ArticleScientific reports2024
Application in environmental art design practice based on a fuzzy evaluation system.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-driven biomimetic design: sustainable bio-materials for eco-friendly aesthetic solutions.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Research on intelligent design and environmental adaptability of public art installations in the context of low-carbon cities.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental art design (EAD) has recently encouraged creative thinking by investigating novel materials, technologies, and techniques for designing environmental art that advances sustainability. EAD faces challenges in integrating novel materials and technologies while promoting sustainability. Environmental art design is targeted at human living areas; here, adequate and excessive utilization of resources is minimized, and the social and natural environments are utilized aesthetically. Aesthetic excellence in environmental art design, along with growing technological accomplishments and cultural heritage, is concentrated on meeting the demands of human aesthetic pursuits in the new era, which lacks earlier techniques. Hence, an algorithm named environmental art design using fuzzy (EADF) to evaluate the environmental criteria for better decision-making is introduced. Initially, a fuzzy-based technique for order preference similar to the ideal solution (FTOPSIS), which considers multiple variables such as visual appeal, environmental impact, sustainability, and audience involvement in the community, was employed in the design process. Environmental art designers utilize fuzzy TOPSIS to assess works of art using several criteria. It seeks to make accurate decisions and accomplish desirable creative effects by considering ambiguity and subjectivity. The approach utilizes fuzzy variable entropy analysis to determine questionable attribute weightings and employs triangular fuzzy numbers to represent criteria and analyze preference values. Artworks are evaluated for deviation from ideal results using the Euclidean distance measure, enabling logical ranking evaluation and comparison. The EADF model outperforms the other models when considering different input factors. EADF excels in color (83.74), composition (82.37), emotion (85.61), contrast (97.52), clarity (98.16), harmony (95.49), and sensitivity (96.44) when evaluated in environmental art design, showcasing its usefulness. This work has implications for directing artists, designers, and decision-makers toward environmentally sustainable and artistically impactful art practices. Hence, the performance of this EADF model is validated using audience involvement, environmental impact, sustainability, and a visual appeal score.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.