Next Article in Journal
The Influence of Safety Culture and Climate on Safety Performance: Mediating Role of Employee Engagement in Manufacturing Enterprises in Ethiopia
Next Article in Special Issue
Urban Green Development and Resilient Cities: A First Insight into Urban Forest Planning in Italy
Previous Article in Journal
A New Insight for Daily Solar Radiation Prediction by Meteorological Data Using an Advanced Artificial Intelligence Algorithm: Deep Extreme Learning Machine Integrated with Variational Mode Decomposition Technique
Previous Article in Special Issue
Social Metabolism in Buruan SAE: Individual Rift Perspective on Urban Farming Model for Food Independence in Bandung, Indonesia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 14
10.3390/su151411276
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Does the Residential Complex Regulate Residents’ Behaviour? An Empirical Study to Identify Influential Components of Human Territoriality on Social Interaction

by
Zahra Nowzari
1,
Rachel Armitage
2 and
Mohammad Javad Maghsoodi Tilaki
3,*
1
Department of Architecture, School of Art and Architecture, Azad University of Shiraz, Shiraz 7473171987, Iran
2
Department of Behavioural and Social Sciences, School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK
3
Department of Geography, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor 11800, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(14), 11276; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411276
Submission received: 30 May 2023 / Revised: 9 July 2023 / Accepted: 17 July 2023 / Published: 19 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Urban Green Development and Resilient Cities)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Although urbanisation and urban land limitations are prevalent, residential complexes are seldom discussed as a means of compartmentalising social interactions and contributing to residents’ social interactions. Due to the spatial orientation of social interactions, semi-public spaces in these buildings are unable to host residents’ interactions due to a lack of appropriate arrangements/establishment of tangible and visible objects. The influential components, however, have rarely been identified in residential complexes. To fill this gap, using the theory of human territoriality, the current study explores the influential physical components of human territorialities in semi-public spaces in four residential complexes and investigates whether a significant relationship exists between human territorialities’ physical components and social interactions. This study collected data from 264 residents of four residential complexes with different spatial configuration layouts. Pearson correlation and Spearman’s rank correlation are used to evaluate linear and monotonic relationships between study variables. The correlation between spatial configurations of physical components and residents’ interactions confirms that spatial configurations influence residents’ use of semi-public spaces. Social interaction can, therefore, be improved through green space, brightness, accessibility, and furniture in common areas. The findings prove that residential complexes with clustered arrangements have not performed well in creating social interaction due to the lack of defined spaces and territories for people, but multi-core, mixed, and linear complexes that define several open and semi-open spaces have been more successful in the amount of social interaction of residents. This study is one of the first to identify the influential components using the integration of residents’ perceptions and spatial configuration.

1. Introduction

Due to urban land limitations and rapid urbanisation in developing countries in recent decades, housing support practices have failed, and housing shortages have intensified from five decades ago because of this trend. Housing authorities promoted residential complex construction in the 90s. It supported housing demand for a few years, but the initiative lost its efficiency due to an imbalance between housing supply and demand in Iran. Nevertheless, living in complexes has become increasingly common, especially in Iran’s major cities. Like past experiences in other cities, a problem associated with life in complexes is the poor quality of social interactions [1,2], which deprives an individual of well-being [3] and results in depression, stress, and distress [4]. At the same time, the superiority of economic and population considerations over other human needs reduces the quality of such residential areas [5]. A housing project, particularly a residential complex, should be able to provide security, health, and stability, as well as meet the initial needs of all ages and social groups, thereby satisfying their initial needs, such as comfort, privacy, peace, and dignity [6]. Hence, private and semi-private territories, as a part of privacy, should also be clearly and accurately defined in designing residential areas to avoid unwanted societal conflicts between residents’ and users’ space [5].
There are three types of territorial spaces based on privacy levels: primary, secondary, and public territory [7]. Madanipour [8] describes territorial behaviour as marking, controlling, and defending. Territorial behaviour is perceived as a mechanism based on enhancing human–environment interactions for regulating social interaction and ensuring stability in social organisations [9,10,11,12]. Through signage and personalising a place, users express nonverbal communication to communicate ownership and occupancy of areas and possessions [13]. However, based on the literature, several components contribute to territoriality, including (1) social [14,15,16], (2) cultural [14,17], (3) psychological–cognitive [14], (4) physical [14,17,18,19,20,21,22], (5) functional [14], (6) environmental [14,17], (7) temporal–spatial [14,23], (8) economic [14], and (9) individual [23,24] components.
Research has revealed that creating territoriality can improve users’ sense of identity, privacy, and security [25]. In addition, territoriality regulates users’ routine activities in spaces where routine activities also influence guardianship patterns and monitoring of their surroundings [26]. As a result, creating different spaces to respond to residents’ needs must be accomplished by changing users’ routine activities, improving welfare, and increasing social interactions [26,27]. Shared and semi-public areas in housing complexes should be designed to reinforce community encounters [26,28] and strengthen bonds between neighbours [29]. A large body of literature demonstrates how the place affects users’ interaction patterns in the space and users’ satisfaction [10,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37].
In metropolises in Iran and many other countries, users’ territoriality in residential complexes is not currently preserved according to residential block geometrical shapes [35]. Adhering to building codes and building layout regulations resulted in independent parking lots, standard-dimension stairs, and appropriate fire extinguishing facilities in the latest generation of complexes, but semi-public areas decorated with green space emerged without hierarchy [37]. These were created to be a place for users’ interactions, engagement, and social network development. However, the current levels of residents’ interactions reveal that the spaces failed to fulfil their mission in many residential complexes. It is, therefore, rare to find places where residents can gather to encourage fun and interaction. As a result, residential complexes and housing projects become a series of volumes with vacant shared spaces among them. In general, communication is an initial human need because engaging with neighbours can enhance community inclusion and a sense of belonging, especially in complexes in Iranian cities. A literature review indicates that users’ territoriality improves their engagements [30,34,35]. Due to the lack of territoriality in many residential complexes, neighbours cannot look out for their well-being and communicate together to improve living conditions and situations, particularly between different age groups and social classes. Subsequently, a trend of social exclusion has emerged, which grows in centres with high-density buildings and crowded populations, unlike past patterns in Iran [35].
Taking into account the layouts of residential blocks, this study concentrates on the impact of human territoriality in the semi-public spaces of four residential complexes. Despite various studies that have pointed out residents’ behaviours, building configuration, connectivity, infrastructure, and quality of place at neighbourhood levels, mass buildings, or both, few studies have paid much attention to the impact of residents’ informal territoriality on residents’ behaviours in semi-public spaces of mass residential complexes. Accordingly, the present study investigates whether a significant relationship exists between the physical components of human territoriality and social interactions. Second, it identifies the most influential physical components of territoriality on residents’ interactions. In the following, as a third point, the authors will illustrate the proposed design for influential physical elements of territoriality in residential complexes according to the research findings. The present study consists of four subsequent sections: the Section 2 reviews the literature on territoriality and social interaction. The Section 3 reveals the methods and instruments employed to satisfy the research objectives and introduces the case study. The Section 4 focuses on analysis and results. The Section 5 elaborates on the findings and concludes research findings beyond case studies. Future research recommendations will be highlighted in this section.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Social Interactions in Built Environments

