Outdoor and indoor shots from the ground floor of the northern building of the halls complex
An Evaluation Study of Shading Devices and Their Impact on the Aesthetic Perception vs. Their Energy Efficiency






shading device, experimental aesthetics, perception, augmented reality, semantic differential scale, energy efficiency


Sunlight control tools, such as shading devices, are used to improve buildings' thermal and visual conditions. One of the concerns about using shading devices is their potential to harm the visual appearance of buildings. This study aims to study the aesthetic perception of different shading devices while concurrently evaluating their energy performance. Augmented reality was used to place virtual shading devices onto a building's façade at Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST). One hundred two students from JUST evaluated eight shading devices on a seven-step semantic differential scale. Participants comprised 49 students from Architecture and Design College and 53 students from other colleges. The energy efficiency of shading devices was tested using DesignBuilder. The results revealed that certain types of shading devices were perceived as more aesthetically pleasing than others. Architecture students and non-architecture students showed significant differences in their affective  responses. Regarding shading devices, shape-morphing and horizontal-louvres devices are the most preferred by participants, while egg-crate devices are the least recommended. Regarding energy efficiency, results showed that the tested shading devices improved buildings' energy efficiency by 7% (vertical fins) to 17% (egg crate) compared to the base case and did not negatively impact their visual appearance.

How to Cite

Ibrahim, A., Freewan , A., & Obeidat, A. (2023). An Evaluation Study of Shading Devices and Their Impact on the Aesthetic Perception vs. Their Energy Efficiency. Journal of Facade Design and Engineering, 11(1), 037–060. https://doi.org/10.47982/jfde.2023.1.03



Author Biographies

Anwar Ibrahim, Al Yamamah University

Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, College of Architecture and Design
Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, College of Engineering and Architecture

Dr. Freewan, Jordan University of Science and Technology

Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, College of Architecture and Design 

Ms. Obeidat , Jordan University of Science and Technology

Department of Architecture, College of Architecture and Design


Abu-Obeid, N., Hassan, R. F., & Ali, H. H. (2008). Quantifying the aesthetics of non‐conventional structures: A comparison between architects, engineers and non-experts. Structural Survey. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02630800810883030

Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C., & Kilicoglu, O. (2009). Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house façades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness. Journal of environmental psychology, 29(1), 124-132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.005

Al-Hindawe, J. (1996). Considerations when constructing a semantic differential scale. La Trobe papers in linguistics, 9(7), 1-9.

Al-Masrani, S. M., Al-Obaidi, K. M., Zalin, N. A., & Isma, M. A. (2018). Design optimisation of solar shading systems for tropical office buildings: Challenges and future trends. Solar Energy, 170, 849-872. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.04.047

Al Dakheel, J., & Tabet Aoul, K. (2017). Building Applications, opportunities and challenges of active shading systems: A state-of-the-art review. Energies, 10(10), 1672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en10101672

Alzoubi, H. H., & Al-Zoubi, A. H. (2010). Assessment of building façade performance in terms of daylighting and the associated energy consumption in architectural spaces: Vertical and horizontal shading devices for southern exposure façades. Energy Conversion and Management, 51(8), 1592-1599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.08.039

Banaei, M., Ahmadi, A., Gramann, K., & Hatami, J. (2020). Emotional evaluation of architectural interior forms based on personality differences using virtual reality. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(1), 138-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.07.005

Barozzi, M., Lienhard, J., Zanelli, A., & Monticelli, C. (2016). The sustainability of adaptive envelopes: developments of kinetic architecture. Procedia Engineering, 155, 275-284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.029

Berlyne D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Biaggio, M. K., & Supplee, K. A. (1983). Dimensions of aesthetic perception. The Journal of Psychology, 114(1), 29-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1983.9915392

Brachmann, A., & Redies, C. (2017). Computational and experimental approaches to visual aesthetics. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 11, 102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2017.00102

Cirulis, A., & Brigmanis, K. B. (2013). 3D outdoor augmented reality for architecture and urban planning. Procedia Computer Science, 25, 71-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.009

Choi, J., Lee, T., Ahn, E., & Piao, G. (2014). Parametric louver design system based on direct solar radiation control performance. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 13(1), 57-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.13.57

Custódio, I., Quevedo, T., Melo, A. P., & Rüther, R. (2022). A holistic approach for assessing architectural integration quality of solar photovoltaic rooftops and shading devices. Solar Energy, 237, 432-446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2022.02.019

David, M., Donn, M., Garde, F., & Lenoir, A. (2011). Assessment of the thermal and visual efficiency of solar shades. Building and Environment, 46(7), 1489-1496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.01.022

Esquivias, P., Munoz, C., Acosta, I., Moreno, D., & Navarro, J. (2016). Climate-based daylight analysis of fixed shading devices in an open-plan office. Lighting Research & Technology, 48(2), 205-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153514563638

Freewan, A. A. (2014). Impact of external shading devices on thermal and daylighting performance of offices in hot climate regions. Solar Energy, 102, 14-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.01.009

Ghadirian, P., & Bishop, I. D. (2002). Composition of augmented reality and GIS to visualize environmental changes. Proceedings of the joint AURISA and Institution of Surveyors Conference,

Hershberger, R. G., & Cass, R. C. (1974). Predicting user responses to buildings. Man-environment interactions: Evaluations and applications, 117-143.

