ICES-2020-150
Kansei Engineering Methodology to Define the Interior Design of Habitats in Extreme Environments
Paolo Caratelli1 and Maria Alessandra Misuri2 Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 59911
Kansei Engineering (KE) is a methodology applied to industrial design developed by Mitsuo Nagamachi of Hiroshima University in the 1980s. It is based on the concept of kansei, a Japanese term used to express one’s own feelings towards artifacts, contexts, and situations emotionally perceived at a cognitive level. Rooted in Japanese culture, the term does not have a direct English translation, hence KE is often known as Affective or Emotional Engineering in the western world. Developed as a user-centered methodology, KE seems particularly appropriate towards the preliminary definitions of interior spaces, informing the design process about what features would enhance the psychophysical comfort of occupants. Habitats in extreme environments, and especially the future ones envisioned beyond Earth orbit and on extraterrestrial planetary surfaces, will face the issue of crew’s prolonged isolation within a limited habitable space surrounded by a lethal environment. In such extreme conditions of isolation and confinement, psychological and social stresses which could arise within the crew could potentially affect its cohesion, and in turn the success of the mission. This paper investigates about possible applications and limitations of methodologies currently used in KE and its later development, Kansei Design (KD), during the design process of habitats’ interiors in extreme environments, in order to define a habitable environment psychosocially comfortable for long-term missions, within the frame of expected technical limitations.
Nomenclature KD = Kansei Design KE = Kansei Engineering KES = Kansei Engineering System QFD = Quality Function Development SD = Semantic Differential
I. Introduction HE term “Kansei Engineering” (KE) appeared for the first time in 1986, during a presentation held at the T University of Michigan by late Kenichi Yamamoto, President of Mazda Automotive Corporation, with explicit reference to the work done until then by Prof. Mitsuo Nagamachi of Hiroshima University, who worked since late 1970s on a methodology to quantify the cognitive experience perceived with design products. Within the following three years the KE methodology was successfully applied in the design development of Mazda’s MX-5, to date the world’s bestselling two-seater convertible sports car in history, and later in a range of other industrial product designs, including construction machinery (Komatsu, BT Industries), digital devices (Sanyo, Sharp, Samsung), home appliances and kitchen furniture (Panasonic, LG, Matsushita Electric Works), office automation (Fuji, Xerox, Canon), underwear (Wacoal, Goldwin), and cosmetics (Shiseido, Noevea, Milbon, Ogawa).1 Basically, Nagamachi’s research pursued the development of others’ analytical methods to quantify users’ needs in relation to artifacts, like the Semantic Differential (SD) method developed by Charles E. Osgood in the 1950s, and alternative engineering approaches developed in Japan like the Quality Function Development (QFD) by Shigeru Mizuno and Yoji Akao in the 1960s, and the Kano Model by Noriaki Kano of Tokyo University in the 1980s. Such approaches introduced a progressive shifting of industrial products and services from a design-centered approach to a new user-centered
1 Associate Professor, College of Engineering, Dept. of Architecture and Design, [email protected] 2 Lecturer, College of Engineering, Dept. of Architecture and Design, [email protected]
Copyright © 2020 Paolo Caratelli philosophy, particularly needed in a time of scarce product differentiation and stagnant market economy. In this context, the method developed by Mitsuo Nagamachi uses the concept of kansei as a tool for product development based on emotional responses of users, applying a statistical methodology to individuate the kansei feeling of specific users regarding a specific product. Kansei is defined in the Japanese language as the accrual of personal feelings and impressions towards artifacts, situations, and surroundings perceived at a cognitive level, meaning the person’s psychological feeling as well as the physiological issues. Hence, the KE has been defined as “translating the customer’s kansei into the product development or system development.”2 Deeply rooted in the Japanese cultural background, the kansei term does not possess a direct English translation, but seemingly corresponds to the ideas of “sensitive recognition,” “sensitivity of affection,” and “emotion,” even if these definitions are not comprehensively recognized by all researchers in this specific field. KE’s methodology gained an almost immediate success in Japan, responding to a rising demand of products’ personalization and differentiation, becoming rapidly popular between manufacturing companies, and introducing the kansei approach into design community for the first time. Despite its popularity and success in Japan, the kansei approach and methodologies in design development have been recognized only recently in the western world, due to difficulties in defining a universal translation of the term. Therefore, they are often referred as Affective or Emotional Engineering. A first attempt to universally define the kansei term was done by Akira Harada in 1998, showing a multidimensional complexity of the concept which Harada summarized as follows: “Kansei is an internal process (a high function) of the brain, involved in the construction of intuitive reaction to external stimuli.”3 Expressed in these terms, the research field of kansei deals with the collection of customers’ hidden subjective needs and their translation into objects which should be functional, usable, and attractive at physical, physiological and psychological level.4 As Lévy (2009) noted, “like other high-functions of the brain, measuring kansei cannot be done directly. What is observed is not kansei but the causes and the consequences of the kansei process. Therefore, to determine some characteristics of kansei, researchers often work on correlating different elements close to kansei.”5 The work pursued by Nagamachi is at the moment the most advanced engineering method based on the concept of kansei as an “individual’s subjective impression from a certain artifact, environment, or situation using all senses of sight, hearing, feeling, smell, taste as well as recognition.”6 In fact, the major role of KE is to analyze the relationship between the human kansei, having qualitative properties, and the elements of design, having quantitative properties.7 Lately, the research about kansei evolved into Kansei Science (KS) as trans-disciplinary approach to cognitive neuroscience and psychophysiology, and more recently into Kansei Design (KD), as a holistic approach to the design process based on cognitive perceptions and psychophysiological response to sensorial stimuli from objects and surrounding environment, including aesthetic qualities, space awareness, and the feeling of appropriateness of artifacts and spaces within a specific context. Particularly, the KD approach seems appropriate also to test advanced applications in architectural design, especially concerning the response from users towards specific functionalities and shaping of internal spaces. “The global aim of KD is to bring kansei aspects in design methods and in design output. The motivation of such a target is to improve the relationship between an individual – the user – and her/his environment – whether it is the physical or the social one – through the design of new products and systems.”8 To conceive and design an interior that would respond to the needing of a community, one of the foundations of architectural design is identifying and satisfying the demands placed on that specific architectural space.9 Therefore, the user-centered approach adopted by KE and KD, joined by advanced analytical tools, could make this methodology suitable also to other contexts and domains beyond the product design as originally conceived. To date, the kansei concept evolved informing other interdisciplinary researches and applications, including environmental and cognitive psychology.10, 11 The scope of this paper investigates specific approaches and methodologies adopted in KE and KD in search of a possible extension of these concepts in the definition of architectural spaces, with specific reference to highly specialized interior spaces such as those of habitats designed for extreme environments. Therefore, this preliminary study does not have the goal of proposing an alternative approach to KE and KD or developing another statistical tool to be used. Rather, it is posing the question as to whether these above-mentioned methodologies could have the characteristics to be integrated and applied during the architectural design process, with a focus on interior spaces and specifically the case of community spaces shared by a heterogeneity of users in condition of remoteness. In such condition, the affective quality and recognizability of forms and spaces would substantially contribute to the psychophysical well-being of the occupants living in prolonged isolation and confinement in a hostile environment. Furthermore, this paper would contribute to the open discussion about the utilization of architects’ expertise in designing advanced habitation spaces in strict collaboration with aerospace and systems engineers; a collaboration which could be suitable toward the development of a future generation of “extra-terrestrial dwellings” for long-term missions on planetary surfaces.