Three types of activities occur in the outdoors: necessary, optional, and sociable [38]. Social interaction is the result of people in the same spaces and positive interpersonal interactions [35]. Many recent environmental psychology studies focus on the interactions between the built environment and social factors. The physical aspect of a built environment facilitates interpersonal communications and provides privacy in a non-private space. It entails the establishment of appropriate dimensions, spatial arrangement, and permeability in the built environment. Finally, the human-made environment grants symbolic and aesthetic perceptions, experiences, and feelings, which affect users’ perceptions of place qualities [39,40]. Desired privacy and spatial relations are created through appropriate spatial arrangement and the establishment of required physical elements in a place [17,41].
In this regard, neighbourliness consists of two aspects: manifest and latent. Although communicating and chit-chatting are two common types of manifest neighbourliness, mutuality and trust among neighbours are consequences of latent neighbourliness [35,42,43]. Hence, Table 1 categorises the physical elements of the built environment influencing social interactions revealed in past studies. According to the findings, most scholars have identified components, such as furniture, light and brightness, accessibility, and green space.

2.2. Territoriality and Social Interactions in Residential Complexes

Residences create a territory that matches the house’s legal boundaries [5]. Spatial territoriality is formed based on permeability and accessibility [30,37]. Hence, segmenting of an area results in a better perception of territorialities [69]. Physical territoriality control involves using signs and marks to claim and protect the area. Generally, each type of activity requires certain physical settings to facilitate their occurrence in space, such as playing with others, greeting others, and talking [70]. Passive communication is a social activity, such as eye contact, watching events, and listening to others. Common areas between houses in neighbourhoods facilitate residents’ attendance and contribution to various activities [69].
Territories in a residential building include the arrangement of courtyards, towers, landscaping, and flooring of different areas, such as pedestrian and riding paths, along with the arrangement of sites for multipurpose activities, such as playgrounds, sports, retail, and car parking [71]. Currently, residential complexes, which have the potential for semi-private and semi-public spaces, can play the role of local mediators (in-between spaces) to improve social interaction [30,72,73,74]. Users perceive defined semi-public spaces as having a significant positive effect on social interactions compared with undefined semi-public spaces [75,76]. If different levels of territory are not defined well, individuals will have to fight the environment to achieve appropriate levels of territoriality to enhance social interaction [77]. In a residential complex, residents prefer spaces that provide interaction opportunities [78], along with privacy, which is necessary [35,79]. This concept indicates the importance of territoriality in improving social interactions in living places [80]. Furthermore, previous research findings have demonstrated that opportunities for community activities and the strengthening of the social bond of residents will be increased by preparing green space in residential environments [30,37,81] or an atrium in cold climate areas [82].
Huang [83] believed that water features with complex and distinct forms encourage observers’ social interactions. Configuring a proper public facility enhances informal communication and chitchat [30,65,75,84,85]. For instance, Huang [29] found that the concave seating arrangement near plants, closeness to the activity zone, and features of water or works of art can be among the factors that provide users with facilities, such as shade, events, and aesthetic quality, and can encourage interpersonal interaction.
According to theoretical discussion, territoriality and the segmentation of areas are two components of residential complexes that provide better insight into different territories and their control. Reynald and Moir [86] revealed the significance of the physical and social aspects of environments in both providing and promoting opportunities for monitoring and controlling the surroundings by residents. Territories aim to satisfy the various needs of several age groups, resulting in more confidence and privacy for residents and enhancing social interactions between residents. Studies have shown that the development of green spaces through appropriate patterns, the establishment of interesting facilities and activities, and appropriate outdoor furniture arrangements enhance interaction between residents. In this regard, landscape components in open public spaces encourage informal contact and interaction.

2.3. Conceptual Framework

According to the theory of human territoriality, human behaviour depends on providing appropriate spaces for its activities [87], which have a sufficient level of effect, influence, or control over access, actions, and interactions [88]. Thus, behaviours are influenced by different interactive multilevel factors from individual to public policy levels [89]. As a result, a significant relationship occurs among users and their interactions and social–environmental components [90]. As mentioned, a large body of literature revealed that residents’ interaction in neighbourhood areas is affected by some physical elements, including the quality of the neighbourhood, housing layouts, communal facilities, seating area and seat arrangements, open space and green area, lighting, accessibility, and pathways [10,30,35,43,91]. In this respect, the physical aspect of the built environment contributes to the creation of territoriality at the level of users, where users act according to their self-perceived territoriality in a public space, such as a neighbourhood or semi-public residential complex [92]. Territoriality, therefore, results from the combination of individual attitudes and physical characteristics of the built environment, which develop social behaviour, such as social interaction [93].
The research framework was designed based on the theory of human territoriality. It involves understanding and applying the principles and concepts associated with territorial behaviour in humans. Hence, Figure 1 shows the proposed conceptual framework, in which individual behaviours are affected by perceived territoriality and built environment components. Through this approach, users’ interactions in semi-public spaces of complexes are modified directly and indirectly by the built environment.

3. Methodology

This study employed a mixed-methods approach to satisfy the research objectives, including (A) a closed-ended questionnaire to assess users’ characteristics and the experience and perception of interaction with neighbours within residential complexes and (B) the physical characteristics of residential complexes objectively observed by the authors. This study used quantitative analysis methods, such as correlational and descriptive methods, to analyse the collected data. It is a descriptive correlational study that examines the relationship between research variables. Using SPSS 24, the study evaluated monotonic and linear relationships between study variables by Pearson correlation and Spearman’s rank correlation.

3.1. Study Area

Four residential complexes in Shiraz, one of the four largest cities in southwest Iran, were selected for the study. The city has a population of more than 2 million people across 152 neighbourhoods and 11 districts, based on available data from Shiraz Municipality. Due to its proximity to less developed provinces, many migrations have made Shiraz a metropolitan city with a heterogeneous population. Hence, privacy, safety, and territoriality are among the main concerns of residents, for whom the potential risk of crime is high [94]. Considering the rapid urbanisation and high demand for housing, irregular and uncontrolled construction has led to housing issues becoming a crisis.
These four case studies were selected based on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria: (1) the spatial configuration unit must be included as one of four types of residential housing complex typology in Shiraz, and (2) the residential complex must have open semi-public space, including sports facilities, playgrounds, seating areas, and landscapes in open space. Furthermore, we excluded employer-provided housing complexes. For this reason, as shown in Table 2, spatial building block layouts in residential complexes of Shiraz have been studied recently. They were categorised into five patterns: (1) individual, (2) linear, (3) centralised (single and multicore), (4) clustered (regular and irregular), and (5) mixed [95].
Referring to the different patterns, residential complexes were selected in terms of the four patterns from the five typologies listed in Table 2. In this regard, the current study drew site plans of selected residential complexes with a focus on the location of the block(s), unused spaces, green space, and main entrance, as shown in Table 3.

