background buildings start to disrupt the harmony of theshoreline.

Factor 4: Disharmony. This factor portrays disharmonious river edge treatments (scenes3 and 20). Scene 20 shows disorder in the gabled building suddenly protruding off theshore with few trees and a haphazard background skyline of buildings. Similarly, aconstruction site dominates the scene in number 3. Disharmony is apparent.

Factor 5: Picturesque and Memorable. The fifth factor contains three of the most pre-ferred scenes that can be described as picturesque-type scenes (scenes 12, 18, and 5),the kinds of scenes that can be used on postcards to depict Cairo and the Nile. Thescenes show specific landmarks or the beauty of nature with a comfortable blend be-tween shoreline and background buildings. Scenes number 12 and 5 loaded highly onthis dimension. Scene number 12 (most preferred photo, mean = 1.69) shows CairoTower as the dominant landmark in the background, combined with subtle treatment ofthe river edge in the form of terraces, lots of trees and greens, and no sight of housesbehind. Scene number 5 shows an old-looking building in the background, which somesubjects identified as the old Cairo exhibition grounds, the site of the new opera house,and other prominent museums. Some sort of a meaningful theme is common in thisdimension. These scenes show the city and the Nile at its best in terms of image, whichsome subjects referred to as suitable for tourists, in other words tourist-type images thatresidents would be proud to show.

Scene 18 (second most preferred mean = 2.36, but with exceptionally high S.D. =1.28, indicating interesting disagreements among raters) is predominantly a natural-appearing scene, therefore contrasting with the other two scenes. Nevertheless, it is stillsimilar in the picturesque effect it portrays in the lush greens, clean-looking image, andfew background buildings with the exception of two high-rise towers described by somesubjects as indications of desirable urbanization that would show off nicely on postcardsto tourists. Order, compatibility of foreground and background, and buildings far awayfrom the river edge are three common characteristics in this dimension.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

162 H. S. Gabr

Table 2Comparison of the factor dimensions with the cluster groupings

Scene Cluster SceneFactor dimension numbers groupings numbers

1. Rugged nature content 9, 6, (8)a 1. Nature dominating 9, 6, 22. Neglect 10, 4, (7) 2. Neglect 10, 43. Manicured architecture 19, 1, (11) 3. Manicured architecture 19, 14. Disharmony 20, 3 4. Disharmony 20, 3, 14, 175. Picturesque & memorable 12, 5, (18) 5. Picturesque 12, 5, 186. Water-related objects 17, 15 6. Water proximity 15, 13, 11, 77. Water accessibility 13, (16) 7. High built density 16, 88. Manicured nature 2

aScene numbers in parentheses are negatively loaded to the factor dimension.

Factor 6: Water-Related Objects. This factor describes the shore full of water-relatedobjects, whether service boats, a crane (as in photo 17), or large buoyancy items. Theriver edge is mainly used for boats or docks (as in photo 15). The water itself is thefocus, not just the coastland. Moreover, the background buildings vary in height be-tween low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise.

Factor 7: Water Accessibility. Scene 13, which factors high along this dimension, showsa setting with an apparent connection with the water. The architecture and the landscapefacilitate physical accessibility to the water. The shoreline is inclined smoothly towardsthe water and accentuated with the presence of a small dock for a small boat. The riveredge is treated as a natural setting with lots of greens and trees. Contrasting is scene 16,which loads oppositely on the factor analysis, showing a steep bank indicating difficultyof human accessibility to the water.

Factor 8: Manicured Nature. Scene 2 clearly demonstrates the river edge as fully occu-pied with organized greens that look like a greenery. Lack of human presence is evidentin this type of low density, natural-appearing setting. In contrast, scene 16 shows asharp inclined stone retaining wall separating a vehicular street from the water. Thesharpness and starkness of the retaining wall creates a buffer or barrier that prohibitsphysical access to the water. The scene also shows a high-density urban setting over-powering the limited number of nearby trees.