2 International Conference on Environmental Systems
II. Paradigm shift Design and implementation of human habitats in extreme environments represent one of the hardest challenges for designers, engineers, and architects as well. Within an exterior shell conceived, designed, and built to withstand against extreme conditions to human survival in terms of temperature, atmospheric pressure and radiation, the interior space, instead, must be adaptable, flexible and gracefully responding to all possible psychophysiological comforts needed for the crew, well beyond the basic requirements for biological survival. In an alien context to human permanence, the habitat should represent the normality more than the exception, the haven possessing all the psychological and sociological qualities of home, although it is not for any specific crew member and only for a supposed limited time frame. This basic requirement should be valid in the same measure for a vessel navigating above or below the oceans’ surface, for a shelter at high mountain altitude or on top of an ice shelf in Antarctica, for a sealed habitat sitting on the dusty surfaces of Moon and Mars or silently floating in the emptiness of space. The functional and ergonomic requirements for a vehicle are not the same as what we would see applied to a dwelling, and what is considered habitable should not to be confused with habitation. This statement would appear banal and predictable for many people, especially architects, but seemingly it’s not, especially for someone operating in the complex and multifaceted field of system engineering, where the matter of habitable space is often treated as an item of secondary importance. Human beings are adaptable and can live and perform in almost any extreme condition, once properly trained, motivated, and given with the proper support for their physiological and psychological subsistence. However, once we are thinking about the next frontier of human exploration, and specifically prolonged manned missions in space, all terms and comparisons related to exploration and survival in extreme environmental conditions as experienced in the past should be changed substantially. The boldness of early explorers, heroically portrayed as the brave well-tempered and trained explorer/sailor/aviator who looks beyond the horizon disdainful of dangers, should be replaced nowadays with a completely different kind of figure, and a different set of needing. Following the records taken during early Antarctic expeditions, which still represent one of the closest earth analogies to future manned space missions in terms of isolation and confinement, the accounts describe crews with dietary supply at the limit of survival, horrific sanitary conditions, and constant exposure to unbearable physical and psychological stresses for months or years. These records have informed psychologists and physiologists how human beings could adapt and survive even in the harshest conditions, but are also retelling how the equilibrium of the human psyche can easily reach a point of rupture, revealing its extraordinary complexity and duality of resilience/fragility once exposed for prolonged periods to isolation and confinement in a hostile environment.12 The paradigm shift which we are discussing in this section is therefore referred to as the design approach adopted until now for the habitats conceived for extreme environments, largely inherited from the early period of exploration. Even in the case of the latest and most advanced human endeavor, which is the exploration of space, the initial paradigm has been the same as earlier expeditions, like vessels sent overseas centuries ago in search of distant and unknown lands to be discovered and conquered, their mission to be the first to place a flag pole. Like the so-called geographical expeditions of 17th and 18th centuries, the early manned exploration of space was planned for political and strategic military reasons first, and scientific purposes later. Heavily financed by national treasuries, technically supported by the advanced military-industrial complex, and employing well trained military air force personnel, the inception of U.S. and Soviet Union’s competing space programs in the 1960s was laid down as military, political and technological confrontation, a testbed for reciprocal socio-technological supremacy. This approach led to the myth of superhero astronauts, and space travel as matter “only for the though and rugged, for those who could face its dangers with a cool, masculinized stoicism. This attitude continues to infuse the design approach today; pioneering space is meant to be more a gritty adventure rather than a pleasant excursion.”13 The legacy of these heroical first crews, sometimes with the sacrifice of their lives, and the efforts of engineering teams who worked tirelessly in an unexperienced field is unfathomable, as scientific contribution and technological advancement. But just as human civilization and technology progressed from the Columbus’ galleon Santa Maria, until the transatlantic liner RMS Queen Mary II, or from Lindbergh’s Spirit of Saint Louis to the Concorde or the A380, the early generations of habitats in extreme environments, including spacecraft and planetary habitats, would represent today the vernacular which would develop into new paradigms. Currently, these are taking shape in coincidence with a resurgence of public interest into space exploration, fueled by a new generation of “space entrepreneurs.”14 Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, and Robert T. Bigelow’s Bigelow Aerospace are already pushing the boundaries in setting new paradigms of commercial exploitation of space, opening to still unexplored possibilities. Space travel instead of exploration, space tourism instead of mission, and space hotel instead of habitat, maybe will be the future terminology signifying that a shifting in perception of space frontier took place, both in the scientific community and the people at large.
