3.8 Article

Spatial Needs of Working Women in Shopping Malls in Riyadh

Journal

Publisher

KING SAUD UNIV PRESS, KING SAUD UNIV
DOI: 10.33948/JAP-KSU-34-4-3

Keywords

Spatial Needs; Shopping Malls; Working Women; Post-Occupancy Evaluation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The number of working women in shopping malls in Saudi Arabia has increased, leading to the spread of using the spaces for purposes other than their original designs. This study aims to investigate the accommodation of spatial needs for working women in shopping mall buildings. The findings show that shopping mall buildings lack necessary spaces for working women, and even if they are available, the design is unsuitable, resulting in women utilizing these spaces for other purposes.
The number of working women in shopping malls in Saudi Arabia has increased due to women's empowerment and the diversification of employment opportunities. Since more women are working in these facilities, the behavior of using the spaces for purposes other than what they were designed for has spread. Practicing this behavior may be due to the lack of spaces required for women in the workplace, or it may be due to the unsuitable design of the spaces for women. As a result, this study investigates the extent to which shopping mall buildings can accommodate the spatial needs of working women. The research methodology is divided into two stages: the first stage is to ensure that shopping mall buildings provide the spaces needed by women in the workplace. The second stage is a post-occupancy behavioral evaluation to assess the appropriateness of the design of the spaces for women. The findings showed that shopping mall buildings lack many of the spaces that women require at the workplace, and even if these spaces are available, their design is unsuitable for women. Consequently, women use some of these spaces for purposes other than what they were designed for.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available