3.2. Observation

Although previous studies [29,30,35] investigated social interactions at the neighbourhood level, this study focuses on residential complexes and semi-public spaces within the blocks. Hence, a field observation was conducted to observe and record the physical characteristics and spatial layout of building blocks in the selected complexes. In this regard, the current study investigated site plans of selected residential complexes, focusing on the location of the block(s), forms of semi-public areas, green spaces, light and brightness, accessibility, and shared facilities (as shown in Table 4).

3.3. Questionnaire

In the quantitative part, the study prompts residents of residential complexes to fill out a self-administered questionnaire. Hence, a walk-in questionnaire survey was conducted in November 2020. Regarding the available residential population data in the Shiraz Municipality, the total resident population for these complexes is 3174 people (as of October 2020). The stratified sampling method was applied for this study. Of 500 residents who received the questionnaire at their self-units’ doors, 303 returned the questionnaire, with a response rate of 60.6%. For most of the other 197 residents, the reason for not contributing to the survey was lack of time. The main inclusion criterion was that respondents had lived on the current property for at least one year. After data cleaning, 39 respondents’ questionnaires were excluded due to incomplete and/or inadequate responses or not meeting the inclusion criteria. Therefore, the total number of respondents was reduced to 264. Participants were asked to provide demographic characteristics in the first section of the questionnaire. They were also invited to respond to 23 statements that reflect their experiences regarding the availability of shared amenities, green spaces, lighting and daylighting, accessibility, and social interactions in semi-public areas in their complexes. Table 5 shows the study variables with their respective indicators.
In total, 264 respondents participated in the survey, and 51.13% and 48.86% of respondents were male and female, respectively. Additionally, the percentage of respondents by complex residential pattern includes 8% of the residential complex of the linear pattern, 13% of the residential complex of the clustered pattern, 25% of the residential complex of the mixed pattern, and 54% of the residential complex of the centralised pattern. The respondents’ residence length includes 2% over 15 years old, 8% between 10 and 15 years old, 35% between 5 and 10 years old, and 55% under 5 years old.

4. Results

This study was conducted based on the environmental meaning model to explain the role of physical components of territory and social interactions in the presence of social groups of residents and to analyse the effective components. The collected data through questionnaires were analysed through SPSS 24 using the Pearson correlation coefficient to illustrate potential relationships between two normally distributed quantitative variables. In this regard, an index coefficient between 1.0 and 1.0 indicates ideal positive and negative relationships, respectively. A two-tailed significance level of 5% was applied to determine if any difference exists between the components we are comparing. Consequently, the analysis of the questionnaire yielded the results detailed below.

4.1. Placing and Arranging Activities

The components mentioned in the first part, related to placing and arranging the activities in residential complexes, are positively and significantly correlated (Figure 2). As a result, the layout patterns of activities and functions in semi-public areas have a positive effect on each other. An alpha value of less than 0.05 confirms this finding (Table 6). Consequently, the use of concave furniture around the playground or the fountains encourages social interaction among residents. The application of quiet and shaded corners, linear passages beside green spaces, the construction of playgrounds and sports fields in central areas of the courtyard, and the use of different forms (e.g., children’s parks, space for elderly individuals), as public spaces, result in more effective user relationships. Notably, although allocating a specific space to children or the elderly is a constructive and effective act, statistics show that it does not have such effects on social interactions. This is because the components have no significant correlation.

4.2. Green Space

According to respondents’ responses, all components of green space were significantly and positively correlated. As a result, their implementation has a positive effect on each other, which is confirmed by the estimated Cronbach’s alpha < 0.05. Only components in Items 8 and 10 are not significantly correlated and do not affect each other (Table 7). Considering the statistical analysis, the components of green space improve social interaction (Figure 3).

4.3. Light and Brightness

According to the statistical analysis, spatial light quality had no significant relationships with the other components of items (Table 8 and Figure 4). Other components, such as environmental aesthetic improvement, proper lighting for safety, and legibility of turning points and signs, also affect social interactions and community relationships. An increased level of each component enhances other components and improves social interactions. For instance, augmenting space beauty through light leads to a heightened sense of security, which, in turn, boosts social interaction.

4.4. Accessibility

The analysis shows a significant relationship between the components (Table 9 and Figure 5), but no significant relationship exists between the separation of pedestrian and riding paths and the hierarchical component of accessibility to public space or between the location of public space and appropriate access to different sites (Table 9). Therefore, these components do not affect each other. Pushing aside, decreasing and/or increasing the level of each component did not affect their effectiveness. These factors are independent and have unique effects.

4.5. Furniture

Table 10 shows all components are significantly correlated, except for furniture, which has no impact on other components. Figure 6 also indicates signs, tables, and memorial sculptures significantly affected social interactions. Moreover, an increase in each component strengthens other components, which, in turn, enhance social interactions.
In general, the placement and arrangement of activities, green space, light and brightness, accessibility, and furniture are significantly correlated. Among these components, accessibility is the least effective variable influencing social interaction (as shown in Figure 7). While conducting the survey, the authors carried out a field observation to identify the existing physical components of territories. They also analysed the weakness of points with the potential to establish social interactions in a field study. Additionally, detailed information was illustrated based on the current layout and arrangement of spaces in Table 11.