3 International Conference on Environmental Systems
A. Terrestrial Extreme Environments An extreme environment is considered as such if it has environmental characteristics unfavorable to human survival. However, in some of them other forms of biological life can thrive or adapt. Therefore, the paradigm to classify an environment as extreme is essentially based on our physiology and expectations to survive in self- sufficiency conditions. What cannot be sourced on site should be transported from elsewhere and stored or produced on site through appropriate technologies. Living and working in extreme conditions is not a common activity and is usually reserved for well-trained crews employed for military and/or scientific purposes. Nevertheless, visiting and lodging in extreme environments for limited periods is recently becoming an attractive tourism activity, and the list of people ready to pay expensive tickets for such a challenging experience is already quite long.15 Diaries and reports from early geographers exploring remote areas of the globe fueled the fantasies of travelers for generations, and what were considered challenging places to reach, they have been transformed into mass-tourism destinations. Arid deserts, high mountains, treacherous oceans, and frozen landscapes are nowadays within the reach of travelers in search of exotic unfamiliar experiences. However, there are some terrestrial environments which are challenging at such extreme that any type of human permanence could be suitable only through heavily equipped infrastructures, making them strikingly similar to extra-terrestrial conditions, like Antarctica and deep underwater facilities. Antarctica represents one of the most extreme environments on Earth, a place which is currently used as terrestrial analog for extreme conditions of remoteness and isolation on planetary surfaces. The habitats used in early exploration of the frozen continent were the same vessels with which the expedition arrived, often trapped by the thick ice pack, and sometimes crushed by its pressure. The early shelters realized in emergency conditions with the wreck of these unfortunate ships, provided the necessary knowledge to develop semi-permanent habitats realized with a combination of assembled elements and scarce in-situ resources. Many lessons on how-to-survive in the coldest region of the planet were learned during this early period, and sometimes in the hardest way. The first planned overwintering took place with the British Expedition of 1899-1900 led by Carsten E. Borchgrevink, known as Southern Cross Expedition. Ten men and seventy-five sledge dogs spent the dark Antarctic winter in two timber huts of 5,5 x 6,5 m (18 x 21 ft), one arranged as living quarters and the other for storage. Poor insulation made the living quarters initially unbearably cold, then an excessive sealing without a proper ventilation almost killed the group by asphyxiation, due carbon monoxide poisoning from the stove used for cooking and heating. The highly flammable materials used for structure and interior represented a constant risk of fire, limiting the use of candles for lighting and forcing the group to keep survival provisions and tents ready in case of emergency. Just few months before conclusion one member died, probably due beriberi caused by dietary deficiency of thiamine.16 These unbearable and sometimes tragic conditions experienced by early courageous crews sheltering in improvised huts, paved the way and provide the necessary knowledge for late fully equipped habitats, planned and realized to accommodate their occupants within the most psychophysical and socially comfortable environment, as a design strategy to ensure crew’s well-being in isolated, confined remote conditions for long periods. Nowadays, the scientific crews of forty-three nations forming the Antarctic Treaty are accommodating into seventy-five permanent research stations, mostly of them inhabited year-round by hundreds of people at time. Due extreme climatic conditions, the short-cycle maintenance includes periodical major refitting or replacement with new constructions, requiring a constant update of the buildings with the latest technologies, and an opportunity to apply new interior layouts principles. Since the Southern Cross Expedition and until few decades ago, the basic habitat’s concept for Antarctic research stations did not change much, except for the quality of materials and building technologies used. Instead, the most recent projects like Bharati (India) designed by Bof Arkitekten and realized in 2009, Halley VI (UK) and Juan Carlos I (Spain) both designed by Hugh Broughton Architects and completed in 2013 and 2018 respectively, or Comandante Ferraz (Brazil) designed by Estúdio41 Arquitectura and recently inaugurated, they have nothing in common with their precedents in terms of design, functionality, and comfort of interior spaces, marking a decisive step forward.17 Like Class II space habitats, the technology adopted is modular, with prefabricated elements assembled on site during the short three-month summer season. But beyond the technical and functional improvements, a common characteristic resides in the attention spent in planning the habitation spaces. In particular, the operational efficiency and psychophysical well-being of the occupants are placed at the same level of importance, becoming the core of the entire design process. As stated for the project of Halley VI, “the design was developed in direct response to the demands of science, comfort of the residents, buildability, and operations inherent in the life of an Antarctic research station.”18 Colors, materials and design features have been conceived with the purpose “to provide an uplifting environment capable to sustain the crew through the long dark winters, helping to combat the debilitating influence of seasonal affected disorder.”19 Notably, many of the approaches and concepts explored for Halley VI can be adapted to suit other remote research stations for polar regions or planetary missions, since the analogy to likely requirements for habitats in orbital and planetary environments. 4 International Conference on Environmental Systems
The rising popularity of these projects between the scientific and design communities, is pushing also other research agencies to rethink about the improvement of their bases in Antarctica to follow these examples. However, the novelty of these projects does not reside in the application of cutting-edge technologies, but in the creative approach which has been applied in a highly specialized building typology. Through designers’ sensitivity, functional and aesthetical qualities have been merged, keeping the human psychophysical comfort as the basis of design. Their success and popularity deserve to be further analyzed as a new paradigm for this typology of habitats, and not simply considered as a model to replicate. In this case, the adoption of a sort of “reverse kansei” methodology could be useful to understand what aspect or element of design currently adopted would activate a positive feeling in a heterogeneous pool of potential users. Yet, KE and KD methodology could be used to preliminarily test these design concepts in a set of specialized interior spaces, in searching for the common denominator able to transmit the same feeling, or kansei, even in different layouts. For example, it would be important to consider that people hosted in these research stations are previously selected through a process very similar to crew’s selection for space programs but, with few exceptions, the people selected to winter in Antarctica are homogeneous groups, very often belonging to the same nationality, language, and presumably having a common social and cultural background. Instead, in prevision of long- term missions with international crews, it should be important to understand what interior design features would have a positive psychological effect in any crew’s member, and not being recognized by a specific group only. Antarctica is considered practically uninhabited, its population usually amounting to 1,144 people in wintertime, practically scientists and military personnel accommodated into forty research stations inhabited year-round. But this number would easily rise above 50,000 people in summer, of whom 4,225 only are bases’ personnel and the rest are visiting tourists. During the 2014/2015 summer season, 36,702 tourists reached the continent via cruise ships or by air from Punta Arenas, Chile to Frei base on King George Island, the only one which allows passenger aircrafts to land during summer.20 This number grew to 44,202 in 2016/2017 and has reached 56,168 visitors in 2018/2019 season, with a 53% increase over the number of tourists who visited Antarctica in 2014/2015, electing the frozen continent as ultimate destination for travelers ready to pay an average ticket of 11,000 USD.21 Apart the rising concerns about an intensive tourist activity that would negatively impact on the fragile Antarctic ecosystem, the opportunity to have limited groups of paying guests opportunely trained and lodging in stations’ facilities appositely designed, could substantially contribute to finance further scientific researches, and the huge costs of maintenance for the bases.
