You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic. For video creation, please contact our Academic Video Service.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 Maghsoodi Tilaki Mohammad Javad -- 1525 2023-08-04 17:40:16 |
2 format correct Catherine Yang Meta information modification 1525 2023-08-07 03:27:44 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Academic Video Service to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Nowzari, Z.; Armitage, R.; Maghsoodi Tilaki, M.J. Residential Complex Regulate Residents’ Behaviour. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/47669 (accessed on 16 December 2025).
Nowzari Z, Armitage R, Maghsoodi Tilaki MJ. Residential Complex Regulate Residents’ Behaviour. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/47669. Accessed December 16, 2025.
Nowzari, Zahra, Rachel Armitage, Mohammad Javad Maghsoodi Tilaki. "Residential Complex Regulate Residents’ Behaviour" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/47669 (accessed December 16, 2025).
Nowzari, Z., Armitage, R., & Maghsoodi Tilaki, M.J. (2023, August 04). Residential Complex Regulate Residents’ Behaviour. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/47669
Nowzari, Zahra, et al. "Residential Complex Regulate Residents’ Behaviour." Encyclopedia. Web. 04 August, 2023.
Residential Complex Regulate Residents’ Behaviour
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151411276

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. Social interaction can, therefore, be improved through green space, brightness, accessibility, and furniture in common areas. 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.

human territoriality social interaction semi-public space green space

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].

2. 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.
Table 1. Physical factors influencing social interactions.
Researcher Physical 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

3. 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.

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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  7. Altman, I. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding; Brooks/Cole Pub. Co: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 1975.
  8. Madanipour, A. Public and Private Spaces of the City; Routledge: London, UK, 2003.
  9. Abu-Ghazzeh, T.M. Built form and religion: Underlying structures of Jeddah Al-Qademah. Tradit. Dwell. Settl. Rev. 1994, 5, 49–59.
  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.
  11. Edney, J.J. Comment on functional properties. Environ. Behav. 1976, 8, 31–47.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  15. Lawson, B. The Language of Space; Butter Worth–Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2001.
  16. Sundstrom, E.; Altman, I. Field study of territorial behavior and dominance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1974, 30, 115.
  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.
  18. Edney, J.J. Place and space: The effects of experience with a physical locule. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1972, 8, 124–135.
  19. Taylor, R.B.; Stough, R.R. Territorial cognition: Assessing Altman’s typology. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1978, 36, 418.
  20. Brown, B.B.; Altman, I. Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: An environmental analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 1983, 3, 203–220.
  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.
  22. Sommer, R.; Becker, F.D. Territorial defense and the good neighbor. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1969, 11, 85.
  23. Altman, I.; Haythorn, W.W. The ecology of isolated groups. Behav. Sci. 1967, 12, 169–182.
  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.
  25. Nari Qomi, M. Semantic Study of the Concept of Introversion in Islamic City. J. Honar-Ha-Ye 2010, 43, 69–82.
  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.
  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.
  28. Xiaohui, L.; Quan, H.; Qi, L. Survey and Optimization Design of Urban Public Space in China. Open House Int. 2018, 43, 5–10.
  29. Huang, S.-C.L. A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 193–204.
  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.
  31. Calthorpe, P. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream; Princeton Architectural Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1993.
  32. Fried, M.; Gleicher, P. Some sources of residential satisfaction in an urban slum. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1961, 27, 305–315.
  33. Gans, H.J. Urban Villagers; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1982.
  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.
  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.
  36. Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317.
  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.
  38. Gehl, J. Life between Buildings; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
  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.
  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.
  41. Archea, J. The place of architectural factors in behavioral theories of privacy. J. Soc. Issues 1977, 33, 116–137.
  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.
  43. Clampet–Lundquist, S. “Everyone had your back”: Social ties, perceived safety, and public housing relocation. City Community 2010, 9, 87–108.
  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.
  45. Ekblom, P. Deconstructing CPTED… and reconstructing it for practice, knowledge management and research. Eur. J. Crim. Policy Res. 2011, 17, 7–28.
  46. Jongejan, A.; Woldendorp, T. A Successful CPTED Approach: The Dutch’Police Label Secure Housing’. Built. Environ. 2013, 39, 31–48.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  51. Trancik, R. Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1991.
  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.
  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.
  54. Bentley, I. Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers; Routledge: London, UK, 1985.
  55. Daneshpour, A.; Charkhchyan, M. Public spaces and factors affecting collective life. Mon. Sci. J. Bagh-E Nazar 2007, 4, 19–28.
  56. Lynch, K. Good City Form; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984.
  57. Cooper Marcus, C.; Francis, C. People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space; John Willey Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998.
  58. Wagner, F.; Caves, R.W. Community Livability: Issues and Approaches to Sustaining the Well-Being of People and Communities; Routledge: London, UK, 2012.
  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.
  60. Ferguson, P. The streets of innovation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul, Turkey, 12–15 June 2007.
  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.
  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.
  63. Mouratidis, K. Built environment and social well-being: How does urban form affect social life and personal relationships? Cities 2018, 74, 7–20.
  64. First, B. Vision Mumbai: Transforming Mumbai into a World Class City; A Bombay First-McKinsey Report; Cirrus Repro Pvt. Ltd.: Mumbai, India, 2003.
  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.
  66. Carmona, M. Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design; Routledge: London, UK, 2010.
  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.
  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.
  69. Hayden, D. Housing as If People Mattered: Site Design Guidelines for Medium-Density Family Housing. Landsc. J. 1987, 6, 156–157.
  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.
  71. Magaj, A. Modeling of functional structures of high-rise buildings. Hous. Constr. 2016, 12, 1–5.
  72. Kazemzade, M.; Shakouri, R. Enhancing social interaction in residential complexes case study: Esfahan. Space Ontol. Int. J. 2017, 6, 1–8.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  76. Lis, A. Territorial Relations in Polish Housing Estates from the 1970s and 1980s. Archit. Kraj. 2015, 1, 4–29.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Behavioral Sciences
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : Zahra Nowzari , Rachel Armitage , Mohammad Javad Maghsoodi Tilaki
View Times: 798
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 07 Aug 2023
Table of Contents
    Notice
    You are not a member of the advisory board for this topic. If you want to update advisory board member profile, please contact office@encyclopedia.pub.
    OK
    Confirm
    Only members of the Encyclopedia advisory board for this topic are allowed to note entries. Would you like to become an advisory board member of the Encyclopedia?
    Yes
    No
    ${ textCharacter }/${ maxCharacter }
    Submit
    Cancel
    There is no comment~
    ${ textCharacter }/${ maxCharacter }
    Submit
    Cancel
    ${ selectedItem.replyTextCharacter }/${ selectedItem.replyMaxCharacter }
    Submit
    Cancel
    Confirm
    Are you sure to Delete?
    Yes No
    Academic Video Service
    Feedback