5. Discussion

According to the findings, the segregation of spatial territoriality (public, semi-public, semi-private, and private) is among the factors influencing social interactions in residential complexes. The arrangement of things in space is an influential physical component of territoriality in social interaction. The formation, location, and shape of items in semi-public space of residential complexes affect the connectivity and users’ use of these spaces. As specified by Huang [29], concave furniture around the playground or fountain can boost interaction between parents and children. Considering the current research results, another way to encourage peace is to create pathways and pedestrian paths around green spaces that are consistent with early findings [37]. The location of public spaces in the focal points of the yard and near residential blocks also affects social interactions. The research results indicate that green space is the second most effective physical component of territoriality in promoting users’ interaction in semi-public areas of residential complexes. As another factor of territoriality influencing social interaction, this study examined the role of green spaces in users’ motivation for communication with other users in residential complexes. Based on the findings, the decoration of green areas with a higher level of diversity in semi-public areas of residential complexes affects users’ territoriality and may boost interactions between them. The findings are in agreement with past studies’ findings [30,37]. In this regard, the separation of areas from plants has been considered a beneficial practice in past studies (such as [47]). Hence, a part of the courtyard can be designed with a diverse green space (e.g., a green space confined by boxes) as a place for newspaper reading, or it is possible to separate another part of the courtyard with shade trees and group furniture to make a place for chit-chat and communication. Designing such diverse green areas can encourage people to attend and participate.
Consistent with recent studies that advocate the role of lighting and brightness in encouraging users to interact [45,46], as physical components of territoriality, the impact of lighting and brightness on social interaction was evaluated. The results show that appropriate lighting and brightness can make the place attractive for communication. This is especially true in semi-public areas, such as courtyards. Sufficient lighting and brightness decrease fear of crime because users know that crime rates are higher in dark places. People are not willing to be in places without brightness and lighting. This means that appropriate lighting and brightness encourage users to attend and participate in the space.
This study assessed the impact of accessibility as a physical component of territoriality on changing user interactions in semi-public areas and residential complexes. The arrangement of building blocks, accessibility, and social interactions have a significant impact [60], but the present study suggests that accessibility has the least effect on social interaction change. This result, however, confirms that accessibility impacts user interaction, but its effectiveness is less than that of other components. Thus, the study results are consistent with past studies. In this regard, accessibility can improve social interaction when pathways or boulevards have a suitable width and length [37]. As a result, accessibility’s low effectiveness in encouraging users to interact is due to unsorted and unsized pathways or lack of hierarchical access.
In addition, the results show that accessibility factors influence user interaction, which agrees with past studies [30,34,37,38,60]. The present study’s findings revealed no significant relationship between the separation of pedestrians and vehicles, with the hierarchical component of accessibility to public space, and the location of public space and appropriate access to different places in residential complexes. This means that these components do not affect each other. Thus, removing, decreasing, and/or increasing the level of each of them did not affect their effectiveness. These factors are independent and have unique effects. Furthermore, the impacts of communal facilities were investigated in the current study. Residential complexes in Iran usually include outdoor seating, table tennis facilities, sports facilities, and gazebos in outdoor and semi-public areas. Facilities encourage users and residents to attend and participate in these areas. Such encouragement was facilitated by offering facilities for relaxation, meditation, running, fun, and a variety of physical activities.
The location of these facilities is significant because their location and spatial connections contribute to users’ safety, fear of crime, peace, territoriality, and interaction with others. In this regard, past studies [40,47,48] have found that playgrounds located near blocks and green areas decrease the fear of crime in children and their parents. It, in turn, improves their motivation, activities, and interactions with other players. Children’s outdoor activities can be enhanced when playgrounds are placed within the natural surveillance of dwelling units. Conversely, locating playgrounds without natural surveillance from dwelling units decreases the likelihood of children doing outdoor activities due to fear of crime. As a result, public spaces with convenient accessibility and/or located near central points will enhance residents’ attendance and encourage participation.
In addition, the study observation revealed that the physical components of territoriality, such as hierarchical access and green spaces, as well as the way of organising elements and blocks, enhance legibility and a sense of invitation toward social interaction between users. This finding aligned with the literature [29,30,35,38]. According to the results, residential complexes with green spaces, light and brightness, access hierarchies, furniture, and elements create more motivation for social interaction. By contrast, residential complexes with clustered arrangements have not performed well in creating social interaction due to the lack of defined spaces and territories for people. Furthermore, multi-core, mixed, and linear complexes are able to define territoriality in several public and semi-public spaces. Accordingly, the second category can encourage residents to interact more than the clustered arrangement complexes. These findings are consistent with experimental research through a comparative approach using space syntax analysis by [37].
Human territorialities in historic neighbourhoods arguably were generated as a result of the existence of hierarchical spaces (i.e., courtyards and roads), which engendered osmotic borders, in conjunction with medieval socio-cultural activities, including intertwined spatial–political layers, such as power, traditions, gender segregation, ownership patterns, and ideological or blood-related backgrounds. Thus, semi-public courtyard roads functioned as the primary form of in-between spaces in historical Iranian and perhaps Middle Eastern architecture [96]. But urbanisation growth and a housing shortage changed current neighbourhoods’ patterns and features. As a result, semi-public areas experienced deterioration when developers and planners excluded them from houses because of an urban land shortage. In this sense, the current study proved that a proper arrangement is needed for building blocks, hierarchical access, activities, and spatial decoration. It is in the courtyards and open spaces of residential complexes. Hence, as shown in Table 12, the following propositions have been provided; such semi-public spaces can potentially enhance residents’ territoriality and facilitate their attendance, contribution, and interaction, including improving social cohesion and contributing to safety and satisfaction (Table 12).