B. Spacecraft and Space Habitats The first generation of manned space vehicles paid a tribute to jet fighters in terms of technology and concept design. Conceived by the same engineers, built by the same contractors, and piloted by the same crews, these crew members were trained to perform efficiently in cramped, claustrophobic spaces at the limit of livability, for long hours or days. The habitable volume within these early space capsules could be compared with analogous everyday objects, such as a tiny phone booth for the Mercury capsule (1,55 m3, 55 ft3), the front seats’ space of a Volkswagen Beetle for the Gemini capsule (1,25 m3, 44 ft3 per astronaut), and the internal volume of a big station wagon for Apollo capsules (3,03 m3, 107 ft3 per astronaut), the largest ballistic capsule flown into space,22 until SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule recently flown for the first manned flight. Despite that, habitats realized during this early period reached an incredible complexity in terms of mass and habitable volume, with the Skylab’s still unrivalled 320 m3 single module, and Salyut’s family with modules up to 100 m3. The very first habitat on a planetary surface, the Lunar Module of Apollo missions, until now represents the one and only hybrid type of vehicle-habitat for short-term planetary missions, but its limited habitable volume of 4,5 m3 for a crew of two would hardly represent a suitable prototype for future long-term mission habitats.23 The second generation of manned spacecraft has been dominated by a decisive advancement of complex orbital habitats, represented by the Russian Mir station with a habitable volume of 380 m3 in seven modules, and the International Space Station Alpha (ISS) of 935 m3 composed of eleven main modules, each with an average internal volume comparable to a school bus. Paradoxically, the development of space vehicles was dominated by a hybrid aircraft, the Space Shuttle Orbiter, and an almost mass-production of Soyuz launch systems, to date the most enduring and reliable spacecraft since 1960s. The Space Shuttle marked simultaneously an advancement toward the realization and further implementation of the ISS Alpha, and a partial withdrawal from planning long-term missions toward Moon and Mars, both in terms of financial and political efforts. Its habitable volume of 66 m3 for a crew of seven could be compared with a big Class A motorhome, since the largest part of the fuselage was occupied by the payload bay, and its operational range limited to Earth’s orbit. Mainly developed for ISS Alpha’s components deployment and support during assembly phases, the Shuttle fleet of five represented the backbone of NASA’s manned operations for 30 years, since the maiden orbital flight of Columbia in 1981, until the last orbital flight operated with Atlantis in 2011. This second generation’s spacecraft gave the impression that the new age of space exploration would soon be at hand, even 5 International Conference on Environmental Systems
if momentarily restricted to the orbital environment only. However, this space frontier developed only minimally, with routine launches to the ISS in low-Earth orbit (LEO), until the two shocking accidents of Challenger (1986) and Columbia (2003) altered this chapter of human spaceflight. Space is tough and expensive under any circumstances. The third generation is currently developing under our eyes, with a progressive shifting towards commercial enterprises which are putting in question consolidated paradigms and mindsets still belonging to first and second generation of spaceflight operations and vehicles. New concepts such as space tourism24 and commercial exploitation of mineral resources on asteroids and planetoids, joined with a revival of other early concepts like suborbital commercial spaceplanes and long-term planetary missions, are currently revitalizing the aerospace sector, injecting into this field consistent funding from private entrepreneurships and requesting the contribution of other expertise, beyond the one coming from the classical aerospace engineering sector. Apparently, SpaceX’s Dragon capsules, Lockheed Martin’s Orion, and Boeing’s CST-100 represent a step back to the early concept of ballistic capsules, like Apollo and Soyuz, after the experience accrued with the operational complexity of the Shuttle Transport System (STS). Instead, the evolution in terms of technology, operability, and interior livability is significant. In parallel, the further development of inflatable technology and expandable modules is opening interesting alternatives to the hard- shell technology adopted until now for ISS modules. Bigelow Aerospace is leading the sector with two prototypes currently flying in low Earth orbit (Genesis I and Genesis II, launched respectively in 2006 and 2007) and one test module docked to ISS, known as BEAM (Bigelow Expandable Activity Module). Since the prematurely cancelled NASA’s TransHab project, which adopted an hybrid structure with a rigid central core and an inflatable exterior shell, the inflatable technology has been tested successfully in space, and now it seems ready to be adopted for a new generation of habitable modules, both for scientific and commercial purposes.25 Based on this idea, Bigelow Aerospace is developing the BA-330 to be launched in 2021, a giant module with a pressurized volume of 330 m3 derived by the unfortunate TransHab, of which Bigelow acquired the project from NASA. Bigelow’s goal is the construction of a fleet of BA-330 modules to be assembled in multiple orbital stations or grouped into a larger one, serviced by a fleet of reusable capsules like SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, then marking a decisive step forward in space as a commercial destination.26 Space as a business opportunity is not a recent quest, e.g. satellite telecommunications and marketable technological and commercial spin-offs from the aerospace sector, but the opportunity to sell the experience of space to any ordinary human being, even if at the moment only theoretically and supposing the hypothetical ticket’s cost could be afforded, is opening an unlimited territory of commercial business opportunities and culturally represents a revolution. Also, in this case the paradigm shift is not much different from the perilous voyages of early geographers towards exotic and still unexplored locations, which are nowadays mass-tourism’s destinations easily accessible by almost anyone. Spacecraft and habitats of the third and following generations should consider reusability, reliability and comfort, taking into consideration also the intrinsic characteristics that habitable spaces should possess in order to give the necessary psychophysical support to crew today, and maybe to passengers and guests in future. These will not be just vehicles but temporary dwellings and workspaces, with all characteristics and functionalities of this typology of habitation, including the emotional relation and recognizability with analogous terrestrial habitable spaces, elements which are of primary importance in architectural design. With extended spaceflights and missions beyond LEO, the requirements needed for habitable spaces as experienced until now would substantially change. The consistent number of researches and observations about the psychological and physiological effects of spaceflight, demonstrate that over the long term the habitability conditions must support not only individuals’ physical, but also their psychological health. As noted, it is not only a matter of available volume per person or dimensions of interior but about the intrinsic quality, distribution, and organization of the habitable space. These aspects would extend beyond the system engineering requirements, in which the habitable space is nothing more than a quantity to be allocated into a predetermined vehicle configuration, and needing the expertise of human factor specialists, like psychologists, physiologists, and architects as well. The number of crew members and the mission duration are basic specifications that influence the spacecraft configuration, that in case of long-term missions like Mars should be considered as a vehicle and a permanent habitat for almost one year. As Sforza (2015) stated, “the determination of the free or habitable volume required for each crew member in relation to mission’s duration has been a bone of contention in the spacecraft architecture community since the start of manned space activities.” The definition of spacecraft’s habitable volume as a function of mission duration is known since 1963, with the criteria set by Celentano, Amorelli and Freeman and later discussed by Cohen (2008), in which the three levels of habitability (tolerable limit, performance limit, and optimal limit) are expressed through three curves used as a standard benchmark incorporated into NASA’s Man-Systems Integration Standards (MSIS, 1995).27 Within the assessed quantitative framework provided by system engineering, the adoption of KE and KD would therefore improve the qualitative aspect of the habitable space, defining the design characteristics and features that 6 International Conference on Environmental Systems
could be positively perceived by the crews selected for these long-term missions. Since the initial stage of design development, the overall system architecting process 28 could include also the KE methodology, such as described in the following chapter. The astronauts’ and cosmonauts’ communities could represent a large pool able to define a consistent survey database, in order to be used as source to assess variants and specifications during further improvements and requirements.
III. Kansei Engineering (KE) and Kansei Design (KD) KE has been described as “a proactive product development methodology, which translates customers’ impressions, feelings and demands on existing products or concepts into design solutions and concrete design parameters.”29 The scope of KE is to make a specific industrial product in the market more captivating than others with similar functionalities, activating an emotional feeling in the user. Therefore, KE methodology is essentially based on a preliminary research, identifying what activates the emotional response, statistically surveyed from a representational group of users. The development and commercialization of a product in which functionality and affectivity would be fully expressed, could be considered the goal for every industrial designer, and for the company which would commercialize it. An example could be represented by the latest generation of electronic devices, in which the emotional component and feeling of affectivity of their users sometimes transcends the pure functionality to become fetish. In that regard, some products belonging to fashion or automotive design have a similar emotional and instinctive feeling, i.e. design’s products for which the potential user would experience a compulsive attraction, enforced by an aggressive marketing and a pervasive advertising. Maybe, it is not coincidental that one of the first industrial product in which the KE methodology was successfully applied was a two-seater roadster, an industrial product often associated with luxury fashion and a youthful lifestyle. The success of Mazda’s Miata, known as MX-5 in western markets, mostly relied on the approach adopted since the inception of its design process: prefiguring a product in which every detail would be engineered in order to be not only functional, but also emotionally attractive for a specific range of users, in this case younger drivers, and therefore developing a user-centered product.
A. Kansei Engineering (KE) A series of specific papers discussing in detail the KE methodology are included in the Reference section,30,31,32 however it is important to remark that KE uses advanced statistical analysis’ tools in order to gather information from a selection of possible users about their feelings, habits and behaviors towards a category of products, or a specific product. Apparently simplistic, the whole KE procedure involves a rigorous set of phases like other project development methodologies, revealing its engineering derivation. Phases such as Domain Decision, Kansei Dimension, Product Design Dimension and Synthesis are rigorously assessed before being incorporated into a final product. Inputs collected from marketing analyses or directly sourced from groups of users, are statistically selected and arranged into a series of kansei words, grouped by category and arranged in a tree structure, originally using the Semantic Differential (SD) methodology. Practically, this initial set of kansei words is the phrased interpretation of physical and emotional characteristics that the product has, or should have, for the largest as possible group of potential users. Each kansei word, or phrase, expresses a desired quality or feature which should be included in the future product, and therefore capable to activate the kansei, or emotional feeling, in the cognitive perception of the user. The range of these kansei words/phrases extends from physical description like form, color, texture, touch, sound, and smell, to description of intangible emotional characteristics such as elegant, sporty, sophisticated, aggressive, retro, innovative, and so on. Hence, the more kansei words are individuated, the better the result of the qualitative description of the artefact, while still at the conceptual stage. The process of associating a characteristic with an emotional feeling is necessarily subjective, and responses can mutually exclude each other. For this reason, the Semantic Differential (SD) method, largely adopted since early KE applications, seems perfectly suitable in order to individuate a common pattern between users’ responses, distilling a median number of concepts expressing an envisioned user experience which can be translated into design requirements.33 Therefore, KE is not a new systematic approach to design, but an alternative methodology to conceptualize users’ desiderata, helping designers in developing a product which should be able to materialize these feelings into a specific product. In between the existing eight types of KE which have been developed until now, forming a systematized KE System (KES) from the early KE Type I known as Category Classification,34 particularly interesting for the scope of this research seem to be the applications of KE Type IV, or Hybrid Kansei, and KE Type V, or Virtual Kansei. In Type IV two phases are considered. The first one called “Forward KE”, follows the linear procedure of kansei words as per Type I, but outputs them as a set of specific design details. The second phase is called “Backward KE”, in which sketches and preliminary draft models are digitally compared with a database of words and images through
7 International Conference on Environmental Systems
a backward inference engine, estimating the level of kansei achieved.35 The resulting product could be a complete artefact or a specifically designed component in a system. The Type V incorporates the KE techniques into Virtual Reality (VR), enabling the potential users to test virtually the product during its development process. This methodology seems appropriate not only to virtually manipulate 3D objects which are still in the design process, but also to virtually experience complex 3D spaces in which the future users can virtually walk in and experience light, color, details and proportions of spaces. The ongoing implementation in definition of VR environments, joined with growing calculation’s power of computers and servers, make this KE Type particularly suitable for applications related to architecture and interior design, including the production and further implementation of virtual mock-ups, with a consistent savings in terms of time and costs. The expected limitation for habitats supposed in microgravity but being virtually experienced in a terrestrial 1-g environment, could be solved through specific VR headsets uploaded with the virtual 3D models and tested by the same astronauts, once in conditions of microgravity at the ISS or during parabolic flights for training.36 One interesting experience of this methodology has been done at Boeing in 2004, during the development of interior architecture for the 787 Dreamliner commercial aircraft. During the development process of the new airliner, the Payloads Concept Group (PCG) adopted the KE process to ease the difficult task to select the final interior concept. In the context of commercial aviation, as opposed to automotive design, the concept group stated that the interior architecture needed to withstand the passage of time and the evolution of design and trends for decades to come, therefore selecting the “right” interior architecture was a very complex task. The KE methodology adopted was the Type I to establish the Kansei Domain but due the limited timeframe and resources for the project, the step in between this one and the Physical Domain, i.e. the Sensory Domain, was left out, therefore limiting the KE test to the use of design elements considered to be major contributors of the aircraft’s interior architecture. Despite the process itself deviating from the design team’s traditional approach, and despite the circumstances of the project, the KE methodology demonstrated a degree of adaptability for the requested purposes, obtaining conclusive results. By using the brainstorming of kansei words, with “relax” as the top concept, the expansion of tree-like words emerged. Next, to meet the top concept, image views of the windows and ceiling, lighting, furniture, walls, seats, etc., were created.37 A series of six concepts were elaborated, then virtually presented to a selected group of sixty participants using a projection dome from Elumens company, creating an immersive 180-degree vision. Three participants at a time were guided to the projection area where the procedure to collect their feedback on a questionnaire was explained. In order to keep statistical validity, the order of concepts presented was randomized for each group of three, and the immersive visual experience of participants was guaranteed by predetermined positions in order to avoid any visual distortion. Ninety to ninety-five percent of the participants who filled out the post-test survey felt the test was well organized, and that the dome projection adequately represented the feeling of being in an airplane interior. The results of the KE test at Boeing were used as a main guide for designers to improve design solutions according to customer needs, shifting the design process from product-oriented to user-oriented. Notably, the KE methodology contributed to form a database that could be expanded and updated with the number of tests and experiments performed, creating a resource for future testing and development for that specific project.38 To date, this is the only one reported experience of KE Type I applied in aerospace industry for a commercial aircraft interior design. However, considering the high competitiveness currently in this sector, maybe the KE methodology has been used also for other projects with different outcomes.
B. Kansei Design (KD) Most existing literature about the kansei concept and its application in design is mainly focused on the use and development of statistical analysis tools. That is obviously the functional aspect of the methodology, but it’s probably missing what really is the kansei approach, which is instead the aspect emphasized in KD. Paradoxically, the scientific accuracy of analysis, which is the strength of KE methodology, could be reversed into one of its weaknesses, especially in terms of time spent on preliminarily defining a product’s characteristics. The process is quite long, and the elaboration of data involves a quantity of specialized personnel, like surveyors, statistical analysts, and market researchers, before landing on the designer’s table.39 Therefore, is not surprising that KE has been used to develop specific products that, due their processes of industrialization, production and commercialization, are needing a consistent market distribution to amortize their high development’s costs. However, it must be noted that over the years, the KE approach has been implemented and fine-tuned with the introduction of different meanings applicable to different contexts and products, revealing a high degree of adaptability of its structure and purpose. As briefly mentioned above, in this regard the KD approach stems directly from KE but focuses more on theoretical aspects, intending to rediscover the original Japanese philosophical meaning of kansei as an inspirational source for design40. It is interesting to note that, as opposed to KE, the supposed field of application of KD could be extended to 8 International Conference on Environmental Systems
the whole spectrum of design, and not necessarily tied down to a certain category of products, in searching for the intimate relationship in between designer/artefact/user, and the psychological mechanisms of artefact’s enjoyment. As Pierre Lévy noted, “KE literature has often used the term kansei design to characterize KE works which produce actual industrial product as their output. However, these works are within the realm of KE because they are bonded to an engineering approach, as opposed to KD which is yet another approach”41. In KD, the designer’s role is reaffirmed, capable of mediating and assessing the received kansei inputs through one’s creativity, and not simply translating desiderata into forms. In this regard, KD could be reasonably considered more an evolution then a derivation of KE. The huge amount of information coming from the preliminary survey requires interpretation, and in this process of translation, the teamwork of designers, with their experience, background and intuition, can play a fundamental role. Furthermore, in rediscovering and reinterpreting the philosophical origins of kansei, the KD methodology takes into great consideration the Japanese tradition for craftsmanship. In that, the capability of the artisan’s kansei to reach the end users through the artefact, which becomes a message and not only its scope, acquires meaning through the intentionality of its creator. Then, Lévy individuates two main groups of projects that can be elaborated through KD approach: a first group is focused on the physical materiality of artefacts, i.e. their intrinsic properties and characteristics. The second one is based on the interactive materiality, i.e. the qualities of artefacts once in interaction with the user or between them. Based on this definition, we therefore suppose that architectural spaces could be also included in this second group, not as artefacts in interaction but as the very place of interaction of users with artefacts.
IV. KE and KD to Design Habitats in Extreme Environments Most of the current literature about kansei methodologies applied to design is focused mainly on product design or human-machine interfaces, whereas only a minor part investigates a possible adoption of this approach into architectural design theory and practice. The reason, in our opinion, is due to the intrinsic nature of the architectural design process which is often based on designer-centered decisions. The novelty introduced by KE and its potential application also in the field of architecture might reside in the opportunity of indexing the emotional experience of architectural spaces. The existing dialogue in between engineering and architectural aspects of habitation has been often focused on the dichotomy of functional vs. aesthetic, in which often the aesthetic aspect is regarded as superfluous and decorative. However, any habitation space should possess all the inherent characteristics which contribute to the psychophysical well-being of its occupants, both functionally and aesthetically. Contingencies like the designer’s or customer’s egos, costs, contextualization, timeframe, and restrictions imposed by regulations make the architectural object unique and unreproducible, therefore, hardly to be categorized as a mass-product even if considered the most used human artefact. The idea of architecture as an artefact which is used and consumed like any other product could be erroneously interpreted as negation of its outstanding qualities and uniqueness. Undoubtedly, the message embedded into architecture transcends the pure functionality of arranging forms and spaces. Neurosciences has evidenced that there is a correlation between psychophysical well-being and the environmental characteristics of spaces, especially regarding spaces dedicated to habitation. In this regard, the application of KE and KD methodologies seems particularly appropriate in the case of highly specialized habitats in extreme environments, such as Antarctica and space, where functionality associated with a recognizable architectural environment would contribute to the psychophysical comfort of occupants living in isolation. Records from previous Antarctica and space missions evidenced how the introduction of architectural elements, sometimes referred as décor in engineering reports, are often able to recreate “normal” habitation analogs, which can alleviate the feeling of confinement and segregation in a hostile environment. The current approach of aerospace engineering is machine-centered, and this aspect is unavoidable if the resulting product must be a sound complex of subsystems, capable of resisting unaltered any possible danger from the surrounding environment. Once the design is finalized for manned vehicles for short missions, where the habitability component could be restricted to basic needs of vital support, the acceptable habitable space is practically the space left vacant by the hardware. But once the spacecraft becomes a habitat for long term missions, the machine-centered approach should shift towards a crew-centered approach, where the habitability parameters need to be considered beyond the sustaining of biological life, representing an essential component of the entire system. Human exploration of space should be considered an endeavor of the whole human race, with its extraordinary range of social habits and cultural differences. During the years of the Space Race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the challenge was a confrontation between two different nations, cultures, and visions of the world. The future challenge of human exploration of space cannot be economically or technologically feasible by one country alone, as the experience of the ISS demonstrates. The heterogeneity of crews with different cultural backgrounds, traditions and habits in living and perceiving habitation spaces could represent an insurmountable barrier if not
9 International Conference on Environmental Systems