Ibrahim, A. F., Abu-Obeid, N., & Al-Simadi, F. (2002). The effect of personality traits on architectural aesthetics’ evaluation: Familiar and non-familiar environments as evaluated by architectural and non-architectural students. Architectural Science Review, 45(3), 197-210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2002.9697511

Kim, S. H., Shin, K. J., Kim, H. J., & Cho, Y. H. (2017). A study on the effectiveness of the horizontal shading device installation for passive control of buildings in South Korea. International Journal of Polymer Science, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3025092

Lang, J. (1987). Fundamental Processes of Human Behaviour. Creating architectural Theory, The Role of the Behavioural Science Environmantal Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Lee, J. G., Seo, J., Abbas, A., & Choi, M. (2020). End-Users’ augmented reality utilization for architectural design review. Applied Sciences, 10(15), 5363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app10155363

Marković, S., & Alfirević, Đ. (2015). Basic dimensions of experience of architectural objects’ expressiveness: Effect of expertise. Psihologija, 48(1), 61-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI1501061M

Milovanovic, J., Moreau, G., Siret, D., & Miguet, F. (2017). Virtual and augmented reality in architectural design and education. 17th international conference, CAAD futures 2017,

Moscoso, C., Chamilothori, K., Wienold, J., Andersen, M., & Matusiak, B. (2021). Window size effects on subjective impressions of daylit spaces: indoor studies at high latitudes using virtual reality. Leukos, 17(3), 242-264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15502724.2020.1726183

Moscoso, C., & Matusiak, B. (2018). Aesthetic perception of a small office with different daylighting systems. Indoor and Built Environment, 27(9), 1187-1202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X17711490

Nadiar, F., & Nusantara, D. (2021). Shady residency: Passive technologies through shading devices for some building styles to fix heat problem causes by climate change in a tropical area. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1098/2/022029

Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and behavior, 26(3), 377-401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659402600305

Orzechowski, M. A., de Vries, B., & Timmermans, H. J. (2003). Virtual Reality CAD system for non-designers. Proceedings of 7th Iberoamerican Congress of Digital Graphics Sigradi Eds S Carmena, R Utges.

Osgood, C. E. A (1957) Behavioristic analysis of perception and meaning as cognitive phenomena. In J. Bruner (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Rana, M. J., Hasan, M. R., & Sobuz, M. H. R. (2022). An investigation on the impact of shading devices on energy consumption of commercial buildings in the contexts of subtropical climate. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 11(3), 661-691. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-09-2020-0131

Razazi, S., Mozaffari Ghadikolaei, F., & Rostami, R. (2022). The effect of external and internal shading devices on energy consumption and co2 emissions of residential buildings in temperate climate. Space Ontology International Journal, 11(1), 75-89.

Seyedkolaei, R. G., Alishah, M., Rasouli, S. R., & Siami, M. (2015). Study of The Factors Affecting People’s Mental Image of The Façade of Museums (Case Study: Museums of Tehran). Spectrum, 4(2).

Šafárová, K., Pírko, M., Juřík, V., Pavlica, T., & Németh, O. (2019). Differences between young architects’ and non-architects’ aesthetic evaluation of buildings. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 8(2), 229-237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.04.001

Shemesh, A., Talmon, R., Karp, O., Amir, I., Bar, M., & Grobman, Y. J. (2017). Affective response to architecture–investigating human reaction to spaces with different geometry. Architectural Science Review, 60(2), 116-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2016.1266597

Stamps, A. E. (2013). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Springer Science & Business Media.

Tan, S., Yang, Y., Leopold, C., Robeller, C., & Weber, U. (2019). Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality: New Tools for Architectural Visualization and Design. Research Culture in Architecture, 301-310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783035620238-029

Tecchia, F. (2016). Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality, Second Edition. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments ; 25 (1): 78–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_r_00244

Veitch, R., & Arkkelin, D. (1995). Environmental psychology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Pearson College Division.

Wang, X. (2009). Augmented reality in architecture and design: potentials and challenges for application. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 7(2), 309-326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1260/147807709788921985

Yazdanfar, S. A., Heidari, A. A., & Aghajari, N. (2015). Comparison of architects’ and non-architects’ perception of place. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 170, 690-699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.071

Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design. Environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning.

Zhang, X., Lau, S. K., Lau, S. S. Y., & Zhao, Y. (2018). Photovoltaic integrated shading devices (PVSDs): A review. Solar Energy, 170, 947-968. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.05.067