6. Conclusions

This study aimed to investigate the influential physical components of human territorialities in semi-public spaces in four residential complexes and evaluate whether there is a significant relationship between human territorialities’ physical components and social interactions. Based on human territoriality theory, the study was conducted with a mixed method using a questionnaire and direct observation in the four mass residential complexes of Shiraz, the third-largest city in Iran. The initial idea of this study refers to residents needing a place for living in peace, privacy, safety and comfort. Due to continuous migration from rural and small urban areas to major cities in Iran, such as Shiraz, they have suffered from ad hoc planning with confusion in decision-making that has resulted in turmoil in housing construction, and providing the proper infrastructures and public facilities in major cities.
Accordingly, serious issues have emerged in the physical aspect of cities, particularly neighbourhoods, in the past five decades. Housing, as the main cell of urban tissues, lacks the provision of previous functions for its residents as much as expected roles, such as well-being and interaction among residents of a residential complex. This is a result of the transformation of historic Iranian cities, such as Shiraz, and the result of social–spatial changes caused by the industrialisation of major cities, despite changes in residential neighbourhood fabrics occurring naturally, organically, and technologically in previous decades. The findings indicated that outdoor common areas arguably disclose socio-spatial mechanisms that once formed interactions of residents as members of a community and that once engendered satisfaction and physical activity in residential complexes. Lacking or inappropriate common areas in residential complexes results in isolation and exclusion among residents in residential complexes as relatively small communities. Negative impacts manifest in urban communities and higher levels, resulting in behavioural and communicational changes in the whole community.
Therefore, improving social interaction as a fundamental function is crucial in residential complexes. In other words, the existence and preservation of personalised territory and a sense of safety within that territory are the bases of everyone’s social behaviour in the community. By discovering the correlation between human territoriality and physical activity, the association between neighbours’ interactions and appropriate open space and shared facilities in the context of residential complexes proved to be crucial. Human territoriality, along with practical studies’ findings, proved that current housing construction processes are inefficient in Shiraz and other major Iranian cities, have lagged far behind a deleterious process, have been physical-oriented, and are mostly concentrated on independent interventions, rather than considering the development process of communities. The present study revealed how human territoriality as spatial boundaries of individuals is formed based on the physical components of built areas (such as residential complexes), and the perceived spatial boundaries manage residents’ behaviour to attend and contribute to an area or interaction with someone surrounding.
This redress in knowledge, that is, understanding perceived human territoriality and its social and physical implications, must be taken advantage of as a priority measure for the proposition of upgrading the quality of residential complexes in all Iranian cities. Hence, this study builds on previous research providing a useful case study insight that could be replicated in other countries/locations for comparison and influence the design of social housing spaces where human well-being, as part of sustainability objectives, is a priority factor for assessing design success.
Finally, this study discloses an idea for different stakeholders in the decision-making atmosphere to focus on building codes with a new perspective as human-oriented residential buildings that can redress semi-public spaces in residential complexes as an opportunity to increase residents’ sense of belonging and to avoid migration and growing segregation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, M.J.M.T., Z.N. and R.A.; methodology, R.A. and M.J.M.T.; data collection Z.N.; formal analysis, Z.N. and M.J.M.T.; writing—original draft preparation, M.J.M.T., Z.N. and R.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Behrad, B.; Bahrami, B. The impact of public spaces physical quality in residential complexes on improving user’s social interactions; case study: Pavan residential complex of Sanandaj, Iran. J. Civ. Eng. Urban. 2015, 5, 89–93. [Google Scholar]
  2. Petković, N.; Stoiljković, B.; Stanković, V. Common Open Areas as Interactional Space in Social Housing-Design Principles and Spatial Characteristics. Int. Conf. Urban Plan. 2020, 197, 1–247. [Google Scholar]
  3. Twenge, J.M.; Spitzberg, B.H. Declines in non-digital social interaction among Americans, 2003–2017. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2020, 50, 363–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fowler, K.; Wareham-Fowler, S.; Barnes, C. Social context and depression severity and duration in C anadian men and women: Exploring the influence of social support and sense of community belongingness. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 43, E85–E96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Masrour, M.; Karbaschi, M.; Naseri, G. The Relationship between the Enclosed Space and the Sense of Territory in Residential Neighborhoods (Case Study: Comparison between Haft-Hoz and Shahrake-Gharb). Int. J. Archit. Urban Dev. 2016, 6, 67–78. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tabarsa, M.A.; Didgah, R.; Ebtehaj, M.; Branch, G. Design Solutions for Residential Complexes with a Safe Spaces Approach: A Case Study of Gorgan City. Turk. Online J. Des. Art Commun. 2018, 8, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Altman, I. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding; Brooks/Cole Pub. Co: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  8. Madanipour, A. Public and Private Spaces of the City; Routledge: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  9. Abu-Ghazzeh, T.M. Built form and religion: Underlying structures of Jeddah Al-Qademah. Tradit. Dwell. Settl. Rev. 1994, 5, 49–59. [Google Scholar]
  10. Abu-Ghazzeh, T.M. Human purposes and the spatial formation of open spaces: Al Alkhalaf, Saudi Arabia. Archit. Comport. Archit. Behav. 1994, 10, 169–187. [Google Scholar]
  11. Edney, J.J. Comment on functional properties. Environ. Behav. 1976, 8, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zartaj, A.; Malekjahan, F.A.; Salavatian, S. Designing a Desirable Territory in the Behavioral settings of Children with Autism Disorders in order to Enhance and Provide Adaptive Skills Based on Social Behavior Functions. Int. J. Appl. Exerc. Physiol. 2020, 9, 216–231. [Google Scholar]
  13. Beebe, S.A.; Beebe, S.J.; Redmond, M.V.; Geerinck, T.; Salem-Wiseman, L. Interpersonal Communication: Relating to Others; Allyn and Bacon Boston: Boston, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  14. Einifar, A.; Aghalatifi, A. The concept of territory in residential complexes (case study comparison of two residential complexes in level and elevation in Tehran). J. Fine Arts 2011, 47, 17–28. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lawson, B. The Language of Space; Butter Worth–Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sundstrom, E.; Altman, I. Field study of territorial behavior and dominance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1974, 30, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abu-Obeid, N.; Al-Homoud, M. Sense of privacy and territoriality as a function of spatial layout in university public spaces. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2000, 43, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Edney, J.J. Place and space: The effects of experience with a physical locule. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1972, 8, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Taylor, R.B.; Stough, R.R. Territorial cognition: Assessing Altman’s typology. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1978, 36, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brown, B.B.; Altman, I. Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: An environmental analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 1983, 3, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shumaker, S.A.; Taylor, R.B. Toward a clarification of people-place relationships: A model of attachment to place. Environ. Psychol. Dir. Perspect. 1983, 2, 19–25. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sommer, R.; Becker, F.D. Territorial defense and the good neighbor. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1969, 11, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Altman, I.; Haythorn, W.W. The ecology of isolated groups. Behav. Sci. 1967, 12, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mercer, G.W.; Benjamin, M. Spatial Behavior of University Undergraduates in Double-Occupany Residence Rooms: An Inventory of Effects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 10, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nari Qomi, M. Semantic Study of the Concept of Introversion in Islamic City. J. Honar-Ha-Ye 2010, 43, 69–82. [Google Scholar]