properly addressed starting during preliminary selection. The definition of domestic characteristics, to be immediately recognized by each member of the crew, would be particularly important in designing what would be the common habitation in an enclosed restricted space for very long time. More than the physical dimensions of habitation spaces, it is the time factor which would play an important role in the crew’s cohabitation. With a dilated time shift or missing the diurnal/nocturnal and seasonal changes, the internal spaces should adapt artificially, through lights dimming and color changing, including the use of certain areas which could be designated as multipurpose, in order to adapt the biological rhythms of the crew to the hostile immutability of the external environment. Both KE and KD use the SD as a common methodology in order to define the Kansei Domain, often referred to as KE Type I. This phase could be considered like the charrette activity in Participative Architecture, in which the architect/designer has the role of translator, collecting the inputs coming from an audience of potential users and customers to be later synthetized into concepts. Participative Architecture is adopted for projects with high social contents, like community spaces and social housing, necessarily based on a user-centered approach in which the role of the architect is to facilitate the integration of different needs and requests Figure 1. Flow of KE Type V for Habitats Design into a coherent proposal. The arrangement of a common language represented by a systematic collection of kansei words and phrases in this case would ease the process, otherwise summarized following the subjective interpretation of the architect, negating the participative aspect. Conversely, in the common architectural design process, the dialogue between architect and client would generate the Design Brief, the collection of client’s wants and needs which represents the Scope of Work to be translated into a design proposal. This stage represents the inception of the creative idea, the translation of client’s desires into a vision, a forming project which is visualized in the architect’s mind since the brief’s discussion. Such process is purely subjective, and the only medium is the architect, capably transforming the client’s inputs into a comprehensive set of sketches, drawings, diagrams, written descriptions, models etc., in few words: a designer-centered approach. For this reason, the design of habitats in extreme environments would require a methodological, user-centered approach like Participative Architecture, instead of the usual system engineering approach. In this case the participative audience would be represented by astronauts’ community, the crews who alternatively will occupy that habitable space during their long-term missions. Since the Apollo space program, the community of astronauts has been increasingly involved in the design process to test ergonomic functionality and usability of internal spaces of the vehicles. This contribution is already forming the backbone of references for the further development of habitats in extreme environments, to which KE and KD could add a robust statistical methodology. The traditional approach to spacecraft design considered that once the mainframe of the spacecraft was already designed, and presumably expensive mock-ups realized, the astronauts’ contribution was called into secondary detailing, like the shape of handles, the position of switches and lighting fixtures, or the arrangement of instruments in a certain order. However, with the development of a new generation of spacecraft, and especially habitats designed for extended missions, the contribution of astronauts as the main users of these spaces will be fundamental, starting with the design process development. In this task, the adoption of advanced methodologies like KE Type V (Fig. 1) in order to preliminarily collect the semantic definition of spaces, then test the design results with users through Augmented Reality (AR) before the production phase, would represent a huge saving in terms of time and costs. The system engineering process would be kept unaltered, but the architecture of internal spaces would be tested in parallel with the system engineering process, and adapted or integrated when needed, and not resulting as a late adaption of vacant spaces left by hardware within an object already largely developed. The psychophysical well-being of the crew would be listed as one of the priorities and not pushed to the bottom of the list, since an efficient crew would definitely live and operate more efficiently in a habitable environment, ergonomically and functionally robust, but capable also of reflecting their emotional needs and recreating the same levels of flexibility and adaptability that could be experienced in any terrestrial habitat. 10 International Conference on Environmental Systems
V. Conclusions As mentioned, an extreme environment is not designated as such due to its contextual factors, but rather refers to the human conditions that the occupants of a habitat in such environment would experience or would need to address. A well-considered habitat, in terms of design, would positively impact its occupants with a better psychological response to stress, better resilience, and unimpeded performance of the crew. The more the natural environment is unsupportive, the more the artificial one will have to address all human needs, becoming a true microworld.42 Traditionally, the concept of habitats for extreme environments has been driven by technological engineering requirements, privileging functionality above any other characteristic connected to habitability. With the planning of Moon and Mars missions, due the long timeframe and the uncertainty and unpredictability of the challenge, the psychological and physical well-being of the astronauts is becoming one of the priorities. Humans will be at the core of the habitable space environment, where the engineered parts are requested in serving the users but not necessarily affecting the habitat livability. In aerospace systems engineering, some kansei words defined by Semantic Differential (SD) like nice, pleasant, comfortable, etc., and related to emotional aspects are typically disregarded or ignored when it comes to the engineering aspect, often due to persistent mindsets associating space exploration as a tough matter for tough humans. But for future challenging manned missions, and due to some unpredictability, the emotional component poses a question mark, and to ensure a successful mission it must be fully supported. Since the habitat, the environment, forced cohabitation, and limited privacy would impact the crew at a psychological level, a methodology such as KE during the design development process can be successfully applied. In fact, the KE Type I through the SD method, will function as a parameter and vocabulary between the users and designers, to collect feedbacks and convert the responses into design. As noted, the interior design of a spacecraft, and by extension of a planetary surface habitat or a polar research station, should have built-in flexibility, such as movable partitions, removable wall covers, adaptive design, etc., but these features alone are insufficient to re-create the feeling of a psychophysically and socially comfortable environment confined in a remote, hostile environment. Through the judicious introduction of textures, colors, and elements of design carefully selected after the application of KE, the feeling of sameness and immutability of interior spaces could be avoided. Since the mission reports from Skylab’s astronauts, reporting the uniformity of colors within spacecraft’s interior as disturbing, to Russian investigators that in 1975 proposed changes in interior decoration to be employed, an interior designed to support the psychosocial needing of the users could not only to relieve the visual monotony but to maintain the space traveler’s psychological link to the home planet, creating an environment comfortably familiar.43 Through the adoption of KE methodology, the range of changes and design adaptability of internal spaces could be prefigured in advance, selecting a range of kansei words in collaboration with the astronauts’ community at large in order to define a series of concepts, which could be prepared as virtual 3D models for initial testing. Digital tools and available technology such as Augmented Reality (AR), can be used to provide a virtual experience to test preliminarily some design features and characteristics of internal spaces. The users’ experience would be visually immersive using AR headsets; in case of simulation for habitats in microgravity, the same test could be done in 0-g conditions on board of the ISS, or during parabolic training flights, to experience the proposals in real conditions of weightlessness. This method will also reduce the time required to build a prototype test, which could follow once the main parameters have been settled and utilized to manage the necessary updates during the development process. A finalized prototype can still be produced once the design stage is assessed and then further refined in detailing through the KE database previously assessed. To conclude, the KE methodology could be used as the scientific tool for architects and designers to shape the layer between human and hardware; where humans can psychophysically perform well and feel the interior space socially comfortable, and at the same time the hardware can perform optimally and ensure human safety and survival.