Perceived Types of Design Interventions along the Nile Waterfront

A cluster analysis of the same 20 scenes was performed to corroborate the findings fromthe factor analysis. Cluster analysis is used to identify homogeneous groups or clusters ofscenes, regardless of whether the scene is positively or negatively associated with thesubgroup or common factor as in factor analysis.3 The clusters, which need not be thesame as factors generated from the factor analysis, should therefore triangulate or validatethe groupings of scenes. Table 2 compares dimensions generated from the factor analysiswith those from the cluster analysis and indicates the scenes common to each factorand cluster. Table 3 summarizes the clusters showing the scenes and scene numbers.

The first cluster, nature dominating, is a combination of the first and eighth factor,rugged nature and manicured nature, respectively. Scenes 9, 6, and 2 are all river edgesettings that are dominated by trees, greenery, few background buildings, and minimalevidence of people in the scenes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

Urban Aesthetics of the Nile Riverfront 163

The second cluster, neglect-appearing settings, is again similar to the second factor.Scenes 10 and 4 appear neglected; not much is being done to attract people, nor tomaintain the place.

The third cluster, manicured architecture, is compatible with the third factor. Thetwo scenes, 19 and 1, that group together in this cluster show order, homogeneity be-tween well-maintained colorful terraces and nature, and homogeneity between “low key”terraced architecture and the low-rise background buildings. Pleasant harmony is thetheme common to these two photographs.

The fourth cluster, disharmony, is similar to factor 4.The fifth cluster4 represents picturesque scenes identical to factor 5. The landmark

background buildings in scenes 12 and 5 along with the greens in scene 18 make up thepicturesque image of these riverfront scenes. The scenes in this cluster are characterizedby having some sort of architectural content or other factors that make the scenes morememorable, meaningful, and tasteful.

Table 3Mean preference of respondent groups for perceived scene clusters

(lower number indicates higher preference)

Mean Meanpreference preference

Scenes rating per rating per PreferenceNo. Perceived type or cluster numbers scene cluster order

1 Nature dominating 9 2.98 2.82 46 2.912 2.56

2 Neglect 10 3.71 3.57 64 3.42

3 Manicured design 19 2.73 2.59 21 2.44

4 Disharmony 20 3.76 3.79 73 3.89

14 3.5817 3.91

5 Picturesque & memorable 12 1.69 2.19 15 2.53

18 2.36

6 Water proximity 15 2.8 2.68 313 2.411 2.827 2.69

7 High built density 16 3.38 3.14 58 2.89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

164 H. S. Gabr

The sixth cluster, water proximity, is a combination of factors 6, 7, and 2, scenesthat were negatively loaded on factors 2 and 3. All the scenes in this cluster, 15, 13, 11,and 7, show close integration of the river shore with the water in terms of use (boats in15 and 11) or potential use (as in 13 and 7).

The seventh cluster, high built density, is a new dimension embedded within factors1 and 7. This emerging dimension extracts the background buildings as a dominantfactor in grouping this cluster. Scenes 16 and 8 share the presence of large-scale back-ground buildings occupying the visual field, very close to the shore, and that overpowerthe nearby elements of nature. These background buildings in particular were perceivedas tourist-type images that portray the Nile amidst Cairo as a prominent urban center.

