Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between the courtyard design of high-rise housing complexes and the residents social
interaction in Taipei, Taiwan. Behavioral observation is applied to three housing projects, reflecting three levels of real estate
value. The observation lasts for 21 days for each project. The total number of observations are 32,476 including 15,532 males
and 16,955 females. Only 5074 people, 15.63% of the total observed residents, have social interaction with others. The findings
reflect the phenomenon of social withdrawal among the residents. In addition, the research findings indicate that both space
types and design elements have an effect on residents social interaction. Among the five space types, significantly more social
interactions are found in circulation spaces, and significantly fewer social interactions are observed in seating and vague spaces.
Regarding the percentages of social interaction, scenic and activity spaces rank first and second, respectively, and are considerably
higher than the other space types. Among the 10 design elements, route and node rank the first and the second, respectively, and
out-weighed the other design elements in terms of the quantity of social interaction. As to the percentages of social interaction,
visual focus, plant, play area, and open space rank first to fourth, and are relatively higher than the other six elements.
2005 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Keywords: High-rise complex; Outdoor space; Social interaction; Space type; Design element
1. Introduction
In Taiwan, the fast economic and population growth
in the past 30 years has resulted in rapid urbanization all
over the country. Due to spatial and financial considerations, housing development has been transformed from
low to medium density and horizontal spread to high
Present address: #1, 7F., Alley 6, Lane 82, Fu-Sing Rd., Taipei
116, Taiwan, ROC. Tel.: +886 2 2236 8225x3381;
fax: +886 2 2236 7745.
E-mail address: huangsch@cc.shu.edu.tw.
194
195
4. Objectives
The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between the outdoor space design of high-rise
housing complexes and the residents social interaction. The types of outdoor space and the elements of
the space types of high-rise housing complexes are
closely examined to understand their effects on residents social interaction. The findings of the study
should provide insights for environmental designers
regarding the design of outdoor spaces of high density
housing projects to enhance social behavior among the
residents.
5. Methods
In this study, on-site observation was applied to
three high-rise housing projects located in Taipei, Taiwan. The three housing projects represent different
real estate values, and their residents include different
socio-economic groups.
5.1. Study sites
The three projects studied were DaAn Housing,
NienJen Housing, HsinYi Housing. DaAn Housing is
a public housing project. It was funded by the Taiwan government in order to provide affordable housing for the retired military, and completed in 1981.
The project has 1380 dwelling units. The area of
each unit ranges from 79.3 to 112.4 m2 . About half of
the dwelling units was reserved for military retirees
and sold at a heavily subsidized price. The other
half was sold to the general public at a less expensive price than the private housing projects in the
vicinity. The layout of the buildings is in diamondshape form, and there is a centrally located courtyard. The buildings are 7-, 13-, and 18-floors high.
The total area of the project site is 39,100 m2 , and
the total area of the courtyard is 7000 m2 (Fig. 1).
NienJen Housing was funded by the private sector
and was built in 1992. The project has 129 dwelling
units. The total area of the units ranges from 138.8
to 185.1 m2 . The layout of the buildings is u-shaped
and the courtyard is centrally situated. All the buildings are 16-floors. The total area of the project site
is 5917 m2 , and the total area of the courtyard is
196
197
5.2. Procedure
Observational sheets and the site plans of the three
projects were utilized to record the observations at the
three high-rise housing projects. The context of observations included the number of users, users gender,
users age range (elderly, middle-aged, young adult,
and children), movement flow, location of activity, and
type of activity (social or non-social). In this study,
social activities were referred to as the observable
behavioral interaction among the residents, including
nodding, talking, waving, and friendly physical contact. The length of observation was 21 days for each
housing project, including week days and weekends.
In each day, five periods of time, ranging from 7:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m., were scheduled for observation. Both
quantity of social interaction and frequency of social
interaction were recorded. The quantity of social interaction results mainly from the advantage of the size
of space type/element. As the size of outdoor spaces
increases, more people can be accommodated and the
opportunities for encounter are also increased. The possibility for interaction may hence rise. The percentage
of social interaction is the ratio of the number of interaction to the number of observations. It represents the
198
6. Research results
The results of observation at the three housing
projects are shown in Table 1. The total number of
observed residents was 32,476, including 15,532 male
and 16,955 female and representing 47.84 and 52.16%
of the total observed residents, respectively. Among
them, 9330 people (28.74%) were elderly; 10,413 peo-
Table 1
The results of observation at three housing projects
Observation
Housing project
HsinYi Housing
(high-priced)
NienJen Housing
(medium- priced)
DaAn Housing
(low-priced)
Total
7732
23.81
9587
29.53
15148
46.66
32467
100.0
Male
% Of total observation
% Within project
3863
24.87
49.96
4681
30.14
48.83
6988
44.99
53.87
15532
100.0
47.84
Female
% Of total observation
% Within project
3869
22.85
50.04
4906
28.97
51.17
8160
48.18
53.87
16935
100.0
52.16
Elderly residents
% Of total observation
% Within project
2230
23.91
28.84
2820
30.24
29.41
4276
45.85
28.23
9326
100.0
28.72
Middle-aged residents
% Of total observation
% Within project
1982
19.03
25.63
2598
24.95
27.10
5833
56.02
38.51
10413
100.0
32.07
Young adults
% Of total observation
% Within project
1810
33.03
23.41
2314
42.23
24.14
1356
24.74
8.95
5480
100.0
16.88
Children
% Of total observation
% Within project
1710
23.59
22.12
1855
25.59
19.35
3683
50.82
24.31
7248
100.0
22.33
# Of social interaction
% Of total observation
1391
27.41
1384
27.28
2299
45.31
5074
100.0
Male
% Of total observation
% Within project
707
29.29
50.83
666
27.59
48.12
1041
43.12
45.28
2414
100.0
47.58
Female
% Of total observation
% Within project
684
25.71
49.17
718
26.99
51.88
1258
47.30
54.72
2660
100.0
52.42
% Of social interaction
17.99
14.43
15.18
15.63
199
Table 2
The results of observation based on space type
Space type
Seating space
Scenic space
Circulation space
Activity space
Vague space
Observation
# Of observed residents
(% of total observation)
# Of social interaction
(rank)
% Of social interaction
(rank)
622 (1.92%)
3512 (10.82%)
24645 (75.91%)
3134 (9.65%)
554 (1.71%)
101 (4)
938 (2)
3231 (1)
730 (3)
74 (5)
16.24 (3)
26.71 (1)
13.11 (5)
23.29 (2)
13.36 (4)
space than in the other four spaces. However, the percentage of social interaction was greater for scenic and
activity spaces.
A further examination of the results of observation based on design element is shown in Table 3.
Among the 10 design elements, a prominent percentage (56.31%) of residents were observed on routes. The
quantity of social interaction for the 10 elements in
descending order was route (2,363), node (868), plant
(670), play area (444), open area (286), visual focus
(268), concave seating (91), undefined area (66), convex seating (10), and border area (8). The percentage of
social interaction in descending order was visual focus
(29.84%), plant (25.63%), play area (24.65%), open
area (21.46%), concave seating (16.95%), undefined
area (16.88), node (13.64%), route (12.92%), convex
seating (11.76%), and border area (4.91%). The findings revealed that much more social interaction was
found at route and node than at the other eight design
Table 3
The results of observation based on design element
Design element
Concave seating
Convex seating
Visual focus
Plant
Node
Route
Play area
Open area
Undefined area
Border area
Observations
# Of observed residents
(% of total observation)
# Of social interaction
(rank)
% Of social interaction
(rank)
537 (1.65)
85 (0.26)
898 (2.76)
2614 (8.05
6362 (19.60)
18283 (56.31)
1801 (5.55)
1333 (4.11)
391 (1.20)
163 (0.50)
91 (7)
10 (9)
268 (6)
670 (3)
868 (2)
2363 (1)
444 (4)
286 (5)
66 (8)
8 (10)
16.95 (5)
11.76 (9)
29.84 (1)
25.63 (2)
13.64 (7)
12.92 (8)
24.65 (3)
21.46 (4)
16.88 (6)
4.91 (10)
200
Table 4
The differences of the quantity of social interaction within five space types
Space type (I)
Standard deviation
Significance (p-value)
Seating space
Scenic space
Circulation space
Activity space
Vague space
13.286
75.325
15.778
0.159
4.103
4.588
4.588
4.588
0.001**
0.000***
0.001**
0.972
Scenic space
Seating space
Circulation space
Activity space
Vague space
13.286
62.040
2.492
13.127
4.103
4.588
4.588
4.588
0.001**
0.000***
0.587
0.005**
Circulation space
Seating space
Scenic space
Activity space
Vague space
75.325
62.040
59.548
75.167
4.588
4.588
5.025
5.025
0.000***
0.000***
0.000***
0.000***
Activity space
Seating space
Scenic space
Circulation space
Vague space
15.778
2.492
59.548
15.619
4.588
4.588
5.025
5.025
0.001**
0.587
0.000***
0.002**
Vague space
Seating space
Scenic space
Circulation space
Activity space
0.159
13.127
75.167
15.619
4.588
4.588
5.025
5.025
0.972
0.005**
0.000***
0.002**
**
***
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001.
elements. However, the percentages of social interaction were higher for visual focus, plant, play area, and
open area than the rest of the design elements.
Analysis of variance was then used to examine if
any discrepancy existed among the five space types
regarding the quantity of social interaction. The results
indicated a significant difference existed (F = 81.71,
p = 0.000). Post hoc analysis was then used to examine the differences among the five spaces (Table 4). The
findings showed that the quantity of social interaction in
seating space was significantly less than in scenic space
(p = 0.001), circulation space (p = 0.000), and activity
space (p = 0.001). The quantity of social interaction in
scenic space was significantly greater than in seating
space (p = 0.001) and vague space (p = 0.005), and less
than in circulation space (p = 0.000). The quantity of
social interaction in circulation space was significantly
greater than in the other four space types (p = 0.000).
The quantity of social interaction in activity space was
significantly greater than in seating space (p = 0.001)
and vague space (p = 0.002), and less than in circulation space (p = 0.000). The quantity of social interaction
201
Table 5
t-Tests of difference between the design elements within each space type
Space type
Design element
Seating space
Concave seating
Convex seating
4.018
0.049
1.616
2.260
Scenic space
Visual focus
Plant
0.051
0.823
1.566
1.612
0.122
0.114
Circulation space
Node
Route
0.013
0.911
5.571
5.571
0.000***
0.000***
Activity space
Play area
Open area
6.460
0.013
3.212
3.212
0.002**
0.002**
Vague space
Undefined area
Border area
28.253
0.000
6.628
6.628
0.000***
0.000***
*
**
***
Significance
Significance
0.111
0.029*
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001.
(t = 6.628, p = 0.000). In other words, more social interactions were evoked at concave seating, route, play
area, and undefined area than their counterparts within
each space type.
7. Discussion
The findings indicated that there was little difference in the percentages of social interaction for HsinYi
Housing, NienJen Housing, and DaAn Housing. Overall, the average percentage of social interaction is
15.63%. The low percentage reflects the phenomenon
of social withdrawal among the residents of urban highrise housing in Taipei, Taiwan, as reported by Lin
(1988). Among the five space types, scenic and activity
spaces can support more social interaction. In a further
examination of the 10 design elements, visual focus,
plant, play area, and open area can encourage more
social behavior.
Looking at each space type, circulation space
exceeds the rest of the space types regarding the quantity of social interaction. The findings confirm the
notion that the chance for social interaction increases
as the opportunity for physical contact rises (Ebbesen
et al., 1976). However, the percentage of social interaction in circulation space is only 13.11% and ranks the
last among the five spaces. The research results suggest
202
203
Granovetter, M., 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Soc. 78,
13601380.
Greenbaum, S.D., 1982. Bridging ties at the neighborhood level. Soc.
Netw. 4, 367384.
Harrison, C.M., 1983. Countryside recreation and Londons urban
fringe. Transport. Inst. Brit. Geogr. 8, 295311.
Howell, S., Epp, G., Reizenstein, J.E., Alberight, C., 1976. Shared
Spaces in Housing for the Elderly. MIT Department of Architecture, Boston, MA.
Hu, Z.-F., 1989. A Study of Taipei Residents Housing Choices and
Affordability. Master Thesis. Department of Land Economics,
National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Huang, S.-C.L., 1998. A Study of Peoples Perception of Waterscapes in Built Environments. Doctoral dissertation. Department
of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M
University, College Station.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Brown, T., 1989. Environmental preference:
a comparison of four domains of predictors. Environ. Behav. 21
(5), 509530.
Keane, C., 1991. Socioenvironmental determinants of community
formation. Environ. Behav. 23 (1), 2746.
Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Coley, R.L., Brunson, L., 1998. Fertile
ground for community: innercity neighborhood common spaces.
Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 26 (6), 823851.
Kweon, B.-S., Sullivan, W.C., Wiley, A.R., 1998. Green common
spaces and the social integration of inner-city older adults. Environ. Behav. 30 (6), 832858.
Lee, C.Y., 1978. A Study of the Outdoor Spaces of Cluster Housing
in Taiwan. Master Thesis. Architecture, National Cheng Kung
University, Tainan, Taiwan, ROC.
Lepore, S.J., Evans, G.W., Schneider, M.L., 1991. Dynamic
role of social support in the link between chronic stress
and psychological distress. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 61, 899
909.
Lin, G.-W., 1988. A Comparison of the Relationships among Residents Living in Apartments with Escalator and without Escalator.
Master Thesis. Department of Architecture, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan.
Moore, R.C., 1986. Childhoods Domain. Croom Helm, London.
Nasar, J.L., 1994. Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environ. Behav. 26 (5), 377
401.
Newman, O., 1973. Defensible Space. Collier, New York.
Osmond, H., 1957. Functions as the basis of psychiatric ward design.
Ment. Hosp. (Architectural Supplement) 8, 2329.
Sherrod, D.R., 1977. Environmental attention, affect, and altruism.
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 7, 359371.
Skjaeveland, O., Garling, T., 1997. Effects of interactional space on
neighbouring. J. Environ. Psychol. 17, 181198.
Tognoli, J., 1987. Residential environments. In: Stokols, D., Altman,
I. (Eds.), The Handbook of Environmental Psychology. Wiley,
New York, pp. 655690.
Tseng, P.-Y., 1994. Primary exploration of housing affordability in
metropolitan area. J. City Plann. 21 (2), 173190.
Unger, D.G., Wandersman, A., 1983. Neighboring and its role in
block organizations: an exploratory report. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 11, 291300.
204
Whyte, W.H., 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. The
Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.
Zito, J.M., 1974. Anonymity and neighboring in an urban, high-rise
complex. Urban Life Cult. 3 (3), 243263.
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.