# Home Balconies during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Future Architect's Preferences in Lisbon and Warsaw
## 3 Results  
Mixed Model Analysis of Variance shows the differences and similarities in how Lisboners and Varsovians rate certain balcony characteristics. The analyses show a significant within-subject effect for all questions, indicating that significant differences in preference for specific balcony features could be determined: \(F(3.47,\,541.72)=119.33,\,p<0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.43\); \(F(3.97,\,1.00)=66.29,\,p<0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.30\); \(F(2.72,\,421.03)=162.13,\,p<0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.51\); \(F(4.52,\,705.80)=81.32,\,p<0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.34\); \(F(3.17,\,494.10)=279.56,\,p<0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.64\); \(F(1,\,156)=7.58,\,p<0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.10\); \(F(7.39,\,1152.71)=78.00,\,p<0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.33\); \(F(1.64,\,255.94)=146.76,\,p<0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.49\). _Bonferroni post hoc_ analyses allowed for ranking the balcony features in order and indicating which responses were rated significantly higher or lower in the group of preferences. For all but the fifth question, the analysis showed significant interaction effects, indicating that the results of the mean responses varied by residence: \(F(3.47,\,514.72)=11.16,\,p<0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.07;\,F(3.97,\,618.50)=3.21,\,p=0.01,\, \eta^{2}=0.02\); \(F(2.72,\,421.03)=6.41,\,p<0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.04\); \(F(12.212,\,705.80)=4.85,\,p<0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.03\); \(F(3.17,\,494.10)=0.92,\,p=0.44,\,\eta^{2}=0.01\); \(F(1,\,156)=4.61,\,p=0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.07\); \(F(7.39,\,8577.18)=3.08,\,p=0.003,\,\eta^{2}=0.02\); \(F(1.64,\,255.94)=14.18,\,p<0.001,\,\eta^{2}=0.08\). Depending on the resident's location, pairwise comparisons enable precise examination in which scores there is a statistically significant difference. First, the authors checked in which questions there were significant differences in the mean between people from Warsaw and Lisbon. Then, they checked whether the differences in responses impacted the order of importance of each balcony feature. The answers to each question were ranked into three or four groups of preferences (I, II, III, and IV). The present analysis compares whether Varsovians and Lisboners rate the balcony features in a similar order. Each question is presented separately, followed by the graph illustrating each answer's mean and the responses' ranking diagram. The general combined response appeared when there were no significant statistical differences between the groups. When a significant difference occurred, the responses were divided between the city residents. The groups of preferences were arbitrarily divided in some questions based on mean differences and similarities (without considering the statistical differences). In the first question, \"Comfort\" the analysis shows that Lisboners and Varsovians rate the following responses equally: _Enough natural shading_ and _warm sensation_ (second place) and _cooling sensation_ (third place; \(p=0.13,\,p=0.61,\,p=0.59\); see Figure 4 below). There are differences only in the responses _direct sunlight_ and _quiet place_ (\(p<0.001,\,p<0.001\)). Lisboners rate the answer _direct sunlight_ significantly higher than Varsovians. In both groups, this answer ranks in the first place. Varsovians display the answer _quiet place_ significantly higher in the rating. Consequently, Lisboners rank this answer as important in the second place, while Varsovians rank it as one of the most important next to the _direct sunlight_. In the second question, \"View engagement\" despite the differences between the response _street_ and _city skyline_ (\(p=0.01,\,p=0.03\)), both groups exhibit similar ranking values (see Figure 5 below). The response _garden_ ranks in the first place, followed by _waterfront_ in both groups. In the third place, the respondents ranked _square_, _city skyline_, and _rural landscape_ together. It is worth mentioning that Varsovians rate _city skyline_ higher than Lisboners (\(p=0.03\)). Therefore, it should be noted that the difference between the answer _square_ and the _city skyline_ answered by Varsovians is already statistically significant (\(p=0.005\)).