A pilot measure of reliability of the cluster results was attempted by looking at theresults of the expert judgment method that was explained earlier. An overall inclinationtowards agreeing with the clusters’ interpretations (agreement average of 2.4, where 1 istotally agree and 5 is totally disagree) but not a perfect agreement, suggests that anelement of subjectivity does exist in visual analysis–type methodologies. The expertsvaried their opinions for the interpretation of some scenes and some clusters. Clusters 2and 7, high built density and neglect, were the most agreed with (mean agreement 1.5and 1.75, respectively). Clusters 1, 3, 4, and 5 came second in agreement (mean agree-ment 2.4, 2.6, 2.4, and 2.8, respectively). The somewhat troublesome cluster was cluster6, water proximity (mean agreement 3.1), which was a slightly misunderstood grouping.The visual interpretation in cluster 6, water proximity, was that the design interventionalong the river shore was done in such a way as to provide close access to the water ora physical link with the water. This was observed in the scenes because of the cafeteriasconstructed near the water level and close to the water edge. When the experts wereinformed of this explanation, they agreed yet expressed a sense of ambiguity, but attrib-uted this ambiguity largely to the clarity of the images. One should note that the re-searcher had the advantage of actually and consciously seeing the scenes in reality whentaking the photographs unlike the experts who were judging the printed images. Whenconsidering individual scenes, the experts easily agreed with the classification of somescenes in their respective cluster such as scenes 4, 8, 9, 10, and 16. The scenes that wereinterpreted differently in particular were scenes 14, 18, and 2. Experts did not agreemuch with scene 14 belonging to a group representing disharmony. They slightly dis-agreed that scene 2 was nature dominated because of the background building and fore-ground bridge and that scene 18 represented a picturesque image because of the croppedcomposition of the buildings in the scene. However, in spite of the exceptions discussedabove, the overall trend of expert agreement can be considered sufficient evidence forthe reliability of the results of the cluster analysis. Nevertheless, one should acknowl-edge the possibility of varied, but hopefully limited, visual interpretations of the scenesand should note that architects and the public often differ in their visual perception ofenvironments (Devlin & Nasar, 1989).

Discussion

The perceived types of design interventions along the Nile waterfront as identified fromthe cluster analysis were further analyzed by computing the average preference ratingsfor the cluster. Further findings result from comparing the average preference ratingsbetween each and every other cluster (Table 3).

By computing the mean preference ratings for each cluster or perceived type ofdesign intervention along the Nile River edge, one finds that the picturesque type is themost preferred (mean preference 2.19). There were no surprises with this finding, how-ever one should note that the elements that make the scene picturesque are varied. In

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

Urban Aesthetics of the Nile Riverfront 165

this group the presence of landmark icons of the city, natural elements, and ordered orformal arrangement all played a role in depicting the picturesque image. Embedded inthis explanation is the memorable effect generated in this type. People associated ele-ments of the scenes in this group with meaningful images in their mind. Familiarity withcertain images could be a factor. This cluster indicates the presence of connotative mean-ings behind the scenes rather than pure artistic effects as indicated in the response to thequestionnaires by the subjects. An example is when a respondent stated that the CairoTower acts as an icon that shows the city as an important tourist destination.

Interestingly, and while both are preferred types, manicured designs are a bit morefavored than nature-dominant designs. This finding supports the architectural and designdevelopment efforts of the Nile waterfront. However, this does not exclude in any waynature as a powerful factor for determining preference. In fact, the presence of naturalelements remains an inseparable part of any architectural design intervention. The methodof incorporating nature is the key. Suggested in the scenes of the manicured design type(scenes 19 and 1) is the careful and sensitive fit between nature and architecture. Prefer-ence for the manicured-type treatment of nature as opposed to the rugged treatment atleast in the city is apparent.

Another preferred type is the water proximity cluster (mean preference 2.68, orderthird). This finding is very important in regards to the privatization issue, the drivingforce behind this paper. People prefer the feeling of closeness to the water edge, hencetheir preference for visual and physical accessibility to the water. Although the scenes ofthis cluster (scenes 15, 13, 11, and 7) do not necessarily indicate whether the settingsare private or public, according to this finding and when given the chance, users wouldlike to get close to and perhaps be in contact with the element of water. The hint is toallow the general public full access to the water edge.

Least preferred types of design intervention have to do with disharmony in design,with neglect of the river edge, and with high built density perceived around the setting(mean preferences 3.79, 3.57, and 3.14, respectively). There were no particular surpriseswith this finding either. However, one observes that people who tend to prefer architec-tural development are also sensitive to higher than expected building densities and todisorder and disharmony in design. The mean preference rating for the neglect-typecluster again supports the finding that city dwellers tend to prefer design developmentalongside the river rather than to view or perceive impressions of neglect. The percep-tion that the city is taking care of its vital recreational and meaningful resource couldexplain this finding. The least preferred group, the disharmony-type designs, sends strongsignals about the important role of architects and designers. Some of the factors affect-ing this type are disorder, incompatibility of different content in the same scene, andlacking aesthetic effect. The result is disharmonious and ugly scenes that are obviouslyleast preferred.