  26. Moir, E.; Reynald, D.M.; Hart, T.C.; Stewart, A. Exploring the influence of daily microroutines on residential guardianship and monitoring patterns. Crim. Justice Stud. 2019, 32, 120–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mahabadi, N.R.; Hadi, J.M. A Novel Approach for Open Space Design in Residential Complexes (with Special Attention to Children). Turk. Online J. Des. Art Commun. 2016, 6, 3380–3394. [Google Scholar]
  28. Xiaohui, L.; Quan, H.; Qi, L. Survey and Optimization Design of Urban Public Space in China. Open House Int. 2018, 43, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huang, S.-C.L. A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Askarizad, R.; Safari, H. The influence of social interactions on the behavioral patterns of the people in urban spaces (case study: The pedestrian zone of Rasht Municipality Square, Iran). Cities 2020, 101, 102687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Calthorpe, P. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream; Princeton Architectural Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  32. Fried, M.; Gleicher, P. Some sources of residential satisfaction in an urban slum. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1961, 27, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gans, H.J. Urban Villagers; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  34. Han, S.; Song, D.; Xu, L.; Ye, Y.; Yan, S.; Shi, F.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Du, H. Behaviour in public open spaces: A systematic review of studies with quantitative research methods. Build. Environ. 2022, 223, 109444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mousavinia, S.F.; Pourdeihimi, S.; Madani, R. Housing layout, perceived density and social interactions in gated communities: Mediational role of territoriality. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 51, 101699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zerouati, W.; Bellal, T. Evaluating the impact of mass housings’ in-between spaces’ spatial configuration on users’ social interaction. Front. Archit. Res. 2020, 9, 34–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gehl, J. Life between Buildings; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hillier, B.; Hanson, J.; Peponis, J. What do we mean by building function? In Designing for Building Utilisation; E & F.N. Spon Ltd.: London, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  40. Maghsoodi Tilaki, M.J.; Hedayati Marzbali, M.; Safizadeh, M.; Abdullah, A. Quality of place and resident satisfaction in a historic–religious urban settlement in Iran. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2021, 14, 462–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Archea, J. The place of architectural factors in behavioral theories of privacy. J. Soc. Issues 1977, 33, 116–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Armitage, R.; Tompson, L. The Role of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) in Improving Household Security. In The Handbook of Security; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 909–930. [Google Scholar]
  43. Clampet–Lundquist, S. “Everyone had your back”: Social ties, perceived safety, and public housing relocation. City Community 2010, 9, 87–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Armitage, R. Burglars’ take on crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): Reconsidering the relevance from an offender perspective. Secur. J. 2018, 31, 285–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Ekblom, P. Deconstructing CPTED… and reconstructing it for practice, knowledge management and research. Eur. J. Crim. Policy Res. 2011, 17, 7–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jongejan, A.; Woldendorp, T. A Successful CPTED Approach: The Dutch’Police Label Secure Housing’. Built. Environ. 2013, 39, 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Soleimani, A.; Samadpoor, H. Assessment of effective physical factors of the feeling of security in urban spaces from view of the elderly (case: Velayat-e-Faqih Square of Urmia). J. Archit. 2019, 2, 50–64. [Google Scholar]
  48. Nasution, A.D.; Zahrah, W. Community perception on public open space and quality of life in Medan, Indonesia. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 153, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Francis, M. The making of democratic streets. In Public Streets for Public Use; Moudon, A.V., Ed.; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1987; pp. 23–39. [Google Scholar]
  50. Duany, A.; Plater-Zyberk, E.; Speck, J. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  51. Trancik, R. Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hillier, B.; Penn, A.; Hanson, J.; Grajewski, T.; Xu, J. Natural movement: Or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 1993, 20, 29–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Homaiefar, M.; Shokouhi, M.A.; Mafi, E. Investigation and Analysis of Physical transformations of Mashhad urban complex using chaos theory (Mashhad Metropolis, Toos and Binalood Area). Geogr. Res. 2020, 35, 73–81. [Google Scholar]
  54. Bentley, I. Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers; Routledge: London, UK, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  55. Daneshpour, A.; Charkhchyan, M. Public spaces and factors affecting collective life. Mon. Sci. J. Bagh-E Nazar 2007, 4, 19–28. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lynch, K. Good City Form; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  57. Cooper Marcus, C.; Francis, C. People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space; John Willey Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wagner, F.; Caves, R.W. Community Livability: Issues and Approaches to Sustaining the Well-Being of People and Communities; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  59. Azmoodeh, M.; Haghighi, F.; Motieyan, H.; Maghsoodi Tilaki, M.J. Investigating the relationship between housing policy and accessibility, based on developing a multi-perspectives accessibility index: A case study in Tehran, Iran. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2020, 35, 1237–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ferguson, P. The streets of innovation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul, Turkey, 12–15 June 2007. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lotfi, S.; Annamoradnejad, R.B.; Vahedi, H. Evaluation of Physical Components of Public Spaces and their Impact on Social Security of Babolsar Citizens. Strateg. Res. Soc. Probl. Iran 2015, 4, 131–152. [Google Scholar]
  62. Akbari, R.; Pakbonyan, S. The impact of public spaces form on women social security sense comparative study in two different residential patterns. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba Memary Va Shahrsazi 2012, 17, 53–64. [Google Scholar]
  63. Mouratidis, K. Built environment and social well-being: How does urban form affect social life and personal relationships? Cities 2018, 74, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. First, B. Vision Mumbai: Transforming Mumbai into a World Class City; A Bombay First-McKinsey Report; Cirrus Repro Pvt. Ltd.: Mumbai, India, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  65. Farhad, S.; Maghsoodi Tilaki, M.J.; Hedayati Marzbali, M. Architectural identity and place attachment in historic neighbourhoods: An empirical study in Sanandaj, Iran. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2021, 14, 148–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Carmona, M. Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  67. Alitajer, S.; Saadativaghar, P.; Robati, M.B.; Heydari, A. The effect of Spatial Configuration on the Sociability of Informal Settlements:(Case study of Hesar and Dizaj Neighborhoods in Hamedan). Motaleate Shahri 2018, 7, 57–72. [Google Scholar]
  68. Forsyth, A.; Hearst, M.; Oakes, J.M.; Schmitz, K.H. Design and destinations: Factors influencing walking and total physical activity. Urban Stud. 2008, 45, 1973–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hayden, D. Housing as If People Mattered: Site Design Guidelines for Medium-Density Family Housing. Landsc. J. 1987, 6, 156–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Unger, D.G.; Wandersman, A. The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive, and affective components of neighboring. Am. J. Community Psychol. 1985, 13, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Magaj, A. Modeling of functional structures of high-rise buildings. Hous. Constr. 2016, 12, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  72. Kazemzade, M.; Shakouri, R. Enhancing social interaction in residential complexes case study: Esfahan. Space Ontol. Int. J. 2017, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  73. Barros, P.; Fat, L.N.; Garcia, L.M.; Slovic, A.D.; Thomopoulos, N.; de Sa, T.H.; Morais, P.; Mindell, J.S. Social consequences and mental health outcomes of living in high-rise residential buildings and the influence of planning, urban design and architectural decisions: A systematic review. Cities 2019, 93, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Can, I.; Heath, T. In-between spaces and social interaction: A morphological analysis of Izmir using space syntax. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2016, 31, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Moulay, A.; Ujang, N.; Said, I. Legibility of neighborhood parks as a predicator for enhanced social interaction towards social sustainability. Cities 2017, 61, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lis, A. Territorial Relations in Polish Housing Estates from the 1970s and 1980s. Archit. Kraj. 2015, 1, 4–29. [Google Scholar]
