Comparative study of the effect of native architecture on planning of pond-based villages (case study: Sarakhiyeh village in the pond of Shadegan)

Figures & data

Figure 1. Satellite photo of Sarakhiyeh

(Reference: Google earth 2016).

Figure 2. Vofیحات(متر

Figure 3. The small beaches of rural houses for movement on the pond

(Reference: Authors 2016).

Figure 4. Sample plan for new homes

(Reference: Authors 2016).

Figure 5. Plan of old houses that whereabouts of animals is part of the yard

(Reference: Authors 2016).

Figure 6. Plan of old houses

(Reference: Authors 2016).

Figure 7. Plan of old houses

(Reference: Authors 2016).

Figure 8. Plan of old houses

(Reference: Authors 2016).

Figure 9. Plan of old houses

(Reference: Authors 2016).

Figure 10. Plan of old houses

(Reference: Authors 2016).

Table 1. Options of design based on the discovered phenomena (Reference: Authors 2016)

Design options	Sample	Description
Yard		Iranian house yard is vibrant atmosphere of the house. Most flow of life happens here; yard is full of children’s noise and women hum and work together to meet the needs of households; From the goldfish in the pool until birds that nest on the trees, all reside in the yard. Finally, the yard is a life for the body of Iranian architecture; For life of Architecture, should be marks the Iranian yard. Iranian house without “yard“, does not have ”life”.
Niche		Niche is the functional and decorative element in the house According to the performance in each space, it may contain certain form or colour or texture and structure; Placement in any part of the space that is pleasant for people can be a cause of a positive mental phenomena.
Seating systems (interior design)		Seating systems and using carpets and backrest in the internal decoration creates intimacy and comfort among the rural homes which can affect positive mentality to inspire them.
Wall colour		Wall and consider the type of coverage and the colour of which can be identity phenomena that depending on the choice of colour and cover could make the peace and happiness for the people and force them to work.
Door Threshold		Door threshold is at the bottom of the frame. For more complete separation of the two spaces, the threshold is used. Also to prevent the entry of dirt and vermin threshold is used.

Table 2. The results of t test (Reference: Authors 2016)

	Average value = 3
	t	Degrees of freedom	Significance level	Average difference	95% confidence level difference
					Down	Top
Living place	21.452	399	0.000	1.218	1.11	1.33
Providing livelihood needs	11.363	399	0.000	0.708	0.59	0.83
Protection of the pond	12.287	399	0.000	0.672	0.56	0.78
Participate	4.815	399	0.000	0.257	0.15	0.36
Safety	37.667	398	0.000	1.494	1.42	1.57
Affiliation	36.587	399	0.000	1.470	1.39	1.55
Tradition	29.005	399	0.000	1.310	1.22	1.40
Shape of the village	1.936	397	0.054	0.095	0.00	0.19
Traditions and customs	10.442	397	0.000	0.771	0.63	0.92
New and local architecture	28.486	399	0.000	1.392	1.30	1.49
The quality of the facade	−4.939	399	0.000	−0.195	0.12	0.27
New building	−0.999	399	0.319	−0.067	0.20	0.07
Environmental issues	−15.707	399	0.000	−0.885	0.77	1.00
Route	−6.145	397	0.000	−0.427	0.29	0.56
Car route	4.545	399	0.000	0.240	0.14	0.34
Amusement place	−31.721	399	0.000	−1.468	1.36	1.56
Give and take	−6.425	399	0.000	−0.440	0.31	0.57
The shop next to the street	38.686	399	0.000	1.530	1.45	1.61
Quality improvement	46.809	399	0.000	1.550	1.48	1.62
Furniture	−39.919	398	0.000	−1.591	1.51	1.67
Cleanliness	−41.556	399	0.000	−1.662	1.58	1.74
Contamination	−16.897	398	0.000	−1.003	0.89	1.12
Brightness	1.602	397	0.110	0.085	0.02	0.19
Flooring	−17.160	399	0.000	−0.925	0.82	1.03
Noise	−36.167	399	0.000	−1.525	1.44	1.61
Life near the pond	10.660	399	0.000	0.788	0.64	0.93
Leave village	−7.731	397	0.000	−0.628	0.47	0.79

Table 3. Pearson coefficient of tested components (Reference: Authors 2016)

Model	Priority	Pearson coefficient of local architecture
Living place	8	0.106*
Providing livelihood needs	15	0.054
Protection of the pond	9	0.091
Participate	2	0.175**
Affiliation	19	0.028
Shape of the village	1	0.254**
New building	3	0.157**
Environmental issues	16	0.051
Amusement place	10	−0.081
Give and take	6	−0.115*
The shop next to the street	7	0.114*
Quality improvement	16	0.051
Furniture	11	−0.066
Cleanliness	17	−0.050
Contamination	12	0.065
Flooring	21	−0.003
Noise	20	0.012
Life near the pond	4	0.126*
Leave village	13	−0.063
Local		1
Safety	14	−0.062
Tradition	5	0.124*
Route	18	0.042

Table 4. Regression coefficients (Reference: Authors 2016)

Model		Not standardized impact coefficient		Standardized impact coefficient	t	Significance level
		B	Benchmark deviation	Beta
1	(constant)	1.951	0.459		4.253	0.000
	Living place	0.008	0.034	0.014	0.232	0.816
	Providing livelihood needs	0.006	0.032	0.011	0.189	0.850
	Protection of the pond	−0.020	0.033	−0.034	−0.614	0.540
	Participate	0.141	0.034	0.230	4.157	0.000
	Affiliation	−0.017	0.045	−0.021	−0.384	0.701
	Shape of the village	0.174	0.033	0.259	5.274	0.000
	New building	0.097	0.025	0.200	3.889	0.000
	Environmental issues	−0.010	0.035	−0.017	−0.287	0.775
	Amusement place	−0.078	0.037	−0.109	−2.070	0.039
	Give and take	−0.033	0.028	−0.069	−1.193	0.234
	The shop next to the street	0.073	0.045	0.087	1.606	0.109
	Furniture	−0.042	0.054	−0.051	−0.773	0.440
	Cleanliness	−0.002	0.051	−0.002	−0.039	0.969
	Contamination	0.034	0.031	0.062	1.108	0.269
	Flooring	−0.019	0.038	−0.031	−0.502	0.616
	Noise	−0.002	0.044	−0.002	−0.045	0.164
	Life near the pond	0.067	0.039	0.152	1.694	0.091
	Leave village	0.037	0.036	0.090	1.007	0.315
	Safety	−0.106	0.052	−0.110	−2.030	0.043
	Tradition	0.075	0.044	0.094	1.685	0.093
	Route	0.044	0.054	0.049	0.813	0.417