Conclusion

Results from the cluster analysis indicate that preferences towards different design inter-ventions varied significantly according to different types of design interventions. Usersof the Nile waterfront perceive the types of design changes occurring to the river edgein various forms. Memorable and picturesque scenes are the most preferred views of theriver edge. These scenes depict design interventions that incorporate existing landmarksor elements of value with the natural elements in an artistic and meaningful composi-tion. Manicured and well-articulated designs combined with simplicity and homogeneitywith natural elements form another important type that is also highly preferred amongusers. Users generally prefer scenes and design interventions that promote proximity to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

166 H. S. Gabr

the water and those that emphasize well-maintained natural elements. Least-preferredtypes of design interventions are when there is no intervention, as in the case of neglect,or unplanned disharmonious intervention, or designing structures with high densitiesincompatible with the serene image and structure of the river Nile.

Factors affecting the perceived types of riverfront design interventions also vary alongseveral dimensions. The content level of nature, and in particular unrefined nature, is animportant factor, which explains almost 15.3% of the variance in the preference data. Thedimension of neglect vs. care is a second important factor, which explains about 12.5%of the variance in the data. Another important dimension is the manicured, well-planned,and harmonious design factor. Background buildings, degree of shoreline exploitation,and degree of nature are observable dimensions affecting preference for river edge. Re-lationship between background buildings and waterfront treatment is also paramount.

Combining two statistical techniques in the analysis of the data proved beneficial incorroborating the findings. Collectively, the results of the factor and cluster analysisemphasize several dimensions important in the architectural and design treatment of theNile waterfront. Nile shore preference in the urban context of Cairo can be explained byfactors such as nature content, level of neglect or care, manicured architecture, pictur-esque and memorable images, presence of water-related use, water accessibility, waterproximity, and background building density.

People’s attitudes seem to advocate public accessibility of the riverfront and riveredge. Clearly the findings on water proximity types support this conclusion. People’senchantment with the river edge is inspiring. The variation in people’s responses to scenesof the river edge and their perceptions of various design interventions compel architectsand planners to work for maintaining and enhancing the treatment of the river edge.

The privatization of a public domain such as the Nile edge should not take place.Instead, and with the support of research data, public wisdom can advocate bringing theriver edge back to the general public for their leisure and recreational enjoyment. Thisrecommendation is consistent with government goals to provide more public access to theriver edge, which is an international goal as well. The United States Federal Coastal ZoneManagement Act of 1972 had among its objectives giving the public the right to freelyaccess the shorelines, and studies have been conducted to assess the effectiveness ofcoastal zone management programs in achieving this goal. Pogue and Lee (1999), forexample, reported that public access would increase with an increase in the number oftechniques to facilitate public access, such as acquisition, planning, regulations, technicalassistance, and public education. Appropriate management systems, a multitude of toolsfor easing public access, and sufficient funding can be useful recommendations for thelocal Cairo Governorate. The public access issue is important to consider within an overallplanning scheme for the riverfront, or problems with multiple side effects can occur. Forexample, in recent years, the Cairo Governorate in coordination with the Ministry ofIrrigation implemented several projects in the form of terraced platforms with somelandscape elements along stretches of the Nile in downtown Cairo to provide free publicaccess to the river. Unfortunately, dredging and filling of parts of the river bed werenecessary to provide for extra space to compensate for the loss of many other parts of theriver to private use. The consequent environmental and aesthetic repercussions are obvi-ous. If an overall planning scheme addressing the best use of the river edge had been inplace earlier and supported by solid management programs, realistic goals, and appropri-ate legislation, then perhaps the Nile river edge would suffer less harm.

Future research could investigate, using a larger sample, how various person factorssuch as lifestyle or typical demographic factors, affect preference towards perceivedtypes of design interventions. Each perceived type can be further scrutinized so as tofully understand the physical elements and design principles that form such a type. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

Urban Aesthetics of the Nile Riverfront 167

Table 1The scenes used in the research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

168 H. S. Gabr

Table 1The scenes used in the research (Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

Urban Aesthetics of the Nile Riverfront 169

Table 1The scenes used in the research (Continued)

methodology used in this paper can be repeated whenever different types of designinterventions are incorporated so as to update existing knowledge. Furthermore, the meth-odology could be used during pre-design stages such as during programming or duringpreliminary design preparations to anticipate the general public’s response to the pro-posed design interventions. If the architecture profession reaches this level of coopera-tion and collaboration with potential users, architectural success would be imminent. Anearlier case used visual preference research as a tool to enhance user participation inwaterfront revitalization, thus assisting with the development efforts in the right track(Hudspeth, 1986).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

170 H. S. Gabr

Relying on user feedback, this paper classifies types of design interventions basedon the dimension of visual preference. The data presented in the paper supports theefforts for future design interventions along the river edge in Cairo as long as the publicis permitted to access the river and its edge. Also important is to maintain and sustainthe Nile as an indispensable environmental resource, which should not be mistreated orabused. The role of architects, developers, and resource managers is very important inhelping achieve these objectives. Decisions that are knowledge-based would lead to bet-ter user response, and hence public support and success. People like nature, and theyassociate the Nile with nature. However, they support design interventions that are inharmony with nature. Contextual compatibility is an important criterion for perceivingwaterfronts. People are sensitive to ugly and irresponsible designs, but they eagerly seekout beauty and joy.

Notes

1. For a literature review comparing advantages and disadvantages of the use of photo-graphs to represent real environments, refer to Stamps (1990).

2. Originally, 28 photographic scenes were used in the Q-sorting task. Initial descriptive andcorrelation statistics were performed to examine the responses to each scene. Eight photographicscenes were eliminated before performing the factor analysis. Some of the eliminated scenes hadhigh standard deviation values indicating disagreement among raters in their response to thosescenes. Scenes that had small correlation coefficient with all other scenes were eliminated, as theywould not fit into the factor model. Some of the scenes within the mid-range in terms of meanpreference score were also eliminated to exaggerate the variance and enhance the detection of thefactors. The remaining 20 scenes were used in the factor analysis and subsequent cluster analysis(scenes are shown in Table 4).

3. In five of the eight factors, some scenes were negatively related to the factor. Scenes thatcorrelate negatively with a factor would not appear in the same cluster with scenes that correlatepositively.

4. The three scenes of this cluster originally clustered into three separate clusters, each scenein a cluster by itself. However, they all grouped into one cluster as evidenced in the viciclediagram from the SPSS analysis files (not shown in this paper).

References

Al-Madany, I. M., M. A. Abdalla, and A. S. E. Abdu. (1991). Coastal zone management in Bahrain: Ananalysis of social, economic and environmental impacts of dredging and reclamation. Journal of Envi-ronmental Management 32(4):335–348.

Amedeo, D., D. G. Pitt, and E. H. Zube. (1989). Landscape feature classification as a determinant ofperceived scenic value. Landscape Journal, 36–50.

Banerjee, T., and J. Gollub. (1976). The public view of the coast: Toward aesthetic indicators for thecoastal planning and management. In Behavioral basis of design, Book I: Selected papers. Proceed-ings of the Seventh International Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, Ed.P. Suofeld & J. A. Russell, pp. 115–122. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.

Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Ends and means of experimental aesthetics. Canadian Journal of Psychology 26:303–325.

Berlyne, D. E. (Ed.). (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York: Halsted.Berlyne, D. E. (1978). The new experimental aesthetics and environmental psychology. In The behavioral

basis of design, Book 2, ed. P. Suedfeld, J. A. Russell, L. M. Ward, F. Szigeti, & G. Davis, pp. 13–22.Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.

Blair, W., I. Robertson, and D. Dingfield. (1982). The visual effect of port redevelopment alternatives.Coastal Zone Management Journal 9(3/4):323–350.

Breen, A., & D. Rigby. (1994). Waterfronts: Cities reclaim their edge. New York: McGraw Hill.Ching, F. D. K. (1996). Architecture: Form, space, and order, 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Cooper, D. R., and P. S. Schindler. (2003). Business research methods, Internat. ed. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4

Urban Aesthetics of the Nile Riverfront 171

Devlin, K., and J. L. Nasar. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of “High”versus “Popular” residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 9:333–344.