  77. Namazian, A.; Mehdipour, A. Psychological demands of the built environment, privacy, personal space and territory in architecture. Int. J. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 2013, 3, 109–113. [Google Scholar]
  78. Al-Betawi, Y.N.; Al Nassar, F.H.; Al Husban, A.A.; Al Husban, S. Transformations in the built form as a reflection of social change, the case of apartment buildings in Amman. Open House Int. 2020, 45, 143–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Taylor, C. 3 Graffiti in a House in Attica: Reading, Writing and the Creation of Private Space. In Inscriptions in the Private Sphere in the Greco-Roman World; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 32–49. [Google Scholar]
  80. Muhuri, S.; Basu, S. Interactional spaces of a high-rise group housing complex and social cohesion of its residents: Case study from Kolkata, India. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2021, 36, 781–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Qin, B.; Zhu, W.; Wang, J.; Peng, Y. Understanding the relationship between neighbourhood green space and mental wellbeing: A case study of Beijing, China. Cities 2021, 109, 103039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Danielski, I.; Nair, G.; Joelsson, A.; Fröling, M. Heated atrium in multi-storey apartment buildings, a design with potential to enhance energy efficiency and to facilitate social interactions. Build. Environ. 2016, 106, 352–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Huang, S.-C.L. A Study of People’s Perception of Waterscapes in Built Environments; Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  84. Cao, J.; Kang, J. Social relationships and patterns of use in urban public spaces in China and the United Kingdom. Cities 2019, 93, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Campbell, D.E.; Campbell, T.A. A new look at informal communication: The role of the physical environment. Environ. Behav. 1988, 20, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Reynald, D.M.; Moir, E. Who is watching: Exploring individual factors that explain supervision patterns among residential guardians. Eur. J. Crim. Policy Res. 2019, 25, 449–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Rivano-Fischer, M. Human Territoriality: Notes on Its Definition, Classification Systems and Micro Territorial Behavior; Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  88. Kärrholm, M. The materiality of territorial production: A conceptual discussion of territoriality, materiality, and the everyday life of public space. Space Cult. 2007, 10, 437–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. McLeroy, K.R.; Bibeau, D.; Steckler, A.; Glanz, K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ. Q. 1988, 15, 351–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Yu, C.-Y.; Zhu, X. Impacts of residential self-selection and built environments on children’s walking-to-school behaviors. Environ. Behav. 2015, 47, 268–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhu, Y.; Fu, Q. Deciphering the civic virtue of communal space: Neighborhood attachment, social capital, and neighborhood participation in urban China. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 161–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Stokols, D.; Altman, I. Handbook of Environmental Psychology; Krieger Publishing Company: Malabar, FL, USA, 1991; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  93. Soja, E.W. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory; Verso: London, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  94. Johnson, S.D. A brief history of the analysis of crime concentration. Eur. J. Appl. Math. 2010, 21, 349–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Taghipour, M.; Soltanzadeh, H.; Afkan, K.B. The role of spatial organization in the typology of Shiraz (Iran) residential complexes. Adv. Environ. Sci. 2015, 7, 338–350. [Google Scholar]
  96. Tavakoli, H.; Hedayati Marzbali, M.; Maghsoodi Tilaki, M.J. Spatial Liminality as a Framework for Revitalising Dilapidated Abandoned Buildings in Historic Cities: A Case Study. Land 2023, 12, 931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 11276 g001 550
Figure 1. Research conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Research conceptual framework.
Sustainability 15 11276 g001
Sustainability 15 11276 g002 550
Figure 2. Mean effect of components of placing and arranging on social interactions.
Figure 2. Mean effect of components of placing and arranging on social interactions.
Sustainability 15 11276 g002
Sustainability 15 11276 g003 550
Figure 3. Mean effect of green space components on social interactions.
Figure 3. Mean effect of green space components on social interactions.
Sustainability 15 11276 g003
Sustainability 15 11276 g004 550
Figure 4. Mean effect of light and brightness components on social interactions.
Figure 4. Mean effect of light and brightness components on social interactions.
Sustainability 15 11276 g004
Sustainability 15 11276 g005 550
Figure 5. Mean effect of accessibility on social interactions.
Figure 5. Mean effect of accessibility on social interactions.
Sustainability 15 11276 g005
Sustainability 15 11276 g006 550
Figure 6. Mean effect of furniture on social interactions.
Figure 6. Mean effect of furniture on social interactions.
Sustainability 15 11276 g006
Sustainability 15 11276 g007 550
Figure 7. Significance of components from the perspective of respondents.
Figure 7. Significance of components from the perspective of respondents.
Sustainability 15 11276 g007
Table
Table 1. Physical factors influencing social interactions.
Table 1. Physical factors influencing social interactions.
ResearcherPhysical Factors
[44,45,46,47,48,49,50]Furniture
[45,47,51,52]Pedestrian, path, network
[44,45,46,47,48]Light and brightness
[35,40,44,49,50,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60]Accessibility
[61,62]Size of space (human scale)
[55,61,62]Placing and arranging of activities and equipment (floor, body, landscape components in space)
[61,62]Visual comfort (harmony of the facade in terms of form, colour, materials, skyline, and desired space brightness)
[55,56,63]Space arrangement and organisation
[30,37]Readability of public spaces
[54]Diversity (mixed land uses)
[53,64]Confinement
[53,64]Desired landscape
[47,61,62]Feeling of peace
[50,56]Parking
[40,65]Place identity
[47,56]Visual pleasure
[54,55,56,57,58]Visual and spatial proportions
[65,66]Symbolic mechanisms
[26,66]Boundaries and hierarchies defined from private to public areas
[47,63]Urban fabric
[47,54,63]Readability in form and function
[45,47]Safety
[67]Components of contemplation and pause
[67]Informative art, architectural, and advertising signs
[48,56]Facilities for people with disabilities
[48,49,50,57,58,68]Green space and vegetation
[48,50,57]Sculptures and fountains
[49,68]Shades
[50,65]Floor covers
Table
Table 2. Typology of residential complexes in Shiraz, source: [95].
Table 2. Typology of residential complexes in Shiraz, source: [95].
PatternIndividualLinearCentralisedClusteredMixed
SingleMulti-CoreRegularIrregular
Building Block LayoutSustainability 15 11276 i001Sustainability 15 11276 i002Sustainability 15 11276 i003Sustainability 15 11276 i004Sustainability 15 11276 i005Sustainability 15 11276 i006Sustainability 15 11276 i007
Table
Table 3. Description the case studies, source: authors.
Table 3. Description the case studies, source: authors.
TypologyThe Complex NamePlanImages
Clustered arrangementNastaran ComplexSustainability 15 11276 i008Sustainability 15 11276 i009
Features:
This complex is comprised of seven 5-story blocks with three dwelling units on each story.
mixed arrangementJannat ComplexSustainability 15 11276 i010Sustainability 15 11276 i011
Features:
This complex is comprised of 23 blocks including seven 3-story blocks and sixteen 4-story blocks. Four blocks have 3 dwelling units on each floor, three blocks have 5 dwelling units on each floor, and sixteen blocks have 4 dwelling units on each floor.
Centralised arrangementTose’e-va-Omran ComplexSustainability 15 11276 i012Sustainability 15 11276 i013
Features:
This complex is comprised of fifteen 4-story blocks, with 268 one-bedroom, 258 two-bedroom, and 74 three-bedroom dwelling units.
Linear arrangementMohandesin ComplexSustainability 15 11276 i014Sustainability 15 11276 i015
Features:
This complex is comprised of eight 10-story blocks with two dwelling units on each floor.
Table
Table 4. Availability of physical components in selected residential complexes.
Table 4. Availability of physical components in selected residential complexes.
ComponentIndexNastaran ComplexMohandesin ComplexJannat ComplexSe’e-va-Omran Complex
Typology clusteredlinearmixedcentralised
Placing and arrangingDiversity of spaces specific to different age groups----
Distance from playground and residential area----
Separation of spaces-✓✓-
Allocation of parking lots-✓--
Green spaceDiverse green space---✓
Separating spaces with green spaces----
Light and brightnessEffect of light on the readability of turning points and pathways-✓--
Quality of light at night-✓--
AccessibilitySeparating pedestrian and vehicles-✓--
Hierarchical access-✓✓-
Using turning points, intersection, and main pathways for important spaces-✓--
Appropriate access from different areas to public spaces-✓--
FurnitureGroup furniture✓-✓-
Table tennis facilities-✓✓-
Playground equipment---✓
Sport facilities---✓
Signs✓---