References
1 Nagamachi, M., “Kansei Engineering in consumer product design.” Ergonomics in Design – The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, Vol.10, no.2, 2002, pp. 5-9. 2 Nagamachi, M., “Kansei Engineering and Rough Sets Model.” RSCTC 2006, LNAI 4259, 2006, pp. 27-37. 3 Harada, A., “On the definition of Kansei. Modeling the Evaluation Structure of Kansei, Vol. 2, 1998, p.22. 4 Schütte S., Towards a Common Approach in Kansei Engineering: A proposed model.” In Proceedings of Interfejs uzytkownika- Kansei w praktyce Conference, Warsaw, 2007, pp. 8-17 5 Lévy, P., Yamanaka, T., Tomico, O. “Methods and means for Kansei Design.” In ErgoDesign Forum, Lyon, France, 2009. 6 Nagamachi, M., “Perspective and new trend of Kansei/Affective Engineering.” TMQ Journal, 2008.
11 International Conference on Environmental Systems
7 Hung T.F., Nieh, C.K., “A Study on Relationship between Modern Architectural Shape and Kansei Image Evaluation – Taking Diversity for Distinctive Customers as Example”. In Int. Conf. on East Asian Architectural Culture, Taiwan, 2009, pp. 137-148 8 Lévy, P., Yamanaka T., Ono, K., Watanabe, M., “Prospective Psychophysiological Approach for Kansei Design: Knowledge sharing between psychophysiology and design.” In IASDR Conference, Seoul, South Korea, 2009. 9 Yoshida, T., Maekawa, M., Tsuchida, Y., Nagai, Y., “Specifying Kansei Requirements with the Application of Environmental Psychology Research Methods Cases of Interior Design in Architecture.” In KEER2018, Malaysia, 2018, pp. 379-389 10 Lévy, P., Lee, S., Yamanaka, T., “On Kansei and Kansei Design: A Description of Japanese Design Approach.” IASDR 07, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2007, pp. 14-18. 11 Nagamachi, M., “History of Kansei Engineering and Application of Artificial Intelligence.” AHFE 2017, AISC 585, 2017 pp. 357-368. 12 Stuster J., Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1996. 13 Lockard, E. S., Human Migration to Space: Alternative Technological Approaches for Long-term Adaptation to Extraterrestrial Environments, Springer, 2014. 14 Davenport C., The Space Barons: Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and the Quest to Colonize the Cosmos. New York, NY: PublicAffairs Books, 2018. 15 Picken F., “Extreme Tourism.” In The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Travel and Tourism. Lowry, L. (ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2017, pp. 463-466 16 Borchgrevink, C.E., First on the Antarctic Continent: Being an Account of the British Antarctic Expedition 1898-1900, London, George Newnes Ltd., 1901, Reprinted: London, C. Hurst & Co. Ltd., 1980. 17 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/science/antarctica-architecture.html 18 Broughton, H., “Halley VI Antarctic research station”. In Out of this World: The New Field of Space Architecture, Howe, A.S., Sherwood, B. (eds.), Reston, VA: AIAA, 2009, pp. 363-370 19 https://hbarchitects.co.uk/halley-vi-british-antarctic-research-station/ 20 https://www.coolantarctica.com/Travel/antarctica_travel_home.php 21 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-visit-antarctica-travel-tourism-increase-luxury-2019-12 22 Connors, M., Harrison, A., Akins, F., Living Aloft: Human Requirements for Extended Spaceflight. Washington DC: NASA Ames Research Center, 1985. 23 Häuplik-Meusburger, S., Architecture for Astronauts: An Activity-based Approach. Wien: Springer, 2011. 24 Kanas, N., Humans in Space: The Psychological Hurdles, Springer-Praxis, 2015, pp. 69-81. 25 Kennedy, K.J., “TransHab Project.” In Howe, A.S., Sherwood, B. (eds.). Out of this World: The New Field of Space Architecture, Reston, VA: AIAA, 2009, pp. 81-88 26 Seedhouse, E., Bigelow Aerospace: Colonizing Space One Module at a Time. London, Springer-Praxis, 2015. 27 Sforza, P.M., Manned Spacecraft Design Principles. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2016, pp. 453-473. 28 Häuplik-Meusburger, S., Bannova, O., Space Architecture Education for Engineers and Architects. Springer, 2016, p. 32-34 29 Sendai, S., “Architectural Kansei on ‘Wall’ in the Façade Design by Le Corbusier”. KE Int. J. Vol.10 No.1, 2010, pp. 29-36. 30 Schűtte, S., Evert Eklund, J. A., Axelsson, J. R. C., Nagamachi M., “Concept methods and tools in Kansei Engineering.” In Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2004. 31 Nagamachi, M., “Kansei Engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development.” In International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 15, 1995, pp. 3-11. 32 Nagamachi, M., “Kansei Engineering and Rough Sets Model.” RSCTC, 2006, pp. 27-37. 33 Caratelli P., Misuri, M.A., “Kansei Design and Its Applications in Architecture and the Built Environment.” In IHIET 2020, AISC 1152, Springer Nature, 2020, pp. 45–50. 34 Lokman, A. M., “Design & Emotion: The Kansei Engineering Methodology.” In Malays. J. Comput, Vol.1, Issue 1, 2011. 35 Nagamachi, M., “Kansei Engineering: The Implication and Applications to Product Development.” IEEE SMC’99 Int. Conf., 1999, pp. 273-278. 36 Lockard, E. S., Kaufman, A. “Bringing Nature into Space: The Restorative Potential of Virtual Environments for Long-Term Space Travel.” In 49th Int. Conf. on Env. Sys., ICES-2019-309. Boston, MA: 2019. 37 Nagamachi, M., Lokman, A.M., Kansei Innovation: Practical Design Applications for Product and Service Development, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2015, pp. 94-100 38 Guerin, J., “Kansei Engineering for Commercial Airplane Interior Architecture.” The 16th Symposium on Quality Function Development, 2004, pp. 19-26. 39 Bongard-Blanchy, K., Bouchard, C., Aoussat, A. “Limits of kansei - kansei unlimited.” In Int. J. Affect. Eng., Vol. 12, No.2, 2013, pp. 145–153. 40 Lévy, P., “Beyond kansei engineering: the emancipation of kansei design.” In Int. J. Design, Vol.7 No.2, 2013, pp. 83–94. 41 Lévy, P., “Perception theories and kansei design.” In KEER 2014, 2014, pp. 287–297. 42 Brunelli, F., “Human Factors and Habitability Issues for the Design of Space Habitats.” In Fundamentals of Space Life Sciences, Vol. 2, Churchill, S., (ed.), Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing, 1997, pp. 221-246 43 Petrov, Y.A., “Habitability of Spacecraft.” In Foundations of Space Biology and Medicine, Vol. 3, Calvin, M., Gazenko, O.G., (eds.), NASA SP-374, 1975, pp. 157-192.
12 International Conference on Environmental Systems