Farrell, B. H. (1986). Cooperative tourism and the coastal zone. Coastal Zone Management Journal14(1/2):113–130.

Fenton, D. M., and G. J. Syme. (1989). Perception and evaluation of the coastal zone: Implications forcoastal zone planning. Coastal Management 17(2):295–308.

Frederick, L., and J. Stadler. (1991). Revitalization of a small city waterfront: A focus on finances. CoastalManagement 19(4):467–479.

Goodwin, R. F. (1999). Redeveloping deteriorated urban waterfronts: The effectiveness of U.S. coastalmanagement programs. Coastal Management 27(2/3):239–269.

Hershman, M. J. G., J. W. Good, T. Bernd-Cohen, R. F. Goodwin, V. Lee, and P. Pogue. (1999). Theeffectiveness of coastal zone management in the United States. Coastal Management 27(2/3):113–138.

Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psy-chology 5(3):225–241.

Hudspeth, T. R. (1986). Visual preference as a tool for facilitating citizen participation in urban waterfrontrevitalization. Journal of Environmental Management 23:373–385.

Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.

Krier, R. (1988). Architectural composition. London: Academy Editions.McGoodwin, J. R. (1986). The tourism-impact syndrome in developing coastal communities: A Mexican

case. Coastal Zone Management Journal 14(1/2):131–146.Miller, M. L., and R. B. Ditton. (1986). Travel, tourism, and marine affairs. Coastal Zone Management

Journal 14(1/2):1–19.Moudon, A. V. (1992). A Catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should know. Journal of

Planning Literature 6(4):331–349.Nassauer, J. I. (1983). Oil and gas development in a coastal landscape: Visual preferences and management

implications. Coastal Zone Management Journal 11(3):199–217.Nieman, T. J. (1977). Visual quality: The attitude and perception of coastal zone user groups. Annual

Proceedings of the Eight International Conference of the Environmental Design Research Associa-tion. Washington DC: EDRA.

Petrillo, J. (1987). Small city waterfront restoration. Coastal Management 15:197–212.Pogue, P., and V. Lee. (1999). Providing public access to the shore: The role of Coastal Management

Programs. Coastal Management 27(2/3):219–237.Porteous, D. (1982). Approaches to environmental aesthetics. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2(1):53–

66.Porteous, J. D. (1996). Environmental aesthetics: Ideas, politics and planning. New York: Routledge.Richardson, S. L. (1986). A product life cycle approach to urban waterfronts: The revitalization of Galveston.

Coastal Zone Management Journal 14(1/2):21–46.Rorholm, N. (1983). Marine Recreation. In Man and the marine environment, ed. R. A. Ragotzkie, pp. 1–

20. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Sanoff, H. (1991). Visual research methods in design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Schroeder, H. W. (1991). Preference and meaning of arboretum landscapes: Combining quantitative and

qualitative data. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11:231–248.Smardon, R. C., and J. P. Felleman. (1982). The quiet revolution in visual resource management: A view

from the coast. Coastal Zone Management Journal 9(3/4):211–224.Stamps, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and

Motor Skills 71:907–913.Taylor, J. G., E. H. Zube, and J. L. Sell. (1987). Landscape assessment and perception research methods. In

Methods in environmental and behavioral research, ed. R. B. Bechtel, R. W. Marans, & W. Michelson.New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Wohlwill, J. F. (1978). What belongs where: Research on the fittingness of man-made structures in naturalsettings. Landscape Research 3:3–5.

Wohlwill, J. F. (1982). The visual impact of development in coastal zone areas. Coastal Zone ManagementJournal 9:225–248.

Yapp, G. A. (1986). Aspects of population, recreation, and management of the Australian coastal zone.Coastal Zone Management Journal 14(1/2):47–66.

Zube, E. H., J. L. Sell, and J. G. Taylor. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application, and theory.Landscape Planning 9:1–33.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

exas

at E

l Pas

o] a

t 09:

16 1

8 A

ugus

t 201

4