Sculptures and fountain✓✓✓✓
Table
Table 5. Study variables with respective indicators.
Table 5. Study variables with respective indicators.
ConstructItemDescription
Placing and arranging activities—Items were adapted based on the work of [55,61,62]. (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
Q1Furniture around facilities and activities
Q2Talking in cozy and comfortable corners
Q3Walking in pathways through a green space
Q4The placement of communal spaces in the focal points
Q5Placing the playgrounds in a full natural surveillance
Q6Using different forms for collective spaces motivate me
Green spaces—Items were adapted based on the work of [48,49,50,57,58,68]. (1 = very rarely/little, 5 = very frequently/ very much)
Q7Using the green space of the complex
Q8Monitoring green spaces from the dwelling unit or block
Q9Reading books and newspapers, playing music and movies in green spaces
Q10Extending your attendance due to creative green spaces
Lighting and daylighting—Items were adapted based on the work of [45,46,47,48]. (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
Q11The quality of lighting and your fear of crime in complex
Q12Proper lighting extending my public spaces use
Q13Proper lighting increases residents’ safety and security in public spaces use
Q14Proper lighting extends the visibility of activities and open spaces
Accessibility—Items were adapted based on the work of [40,49,50,54,55,56,57,58]. (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
Q15Proper access motivates me to attend to the communal space
Q16Communal spaces with high accessibility motivated users to attend.
Q17A full separation of pedestrians and vehicles
Q18A high effect between the placement of communal spaces, accessibility, user attendance
Shared furniture—Items were adapted based on the work of [45,46,47,48,49,50]. (1 = very rarely/little, 5 = very frequently/ very much)
Q19Sufficient outdoor chairs and furniture
Q20Using sign boards helps visitors find way easier
Q21The quality of sports equipment and furniture boosts residents’ attendance and activities
Q22Using the proper sculptures and memorials enhance my motivation to attend to space
Q23The existence of a proper gazebo, shed, or pergola encourages residents to talk together
Table
Table 6. Correlation for the placing and arranging components.
Table 6. Correlation for the placing and arranging components.
Components of Item 1Components of Item 2Components of Item 3Components of Item 4Components of Item 5Components of Item 6
Components of Item 1Pearson correlation10.2830.1970.1750.2020.213
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.0000.0010.0040.0010.000
Components of Item 2Pearson correlation0.28310.3390.2400.2020.070
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000 0.0000.0000.0010.256
Components of Item 3Pearson correlation0.1970.33910.2590.2120.052
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0010.000 0.0000.0010.403
Components of Item 4Pearson correlation0.1750.2400.25910.2990.038
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0040.0000.000 0.0000.539
Components of Item 5Pearson correlation0.2020.2020.2120.29910.221
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0010.0010.0010.000 0.000
Components of Item 6Pearson correlation0.2130.0700.0520.0380.2211
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0000.2560.4030.5390.000
Table
Table 7. Correlation for green space components concerning social interaction.
Table 7. Correlation for green space components concerning social interaction.
Components of Item 7Components of Item 8Components of Item 9Components of Item 10
Components of Item 7Pearson correlation10.1760.9750.207
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.0040.0000.001
Components of Item 8Pearson correlation0.17610.1670.070
Sig. (2-tailed)0.004 0.0070.260
Components of Item 9Pearson correlation0.9750.16710.212
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0000.007 0.001
Components of Item 10Pearson correlation0.2070.0700.2121
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0010.2600.001
Table
Table 8. Correlation of light and brightness components concerning social interaction.
Table 8. Correlation of light and brightness components concerning social interaction.
Components of Item 11Components of Item 12Components of Item 13Components of Item 14
Components of Item 11Pearson correlation10.067−0.0750.038
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.2760.2270.538
Components of Item 12Pearson correlation0.06710.3450.245
Sig. (2-tailed)0.276 0.0000.000
Components of Item 13Pearson correlation−0.0750.34510.233
Sig. (2-tailed)0.2270.000 0.000
Components of Item 14Pearson correlation0.0380.2450.2331
Sig. (2-tailed)0.5350.0000.000
Table
Table 9. Correlation for accessibility components concerning social interaction.
Table 9. Correlation for accessibility components concerning social interaction.
Components of Item 15Components of Item 16Components of Item 17Components of Item 18
Components of Item 15Pearson correlation10.0100.3140.278
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.8730.0000.000
Components of Item 16Pearson correlation0.01010.158−0.010
Sig. (2-tailed)0.873 0.0100.866
Components of Item 17Pearson correlation0.3140.15810.543
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0000.010 0.000
Components of Item 18Pearson correlation0.278−0.0100.5431
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0000.8660.000
Table
Table 10. Correlation for furniture components concerning social interaction.
Table 10. Correlation for furniture components concerning social interaction.
Components of Item 19Components of Item 20Components of Item 21Components of Item 22Components of Item 23
Components of Item 19Pearson correlation1−0.086−0.030−0.0700.045
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.1640.6310.2560.468
Components of Item 20Pearson correlation−0.08610.4640.2460.122
Sig. (2-tailed)0.164 0.0000.0000.047
Components of Item 21Pearson correlation−0.0300.46410.2640.361
Sig. (2-tailed)0.6310.000 0.0000.000
Components of Item 22Pearson correlation−0.0700.2460.24610.183
Sig. (2-tailed)0.2560.0000.000 0.003
Components of Item 23Pearson correlation0.0450.1220.3610.1831
Sig. (2-tailed)0.4680.0470.0000.003
Table
Table 11. The territories of the studied complexes.
Table 11. The territories of the studied complexes.
Residential ArrangementsDifferent Territories
Clustered arrangementSustainability 15 11276 i016
Linear arrangementSustainability 15 11276 i017
Mixed arrangementSustainability 15 11276 i018
Centralised arrangementSustainability 15 11276 i019
Table
Table 12. The proposed physical components for semi-public areas toward enhancing residents’ territoriality.
Table 12. The proposed physical components for semi-public areas toward enhancing residents’ territoriality.
Index
Physical		ComponentSuggested CriteriaAppropriate and Inappropriate Samples
Form of SpaceForm of furnitureUse of concave furniture around the fountainSustainability 15 11276 i020
Green spaceGreen space diversity in different areasUsing diverse green spaces and defining different territories, such as spatial territories for study, a space with group furniture, and shade treesSustainability 15 11276 i021
Location of green spaceThe placement of green space in areas near the blocks with a view from the dwelling units enhances the presence of residents and social interaction among themSustainability 15 11276 i022
LightLightAppropriate light in places with the potential for the presence of residents enhances this presence by encouraging the feeling of securitySustainability 15 11276 i023
AccessibilityLocation of public spacesPlacement of public spaces in areas with easy accessibility and near the blocksSustainability 15 11276 i024
Separation of the pedestrian path from riding pathThe separation of the pedestrian path from the riding path clarifies safe areas for making social interactionSustainability 15 11276 i025
FurnitureComponents, such as gazebo and table tennis facilities, and components related to social activitiesThe use of such components as gazebo and table tennis facilities in the courtyard encourage the presence of the residentsSustainability 15 11276 i026
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nowzari, Z.; Armitage, R.; Maghsoodi Tilaki, M.J. How Does the Residential Complex Regulate Residents’ Behaviour? An Empirical Study to Identify Influential Components of Human Territoriality on Social Interaction. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411276

AMA Style

Nowzari Z, Armitage R, Maghsoodi Tilaki MJ. How Does the Residential Complex Regulate Residents’ Behaviour? An Empirical Study to Identify Influential Components of Human Territoriality on Social Interaction. Sustainability. 2023; 15(14):11276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411276

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nowzari, Zahra, Rachel Armitage, and Mohammad Javad Maghsoodi Tilaki. 2023. "How Does the Residential Complex Regulate Residents’ Behaviour? An Empirical Study to Identify Influential Components of Human Territoriality on Social Interaction" Sustainability 15, no. 14: 11276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411276

APA Style

Nowzari, Z., Armitage, R., & Maghsoodi Tilaki, M. J. (2023). How Does the Residential Complex Regulate Residents’ Behaviour? An Empirical Study to Identify Influential Components of Human Territoriality on Social Interaction. Sustainability, 15(14), 11276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411276

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop