Veciatate- Zone Semiprivate

“Je ziet elkaar, je praat met elkaar”

Semi-private Zones

as a Facilitator of Social Cohesion

Carolien Hoogland Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen

Sociaalwetenschappelijke Milieukunde July 2000

Supervisors: Luuk Knippenberg and Nol Bergmans

3

Summary

Semi-private Zones as a Facilitator of Social Cohesion

The present study sought to identify the effect of a particular spatial access structure on social cohe-sion in a residential settlement. In this case, the access structure is a balcony bridging the distance between the access gallery and the front door, in terraced multi-story housing. If such a semi-private zone, grading the transition from public to private space, is appropriated by the residents, thus offering them space for chance encounters, this may result in stronger social cohesion.

Grading the transition from public to private space is part of a bigger concept of communicative living. A more integrated approach, characterised by a highly differentiated design of entrance areas and other measures that may further social cohesion is illustrated by a case study of a large settlement in Amsterdam.

A quasi experimental design made it possible to compare two blocks, varying the design of the entrance zone only. Both buildings are multi-story apartment blocks with outdoor access galleries. Both are inhabited by people over 55. A structured questionnaire, consisting mainly of multiple choice items was designed, based upon questionnaires used in similar studies, complemented with more in-depth questions on interaction between residents, and on places where encounters take place. The sample covered 107 residents. Social cohesion was finally measured using three item clusters: how well people know their neighbours (Integration), whether they undertake activities together (Together), and to what extent they rely on each other in time of need (Help). Confounding factors considered were socio-demographic variables and other factors that may influence social cohesion, such as need for contact, existing friendships, number of children, and perceived homogeneity of the neighbourhood.

Stronger social cohesion was expected amongst occupants of the building with more privacy gradients.

Causes for differences in the strength of social cohesion other than the spatial structure were ruled out by establishing that the experimental and the control group had similar ratings of potentially confounding factors, including the socio-demographic characteristics. Results from the statistical analysis then confirmed the hypothesis in that the settlement with the more graded design of the entrance area, stronger social cohesion was measured than in the settlement without the graded transition.

In a broader context, theoretical considerations presented in this study offer additional insight into the effect of providing opportunities to regulate privacy in the residential environment, on social cohesion. These theoretical considerations have implications for environmental psychologists, architects and urban planners, and pending further research may improve the quality of life in residential areas.

A comparison of cohesion amongst the residents of the two housing estates shown below forms the core of this study. The pictures show the different entrance situations; in the lower example an extra zone buffers the semi-public from the private space.


Contents

Summary 3

Contents 5

Prologue 7

Introduction 9 Social cohesion as a means of achieving sustainability 9 Semi-private zones as a means of achieving social cohesion 11 Aim of the research 12 Background 12

Theory 13 Environment 13 Sustainability 14 Social cohesion 14 The Privacy Regulation Model 15 Territoriality 18 Spatial instruments for achieving social cohesion 19

GWL-Terrein: the holistic approach 27

Hypothesis 31

Method 33

Design 33 Desk-research 33 Interviews 33 Observation 33 Survey 34

Results 45 Scalability of the questionnaire 46 Confounding factors: socio-demographic data 49 Other confounding factors 52 Dependent variables: the perception of spatial characteristics 55 Dependant factors: social cohesion 56

Discussion 61 Formulation 62 Non-response 63 Seasons 63 Suggestions for improvement of the design 64

Conclusions 65

Epilogue 67

Appendix 69 Literature 71 Questionnaire items from Skjaeveland & Garling 74 Questionnaire items from Abu-Ghazzeh 75 Table XX 76 The questionnaire - original version 77 The questionnaire - translated 83

5

7

Environmental problems can be identified in most aspects of our society. The majority of Social Environmental Studies (SWMK)1-students focus on the problems of the Third World, where popula-tion growth especially poses a threat to sustainability. However, a child born in a country where material and energy use are high, places a greater burden on the Earth’s resources than a child born in a poorer country, and consumption patterns and preferences are as important as numbers of consumers (Green, 1992). Consumer patterns in the developed world are to be held more responsible for pollution, distortion and usage of our collective resources than birth rates in third world countries.

This is why I prefer to investigate causes of environmental problems that stem from my own culture. I am curious about the development of societal dynamics and how they may be changed. Fascinated by the impact of seemingly harmless and at first sight justifiable lifestyles of the average western citizen on an cumulative level, I felt that consumer behaviour has great intervention potential. Since the WohNach project links up consumption patterns and the domestic environment, I decided to focus on neighbourly behaviour.

When I proposed the design of this research project to my supervisors at university, they questioned the relevance of this subject for SWMK. Its profile is that of a study applied to environmental problems, not so much one that considers the effects of the environment on behaviour, as it is studied by ecological psychologists. All the same, I do feel that I can justify my efforts made during this year. The common ground of SWMK and this project consists of striving for a sustainable way of life through the conduct of research where different fields work together, trying to find out how their knowledge can complement each other in looking for solutions for or ways to prevent environmental problems. Since the social sciences study human behaviour, they should never be overlooked in interdisciplinary projects. You can develop legislation and policies, generate complex chemical processes, but you will never truly solve a problem or understand why your solution does not work, unless you understand the people who created these problems in the first place. Furthermore, no matter how sensible technical or legislative instruments are, they will fail unless ‘users’, ‘citizens’, or ‘consumers’ are willing to implement these solutions. Since compliance relates to both the procedures under which regulations were developed and to the contents of regulations, (Nielsen, 1999), social scientists can play an important role in the search for legitimate solutions.

To all those who supported me during my ‘scriptie’: bedankt. Friede, not just for helping me gather the data and formatting the report; Kristin, for helping me believe in myself in times when personal confirmation was scarce; Ann, Jaap-Andre, and Kerry, for proof-reading; Luuk and Nol for their supervision, Ecologic, for structuring my Berlin life, providing an excuse for regular breaks; the people from WohNach for their openness, Simone van den Brink, Willeke Hulleman, and Jan Land-man for helping me to prepare the survey; and last but not least the residents for providing the answers on which this study is based.

De hand in eigen boezem steken – sich selber an die Nase fas-sen…

Prologue


1Sociaalwetenschappelijke Milieukunde, KU Nijmegen

9

This introduction provides the reader a summary of the premises and origin of this study. For a more detailed explanation and argumentation, please refer to the chapter on theory.

Premises of this study are the following: the ultimate goal of social environmental research is to create a sustainable society. Sustainability in the social sense is facilitated by social cohesion, while social cohesion can be supported by equipping residential areas with spaces that can be appropriated and that offer opportunities for chance encounters. To be concise, this causal chain (see also the graphic below for a visualisation) forms the base of this investigation.

Traditional research of the residential environment is rooted in environmental psychology and the work of scientist such as Altman, Stokols, and Sundstrom. The design of architects and planners however, is based on notions that are rather intuitive and artistic, or in any case non-scientific. This study tries to draw a connecting line between the two fields by using Altman’s Privacy Regulation Model to explain the success of Jan Gehl’s concept of “soft edges”. Please refer to the paragraphs in the theory chapter for more detailed definitions of individual concepts.

Social cohesion as a means of achieving sustainabilitySocial cohesion is good in itself: the opportunity to see and hear other people in a city or residential area is a precondition for retrieving and offering of valuable information, about the surrounding social environment in general, and about the people one lives with in particular (Gehl, 1987, p. 23). Apart from this, it is also an essential precursor to sustainability, since any investment in the communal well-being requires trust in the other members of a group. Where there is social cohesion, anonymity will be broken down and the enhancement of social networks will stimulate the participation of citizens in initiatives such as Local Agenda 21, the implementation on a municipal level of the statements made during the world conference in Rio ’92. Of course stimulating citizen participation is valuable in itself, insofar as we adhere to democracy as the best legislative form. Therefore, social cohesion within a neighbourhood is both a prerequisite for and a product of a sustainable society.

Taking things a step further, we could wonder whether social networks in neighbourhoods may bring us closer to the solution of social dilemma’s (e.g. Dawes, 1980), anonymity being one of its triggers. To use the well-known free-rider metaphor: would you still ride along without a ticket if you knew everyone on the bus? Results from game-theory based experiments suggest that cooperative behaviour is facilitated under conditions where participants are able to communicate with their fellow-participants (e.g. Hamburger, 1976). Explanations of this phenomenon were the fact that people are more willing to co-operate if they expect more encounters with these particular individuals, and simply that they gain information on the intentions of their counterparts. I would like to apply these findings to the residential community: once people feel committed to their neighbourhood, they feel more responsible for it, and may consider the effect their behaviour has on others and their environment more deeply. Knowing your neighbours can lead to a feeling of trust in your fellow citizens and a willingness to invest in a common future.

The importance of social cohesion may also be illustrated by the negative consequences of a lack of social cohesion: over the last hundred years industrialised society developed a form of living together that confronts both individuals and society as a whole with increasing problems: the more or less isolated life in the nuclear family. This form is one of the preconditions for economic growth, allowing the individual to develop the mobility required by industrialised society. Stable social networks in the

Introduction


Human contact - and thus aware-ness - is the only thing of value which can compensate for man’s self-destruction complex, and the city - in its historical form - is the only form of community which can stimulate this contact. (Tanghe, Vlaeminck & Berghoeff, 1984, p. IX)

-

Social cohesion

Sustainablility

-

Communicativespatial structures

Social cohesion

Sustainablility


10

direct residential area, as can be observed in small towns and villages, or among extended families in non-western societies, where every individual is embedded in a network of solidarity become obsolete (Rusterholz, 1981).

Complex economical and societal relations, while restricting interpersonal contacts, materialise in a corroded settlement structure of urban areas. Apart from social segregation, functional segregation is also inevitable. Due to the “functional hypothesis which could only see salvation in the separation of urban functions” (Tanghe, Vlaeminck & Berghoef, 1984, p. 3) working, living, shopping, recreation take place in different segments of the urban area. This enhances and is enhanced by mobility: the location of the dwelling is no longer decisive for where we spend our time. We ride, drive or fly to friends out in the country, cross town to work out or to see a movie. The accompanying negative externalities pertain not only to mobility itself, but also to social aspects, and the formation of social networks in the neighbourhood is further inhibited. Urban mono-structures – large-scale settlements with only little variation in the price and design of dwellings – often result in ghettoisation, meaning that people, grouped according to particular characteristics such as income, ethnic background and education, live in separate urban areas. The so-called white middle-class, the non-excluded, are neatly trimmed from its lunatic fringe.

This vicious circle of increasing mobility and anonymity can be broken by a revaluation of small community networks (BUND & Misereor, 1995). Mobility declines if people are satisfied with the residential quality of their neighbourhood, because they spend more time at home (Bonaiuto et al., 1999; Haas-Arndt, 1999). The residential settlement can offer a framework for the smaller family network, provided that social ties reach beyond the walls of the dwelling, integrating children and the elderly into society once more. In such a way, our own neighbourhood can start to fulfil social as well as practical needs.

The concept of mobility brings us to the ecological aspect of sustainability: for ecologically sound consumer patterns, it is often the social contacts within one’s own area that make a difference e.g. if one wants to buy organic products over a food coop, share a car or a washing machine, or cook together. Furthermore, social cohesion may result in an exchange of information on life styles and habits and may lead to the dissemination of these particular ways of life, thus possibly establishing a norm: e.g. “in our neighbourhood, we don’t wash the car with a hose”.

To sum up, social cohesion is one of the prerequisites for a sustainable society. Ways to stimulate the development of social cohesion are manifold; in the residential environment, two kinds of incentives are of relevance. First of all there are social instruments or institutions such as getting tenants together in a commission that organises outings or represents the tenants’ interests. Secondly there are the spatial instruments, such as a design where dwellings are orientated toward each other. Surely, a mixture of social and spatial instruments will be the most successful, and often social instruments cannot be realised without the accompaniment of spatial facilities (remark made by Haas-Arndt, 18 April 2000). Abu-Ghazzeh (1999) concluded that “past research has not given enough consideration to examine the spatial and physical aspects of neighbour association, both as the setting of relationships and manifestation of bonds between people.” This report focuses on these neglected spatial incentives.

11

Semi-private zones as a means of achieving social cohesionEnvironmental psychologists study how behaviour emanates from the interaction between the indi-vidual or group and its surroundings: aspects of our surroundings invite us to do certain things, so to speak. A door handle, for example, can be designed in such a way that it is clear that one has to push and not pull, in order to open the door. Ever since Festinger’s famous project on the MIT-dormitory (1950) social psychologists, architects, and scientist from many other fields have made efforts to assess the impact of the residential environment on social behaviour. One could say this kind of research is complementary to that which studies the effects of human behaviour on the environment. In my opinion, both are essential to environmental studies. Promoting certain behaviour through conscious design of the environment offers an interesting alternative option to the more traditional instruments based on verbal communication such as legislation and persuasive or informative advertising campaigns.

Premise to this study is by no means a deterministic belief in the effect of architecture on behaviour: “Architectural design, like music to a film, is complementary to human activity; it does not shape it. Architecture, therefore, has no kind of magic by which men can be redeemed or society transformed.“ (Broady in Living Cities, p. 62).

The following quote by Grunfeld & Stoppelburg (in Living Cities, p. 63) strikes the balance that is used as a premise for this investigation:

The physical-determinist notion that people react in an involuntary way to their surround-ings (...) is long out of date. Nor is it true that their actions are governed entirely by their own free will and that they are totally uninfluenced by the surroundings in which they live. Surroundings can have a restricting influence on the development of talents, activities and thought patterns, but they can also act as a stimulus.

The way the housing environment is designed may influence a particular aspect of behaviour; it can lead to better contact among the occupants (Tange, Vlaeminck & Berghoef,1984). There are several aspects of spatial structure that are considered to influence the intensity of social cohesion in a neighbourhood, for example the number of dwellings in a block, the number of dwellings sharing one entrance, the constellation of houses or apartments, or even the building materials (please refer to the paragraph “spatial instruments for achieving social cohesion” for a more detailed discussion).

The way these aspects influence social cohesion can be traced back to several (social) psychological dynamics. However, two key factors are at work here: the number of people in the group2, and the frequency with which encounters take place. Gehl (1987) elaborated on the latter aspect; he speaks of affecting patterns of outdoor space used by residents, and according to him it is these spaces which in turn determine which people meet. Both aspects are directly related to privacy and territoriality. Reducing matters to a very abstract level, one could say that ‘communicative’ architecture is an architecture that gives dwellers a clear idea of the residential group they belong to, while offering them plenty of opportunity to interact with these people.

2 It is not the objective number that counts here: you can build a settlement for 1000 people; if residents have the feeling that it’s their settlement, and they are especially committed to 8 dwellings they share an entrance with, then that is no problem because in effect a group is created, small enough to identify with.

Introduction

-Communicative

spatial structures

Social cohesion


12

Aim of the researchThis study focuses on the relation between the provision of a so-called semi-private zone between the private and the semi-public area, and the strength of social cohesion in the settlement. In other words: to what extent does a semi-private zone stimulate social cohesion through the intensification of social interaction. Theoretical back-up of these considerations is provided by Altman’s Privacy Regulation model and Gehl’s concept of ‘soft edges’. The work of both scientists is discussed in detail in the chapter on theory.

Background

WohNach – a project of the Technical University of Berlin

The investigation was carried out within the frame of a project at the Technical University of Berlin called “The relevance of residential groups for the development of sustainable consumer patterns.(Harloff et al., 1998). Its objective is to assess the potential impact of certain spatial and social factors on social cohesion, in order to determine the preconditions necessary for social cohesion to develop within a group of people who occupy the same building. The project adopted Staehle’s definition of Social cohesion as ‘a minimum of community-feeling, solidarity and group cohesion’ (1991). Furthermore it is expected that in case social cohesion in a settlement is high this

may – combined with a cer-tain environmental attitude – influence consumer patterns. Figure 1 visualises the inte-

gration of these hypotheses:.

Figure 1: the integrated structure of the hypotheses of the WohNach project

The project is set-up in an interdisciplinary way, the group of researchers consisting of economists, architects, and psychologists. The first phase comprised the selection and visual documentation of twelve ‘model’ settlements, ten of which were located in Berlin, and two in the Netherlands. The Berlin settlements were analysed in a qualitative manner: interviews with residents and on-site experts were carried out to explore the validity and meaningfulness of the hypotheses. Perhaps one of the most important conclusions was that the socio-demographic structure of a settlement has an almost determinant effect on consumption patterns. The current, second phase of the project has a quantitative character, in that data is gathered on a larger scale, using structured questionnaires. In this respect, this investigation takes on the form of a pilot-study: the two Dutch ‘model’ settlements plus one control settlement were studied using also a questionnaire, designed especially to test the hypothesis that spatial structures have an impact on social cohesion. Although quantitative data was gathered in all three settlements, this is not all presented in this report: they were converted into a case-study and a semi-experimental comparison of the two other settlements. The control settlement was integrated into the project because the ‘model’ settlements are rather experimental in their design and conceptual set-up, which means that their spatial as well as their social structures are differentiated, leading to methodological difficulties when it comes to attributing levels of cohesion to these structures. Experience gained during the Dutch investigation was integrated in the prepara-tion of the quantitative data gathering in Berlin. It will be interesting to see to what extent the results from both investigations may complement each other.

13


In the introduction it was postulated that social cohesion in a neighbourhood is an important prereq-uisite for the development of a sustainable society. It may develop where spatial characteristics, so-called privacy gradients, to be more exact, are supportive of social interaction between neighbours. This chapter provides the reader with definitions and clarifications of these concepts. To give this investigation a psychological-theoretical foundation, Altman’s Privacy Regulation model is used as a potential explanation for the effect of privacy gradients. For those who are not so familiar with environmental psychology, the field in which this research is based, a brief outline of this field is given in the following paragraph.

Sometimes it seems as if the conflict between society and nature is discussed solely in terms of the impact of human behaviour on the environment: erosion of soils, urban sprawl, overfishing, waste production, it all comes down to what we do to the environment. It wasn’t always like that. For a long time, climate, geographical characteristics and vegetation determined where and how people lived. A turning point in this development was the beginning of the industrialisation and the possibility of using fossil fuels. Man felt no longer restricted by nature. It wasn‘t until the twentieth century, in the course of discussing environmental problems, that scientists started to systematically perceive the impact man had on nature. While the discourse in the 19th century was dominated by the social problems resulting from the industrial revolution, in the 20th century room was made for more ecological points of view. A few decades later, at the beginning of the 1970s, the circle was closed by the recognition of the idea that the relationship between man and nature is reciprocal. The key assumptions in this so-called transactional perspective is that people and their environments are an integral and inseparable unit; they cannot be treated separately, and indeed are mutually defining (Werner, Altman & Oxley, 1985, p. 2). For understanding psychological processes, studying individual traits such as drive, genotype, intelligence, needs and habits is not enough (Kruse, 1974). Human behaviour cannot be properly studied unless it is considered in its context. This is the essence of environmental psychology.

EnvironmentThe concept ‘environment’ is applied in many different fields, and interpreted in many ways. To reduce misunderstanding, this paragraph tries to define the meaning of the word as used in this report.

Lewin (1935), being ahead of his time, wrote about the concept ‚life space‘, thereby focussing on the interdependence of a person and his environment. He saw behaviour as a function of life space. However, to define life space as an interaction between person and environment is useful only when the environment is treated as a independent variable, as an objectively definable, physical environment. In contrast, Lewin treated environment as the psychological environment, as perceived by the individual. When reasoning in this way, the environment is made up not only of its objective characteristics, but also by the subjective, personal characteristics of the perceiver. The psychologi-cal environment is already the result of an interaction between person and environment. This definition of environment thus results in circular reasoning.

Theory

“A person is an intact functioning part of the context in which he lives; he creates and is created by it (…)” (Barker and Shoggen, 1978)


14

Koffka (1935) avoids this by arguing that the physical environment as a person-independent environ-ment is experienced as a behavioural environment that triggers certain phenomenological behaviour, which – in turn - has an effect on this environment, and takes place in it. It is this definition of environment that I would like to adopt in theorising about residential environment and its effect on social interaction (the so-called realistic approach, Macnaughten & Urry, 1998).

Another reason for defining environment as person-independent is the ultimate goal of facilitating social interaction through particular architectural design. Taking architecture as a starting point of intervention assumes an objective definition of the environment as something physical.

The transactional approach is crucial for an understanding of the dynamics of the person-environ-ment system. The architect provides a building, and whereas its design is not expected to determine the way residents behave, they influence each other in a reciprocal way. The way residents use the building, e.g. embellishing or leaving other trace for usage, has in turn an effect on the building and thus opens new possibilities for usage. It is not possible to understand social behaviour in a residential area without considering the spatial setting in which it takes place (Barker and Shoggen, 1978). For a more detailed discussion on the aspects of spatial structure of relevance in this investigation, please refer to the paragraph on ‘semi-private’ space in this chapter.

SustainabilityThe concept of sustainability comes from the field of forestry, mentioned in connection with the grow-ing scarcity of wood due to deforestation. In order to reach an equilibrium and thus be sustainable, the economic use of the forest had to guarantee the forest yield. The forest is natural capital and can be used only at a rate that corresponds to the level of interest in this capital. Taking wood as a starting point, the principle of sustainability is manifold applied to other resources (Kiesel and Ellies, 1999).

Sustainability has three aspects: ecology, economics, and social affairs. Every single aspect is considered to be a prerequisite for the other aspects. They cannot be optimised without viewing their development as one process. Things such as justice or equity from a socio-political point of view are not just socially desirable, they are preconditions for long term economical competence, and are therefore also economically desirable. The same holds true for ecological goals that cannot be reached if people are hampered by material hardship. Mean-target-relationships such as these are balanced between all three aspects (Enquete-Kommission, 1998). A sustainable society not only means that there will be food, clean air, and a healthy economy for the generations to come, it also assumes that there is solidarity or a feeling of responsibility or of fairness towards other members of society, in our immediate environment and towards individuals outside our perceptual reach: people who live in other countries and those who will live in the future. A lack of this feeling of responsibility is both cause and effect of an unsustainable world.

Elaborating on social sustainability, we could state that if community life is ruled by anonymity, then one cannot expect citizens to feel responsibility for and solidarity towards their neighbours, let alone to strangers living far away or in the future. “People must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if they have no ties to each other” (Jacobs, 1961, 82). Social cohesion in the neighbourhood is one step in the direction of a sustainable society.

Social cohesionBecause the concept ‘social cohesion’ is defined in various ways by various scientists, it is important to clarify which construct is meant in this project, whenever ‘social cohesion’ is mentioned. Festinger defines it as ‘the sum of all attractors that keep an individual inside a group’ (1950). Besides posing

Sustainable development is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (Brundtland, 1987)

ecological dimension

social dimension

economicdimension

Figure 2: the three dimensions of sustainability

15

new questions, such as what attractors are and how one can express their power, this definition does not seem to fit the perspective of the investigation, where the goal is to measure social cohesion by the means of a questionnaire. The definition does not give any clues as to what may be indicators of social cohesion. What is more, the social units in this project are residents of a settlement who do not (necessarily) form a group in the social psychological sense - where everybody knows each other and identifies with this group. Staehles’ definition of “a minimum of community feeling, solidarity and commitment” circumvents the ‘group’ problem but it is again difficult to derive straightforward indicators. This merely shifts the problem: when can I consider a certain neighbourhood to have this feeling, how is solidarity expressed, what is commitment?

I decided to formulate a working definition that is suited to the theses of this investigation. Since the kind of cohesion meant in this project is expected to further the socially sustainable society, several things come up as important aspects of social cohesion. Based on the way Abu-Ghazzeh (1999) and Skjaeveland & Garling (1997) interpret social cohesion, I would like to adopt the low-key definition of social cohesion as ‘neighbourliness’. When neighbours know each other, by name or at least through recognition so that the neighbourhood is not experienced as anonymous, and when they feel confident enough to rely on their neighbours in time of need, then this is a satisfying result for me. This is what I consider to be a sign of social sustainability. Common activities and initiatives among neighbours are indicators of an even stronger social cohesion, but I am not quite sure to what extent this kind of cohesion can be reached through a supportive spatial structure or if this cohesion - that borders on friendship - is even that important for sustainable development. Too much closeness may even have an adverse affect if it means that people rather exclude themselves than be exposed to undesired ‘togetherness’ (Jacobs, 1961). This is why I prefer to define social cohesion as something similar to social interaction, since the latter phenomenon may be considered preconditional to the development of cohesion (Gehl, 1987). Please read the chapter on the ‘semi-private spaces’ for an elaboration of this idea.

Since the thesis of the WohNach project is to facilitate ecologically sound behaviour, it may have been helpful to incorporate something such as ‘mutual influence through communal norms’ in the definition of social cohesion. However, since I chose to restrict this investigation to the influence of spatial structures on social cohesion, leaving out the theses on ecological orientation and consumer behaviour, this aspect is not considered.

Now that these terms are more or less clarified, I would like to carry on summarising the theoretical model I use to explain the ties between certain spatial structures and social cohesion.

The Privacy Regulation ModelIt may seem slightly contradictory to focus on privacy when trying to find out how to stimulate social cohesion. Taylor and Brower (1985) also admit the seeming paradox: the territorial system buffers the household from local society. However, it also facilitates the integration of that household into that society. Near-home territories help give each household “its own space”; at the same time, they provide an arena where “tentative social feelers” can be put out, or an individual can observe street life (p. 190).

The paradox is resolved in the recognition that the concept of privacy is “central to understanding environment and behaviour relationships (…) personal space and territorial behaviour function in the service of privacy needs and as such are mechanisms used to achieve desired levels of personal or group privacy (…) social isolation is described as resulting from breakdowns in achievement of desired levels of privacy.“ (Altman, 1975, p. 6). As Jacobs (1961) put it “A good city street neighbourhood achieves a marvel of balance between its people’s determination to have essential privacy and their simultaneous wishes for differing degrees of contact, enjoyment, or help from

Theory

16

people around (p. 59). In other words, social cohesion cannot develop if a certain measure of privacy is not guaranteed: continuous involuntary encounters and the lack of control over how much personal information we share results in retreat and exclusion (Altman, 1975). Occupants’ satisfaction was high in settlements that allow retreat to private territory, while at the same time offering plenty of opportunity for social contact (Kennedy & Haas, 1993). This is in line with High and Sundstrom, who maintain people prefer space designs that allow a measure of control over the conduct of interactions (1977).

Functions of privacy

For a person to function effectively in interaction with others requires some understand-ing of what the self is, where it ends and begins, and when self-interest and self-expression can be exhibited. (…) privacy mechanisms define the limits and boundaries of the self. When the permeability of those boundaries is under control of a person a sense of individuality develops (…) the peripheral functions towards which control is directed (regulations of interpersonal interaction and self/other interface processes) ultimately serve the goal of self-identity. (Altman, 1975, p 53)

As to the function of privacy, Altman describes three basic components of privacy regulation that explain the needs that privacy serves. These privacy goals are hypothesised to vary on a continuum of “closeness” to the self at one end and “closeness” to the social environment at the other end. Altman assumes that these functions are cumulative from the outside in. That is, the outermost function of privacy is to regulate interaction with others. This process contributes to the second function, namely, the interface between the self and the non-self, or how a person relates to others. This aspect of privacy deals with plans and strategies for relating to others. It also lays the groundwork for the third and most central function of privacy, the definition of the self. Of particular importance to this study is the regulation of interaction with the social environment, the interpersonal function of privacy.

Definition and properties of privacy

Privacy is defined by Altman (1975) as “selective control of access to the self or one’s group”. Altman sums up the following features of privacy:

Privacy is an interpersonal boundary-control process, which paces and regulates interac-tion with others; it is an optimising process that encompasses desired privacy and achieved privacy; it is a dialectic process, which involves both a restriction of interaction and a seeking of interaction. Not just shutting the self off from others (a traditional conception of privacy) but the whole range of open-closedness of the person or group should be included in the concept of privacy. The idea of privacy as a dialectic process means that there is a balancing of opposing forces: to be open and accessible to others and to be shut off or closed to others, and that the net strength of these competing forces changes over time (p.23).

Privacy is an input and an output process: people and groups attempt to regulate contacts coming from others and outputs they make to others. Furthermore, privacy can involve different types of social units: individuals, families, mixed or homogenous sex groups, and so on. The social unit relevant to this study are neighbours: individuals and couples seeking or avoiding contact with people who live in the same settlement.


17

The approach

Altman’s perspective is that of a micro-interpersonal orientation: he does not consider whole cities, but small social groups, such as families and parts of neighbourhoods. His approach can be described as follows:

First of all, he looks at how people are affected by the physical environment in face-to-face interac-tions and how they actively use the environment to shape social interaction with others. Secondly, he speaks of an interrelationship between privacy, personal space, territoriality, and crowding. In this constellation, privacy is a central regulatory process by which a person or group makes him- or itself more or less accessible and open to others. Privacy as a concept is an interpersonal boundary process by which a person or group regulates interaction with others. By altering the degree of openness of the self to others, a hypothetical personal boundary is more or less receptive to social interaction with others. Privacy is therefore a dynamic process involving selective control over a self-boundary, either by an individual or by a group. Personal space and territoriality are mechanisms that are set in motion to achieve desired levels of privacy. A third central notion in Altman’s theory is that of “interpersonal control” and “interpersonal boundary regulation”. This relates to a person or group maximising an appropriate and desired level of interaction between itself and the external physical and social environment. The second notion is important for this investigation: the way privacy is regulated by certain mechanisms.

The ModelAltman’s Privacy Regulation theory is based on the idea that people strive for control over the amount and kind of information they exchange; one of the mechanisms for this control is territorial behaviour. His line of thought is as follows:

A person subjectively desires an ideal level of privacy of contact with others at a given point in time; Based on past experience, immediate possibilities, situational affective condition and general personal style, a person or group sets a series of mechanisms in motion to adjust self-boundaries so as to realise the momentarily desired level of privacy:

• verbal and paraverbal behaviour.

• personal space (the invisible balloon each of us carries around ourselves) is one privacy regulation mechanism whereby a person alters his or her distance and angle of orientation from others;

• the person may employ territorial behaviours: possession, marking, and defence of objects and areas in a geographical locale3. By allowing others access to personal areas and objects one permits greater opportunities for exposure of the self, provides information of a personal nature and sets the stage for intimate contact;

• and cultural mechanisms: customs, norms and styles of behaviour by which members of different cultural groups regulate their contact with others.

If the achieved level accords to the desired level, then the boundary system is on target. If it exceeds the desired level, this results in isolation. If the achieved level is less then the desired level, this results in crowding. In case of repeated failures to achieve a balance between achieved and desired levels of privacy, a person may accept the fact of inevitable and uncontrollable intrusion and opt for separation. (Altman, 1975, p. 8)

Personal space and verbal behaviour are not considered here since these play a role on a microlevel that is too detailed for this particular project. Neither is crowding, a social condition resulting from a lack of privacy, of much relevance in this study. The focus shall be on territorial behaviour as a mechanism.

Theory

3 Our culture places considerable importance on physical barriers as privacy mechanisms: fences, hedges, separa-tors of various ranks (Altman, p. 42)


18

TerritorialityTerritorial functioning refers to attitudes, sentiments and behaviours concerned with who has access to what particular spaces and what activities go on in those spaces. Thus, cognitions and expecta-tions regarding who has how much control in a space, who has how much responsibility for what goes on in a particular location, and whether one will see strange or familiar faces in a location all refer to territorial functioning. Relevant behaviours include maintenance and beautification efforts (so-called ‘marking’) as well as actions that indicate proprietorship, defence or assertion of control (Taylor & Brower, 1985).

In Altman’s theoretical framework, territorial behaviour is one mechanism acting as a means toward the end of some desired level of privacy. Territorial behaviour helps to smooth contact between people by regulating social interaction thereby avoiding social conflict and miscommunication.

The concept of territoriality, stemming from biological and ethological research refers to everyday experiences such as distance or nearness to other people, and the feeling of belonging to a certain geographical area. Altman sums up the following aspects of territiorial behaviour that are often mentioned in definitions:

1. reference to place or geographical area;

2. mentioning of needs or motives that territorial behaviour serves;

3. the idea of the ownership of a place

4. personalisation of a place by marking devices

5. a territory can be the domain of an individual or of a group

6. territorial intrusion may cause discomfort, anger or anxiety

Altman’s definition of territorial behaviour is “an interpersonal boundary regulation mechanism that involves personalisation or marking of a place or object and thus communicating that it is ‘owned’ by a person or group. Personalisation and ownership are designed to regulate social interaction and to help satisfy various social and physical motives. Defence responses may sometimes occur when territorial boundaries are violated”. (p.107). Altman distinguished three types of territories: “primary, secondary, and public. This classification refers firstly to how central a territory is to a person or group or to how close it is to their everyday lives. This typology reflects the idea that territories differ in terms of personal involvement, pervasiveness and centrality to the everyday life of a person or group” (p. 111). A second dimension in this classification is duration or permanence of territories. Territories vary in the duration of their ownership: from short-term, transient occupancy to relatively long-term, consistent ownership.

“Primary territories are owned and used exclusively by individuals or groups, are clearly identified as theirs by others, are controlled on a relatively permanent basis, and are central to the day-to-day lives of the occupants. (…) primary territories are powerful privacy regulation mechanisms, and in Western culture at least, they are usually viewed in a sacrosanct fashion and are entered only after receiving permission from the owner.” (p. 112)

“Secondary territories are less central, pervasive and exclusive. (…) They are places over which an individual or a group has some control, ownership and regulatory power, but not the same degree as over a primary territory. There is likely to be a greater mixture of use of privacy regulating behaviour, as people constantly adjust and readjust to ensure adequate understanding of other’s boundary processes and ensure proper communication of their own. Secondary territories are the bridge between the total and pervasive control allowed participants in primary territories and the

Human interpersonal events involve not only verbal exchange but an active use of the physical environment (…) possession, ownership and defence of geo-graphic locales may be important vehicles of social exchange (Altman, 1975, p.105)

19

almost-free use of public spaces by all persons. As such, there may well be confusion regarding secondary territory boundaries, and the possibility for considerable conflict exists as boundaries are established, tested and violated.” (p.114)

“Public territories have a temporary quality, and almost anyone has free access and occupancy rights. Such territories have been termed free territories, public territories, temporary territories, and jurisdictions.” (p. 118)

Relevant to territorial behaviour and of importance for social cohesion is marking behaviour, or the personalisation of spaces. Creating visible borders, decorating, spatial arranging, maintenance and other beautification efforts show whether a certain area is accessible to everyone or just for a selection of people, how they can enter this area, and what kind of behaviour would be appropriate. These signs of appropriation present the passer-by with information about the owners of the territory, about their taste and preferences, about their lifestyles. In general, the use of ‘marking-devices’ opens interesting perspectives for research methods: observation of markers can be used as in indication of territorial behaviour. Although the main methodology in this investigation is embodied by quantitative data-gathering, using a questionnaire, the traces of marking behaviour were observed, and these observations are used to complement the quantitative data.

Now that we have looked into the purely theoretical backgrounds of social cohesion and territorial behaviour, I would like to discuss the concrete consequences for the design of residential areas.

Spatial instruments for achieving social cohesionThe residential area has certain spatial characteristics that influence or even determine the content and form of the interactions (Kruse, 1974). One can distinguish spaces that enhance interaction and communal actions from those that inhibit these phenomenon’s. Osmond (1957) categorises these spaces as „sociopetal“ and „sociofugal“ respectively.

There are several ways to create such spaces that offer the opportunity for chance meetings, and for retreat within the neighbourhood. The following suggestions are rules of thumb, that pop up time and again in the discussion on communicative building. To me, it is not clear to what extent these rules are based on research findings or on experience. This may be partly due to the nature of architecture as a field related more to the arts than to the sciences. In any case, they should be scrutinised, and not blindly applied in any situation. They are options, no more and no less.

• Restricting the number of dwellings in a block. Population size and density4 influence social interaction (Fisher et al., 1977)5. The size of a neighbourhood should be manageable since large groups foster anonymity (Gehl, 1987); If a certain number of dwellings is exceeded, dwellers just loose oversight as to who is occupant and who is not. This factor is mediated be the number of dwellings sharing one entrance. The entrances divide the residential population into subgroups, thus increasing clarity.

• Restricting the number of floors. Living high up in a building can result in a loss of contact with the ground floor: the area around the building is reduced to a transit zone, used only for coming and going.

• The ‘orientation’ of dwellings through front, side, and back doors may be outward or inward (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999), i.e. the dwelling may open to the garden or a street, or may give the passer-by a feeling of inaccessibility. Which degree of openness or closure is beneficial for social cohesion is hard to say, and has to be considered in combination with the aspect ‘constellation’.

Theory

4 the quotient of gross acrese divided by the number of dwellings5Note that opinions on this issue differ; Jacobs (1961, p. 120) e.g. finds the question meaningless, since wherever neighbourhood networks work best, they “have no beginnings and ends setting them apart as distinct units (...) a great part of the success of these neighbourhoods of the streets depends in their overlapping and interweaving. This is one means by which they become capable of economic and visual variation for their users”

The urban conglomerate has become a mass of small islands, all separated from one another by a great void. (Aries, cited in Dovey, 1985)


20

• The constellation of houses or apartments. It is assumed that dwellings that are orientated toward each other, further social cohesion more strongly than terraced housing, for example.

• Homogeneity of building materials (do the buildings form a visual unity or not). This makes it easier to discern which dwellings belong to the settlement, and which do not.

• Keeping the frequency of traffic low.

• Allowing room for play (Gehl, 1987).

• Privatisation of the green spaces into allotment gardens.

• Letting paths that residents use for daily activities cross, for example to the bus stop or to service units such as garbage cans (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999).

This list may suggest that these are all design resources that can be used and have an effect independently. This is not the case. A more holistic approach is appropriate here. The design of residential areas will profit from combining these resources, insofar as they can be used at that site, handling its particular constraints, and trying to find out how they may enhance each other. For an example of an integrative approach i.e. a settlement where several of these measures were applied at the same time, read the paragraph on GWL-Terrein.

Please note that, again, these measures can be traced back to two key factors already mentioned in the introduction: the number of people in the group, and the frequency with which encounters take place. This kind of architecture allows dwellers a clear idea of the residential group they belong to, while offering them adequate opportunity to interact with each other.

Also note that many of these design resources are based on the way the transition from the public to the private zone is shaped. According to Sundstrom (1977), the two major settings in residential life – the private versus the public – interpenetrate in the exterior territories immediately adjacent to the home such as porches, steps, front yards, and corridors. According to Altman’s findings, intensive interaction shall only develop where individuals are given the opportunity to appropriate and personalise a so-called ‘secondary’ territory within the zone between private and public spaces. This zone fulfils a ‘sociopetal’ role because a space for encounters is created, and according to Gehl “(t)he more residents are outdoors, the more often they meet – and the more greetings area exchanged and conversations develop”(1987, p. 55). Another function of this zone is that of a kind of show-case, conveying information on lifestyle and preferences; people like to “show in their home and their the way they live that they are different from their neighbours (...p)eople need not only a an address and a parlophone. This again points out the importance of marking behaviour. The following paragraphs focus on these spaces that “form the bridge between the private home and public settings, spaces that must be traversed when leaving home and returning, and where occupants have expect to have some degree of control over who has access to these territories, and what activities go on in them”. (Sundstrom, 1977)

Functions of zoning

Transitional areas represent spaces where private and public areas interpenetrate and are of interest to those who want to understand the dialectic between individuals and local society: the mingled public and private nature of home and near-home territories were illustrated through the concept of territorial functioning (please refer to the paragraph on territoriality in this chapter). Perhaps the functions of zoning may be best clarified by illustrating the negative effects of a lack of zoning, prohibiting people to show territorial behaviour.

Das Wechselverhältnis zwischen einem Schutz vor der Außenwelt und dem Bedürfnis nach Gemein-schaft und Kommunikation ist (...) eine Gratwanderung, der nur durch eine Differenzierte Raum-gestaltung in Form von sensiblen Abstufungen zwischen öffent-lichen, halböffentlichen und privaten Bereichen Rechnung getragen werden kann. (Haas-Arndt, 1999)

Dovey (1985) speaks of a decline in communally shared open spaces. According to her, the public realm has become a place where it is difficult to enact personal or collective appropriations. “At the personal level, this loss of a shared common place as a context of the home brings a subtle yet profound erosion of the dialectics of home/journey and private/public. The home becomes the sole area of personal control and security; its boundary hardens, semi-private edge areas disappear, informal appropriation and surveillance across the interface weaken (…).”p.58. That cognitions such as these are still not implemented in residential design is reflected in Reijndorps statement that “(p)lans for residential areas often strive for a public domain in the form of public open space, connected to the central location of facilities (...); however, this meant-to-be public space is seldom a public domain. Whereas the small spaces around the dwelling are intensively used, larger open spaces remain quiet5. (Reijndorp, 1998, p.185; italics CH)

Newman (1972) examined crime7 in low-cost urban housing developments in relationship to the presence or absence of ‘defensible space’, in part determined by the existence of territories and the ability of people to monitor events in their neighbourhoods. He found strong ties among the absence of territories, perceived control over space, and crime rates. When areas outside the apartment, such as hallways, lifts, entranceways to buildings, play areas, or streets were indistinguishable (that is, they had no clear boundaries or were not perceived by outsiders as linked to a building or cluster of buildings) and were not easily under the surveillance of residents, and when they had no natural or built boundaries such as fences, signs, or other symbols of ownership, then they were prey to crime by outsiders, gangs, and vandals. Thus where territories and their boundaries were not clear, there was a greater incidence of conflict, crime, and social disruption. (ibid., p. 143)

Under circumstances where territories are absent or do not work well, one may expect social disruption and poor group functioning. Where there is no gradation of territories, this may result in vandalism and crime. This can be observed in traditional multi-story buildings with galleries as entranceways: here one does not find a gradation of territories. The apartments are private (primary) territories, and the areas outside the door of one’s house are a semi-public territory, without any transitional zone in between. There are no semi-private territories under the partial control of residents; there is no real ‘defensible space’, using Newmans’ terminology (ibid.).

Newman’s solution to crime problems is to create transitional zones in public areas adjacent to private areas by converting them into clearly secondary territories by a variety of architectural design techniques. These include differentiating the grounds (creating sub-neighbourhoods within a settle-ment), creating semi-private entrance accessways, using symbolic territorial markers such as walls, stoops, hedges and the like, and using clusters of entranceways and stairways accessible to only small groups of residents (see Newman’s concept of ‘defensible space’, cited in Altman, 1975, p. 116).

Gehl also elaborates on feelings of security, complementing it with a clear statement on the way transition from the private to the public space is ‘pushed outwards’ and, never losing sight of the importance of the social component:

The establishment of a social structure and corresponding physical structure with com-munal spaces at various levels permits movement from small groups and spaces toward larger ones and from the more private to the gradually more public spaces, giving a greater feeling of security and a stronger sense of belonging to the areas outside the private residence. The area that the individual perceives as belonging to the dwelling, the residential environment, can extend well beyond the actual dwelling. This in itself may result in greater use of public spaces – such as parents permitting young children to play outdoors at an earlier age than they otherwise might. (1987, p.61)

Theory

(...) one’s ring on the bell is only answered by the crackle of a par-lophone. One is carried upwards to one’s apartment in a metal cage (...) We descend in it to a sombre underground garage, where another metal box is wait-ing to carry us away to other parlophones, other lifts and other “apart-people”. (Tanghe, Vlaem-inck & Berghoeff, 1984)

6 “In de plannen van (...) wijken is vaak gestreefd naar een publiek domein in de vorm van openbare ruimte, gekoppeld aan de centrale positie van voorzieningen (…); die als openbaar bedoelde ruimte is evenwel zelden publiek domein.

Terwijl de kleine ruimtes rond de woning intensief gebruikt worden, blijven de grotere open ruimtes rustig.”7 Note that Newman wrote this in an era where ‘sustainable development’ had not yet made its appearance in the scientific discourse. ‘Safety’ however, is in my opinion an important aspect of social sustainability. 21


22

Gehl explored how “the provision of good possibilities for stopping and resting on the public side of houses” influences “life between buildings”. Whether a house or a building has transitional zones determines whether it is possible to linger near the building, or whether one can merely come and go. In an Australian survey (Gehl, 1987) for example, even though ‚come and go‘ activities accounted for more than 50 percent of the total number of activities occurring on streets, stationary activities were the ones that brought life to the streets: a few long lasting activities produce exactly as much life between buildings and just as many opportunities for meetings between neighbours as many short activities. So for the character of social interaction going on in a residential area, preconditions offered for long lasting outdoor activities play a decisive role.

Gehl distinguishes three activities: necessary, optional (recreative) and resultant (social) activities. The social activities are called resultant because in nearly all instances they evolve from activities linked to the other two activity categories:

They develop in connection with the other activities because people are in the same space, meet, pass by one another, or are merely within view. This implies that social activities are indirectly supported whenever necessary and optional activities are given better conditions in public spaces. (…) Very freely interpreted, social interaction takes place every time two people are together in the same space. To see and hear each other, to meet, is in itself a form of contact, ac social activity. The actual meeting, merely being present, is the seed for other, more comprehensive forms of social activity (p. 14)

Figure 3: passive contacts as a precondition for the development of groups (Gehl, 1987, p. 17)

Compared with other contact forms, passive contacts may seem insignificant, yet they are valuable both as independent contact forms and as prerequisites for other, more complex interactions5

The idea is that through „direct access to the outdoors, all forms of outdoor stays are given substantially better opportunities to develop, to the effect that the larger event can grow spontane-ously, with a starting point in the many little visits outdoors“ (ibid., p.187). The latter notion justifies using any outdoor activity by occupants as a useful dependant variable, since they are a precursor to what is considered desirable in this research, i.e. formation of social cohesion. “Frequent meetings increase chances of developing contacts with neighbours. With frequent meetings, friendships and the contact network are maintained in a far simpler way than if they have to be kept up by telephone and invitation.” (ibid. , p. 21)

High intensity

Low intensity

Close friendship

Friends

Acquaintances

Passive contacts

Potential groups

Prerequisite for thedevelopment ofsocial groups

23

Summarising the literature discussed, we could say that having a certain amount of outdoor, semi-public space in a residential area is not enough: a minimum of square meters should be allotted to the individual dwellings, as semi-private space. Larger, communal areas will not have the same effect in terms of outdoor activities, whereas even a small area directly in front of the house can have a great and multi-faceted use, because they are easier to reach. Such transitional zones between public and private zones provide ‘defensible space’ that can be appropriated. The creation of a semi-private zone within the transitional area offers the opportunity to regulate privacy through territorial behaviour. If privacy can be regulated, people will spend time in these zones, which is a prerequisite for social interaction with other residents.

I would like to elaborate on the concept of the semi-private zone. To avoid confusion, the concept of zoning and semantically related terms are discussed in the following paragraph.

Terminology of zoning

For a better understanding and as a foundation of the operationalisation of the concept ‘zoning’, this paragraph discusses its semantics. This is important if we want to predict where social cohesion is facilitated and where it is inhibited by the spatial structure. This requires fairly objective, schematic representation of the different zones. This paragraph also serves to avoid such circular reasoning as in “a space offers the opportunity for appropriation if it is appropriated”. If the criteria for a semi-private zone are not clear, it is easy to make the mistake of categorising an area as facilitating social cohesion because it was appropriated, instead of categorising it on the grounds of certain physical aspects, after which signs of appropriation may be used as indicators of territorial behaviour.

Altman (1975) has suggested that territories fall mainly into three types: primary, where one encoun-ters members of one’s primary reference group such as family or very close friends; secondary, where one encounters members of a secondary reference group such as well-known neighbours, fellow members of a club or organisation, or colleagues; and public territories, where one encounters mostly strangers or minimal acquaintances.

Goffmann (1961) distinguishes public, semi-private and private areas. Encounters differ in each of these areas e.g. in terms of distance, and they all have their own characteristic course. Taylor and Brower (1985) adopted Goffmans term ‘semi-private area’ and describe it as follows:

The house called home is nested in a larger context. It is situated on a street with other houses nearby. The street is a public amenity and arena. There are other facilities in the neighbourhood such as playgrounds, schools, corner shops and so on, which are also ‘open to the public’. The bridge between the private home and these public settings is the exterior territories immediately adjacent to the home. These are territories because individuals either own or have legitimised access to them, as in the case of porches and gardens and steps, or because they are areas that are used on a regular basis by individuals, such as alleys and the pavement. On the daily round, when leaving home and returning, these zones must be traversed. Further, occupants or proprietors expect to have some degree of control over who has access to these territories, and what activities go on in them. (ibid., p. 185)

In the formulation of their thesis, they speak of the “gradient or steepness of the shape of the spatial distribution of territorial attitudes and behaviours” (ibid.). In other words, a graded spatial distribution allows transitional zones, while a steep distribution does not.

These authors all consider three zones, using different terms; it is not clear if the secondary zone is identical to the semi-private zone or the semi-public zone. A key aspect is whether one distinguishes the near-home area as a space with a special quality within the semi-public area, or not. Taylor and Brower seem to do this when they talk about ownership and legitimisation, but seem to let go of

Theory


24

this extra criteria, in the continuation of their reasoning, talking about frequent use and mentioning the pavement as an example, without going into detail as to the qualities of this pavement and the way it is used.

Literature suggesting a zone distinct from but linking the semi-public and private area is quite scarce. According to Reijndorp the failure of some ‘communicative’ settlements can be accounted for by a lack of appreciation for this fourth zone: indistinction in terms of the territorial allocation of semi-public space inhibits feelings of responsibility for these areas and instead of a meeting point they may turn into a no-man’s land. Altman also sees the potential source of conflict: “Secondary territories (…) often have unclear rules regarding their use and are susceptible to encroachment by a variety of users, sometimes inappropriately and sometimes predisposing to social conflict. For these reasons, it is important that rules of use and ownership are made clear. In community design, it is not enough to provide people with good homes and plenty of space; the quality of space relating to distinctions among primary, secondary and public must also be considered” (1975, p.116).

For an adequate description of the effect of the spatial structure in residencies on territorial behaviour it is not enough to distinguish into three zones; this does not express the nuances in the gradation of spaces from public to private territories necessary for social interaction to develop.

Newman (in Gehl, 1987, p. 61) as well as Reijndorp do distinguish a fourth zone, that will be referred to as the semi-private zone. In the operationalisation of the independent variable, i.e. the spatial structure, I adopt this breakdown into four different zones instead of three, thus applying a strict definition of the semi-private area. In my working definition it can be distinguished from the semi-public space in that it belongs to one particular dwelling, bordering on the private space, i.e. it is situated near the entrance of the apartment. In contrast, the semi-public space cannot be allocated to a particular dwelling.

The term Jan Gehl (ibid.) uses for the availability of semi-public space is a ‚soft edge‘ . A soft edge is found on the border of private space, there where the transition to the public space is graded, not discrete. As such, it is a plastic term for the semi-private zone.

Figure 4 visualises this distinction, pinpointing an important difference among ‘secondary’ territories: in some spaces that are neither entirely public nor entirely private, it is not clear to what group or individual it belongs, and in other spaces it is. The ‘clarity of the rules of use and ownership’ (Altman, 1975) differ, so to speak. This is of decisive importance for the functioning of these spaces, and their potential as structures that facilitate cohesion.

Figure 4: a schematical representation of zones that mark the transition from public to private space

Summarising the criteria of a semi-private zone, one could say that, a) there has to be a certain amount of space between the semi-public and the private space, and b) in order to allow appropria-tion, this border of the space has to be clearly discernible. If the last criteria is not fulfilled, this zone

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 2

publicsemi- public

(secondary;communal)

semi-private

(secondary)private

e.g. street e.g. staircase entrance area dwelling

Figure IV: a schematical representation of zones that mark the transition from public to private space

Can I stay next to the buildings – or can I merely come and go?

25

is likely to be integrated into the semi-public space. Following this fairly detailed but rather abstract description of what is meant by transitional zones in general and semi-private zones in particular, I would like to give an account of what this grading may look like in practice.

Semi-private spaces give dwellings a ‘soft edge’

The Privacy Regulation Theory tells us that the possibility to show territorial behaviour is of vital importance to social stability in residential areas. What marks the difference between a residential environment that is supportive to this behaviour and one that is not, is the availability of space outside the private territory that invites people to appropriate it and thus to spend time in it. The general effect of zoning or a lack of it has been described above; this paragraph gives concrete instructions as to how these may be shaped.

So how can space for territorial behaviour be created? The architectural structures can provide a settlement with transitional zones by making clear demarcations as to where the semi-private zone ends and the semi-public zone begins. A balance will have to be found between putting up too strong a boundary that prevents any form of contact (and would actually make the semi-private area into a private one) and creating ambiguity concerning the boundaries, as this may inhibit the appropriation of the zone (leaving it a semi-public zone) and thus offering less opportunities for the development of contacts, since people will spend less time in spaces that do not really belong to them and which lie outwith their territories.

How to create soft edges

Gehl describes three housing characteristics that help ‚soften‘ the edges of a residential area (1987, p. 17):

1. easy access in and out;

2. good areas for lingering directly in front of the houses;

3. something to do, something to work with, directly in front of the houses.

Ad 1. It is important that it is easy to get in and out of dwellings. If the passage between indoors and outdoors is difficult, if it is just too bothersome to enter the (semi-)public area because of stairs and lifts the number of visits between is noticeably low, compared to settlements where these barriers are not prevalent (Marville, cited in Life Between Buildings, 1987).

Gehl describes how details of the design of the dwelling, of the outdoor area, and of the entrance itself enhance use of outdoor areas:

The plan of the dwelling must be designed in such a way that the activities in the house can flow freely outside. This may imply, for example, that there should be doors directly from the kitchen, dining room area, or living room to the outdoor areas on the public side of the house. The entrance itself should be designed so that it is easy to pass through, both functionally and psychologically. Middle corridors, extra doors and particularly changes in level between indoors and outdoors should be avoided. (ibid., p.188)

This of course speaks entirely in favour of the design of the Koekoek-straat, one of the research sites, where the entrance hall is replaced

Theory

Examples of “soft edges”, taken from Gehl (1987): Frontyards in housing estates in Sidney, Aus-tralia, and Kopenhagen, Den-mark, Street scenes enlivened by features facilitating inside- out-side flow of activities in Brooklyn, USA, and Quebec, Canada (from top to bottom).


26

by a little room, big enough to serve as a hobby room or study, that is connected to the outdoors by a double glass door. So in the summer, this space and the generous bridge between the access balcony and the front door combine to form a large, conservatory-like space. It is obvious that design such as this makes it very easy to pop in and out, and that through the omission of a corridor (which would function like a social lock, since it is only used for passing through), activities can flow freely in and out of the house.

Ad 2. From the results of an Australian survey which comprised seventeen terraced housing streets, it appeared that the front yards play a very important role in the activity in the street spaces, and that the longer lasting outdoor activities and conversations between neighbours had particularly favourable conditions as a direct consequence of the existence of semi-private outdoor spaces in front of dwellings. In short, for stationary outdoor activities to develop, it is important that there are resting areas at the entrance or at other places where it is equally easy to enter and exit. Gehl suggests creating places to sit at the front door, and semi-private front yards, placed in the transitional zone between the dwelling and the access street.

Another essential precondition described by Gehl, although he does not mention it explicitly, is a clear delineation, e.g. a low fence, of the semi-private space from the (semi-)public space. This seems to be of essential importance for people to experience these area’s as semi-private (belonging to their space) and not public. In contrast, in most modern blocks of terraced housing, the house is placed further away, with the garage taking up half of the front yard. Needless to say, these constructions hardly offer any possibility for social interaction (ibid.). So it is important that the dwelling is placed far enough from the public space, to ensure a certain measure of privacy for those sitting in front of the house, without blocking off contact with events occurring in the street.

Ad 3. Front yards, for example, ensure that there are always a number of meaningful chores to do if one wishes to linger in front of the house for a while, and at the same time offering a subject to chat about.

A building structure that is particularly tricky to equip with soft edges is the high rise building with open corridors. What could be done becomes easier to imagine if we consider the access corridors to be streets, as Jane Jacobs (1961) does, describing an example of ‘soft-edged’ design:

(...) the corridors were well designed to induce surveillance from within the buildings themselves. Uses other than plain circulation were built into them. They were equipped as play space, and made sufficiently generous to act as narrow porches, as well as passageways. This all turned out to be so lively and interesting that the tenants added still another use and much the favourite: picnic grounds – this in spite of continual pleas and threat from the management which did not plan that the balcony-corridors should serve as picnic grounds (...) the tenants are devoted to the balcony-corridors; and as a result of being intensively used the balconies are under intense surveillance. There has been no problem of crime nor of vandalism either8. (p. 43, italics CH).

Gehl’s main conclusion is that through the use of semi-private zones directly in front of the house, the chances that small, spontaneous events develop are much increased. “From this multitude of small events, bigger ones may grow.” (p.61)

8 Note that Jacobs wrote this in an era where ‘sustainable development’ had not yet made its appearance in the scientific discourse. ‘Safety’ however, is in my opinion an important aspect of social sustainability, and Jacobs was certainly aiming at the kind of ‘life between buildings’ that is at stake in this investigation.

27

The previous chapter elaborated on the theoretical foundation of this investigation, starting with Altman’s notions on territorial behaviour, and then concentrating on the meaning of semi-private zones for social cohesion. To make this a bit less abstract, I would like to describe a settlement in Amsterdam designed by architects who were instructed to ‘play’ with the transition from public to private areas. This resulted in a very heterogeneous, experimental architecture. Its great variety of entrance systems gives us an idea of how a striving for transitional zones may materialise. For the WohNach project the same survey was carried out as in the two settlements for people over 55 that will be introduced later on, in the chapter on method. However, since GWL-Terrein does not fit into the experimental design envisioned for this investigation, it is presented as a case-study only. It is difficult to compare the statistical results to those found in the other settlements, mainly because GWL-Terrein has a heterogeneous socio-demographic structure (the two others are homogeneous), and because its spatial structure is very different from the settlements for people over 55. For more detailed information on the results from the investigation at GWL-Terrein, please refer to the Wohnach intermediate report (Harloff et al., 2000).

This settlement is a fairly recent (1997) example of ‘communicative living’ (‘kommunikatives Wohnen’). It can be labelled ‘eco’ for many reasons, interpreting sustainability in a social as well as in an ecological way: it is a high density project built on a plot of land that used to belong to a water supply company, so that it does not add to urban sprawl, it is car free, has .3 parking spaces per unit instead of the conventional one to one ratio. Located about three kilometres for the city centre, connections to the public transport are guaranteed by three buses and a tram while the needs of Amsterdam’s compulsive cycling behaviour are considered: parking spaces can be found near the entrances, in the basements and at other places in and around the settlement. Modern disposal units that allow glass to be separated, paper and organic waste are placed at several cor-ners. The ingenious system for the waterhousehold makes it self-sufficient in this respect. It has many green areas, the majority of which is divided into allot-ment gardens. It is also ‘ecological’ in that it fits well into its residential con-text: the pathways between the blocks are an extension of the surrounding street pattern, while none of the “city-villa’s” exceed the sur-rounding houses in height.

GWL-Terrein: the holistic approach


She likes GWL especially for the kids, since they can safely play outdoors. In any other part of town she would not want to lose sight of them. And a lot of con-tacts are established through the kids.1

Aerial view of GWL-Terrein, a car-free area where historical indus-trial buildings are integrated into the new housing scheme

1 Zij vindt GWL vooral leuk voor de kinderen, ze kunnen immers veilig buiten spelen. In een ander deel van de stad zou ze haar kinderen niet uit het zicht laten spelen. Er is ook via de kinderen heel veel contact.


28

Perhaps its most charming sustainability feature is the conservation and integration of the water tower, the former warehouse, and the huge pump house, the latter two of which have been put to new use, for domestic and commercial ends respectively.

What makes it so interesting as a case study for this project is that a whole range of instruments for the enhancement of community life was implemented. While physical aspects just mentioned are ‘ecologically’ sustainable, its spatial structure is designed to support ‘social sustainability’. One of the theses of urban planner, Kees Christiaanse, was that gradual transitions from the public to private areas would facilitate the development of social cohesion. The architects were instructed to consider the following ‘communicative’ notions:

• Maximising the number of front doors on the ground floor, as this may support a feeling of attachment to the public space. In Gehl’s words the indoor-outdoor flow of activities is eased and there is a basis for semi-private zones.

• Maximising the surface of outdoor space, since maximising the semi-public area is expected to support a feeling of belonging to that group of buildings. Another means to this end is the use of homogenous building materials: the buildings form a recognisable unity through the repetitive use of recognisable colours and building materials, while contrasting with the surrounding area. A good example is GWL-Terreins’ ‘red carpet’: the same brick is used for the paving everywhere.

• Maximising the visibility of the outdoor space from the house. This is considered to be supportive of the feeling of attachment to the semi-public space. Children who see other children play are motivated to join in, and their parents will not lose sight of them.

• Creating semi-private spaces through the use of allotment gardens, galleries, patios and playful bridges that offer the opportunity for spontaneous encounters and appropriation.

• To experiment with the access system, so that the diversity in this respect is great, between as well as within blocks. As a result, it is no problem to recognise your own apartment, a front door is not lost in monotony.

• Paying attention to the design of spaces where communal facilities such as the mailboxes and parking space for bikes are. If these are made to be attractive, they may further spontaneous encounters.

These instructions materialised in a differentiated manner: Most apartments on the first floor have a garden at their disposal; a block built exclusively for older people has a facade-wide loggia, so that access galleries are roofed, as well as the small patio on the ground floor. Part of the larger ‘Block-edge’ that closes off GWL-Terrein from the busy Haarlemmerstraat has a glass corridor that serves a an access gallery. In another block, the dwellings are very narrow but cover all four levels, so that each has its own front door. Most apartments on the first floor have a garden at their disposal.

Apart from these architectural prescriptions, social and functional instruments were used, such as the employment of a caretaker.

Aiming at a social mix, the blocks were handed over to five different building societies that represent tenants from different social background. This resulted in a so-called ‘segregative mix’ that satisfies the need for seclusion up to a certain degree, according to social status, while at the same time avoiding ghettoisation (Haas-Arndt, 1999). Furthermore, the former warehouse is occupied by a commune of artists and their ateliers; in one of the blocks, apartments were made to fit the needs of a group of handicapped residents who live semi-independently. Apart from Blocks 9 and 10, all the apartments are owned privately. The data-sample showed a relation between being a tenant or an owner on the one hand, and the rating of Integration on the other: tenants score higher than owners. And indeed, the social structure is very differentiated: education, age, income, household size, and marital status vary a lot, although the structure within blocks is more homogeneous. Functional

A multitude of communicative notions: the holistic approach

29

GWL-Terrein: the holistic approach Snapshots of GWL-terrein, taken during observation visit summer 1999:Matching old and new, in a green setting (upper left); large transpar-ent balconies (centre left); “winter garden” as access to elderly people flats (upper right); private entrance to dwelling through the garden (lower left and right).

30

diversity was considered by reserving units apt for shops, offices and café’s. These are now occupied by a supermarket, an internet café, a shop specialised in recumbent bikes, a designers gallery and the community centre.

Because of this intrinsic variation of social characteristics, that turned out to be quite connected to particular social strata, it becomes hard to isolate the true impact of the physical structure: whenever ratings of measures of social cohesion differ from block to block, this may very well be caused by the different social structure. Furthermore, the dwellings within a block differ in terms of their transitional zone from public to private (their ‘soft-edgedness’), size, orientation toward each other and the surrounding area, availability of communal rooms, their proximity to the ground floor, and basically show a great diversity of access systems. For these reasons, comparing entrance situations seemed a wiser strategy.

In GWL-Terrein, like the settlement itself, the marking is very varied. In general, the gardens are characterised by affluent marking. The glass-covered access gallery is fairly empty, similar to the indoor hallway leading to the apartments in Block 2c. Residents on the far side of the block (access is gained by a lift) use the space in front of their dwelling to park bikes or prams. The smaller staircase entrances inside this block were hardly marked; a name plate or two could be seen. The interior access galleries in Blocks 9 and 10 were too windy to be pleasant and showed no marking. The same holds true for the hallways in Blocks 11 and 13 (the sobriety, not the wind). Block 5 takes in an intermediate position, especially lowest level, where little fenced off patios are allocated to the apartments and are gratefully used a gardens, whereas the entrance areas of the other floors (the galleries) are rather barren.

Settlements such as GWL-Terrein demonstrate the wealth of possibilities to support community life through architectural design: the diversity of access systems is something that in itself may strengthen the feeling of belonging to a neighbourhood, while the more or less soft access systems are expected to have a positive effect on the development of community life. In my search for literature I found only one other settlement where the planners handled the design of open spaces so conscious of its social impact: The estate ‘Auf dem Schafbrühl’ in Tübingen, Germany has private, semi-private and public open spaces, and gardens for tenants. In the concept there is mention of a ‘high quality of social living’ and encouraging neighbourly contacts by the provision of communal open spaces’. (Kennedy & Kennedy, 1997).

As a matter of fact, the different access situations can be ranked according to the strength of cohe-sion measured with the questionnaire also used to explore the effect of hard versus soft-edgedness in the two settlements discussed later on. It turned out that this leads to a certain order, that tells us something about the potential these spatial structures have for the stimulation of cohesion. It seems that the order of the entrance situations is rather consistent for different measures of cohesion11,12. Having a garden at your disposal seems to work very well in terms of encouraging cohesion, just like the access system where front doors are reached through a indoor corridor. Staircase entrance flats and ‘open air’ corridors do not work well; residents who live there, had a significantly lower score, even though socio-demographics were controlled for.

It is also quite unique in the sense that it emerged from a more or less top-down approach: planners and designers, not residents took the initiative to build an ecological settlement. It was not built for a selected group of people, or for a commune, where the success of the settlement can always be ascribed to the attitudes and goodwill of the residents. It is a large project (600 dwellings), and the tenants and owners represent a cross-section of Dutch or, as you like, the Amsterdam society. Does ecological housing mean that residents feel restricted in the case they did not make a conscious decision to live that way? If we are looking for large scale housing solutions for a sustainable society, where the impulse does not necessarily come from the grassroots, GWL-Terrein is an important exemplary settlement that we can learn from.

11 Bearing in mind that the cohesive elderly Block 5 was allocated to the category ‘Gallery roofed’ and that tenants in general have a higher rating of cohesion, while being concentrated in three Blocks (thus making it difficult to formulate ‘waterproof’ statements), I ran the tests again, excluding the tenants. This did not change much about the ranking, apart from the fact that the category ‘Gallery roofed’ - now consisting of only Block 2c

respondents - had to give up its fourth place to the category ‘Staircase’.12 It turned out that, had the ranking been influenced mainly by the average number of kids, its order would have been quite different.


31


Based on the literature on privacy, territorial behaviour, and on transitional zones in residential areas and their impact on social cohesion, it is hypothesised that among residents living in a settlement equipped with a semi-private zone stronger social cohesion can be observed than among residents living in a settlement where such a zone is not provided.

Hypothesis

33


Method

DesignTesting hypotheses concerning the impact of the physical environment on social interaction requires comparison of communities in which the social characteristics of the population are as similar as possible: ideally the only variation would be one relevant physical form of the buildings. Therefore, two buildings were compared that are occupied by people of about the same age, gender, income and with similar occupations. Nevertheless, even if one could find the perfect match in terms of residents, there are still many more things that influence the intensity of social interaction. They are discussed in the paragraph on confounding variables.

In order to allocate the respondents to experimental groups on the basis of the spatial structure of their dwellings, these have to be categorised as ‘soft’ or ‘hard edged’. This categorisation is based on Gehl’s description of ‘edges’, discussed in the paragraph “how to create soft edges”.

Desk-researchApart from an intensive literature research, a document search was conducted reviewing the site plan and background information on Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren. Thus I familiarised myself with the floor plan, the facilities and the marketing tactics of the housing association. The latter was important to know, since particular marketing strategies to promote the settlement may cause a certain selection as to what kind of people apply for an apartment (Reijndorp, 1999). This means that a complex may be promoted as ‘child-friendly’ or ‘green’ and thus attract people who find those features important. The results of this investigation are integrated in the discussion of the results from the survey.

InterviewsIn preparation of the investigation, the architect responsible for the master plan of GWL-Terrein and Koekoek-Spreeuw, Kees Christiaanse, was interviewed on the concepts behind these settlements. Arnold Reijndorp, architecture sociologist and author of ‘Buitenwijk’ (1998) was interviewed on the methodology of this kind of research. Short, informal interviews with the caretakers and several residents of all three settlement helped establish a general impression of what goes on and of the atmosphere.

ObservationPrior to the quantitative survey, non-manipulative direct observation identifying physical traces that might pertain to privacy issues was recorded, and pictures were taken. The observations served to identify the presence of markers, that are often an indicator of territorial behaviour (Altman, 1975; Kruse, 1974; Taylor & Brower, 1985). Territories are preventively marked in a variety of ways to indicate ownership and to signal to outsiders that the place belongs to someone. Markers can involve actual physical barriers and boundaries or symbolic ones and thus include behavioural traces, levels of upkeep and maintenance, signs of beautification such as flowers, furniture or other decorations, and signs of identification such as name plates (Taylor and Brower, 1985)


34

Greenbaum & Greenbaum examined the presence of territorial markers and levels of upkeep and found that residents of houses where yards and sidewalks were better maintained had more local friendships (1981). According to Taylor and Brower, they send messages to both outsiders and to other residents. The markers ‘tell’ the passer-by that these people care about their homes and their neighbourhood, and even add to an understanding of which behaviour is appropriate. These messages “contribute to the establishment of mutual trust and respect and thereby facilitate the effective functioning of local social control.” (1985, p. 193). MacAndrew goes even further, stating that “decorating the outside of one’s home might be a way to increase contact with neighbours and deepen attachment to the neighbourhood (…) decorations increase neighbourhood cohesiveness and may serve as a cue to elicit visits from neighbours.” (1993, p.132).

In short, it is safe to use markers as indicators for territorial behaviour, and to assume that ‘marked’ areas were successfully appropriated by the residents. If high social cohesion can be recorded among residents who use their semi-private zones in the above described fashion, this can be interpreted as a confirmation of the presumption that this is an important precursor to neighbourly contacts.

SurveyThe main part of the research consisted of a survey among the occupants of the selected sites. The questionnaire1 served as an instrument to determine the level of social cohesion among neighbours. Furthermore, it served to establish whether this may be ascribed to activities going on in semi-private zones. It contains questions pertaining to the hypothesis and to confounding variables. Below, you will find a detailed description and justification of the design of this questionnaire. Please refer to the figures in the margin that illustrate the connection between the hypothesis and the structure of the questionnaire.

The questionnaires were handed out in person by two students, both participants in the WohNach-project. After introducing themselves to the caretaker, they split up and went from door to door, trying to speak to everyone in person, to explain what the survey was about, trying to motivate them to partake. If the resident agreed to fill out the questionnaire, a day and time would arranged for collection. Sometimes it was agreed that the respondent would hand it on to the caretaker, or leave it under the doormat. If no one was in the first time, they would make sure to call again during another time of day. After two futile calls, the questionnaire would be left behind in the letter box.

The chapter on results discusses only the data gathered through the survey; the more qualitative material gathered ‘on the side’ is sometimes mentioned, but – in so far as it adds to an understanding of the atmosphere in the settlements – mainly incorporated in the description of the settlements. Results from the interviews and desk-research are not mentioned separately either; they are inte-grated in the theory chapter and in general influenced my approach.

The design of the questionnaire

In the chapter on theory I defined social cohesion as neighbourliness, i.e. that residents know each other and would rely on each other in time of need. The design was based on the questionnaires used by Abu-Ghazzeh (1999) and Skjaeveland & Garling (1997), interview transcripts from the WohNach project, completed with items designed especially to fit thesis of this research.

Abu-Ghazzeh (1999) conducted research on social networks by establishing how well residents know others in their own building. In Jordan he investigated the relation between „housing layout“, social interaction and place of contact. Social cohesion was determined by the number of neighbours one knows by name, considers to be ones friend, frequency of visits, participation in social activities, and acquaintance upon emergency2.

1 please refer to the appendix for the full version of the questionnaire.2 please refer to the appendix for the full list of items.

Space

Socio-demos Cohesion

confounders

35

Skjaeveland & Garling (1997) looked at the relationship between spatial features of neighbourhoods and social interaction among residents, measuring social interaction with the Multidimensional Measure of Neighbouring (MMN3), qualifying the residents’ perception of ‘neighbouring’. The MMN consists of items similar to Abu-Ghazzeh’s list, apart from a few questions that address the softer aspects of social cohesion, e.g. “I feel strongly attached to this residence” and “I don’t feel at home in this neighbourhood”.

Social interaction

Apart from social cohesion, I found it useful to look also at a prerequisite for social cohesion, namely social interaction. One reason to do so was that I was not sure to what extent social cohesion had already had the opportunity to develop, since the settlements are all fairly new, so that it might be that not enough time has passed for real social groups to form.

Since the outset of this research was not merely to establish the level of social cohesion in the compared settlements, but also to explain it by the territorial and social behaviour going on in the semi-private zones, the questionnaire was extended with items that try to capture this. Apart from the groups of items that serve to measure cohesion, items were included that retrieve information on the frequency of spontaneous encounters and their location and on the behaviour that goes in semi-private zones. According to Gehl, lingering in these areas is a precondition for the development of the social interaction. The apparent importance of social interaction for the development of social cohesion is reflected in the design of the questionnaire. Apart from the items on integration into the neighbourhood, joint activities, and ‘helping out’, items on chance encounters, chatting and greeting, as well as questions on recognition of faces are included. If it should turn out that social cohesion may be high, but no activities take place in the semi-private zones, it must be concluded that other dynamics are at work here.

Using this material as a basis, bearing in mind the theses, a list of items was drawn up that can be grouped according to the categories discussed in the following section. To make the items as reliable and valid as possible, they are fully written, and formulated in such a way as to avoid the possibility of different interpretations. The more complex questions follow an introduction to make them clearer and to define concepts. The majority of questions is closed, so that all respondents have a similar perception of what constitutes an adequate answer to the question. Furthermore, to check that questions result in answers that correspond to what they are intended to measure, validating items are included (Fowler, 1993). The following list is an overview of the questions posed.

The independent variable: the location of the dwelling

This item is of decisive importance for the allocation of respondents to the experimental groups. For reasons of anonymity, this variable was not included as a question. Instead, different versions of the cover were made, mentioning the name of the respective settlements. Furthermore, the interviewers would note the floor number on the cover, upon collecting the filled-out questionnaires, as – in these settlements – this information was sufficient a categorisation as soft- or hard-edged.

Dependent variables: measuring social cohesion

This constitutes the main part of the questionnaire, and is intended to measure what we set out to investigate: how do the two areas compare in terms of their social cohesion? I labelled the different scales used to quantify the level of cohesion found ‘integration’, ‘help’, ‘together’, ‘spontaneous’ and ‘conflict’. Please also refer to the chapter on theory, for a foundation of this operationalisation.

The Integration group is based on the idea that “integration into the neighbourhood” is the opposite of remaining anonymous. It is assessed through items on “getting on with other residents”, “how well residents know each other”, “newcomers integration”. Whether one will see or recognise strange

Method

Space


confounders

Space


confounders

3 please refer to the appendix for the full list of items.


36

or familiar faces in a location is a reference to territorial functioning (Taylor and Brower, 1985). Therefore, items such as “strangers immediately draw my attention” and the “recognition of faces” are also included. The Help group includes items on borrowing habits and acquaintance upon emergency. Whether people rely on their neighbours, or rather on their relatives or other actors outside their residential area is another indicator for social cohesion. In case I need a drill, or someone to water my plants while I’m on holiday, do I feel comfortable ringing the neighbours’ doorbell and make my request, or would that be awkward, since I hardly know them? Furthermore, one item asks respondents whether their children live in the same town. If they do, this is expected to have an confounding influence, since elderly people may then tend to ask their children for help, instead of their neighbours. This would muddle the measure of social cohesion through the help group, and it would also have a direct effect on the development of cohesion. The Together group contains items on scheduled social activities, such as the frequency of visits, participation in social activities, and joint outings. The Spontaneous group includes items on chatting and greeting. It gives an impression of the extent to which spontaneous encounters take place. This is not so much a measure for social cohesion, as a measure of an important step in the development toward cohesion. Finally, the Conflict group questions whether conflicts exist, and if yes, whether they are solved among the neighbours or with the help of external actors? A high level of cohesion is usually accompanied by more conflicts (Harloff, 1993). This questionnaire is not suitable for the assessment of the direction of causality. However, in those cases where there is a certain prevalence of conflict, one could differentiate according to the way neighbourhoods deal with these conflicts: where they are resolved among residents, I would interpret this as a sign of cohesion, whereas I expect less cohesive groups to rely more on the help of outsiders, when it comes to dealing with conflicts.

Validating items

The items included for the purpose of validation do not necessarily belong to any group, they are more or less independent measures for social cohesion. Open questions were posed on the number of people known by name, the number of friends, the formation of sub-groups among residents, and their reasons for staying on. Respondents were asked whom they would contact, if they felt the need for some company: co-residents, or a friend or a relative? And since it is important to know whether the perception of the resident is congruent with the measure through the groups of items, a subjective measure of cohesion was taken by asking respondents to judge the intensity of contact in their neighbourhood in comparison to other neighbourhoods they know.

Dependent variables: measuring the perception of spatial characteristics

The items in this group were included to try and consolidate Gehl’s ideas on soft edges. Even if social cohesion is higher in residences with soft edges, this cannot be automatically attributed to design. Therefore, items were included that try to establish where social behaviour, where spontaneous encounters actually take place, and where contacts develop. If residents cannot name any space in their neighbourhood or block where people regularly stop and talk, while the design of the building actually provides semi-private zones, apparently they did not appropriate these.

Furthermore, two items were included that can be used to filter out respondents that either feel that they do not have the possibility to linger in front of their houses, or that do not have the desire to do so.

Also, an open question was posed on the activities people engage in while being outside. Gehl considers it to be important that activities that take place inside the house can flow outside. An indicator for a the successful appropriation of a soft edge would therefore be that people list activities that normally take place indoors. Finally, residents were asked to fill out a matrix listing activities on the horizontal, and spaces on the vertical axis. If they felt that a particular activity (coming and going; conversation; sitting down; or

37

doing chores) would often occur at a particular place (the letterbox, the dustbins, the parking lot, the front door, the entrance, the hall, the lift, the stairway) they could tick the corresponding box.

Confounding variables

Apart from the groups discussed above, and their validating items, questions were posed to check for confounding factors in the development of social cohesion; causes for cohesion that may not be attributed to the physical environment. Apart from socio-demographic characteristics, that are discussed in a separate paragraph below, the following aspects were considered to be important:

• Existing contacts, i.e. did residents know each other before they moved in?

• Moving in as a group can have a positive effect on cohesion: the so called pioneer-effect. In recent arrival to a dwelling environment there are common needs of help, information giving, and adjustment to the community which temporarily supersede concern over dissimilarities (Keller, 1968). Moving into a new residency at the same time definitely smoothes the way for making new contacts (Reijndorp, 1998). Whether the cohesion stemming from pioneering problems is durable, is not clear. The pioneer effect can be strengthened in case architectural or building failures are discovered: occupants want to find out whether their neighbours have the same problem, letters to the administration are written, and maybe they have to join forces in taking legal action. Therefore, the date of moving in was determined and the residents were asked whether the building showed any deficiencies on handing over, and if this, according to them, led to contacts?.

• The selective effect of the settlement. This is of importance since ‘green’ settlements may attract environmentally conscious people so that a certain difference in environmental attitude or even in social cohesion should be attributed to the fact that they chose these buildings, and not to the effect of the spatial structure on their behaviour. A sensible comparison can then no longer be made. For example, for many GWL-residents, the marketing of the settlement as “ecological” played an important role in the decision to move there4. More specifically, the fact that it’s a car-free settlement seems to have attracted many people. A lot of GWL-Terrein residents also mention social motivations that clearly point to the expectation of a lively area where it is quite easy to establish contacts. For the elderly in Block 5 of GWL-Terrein, this is definitely the case, since part of the residents moved there together. They look at themselves as a kind of commune, so whatever level of cohesion they show, it makes more sense to interpret this as a result of their own preferences, than as an effect the architecture brought about. To check for this phenomenon, several questions were posed on the motivation for moving, in order to assess the extent to which certain settlements attract certain occupants. Of importance are answers that point in the direction of social or environmental reasons, e.g. “I expect to find people of the same age who share my interests” or other mention of neighbours.

• The desire for contact, that was measured using items such as “I find it important to have good contacts in my neighbourhood”.

• Rural - urban history. The countryside has mores on social integration that differ from those in cities. It was therefore considered wise to ask respondents whether they stem from urban or more suburban areas.

• Homogeneous groups are more likely to develop cohesion than heterogeneous groups (Kupper, 1953; Fisher, Baldassare, Gerson, Jackson, Jones & Stueve, 1977). Homogeneity facilitates the development of consensus, and thus the emergence of the group itself and a widespread adher-ence to particular norms (Altman & Werner, 1985). Taylor and Brower found that residents who perceived other residents as more homogeneous reported more territorial control (1985). One could object that in this case, the causality is not clear: do people show more territorial behaviour because they perceive their neighbours as like-minded, or do they perceive them as like-minded because they spend more time with them, in near-home territories? In any case, apart from the usual questions on socio-demographic characteristics, two items were used to grasp the homogeneity, or heterogeneity, for that matter, of the population in the perception of the residents

Method

4Many respondents who mentioned such ‘green’ considerations, also made comments showing disappointment regarding the actual realisation of the green promises.

Space


confounders


38

(“The people who live here are very different from each other” and “In this flat a particular kind of people live”)

Socio-demographic characteristics

The way territoriality functions is influenced by individual traits and achieved characteristics (Taylor and Brower, 1985). For a justified comparison of the populations of residents, they have to have a similar socio-demographic background. For this reason, items on socio-demographic characteristics were included in the questionnaire.

Sustainable behaviour

For the WohNach project, a small set of items on sustainable consumer behaviour was included. Since ties between communicative building or social cohesion and sustainable consumption patterns are not considered in this investigation, the results from these items are not discussed in this report.

Selection of the Research Settlement

This paragraph serves the purpose of justifying the selection of the control group for the experimental group. In my selection, I tried to rule out the confounding factors described above, as far as possible: it is based on certain expectations on social-demographic characteristics, as well as the homogeneity in this respect; on possible ‘selective’ effect of settlements with a special concept, and on expectations about the so-called pioneer-effect. This paragraph describes all of these. To what extent the expectations turned out to be true, is described in the results chapter.

I tried to vary the characteristic ‚soft edges‘ using a quasi-experimental design, comparing two residential objects (Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren) that are very similar except for the way the transition from private to public spaces is designed. The access structure of Koekoek-Spreeuw was designed under consideration of certain ‘communicative’ notions, whereas De Vuurtoren is equipped with a conventional, narrow, access gallery.

As far as other spatial characteristics matter, it can be said that both are multi-story tenement buildings opened in 1997, with open air access balconies, a central lift and emergency stairs on each side. The Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren settlements are of an equal size, they comprise 100 and 75 dwellings respectively. They differ in that De Vuurtoren is a high-rise building in steel and white and blue board, whereas Koekoek-Spreeuw is a linear block with four floors, with a wooden facade. In terms of the social-demographic characteristics I expected them to be similar, since both were intended to house people over 55, while the dwellings cost about the amount of rent.

Settlements that are marketed under the heading ‘sustainable housing’ or ‘communicative housing’ tend to attract people with a ‘sociable predisposition’. As a result, differences in social cohesion can also be attributed to the fact that they consciously chose these buildings and not so much to the spatial structure. They may expect to find neighbours open to contact. In this case, both residences belong to the same housing association (SCW) and have the same underlying concept, namely small, comfortable dwellings for people over 55, with additional service offered in the form of a caretaker and a recreational room. The advertising campaign stressed these characteristics, so that the selective effect is expected to be quite similar. What may differ is the influence of the caretakers: the life in a neighbourhood is to a great extent influenced by the presence of ‘public characters’ (Jacobs, 1961), i.e. someone who is in frequent contact with a wide circle of people. The caretaker from Koekoek-Spreeuw definitely fulfils this role, while in De Vuurtoren is may be played by members of the resident’s committee. The exact impact on social cohesion is hard to estimate without looking deeper into the meaning of these individuals for the neighbourhood.

The pioneer effect is probably quite strong in these residencies, since SCW policy is to invite all residents-to-be to plenary meetings of an informative and administrative nature. Even the signing of

Space


confounders

39

the contract is done during a collective meeting, so that everyone gets to see each other. Shortly after they have moved in, the residents receive a letter in which they are requested to join an occupant committee. Once this committee is set up, depending on the enthusiasm of the participants, other activities than just formal ones pertaining to communal interests may be initiated. However, I presume that the pioneer effect is, to a large extent, ruled out by the fact that nearly all residents of both settlements moved in around the same time, about two years ago.

After listing the expectations I had about the characteristics relevant to the research design, I shall proceed to describe the settlements separately, completing the objective facts with more or less subjective observations made during the data gathering.

Soft-edged design: Koekoek-Spreeuw

This settlement was categorised as soft-edged: the way public and private space are separated is graded through the creation of semi-public and semi-private spaces. It was built in 1997 to replace a post-war block that did not meet modern needs anymore; the building mass is identical to that of the old building. It consists of two four-story blocks with access galleries. The building on Spreeuw-straat has eighteen apartments on every floor, the building on Koekoekstraat has seven. They differ from conventional blocks with open access galleries in the following ways:

• The access gallery is relatively wide: 1,10 metres;

• It is located some two metres away from the facade of the building; 2.30 metre wide platforms connect the access gallery and the apartment.

• The Koekoek dwellings have a double glass door for a front door, that leads directly to a spacious hall that can be used as an extra room. The apartments in the building on Spreeuwstraat are equipped with a fairly conventional narrow hallway and one glass front door. Please refer to the floor plans for more detailed information.

The access-gallery, as well as facade elements, are made of ‘warm’ materials, with many wooden surfaces. Although this lies not in the focus of the project, it is an aspect worth considering, because it contributes to the general image of the building. As far as the residents are concerned, the weathered wood is extremely ugly; “It’s really nice to live here, sociable people and all that, but the wood, that’s awful!”

Since the connecting platforms are wide enough to serve as a balcony, they offer room for a semi-

Method

If the weather is nice, then you sit outside and you meet your neigh-bours, but without intruding on each other. (...) We first thought we wouldn’t have much privacy, but it’s just like a camping site; you see each other, you talk to each other...5

Floor plan of typical apartment in Spreeuwstraat. Scale 1:100

5Als het mooi weer is dan zit je buiten en je komt elkaar tegen, terwijl je toch niet bij elkaar de deur plat hoeft te lopen. (...) Wij dachten aanvankelijk: je zit helemaal niet privé. Maar het is net als op de camping; je ziet elkaar, je praat met elkaar…”


40

private zone. In the case of Koekoekstraat, this zone extends into the house, by the small room. These features are in complete accordance with Gehl’s advice to avoid “middle corridors, extra doors and particularly changes in level between indoors and outdoors”. This zone is expected to be of crucial importance for the development of social networks, it being a place where strangers are not allowed - a key is needed to enter this area - while conversation with neighbours can take place without intrusion on the personal territory.

It is important to note that these special features do not apply to the ground floor, where the entrance of the apartment can be reached immediately from the pavement; no measures are taken to create a barrier between the street and the front door. It is paved just like all the pavements in Dutch neighbourhoods. Considering the very sharp transition from public to private space, it can be categorised as ‘hard-edged’.

As mentioned before, additional service is offered in the form of a caretaker, and a communal room for recreation. In the corner of the cellar, room was found for a working bench.

Near the general entrance, people were seen chatting all of the time. People visited each other. Neighbours were well informed about other residents’ absence, whether people were in hospital or on holiday; “No use calling on them, they’re out!”6. It was arranged who would accompany a sick resident to the doctor, and someone else leaned over the balustrade to invite them to his birthday. A man returned tools to the caretaker; whenever you need anything, you can always rely on him. Someone struggling to get her bike indoors was helped. This atmosphere was not restricted to those who had lived here from the beginning; on the stairs a new resident introduced herself: “I was given apartment (x), you know, where that lady passed away.8” Another resident was summoned by her neighbours to tell how fast she integrated. According to the caretaker, contacts are dispersed over several stories, and over the whole width of the building. It seems that the homogeneous age structure eased making contacts, plus the fact that nearly everyone moved in at the same time.

Not everyone is keen on contacts. One resident who stated that she is actually very willing to help in case of emergencies, did not have the least desire for contacts. Her husband works shifts, sleeping during the daytime, so that they switch off the doorbell in the afternoon, and she often goes for long walks with her dog. “In the morning I want to do the cleaning and prepare the food, and then you don’t have the time to chat with the neighbours. And since my husband is asleep during the day, one doesn’t sit down in the livingroom to chatter. I was always too busy for those kind of things, and now I don’t feel the need anymore. I have enough to do, I have my children (living in Amsterdam). It’s not as if we don’t greet each other, but I don’t visit people9.” This woman’s apartment is located at a place where many people pass by so that, as she put it, she is often ‘the victim’ of chatty people. She used to live in a single family house and “forgot how little privacy one has in a flat”.

Koekoek-Spreeuw is ‘marked’ all over: hardly a ‘bridge’ was left unused and a lot of people furbished it with a fake grass carpet and fine wooden garden chairs and tables. This and many plants gave the block a very homely impression. And indeed it seemed that there was always at least one couple leaning over the gallery on the first floor, talking to the caretaker or other residents. People would sit on their little bridge and tell you that it was useless to call on their neighbours, since they were out of town, enjoying the last summer days on their camping-site. Perhaps the most striking phenomenon in this settlement is the strong contrast in marking behaviour between the access galleries and the area in front of the apartments on the ground floor. Here, there is nothing to see; no chairs, no carpets, no one sitting down. One resident put a plant on each side of her front door, and that is it. My suspicion

7 “Hiernaast zijn ze er niet hoor!”8 According to the caretaker, moving out it seldom done, and however macabre it sounds: if an apartment becomes available, this is mainly due to death.9 “Ik wil s’ ochtends altijd het eten voorbereiden en mijn huishouden doen en dan heb je geen tijd om met de buren te kletsen. En omdat mijn man overdag ligt te slapen ga je ook niet in de woonkamer zitten kwebbelen. Ik heb het vroeger ook altijd veel te druk gehad voor dat soort dingen. Nu heb ik er niet zo’n behoefte aan. Ik heb genoeg om handen; ik heb mijn kinderen (in Amsterdam). Misschien ben ik wel een beetje een huismus. We groeten elkaar wel hoor, maar ik kom niet bij de mensen over de vloer.

41

Method

Koekoek-spreeuw- settlement, where the access galleries are placed some two metres away from the facade, thus leaving room for a ‘semi-private’ balcony (far left, lower middle, top); pri-vate gardens and balconies in Spreeuwstraat (left); abrupt tran-sition from public to private on the ground floor (below).


42

that this is an indicator for the social interaction going on was strengthened by the remark made by a resident on Koekoekstraats ground floor: “I do not have contact with anyone; I would not know what else to fill out. The people above have contact with each other, but I don’t ever see a soul”10.

Hard-edged design: De Vuurtoren

In order to compare a soft-edged object with a hard-edged object, a multi-story apartment block was selected, similar to Koekoek-Spreeuw in terms of its spatial aspects. It also equipped with access galleries that are, however, designed in a conventional way: they are quite narrow and are attached directly to the facade of the building.

Because I persisted on selecting a set-tlement that was built in the same period as Koekoek-Spreeuw, I did not manage to find a building that matches the other spatial features exactly: De Vuurtoren further differs from Koekoek-Spreeuw in that it has 16 floors, of which floors 1 to 8 have eight apart-ments each, while floors 9 to 16 have four. Access is gained via a central lift. A narrow emergency stairway is located on either side of the building. The building itself is an extension of a much older block, a conventional post-war building with eight stories. Building materials used have a ‘cold’ effect: metal grid surfaces painted white, white board panels. Because the transition from public to private space in this building is non-graded, it can be cat-egorised as ‘hard-edged’.

The fact that the apartments do not have a balcony, as well as the fact that is has an ‘open’ kitchen in the living area, instead of a separate kitchen turned out to be a reason for many potential residents to turn down the offer, so that in the beginning, SCW had

10 “Ik heb met niemand contact; ik weet niet wat ik verder in moet vullen. Die mensen hierboven hebben contact met elkaar, maar ik zie geen hond.”11 “We wisten niet hoe het zou zijn om zo te wonen (met gemeenschapsruimtes, CH). Het bevalt toch heel goed, buren helpen elkaar in geval van ziekte. Eén mevrouw had haar enkel verstuikt en kwam niet in aanmerking voor thuiszorg (de zorg liet haar in de steek) en toen hebben bewoners haar geholpen.”12 “Men doet niks samen… Er is geen interesse in de recreatiezaal, we zijn geen bejaardencentrum, waar de mensen blij zijn als ze lekker bij elkaar kunnen zitten. Veel mensen hebben nog een eigen auto…ik ga wel koffiedrinken… Er is veel doorstroom geweest in de twee jaar sinds de oplevering.”

We didn’t know what it would be like, to live like this (with a com-munal room at disposal, CH). We do like it a lot, neighbours help each other in case of illness. One lady sprained her ankle and was let down by the medical services and then the residents helped her.”11

People don’t undertake anything together.. There’s no interest in the recreational room, were not an old peoples home, where people are glad to sit together. Many still drive their own car... I do frequent the coffee get-toge-thers... the tenants turnover has been large over the past two years.12

Floor plan of typical apartment in the Vuurtoren settlement. Scale 1:100

43

Method

The Vuurtoren settlement, representative of a traditional access situation in multi-sto-rey housing. Apartments are entered via narrow access-balconies (lower right); a lift and an indoor staircase (centre right).


44

trouble letting them. The communal spaces (the room and the terrace) on the ground floor are used foremost by a particular set of single women.

All activities are initiated by residents, and the organisation and administration is in the hands of a commission. Various courses such as crafts are offered, and the bingo and ‘sjoel’-nights are well frequented. The day always starts with yoga, and the coffee-get-together is visited by around 25 people. Newyear’s eve was a downright success. At the time of the survey, a trip to an orchid nursery was in preparation; 46 residents had already subscribed. Use of the communal room is sometimes a cause for conflict: all residents pay a monthly contribution and those who never use it are sometimes frustrated if others use it to play cards throughout the night. It seemed that there are ‘those who organise and partake’, those who don’t, and ‘those who rebel’. A group of six or seven men and women fights the conventions of the commission tooth and nail. Since they are smokers, they are banned to a corner of the communal room and thus find another reason to resist. As one of the commission-members put it: “They place themselves outside the community!”.

The commission also functions as a contact point: “if rowdies hang out downstairs, then one of the members is called”. One feels protected, because of this kind of social control. If someone does not turn up for a couple of days, people start asking whether he or she is on holiday or something of the like.

People also know each other outside commission activities: sometimes a resident would suggest leaving the filled-out questionnaire at her neighbour’s, in case she would not be in when the questionnaires were to be collected. And some people do not feel the need for any neighbourly contact e.g. those who are still employed.

One couple from De Vuurtoren, living at the very end of the access balcony, so that no one ever has to pass their flat, put two chairs and a small table on the gallery, and were sitting outside with their dog. Since the gallery is so narrow, it was virtually impossible to reach their front door without them having to get up. They were talkative and cheerful people, quite happy to fill out the questionnaire. They were the only people who used the gallery for sitting outside; apart from the odd doormat or plant, it was empty. The area in front of the lift (between the lift and the stairway entrance) offered a bit more space for placing a couple of chairs and here sometimes people could be seen, sitting down and chatting. Because it is located between a corner in the facade, and the lift shaft, it is not very sunny, and quite windy. The latter also holds true for the gallery left of the lift: when calling on people, explaining the research project to them, one was often invited to come in, because it was so unpleasant to stand outside. Mind that this was in the beginning of September. On the indoor stairway itself, located in the centre of the building, people put out chairs or a table, but the scenery did not make a lively impression and during the data collection, no one was ever seen sitting there.

45

This chapter discusses the results of the survey i.e. the output of analyses carried out with SPSS. The data was gathered by a tutor from the architecture section of the WohNach project and myself. All in all, we spent about four days in each settlement, handing out questionnaires but also observing, taking photo’s, chatting to people, and gathering material on activities such as local newspapers and flyers. We were not objective since we were well informed about the settlements, especially about Koekoek-Spreeuw, since this is a the model projects selected for the WohNach project. We had already formed an opinion and certain expectations about it. This may have had an impact on the way conversations went and on what caught our eye.

First of all, the groups for measuring cohesion are discussed; which items were truly reliable, how they formed clusters or were used on their own, and which ones had to be exclude from the analysis. These measures for cohesion are used not only to compare the settlements, but also to establish to what extent the predicted confounding effect of particular factors were actually confirmed. For example, the effect of income on cohesion is considered. Secondly, we take a look at the socio-demographic data in order to assess to what extent the control group is truly a good match for the experimental group. Following that, the items that were included to check for possible confounding factors, are considered. By then it is possible to judge the validity of the output of the hypothesis tests, which is discussed last.

Please refer to table I for information on figures concerning distribution, collection, and non-response. Of the settlements for people over 55 Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren, all residents were called upon. For more detailed information on GWL-Terrein, please refer to table XX in the appendix.

Table I: distribution, collection, and non-response

Results


Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 3

Settlement Distribution Refusalstraight

away

Refusal bynew-

comers

Refusalbecause of

languagebarrier

Not in Collection Responserate

Koekoek-Spreeuw

100 9 1 - 10 70 70 %

DeVuurtoren24

75 9 2 1 3 37 49 %

GWL-Terrein

162 10 - 2 44 109 67 %

Total 337 28 3 3 56 216 64 %

Table I: distribution, collection, and non-response

24 on the top floor a plague of insects was combated with poison, so that the interviewers decided to ignore these apartments.


46

Scalability of the questionnaire as an instrument for measuring

social cohesionHere the scalability of the questionnaire is discussed, i.e. which items turned out to be useful and which did not and for what reasons.

This paragraph discusses the reliability of three out of five groups discussed in the description of the questionnaire. These are the groups that showed a level of reliability that makes it safe to conclude that the items all measure phenomena that point in the direction of the same construct, namely social cohesion. The items from the other groups (‘spontaneous’ and ‘conflict’) are discussed separately, in as far as they lead to statistically interesting results; they turned out not to be so reliable that one could consider them as a coherent cluster. To increase the robustness of the clusters, data from GWL-Terrein, where the same questionnaire was used, were included in the tests. Please refer to the table below for detailed statistical information on reliability.

When testing the reliability of the items on Integration, it turned out that, of the 12 original items, nine formed a cluster. The items are:

It is assumed that together, these items measure one dimension of social cohesion, namely to what extent residents consider their neighbourhood to be anonymous or not. High ratings indicate

The Clusters

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 4

Name of cluster Cronbach Alpha Number of items Range Mean Standarddeviation

N

Integration .8205 9 9 - 45 34.3351 7.0370 191

Together .8563 5 5 - 25 11.6280 4.7645 207

Help .7818 7 0 - 7 3.1720 2.1915 186

Table II: reliability

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 5

Strangers in the settlement immediately catch myattention

Vreemden die hier rondlopen vallen mijonmiddellijk op

I get along well with the people in this building Ik kan goed met de mensen in dit gebouwoverweg.

The people in this building hardly know each other De mensen in dit gebouw kennen elkaarnauwelijks

The residents lead separate lives De bewoners leven langs elkaar heen

For newcomers, it is really easy to get to knowother residents

Voor mensen die hier nieuw komen wonen, is hetmakkelijk om andere bewoners te leren kennen

I notice when I don’t see one of the residents for alonger period of time.

Wanneer ik langere tijd één van de bewoners nietzie, dan valt me dat op

This building is almost like a village, whereeverybody knows each other

Dit gebouw is bijna een soort dorp, waar iedereenelkaar kent

This area is not very consistent, socially Er is in deze buurt weinig samenhang tussen demensen

A certain community feeling prevails in this area In deze buurt heerst een soortgemeenschapsgevoel

Integration

Table II: reliability

47

cohesion. As mentioned before, this cluster is used not only to compare residents from the different settlements, but also to assess the connection between cohesion and several factors that were expected to be of a confounding nature such as number of children or marital status.

The Together cluster consists of items on activities that residents undertake:

The Cronbach Alpha of the Together cluster may be increased slightly if one particular item is left out2. Since the correlation between all items is high, all items were maintained. High values indicate cohesion.

The Help cluster consists of questions about the person one relies on in time of need. They had three answer options: “a neighbour”, “person or authority elsewhere”, or “nobody”. The seven items on Helping were recoded in such a way that “a neighbour” was scored as an indication for cohesion, even if respondents also ticked the box under “person or authority elsewhere”. Any other answer was interpreted as an indication for weaker cohesion. The group turned out to be a reliable measure, with a Cronbach Alpha that could not be increased by deleting items. A high score is an indicator of cohesion.

These three clusters are never integrated into a total sumscore of social cohesion, since I suspect that they measure slightly different dimensions. Instead they are always considered separately.

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 6

How often do you undertake things together with aco-resident?

Hoe vaak onderneemt u iets met eenmedebewoner?

How often do your neighbours visit you? Hoe vaak komen uw buren bij u op bezoek?

How often do you visit your neighbours? Hoe vaak gaat u bij uw buren op bezoek?

How often do you make outings together with yourneighbours?

Hoe vaak gaat u samen met uw buren op stap?

How many different neighbours do you visit fromtime to time?

Bij hoeveel verschillende buren gaat u af en toeop bezoek?

Together

2 namely: “How many different neighbours do you visit every once in a while?

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 7

Who has a spare key to your flat? Wie heeft een reserve sleutel van uw woning?

In case of illness, who do you ask for help? Wie vraagt u in geval van ziekte om hulp?

Who waters your plant when your on holiday? Wie geeft de planten water als u op vakantiebent?

Who do you sometimes ask to do an errand foryou?

Wie vraagt u wel eens om een boodschap voor ute doen?

If you need to be taken somewhere, who do youask for a ride?

Als u iemand nodig hebt die u ergens naartoebrengt, bij wie vraagt u dan om een lift?

If you realise, while cooking, that you have run outof some ingredient, who do you borrow it from?

Als u tijdens het koken merkt u iets niet in huisheeft, bij wie leent u dat dan?

If you need a tool for your DIY, who do you borrowit from?

Als u bij het klussen merkt dat het u ontbreekt aaneen stuk gereedschap, bij wie leent u dat dan?

Help

Results


48

The questionnaire also contained a question on the number of children and whether they live in Amersfoort, since this was expected to affect the reliance of residents on their neighbours. Although some remarks seemed to confirm this assumption (one respondent who refused to participate stated that: she likes the apartment, the environment, but that she is not close to her neighbours; “I have a large family, which is why I moved back to Amersfoort, to be closer to them”. (“Ik vind het een fijn huis, fijne omgeving. Ik ben niet zo met m’n buren. Ik heb een groten familie, daarom ben ik ook weer naar Amersfoort verhuisd, om dichterbij te zitten.”)), it turned out that the differences were not of statistical significance.

The items on greeting and chatting and on conflict-solving were not categorised into clusters, because their number was too small to run good reliability tests. They are used separately to test the hypothesis, just like the items on the number of friends and acquaintances, on visiting, on avoidance of other residents and on the estimation of the intensity of contacts.

Furthermore, some of these items were used as an internal validation of the questionnaire i.e. the effect (on Cronbach’s Alpha) of including them in the clusters mentioned above is considered. For example, including the items on “visiting” (“If I feel the need for some company, I call on a neighbour” and “If I feel the need for some company, I call on a friend or a relative”) into the Integration cluster does not lower the Alpha by very much. This is interpreted as a confirmation of this cluster being a reliable measure. The same holds true for the Together cluster: Cronbach Alpha is only lowered from .8563 to .8307. Including the item on perceived intensity of contacts (“Compared to other neighbourhoods, the amount of contact between neighbours in this building is less intensive, more intensive etc.”) in the Integration cluster actually increases the Alpha score.

Due to misformulation, three items on cohesion can be interpreted in various ways and were there-fore excluded from the analysis. Nearly all respondents disagreed with the statement “Sometimes I make a detour on the way to my apartment, to avoid meeting anyone.” (“Soms kies ik een andere weg naar huis om maar niemand tegen te komen”). This statement was apparently formulated too extremely. Also multi-interpretable is the statement “It is hard to be outside without someone starting a chat” (“Het is moeilijk om hier buiten te zijn zonder dat iemand een praatje komt maken.”). I formulated it that way, because I wanted to include a statement for those who perceive this chatting as negative, as something bothersome. However, it is not clear how to value a negating answer, so I decided to leave it out. Finally, respondents had difficulties estimating the number of ‘cliques’ in their settlement. Many of those who answered the question whether such ‘sub-groups’ exist with a ‘yes’, left the follow-up on the number of cliques open. Perhaps the word ‘sub-group’ is not so common as I thought it was, in any case, I decided not to use the data.

Having assessed the scalability of the questionnaire, I will now move on to discuss the proper results from the data gathered. For more details on the items, please refer to the paragraph on the description of the questionnaire and the appendices.

Single items

Expunged items

49

Confounding factors: socio-demographic dataThe questionnaire includes several items to assess the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. As usual, these were incorporated in order to check how good a match the control group was to the experimental group. They are listed below. Ratings are presented on the univariate distributions in the entire sample, of the distribution differentiated for the settlements, and finally results of statistical tests are given that may clarify any dependencies between the demographic vari-ables and the measures for cohesion. For the same reason, data from GWL-Terrein are mentioned whenever they add to an understanding of these ties.

The ratio female - male in the whole sample is 62% – 38%. This skewedness may be accounted for by the fact that half of the respondents in the sample are over 55 and in this age group, women are naturally in the majority.

Table III: sex

The fact that De Vuurtoren sample contains more women does not seem to be a problem, since running a Kruskal-Wallis test shows no significant difference between the ratings of men and women on the Integration-cluster: Chi2 = .446; p3 = 0.500. It does not follow from this sample that either men or women have a ‘cohesive disposition’ by nature.

Average age in Koekoek-Spreeuw, and De Vuurtoren is very similar: about 70 years (t = 3.66; df = 101).

Table IV: age

Because of this homogeneity, no statements can made about ties between social cohesion and age. The data from GWL-Terrein are not helpful in this respect, since the age groups in this settlement are very polarised, with all the elderly concentrated in one block, while the rest of the residents show very yuppy-like characteristics, so that any differences in strength of cohesion may be attributed to age, but also to a dozen other factors.

All respondents from Amersfoort (Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren) are Dutch.

Results

Sex

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 8

Settlement Female Male N

De Vuurtoren 56% 44% 36

Koekoek-Spreeuw 70% 30% 69

GWL-Terrein 60% 40% 105

Table III: sex

Age

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 9

Settlement N Mean SD

Koekoek-Spreeuw 68 68.49 8.0881

De Vuurtoren 35 69.09 7.4572

Total 103 68.69 7.8479

Table IV: age

Nationality

3 “p” is an indication of the chance that these figures are the results of mere coincidence. Social sciences usually consider a chance smaller than 5% to be significant (i.e. p < .05).


50

The distribution over most categories is fairly similar, although the Koekoek-Spreeuw sample con-tains more married than De Vuurtoren (43 % and 36 % respectively). The difference is not statistically significant (Pearson Chi-Square = 1.829; df = 1).

Table V: marital status

In terms of the relation between marital status and social cohesion, it can be said that the married and the widowed tend to score highest on the three clusters meaning that they contribute more the strength of cohesion in a settlement than singles. This effect is maintained even if GWL-Terrein respondents are filtered out of the sample, although differences are then no longer significant.

The educational background of the respondents of Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren is very mixed. Based on the answers to the open question on education, five categories were generated (elementary school, lower, middle and higher secondary school, and university). It seems that the education of Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren does not differ significantly (mean values of 2.5938 and 2.8696 respectively, standard deviations of 1.0998 and 1.1319; t =.902; df = 53; p = .371, testing two-tailed). However, 52 observations out of and N of 107, were missing values.

Level of education turned out to correlate negatively with strength of cohesion: respondents with a university degree consistently scored lower. If the settlements in Amersfoort and GWL-Terrein are considered separately the effect is not so strong, but results still point in the same direction.

When choosing the response categories for the item on income, the mean of this factor was underestimated, so that no information was retrieved on the distribution of the higher incomes. Of Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren, 48.0 and 37.9 % respectively chose the highest category (over fl.2,500 a month). Nevertheless, it can be stated that the income of Koekoek-Spreeuw respondents is slightly higher than that of De Vuurtoren respondents (Mean Ranks are 42.11 and 36.36 respectively; Mann-Whitney U = 691.500; p = .256). Part of this may be explained by the fact that single households have a significantly lower income than larger households (Mean Ranks are 63.21 and 104.71 respectively; Mann-Whitney U = 1957.000; p < .001).

For the reason mentioned above, it was not possible to draw conclusions about the ties between income and cohesion.

The average household size of the whole sample is 1.96, with an SD of 1.09.

The average household size for Koekoek-Spreeuw is 1.51, that of De Vuurtoren is 1.37. This difference is not significant (Mann-Whitney U = 982.500; p = .194).

According to Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, correlations between household size on the one hand and the clusters Integration, Together and Help on the other hand, are not significant. Please refer to table VI for detailed statistical information.

Education

Income

Household size

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 10

Settlement Single Co-habitation Married Divorced widowed

Koekoek-Spreeuw(N = 53)

15 % 9 % 43 % 5 % 28 %

De Vuurtoren(N = 36)

28 % 3 % 36 % 14 % 19 %

Total(N =101)

20 % 7 % 41 % 8 % 25 %

Table V: marital status

Marital status

51

Table VI: household size

Of both the Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren respondents, two people have a paid job, while this is true for over 70 % of the GWL-Terrein respondents.

Based on a one-way ANOVA, it can be concluded that Integration ratings differ significantly for people with paid jobs on the one hand and those who work voluntarily, are engaged in the household or otherwise (t-test; F = 8.329, df = 3; p < .001). The employed have the lowest score. The volunteers score highest, followed by those engaged in the household, and the rest-category. This difference is caused by the fact that nearly all employees belong to the GWL-Terrein population. If the settlements for people over 55 and GWL-Terrein are considered separately, the effect disappears. It can thus be concluded that this phenomenon is caused by a third factor other than occupation itself.

Table VII: occupation

Only 14 respondents opted for ‘village’; no one chose ‘countryside’. Apparently, many inhabitants of Amersfoort denounced their town (“kleine stad”) to be a city (“grote stad”). Since these respondents apparently do not differentiate between the two categories, this distinction is not suitable as a foundation of statements considering the rural urban background and its potential effect on social cohesion.

On average, De Vuurtoren respondents agree more strongly with the statement “the people who live here, are very different” than Koekoek-Spreeuw respondents. The difference is not significant, however: t = -1.261; df = 98; p = .210, testing two-tailed.

Results

Occupation

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 11

PearsonCorrelation

p(2-tailed)

N

Integration -.211 .055 83

Together -.124 .234 94

Help -.046 .680 83

Table VI: household size

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 12

Integration score SD N

Employed 31.0986 6.9553 71

Household 37.0278 6.9220 36

Volunteers 37.8333 5.6057 12

Otherwise 33.9359 7.2456 37

Table VII: occupationRural - urban history

Perceived social homogeneity

the people who live here, are verydifferent

in this building, a particular kind ofpeople live

Koekoek-Spreeuw 2.3125 SD = 1.5723 3.2188 SD = 1.6947

De Vuurtoren 1.9167 SD = 1.3810 3.6970 SD = 1.6861

Total 2.4279 SD = 1.4954 3.0098 SD = 1.6057

Table VIII: perceived social homogeneityTable VIII: perceived homogeneity


52

Regarding the other item used to measure the perceived homogeneity: “in this flat, a particular kind of people live”, De Vuurtoren respondent disagree more strongly than Koekoek-Spreeuw respondents. The difference is not significant either: t = 1.319; df = 95; p = .190, testing two-tailed.

On the whole, De Vuurtoren respondents seem to perceive the residents of their building as a relatively heterogeneous group of people.

According to Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, there is no significant relation between the level of Integration and the agreement with the above-mentioned statements on social homogeneity.

Based on the above information it can be concluded that Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren have a very similar social structure; the number of singles, marital status and perceived homogeneity are the only striking dissimilarities. As far as the influence of these characteristics on cohesion is considered, it can be said that non-singles score higher on Integration than singles. The effect of marital status points in the same direction, bearing in mind that the widowed show strong cohesion. Perceived social homogeneity does not seem to have an unequivocal impact on cohesion either. I therefore consider it justifiable to compare the two settlements.

Other confounding factorsApart from the usual effects of socio-demographic characteristics, the research design controlled the effect of other confounding factors, specific for social cohesion.

Old friendships also contribute to the strength of cohesion found in a settlement. The marketing activities of the building society (SCW) for Koekoek-Spreeuw were targeted at seniors living in one-family homes in the district of Liendert. In doing so, they hoped to generate a flow of occupants from the family houses to the new settlement, so that young families could move into the existing houses. And indeed nearly half of them already lived in that particular area, before moving to Koekoek-Spreeuw, compared to less than a fifth of De Vuurtoren respondents.

As a matter of fact, Koekoek-Spreeuw respondents agree more strongly with the statement that they have known many residents for a long time:

Table IX: existing contacts before moving to the settlement

However, the differences are not significant. t = 1.402; df = 72.195; p (two-tailed) .184. Furthermore, asked about the cause for contacts, only four Koekoek-Spreeuw respondents mentioned existing friendships.

This confounding factor contributes to the so-called pioneer effect, i.e. social cohesion that can be found in new settlements, where all residents have just moved in and face similar problems. In this case, both areas are fairly new: there were handed over in 1997, and most of the current occupants moved in shortly afterwards. Only four of De Vuurtoren respondents and two of the

Koekoek-Spreeuw respondents moved in after 1997.

Résumé

Existing contacts

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 14

N Mean SD


De Vuurtoren 33 3.9091 1.3776

Table IX: existing contacts

Date of moving in

53

This if one of the problems captured under the heading of ‘pioneer-effect’. Results from the whole data-set confirm the impact: out of a total of 116 respondents who confirmed there being construction deficiencies, only 24 denied that this had, in some way or other, led to neighbourly contacts. Nearly all of De Vuurtoren respondents confirmed that there had been deficiencies. By contrast, only half of the Koekoek-Spreeuw respondents stated that this was the case, so that in case stronger cohesion is

found in Koekoek-Spreeuw, this cannot be traced to construction deficiencies.

People who opt for a settlement with a special concept may be relatively sociable by nature. It turned out that expectations of neighbourliness are hardly ever mentioned though. Residents tend to point out practical reasons such as the floor plan of the apartment and the number of rooms, the fact that they do not have to go up and down stairs anymore etc.. An argument that may be interpreted as ‘social’ is the apparent appreciation of the fact that only elderly live in these blocks. However, this can also be explained as a wish for peace and quiet (since some also expressed a more negative “no

noisy children around”) as much as a wish for being amongst peers.

If residents happen to be quite sociable, this contributes also to the strength of cohesion found in a settlement. The two items used to assess the importance of this factor (“I do not need any contact with other residents” and “I find it important to have good contacts in my neighbourhood”) have a correlation of .34. High ratings indicate a stronger need.

Table X: need for contact; negative item

Table XI: need for contact; positive item

Both items correlate significantly with all three measures of cohesion, and it can therefore be concluded that desire for contact indeed plays a role in the development of social cohesion.

Results

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 15



De Vuurtoren 37 3.6486 1.4571

I do not needany contact toother residents

Total 213 3.8028 1.3970

Tabelle X: need for contact; first item

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 16



De Vuurtoren 37 4.6486 .9780

I find it importantto have goodcontactsin myneighbourhood

Total 215 4.5535 .9791

Tabelle XI: need for contact; second item

Construction deficiencies

Selective effect of the settlement

Need for contact


54

Considering the overall ratings, it can be said that most of the residents of both settlements find it important to have social contacts in their neighbourhood. Although none of the differences are significant, results from both items give reason to believe that respondents from De Vuurtoren have the strongest need for neighbourly contacts.

Sometimes answers given to the questions on motivation for moving in were also a source of information on sociability. As one resident from De Vuurtoren put it: “I like to keep myself to myself, I talk to people but I don’t like visiting them too often” („ik ben graag op mij zelf ik praat wel met de mensen maar ik kom niet graag te veel bij de mensen“).

An argument stated once or twice, explaining why one was not keen on neighbourly ‘friendships’, was that there is always a chance that one is misunderstood in some way or that a row may develop, and that one can never really avoid ones neighbours. People prefer to keep the acquaintance on a superficial level rather than to risk such tricky situations where one of the parties ends up moving away.

The number of children was important for reasons of confounding the Help-cluster as a measure of cohesion: if one has children living nearby, one would probably rely less on neighbours, this bearing no direct relation to the spatial structure. It turned out that 70% and 66% of the respondents of Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren respectively have children or acquaintances living nearby that they can turn to in time of need. This difference is not of statistical significance. As far as the influence on the Help cluster is concerned, although some respondents named reasons for moving that point in the direction of ties between the two variables, e.g. that they moved to Amersfoort in order to live closer to their children, and although those who do have ‘children nearby’ did have a slightly lower rating of the Help cluster, the difference does not come close to statistical significance, so that I do not think it to be of importance to pursue this track.

Comparison of De Vuurtoren and Koekoek-Spreeuw does not seem to be jeopardised by any confounding factors other than the slight differences in the socio-demographic make-up described above. Koekoek-Spreeuw residents’ stated need for neighbourly contact is even relatively low, and they did not have to cope with that many building deficiencies.

Résumé

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 17

Integration Together Help

Pearson Correlation .285** .252** .267**

p (2-tailed) .006 .011 .012

I find it importantto have good contacts in myneighbourhood

N 90 101 88

Pearson Correlation .436** .500** .340**

p (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001

I do not needany contact with other residents

N 90 100 88

**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Tabelle XII: need for contact; correlation with cohesion

Table XII: need for contact; correlation with cohesion

55

Dependent variables: the perception of spatial characteristicsIn order to strengthen my case – that the provision of semi-private spaces create better opportunities for social cohesion to develop – the questionnaire contained items that try to establish where spontaneous encounters actually take place.

While analysing the data, I realised that the matrix where activities and places had to be connected to each other, was unsuitable for real statistical analyses, for which reason only the frequencies of the answers are discussed here. As a reminder: the activities were ‘coming and going’; ‘conversation’; ‘sitting down’; or ‘doing chores’ and the places were: the letterbox, the dustbins, the parking lot, the front door, outside by the entrance, the hall, the lift, and the stairway.

None of the areas mentioned are ever used for sitting or doing chores, so those categories are not elaborated on. When comparing the frequency of ‘coming and going’ with that of ‘conversation’, several differences can be observed: waste bins are consistently typified as an area just for coming and going and - to a lesser extent - this also holds true for the letter box area and the stairways. The parking lot is more a “coming and going” place than a “conversation” place for most residents from Koekoek-Spreeuw but not for those from De Vuurtoren. “Outside by the entrance” is consistently and equally typified as a place for “conversation” and for “coming and going”. Front doors are generally considered to be as much a place for conversation as they are for “coming and going”. The entrance hall is considered to be a place for conversation by residents of both Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren. Sometimes respondents would skip items concerning certain areas even though it was clear that this area existed in the particular settlement.

Apart from the matrix, several loose items also served to assess the perception of spatial characteris-tics. It turned out that the number of people who stated that they felt that there was no place to sit outdoors was negligible in both settlements. Then, when considering only those respondents who have a semi-private balcony, no ties were found between frequency of use and cohesion.

An item to measure chatting behaviour tries to establish whether residents perceive any spaces or places that allow one to stop and chat (“zijn er bepaalde plaatsen in of om de flat waar u regelmatig blijft staan om een praatje te maken”). Respondents living in dwellings that were categorised as soft-edged perceive slightly less opportunity for chance encounters than those living in hard-edged apartments.

Table XIII: perception of spatial characteristics

Results

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 18

“Soft edge” “Hard edge” Koekoek-Spreeuw

De Vuurtoren

No opportunity perceived 13

25.0%

10

20.0%

17

26.2%

6

16.2%

Opportunity perceived 39

75.0%

40

80.0%

48

73.8%

31

83.8%

N 52 50 65 37

Table XIII: perception of spatial characteristics


56

Dependant variables: social cohesionIn the paragraphs on confounding factors it was established that it is justifiable to compare residents of De Vuurtoren and Koekoek-Spreeuw, since neither the socio-demographic characteristics nor other potentially confounding factors give reason to believe that the strength of cohesion is influenced by these factors – if at all – in any way different from one settlement to the other.

The basic idea of this project was to investigate the effect of soft edges on social cohesion. Nearly all dwellings in Koekoek-Spreeuw can be categorised as soft-edged. The dwellings on the ground floor of Koekoek-Spreeuw form an exception. Since the chances that the residents of these ground floor dwellings differ from their neighbours in a way that may explain weaker cohesion are so small, I decided to allocate them to the hard-edged control group, together with respondents of De Vuurtoren. Nevertheless, I also mention the means for the settlements as such.

Whenever we find that people who live in soft-edged apartments have higher ratings on the measures of cohesion, than residents of hard-edged apartments, this can be interpreted as an argument in favour of the hypothesis.

The table below shows the mean ratings and standard deviations (SD) of the soft- and hard-edged groups on those clusters that turned out to be good measures of social cohesion. Furthermore, results are included of Koekoek-Spreeuw and De Vuurtoren before reallocation to the two categories. It turns out that in accordance with the hypothesis, the ‘soft-edged’ selection of observations consist-ently shows the highest value on all three measures.

Table XIV: social cohesion

Please refer to the bar diagrams A to C for a visual representation of these results.

Not all differences are significant: the difference between the rating of ‘Together’ by the soft-edged group does not differ in a statistically significant manner from that of the hard-edged group. Please refer to table XV for detailed statistical information information.

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 19

“Soft Edge” “Hard Edge” Koekoek-Spreeuw

De Vuurtoren GWL-Terrein Total

Integration 37.8723SD =

6.0167N = 47

34.9302SD = 5.3336

N = 43

37.1167SD = 5.8573

N = 60

35.1667SD = 5.7361

N = 30

32.4356SD = 7.4705

N =101

34.3351SD =

7.0370N = 191

Together 13.5192SD =

4.6209N = 52

11.6939SD = 5.4475

N = 49

13.0769SD = 5.0600

N = 65

11.8333SD = 5.1353

N = 36

10.6698SD = 4.2308

N = 106

11.6280SD =

4.7645N = 207

Help 3.8409SD

=1.9523N = 44

2.2045SD = 1.9118

N = 44

3.4909SD = 2.1592

N = 55

2.2424SD = 1.7326

N = 33

3.4909SD = 2.1592

N = 55

3.1720SD =

2.1915N = 186

Table XIV: social cohesion

Please refer to the bar diagrams### for a visual representation of these results.

[insert bar diagrams]

Not all differences are significant: the difference between the rating of ‘Together’ by the soft-edgedgroup does not differ in a statistically significant manner from that of the hard-edged group. Pleaserefer to the table below### for detailed statistical information information.

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 20

t df p

Integration -2.446 88 .016

Together 1.811 94.3 .073

Help 3.972 86 .000

Table XV: statistical significanceof the clusters

Greeting and chatting

The following table shows the ratings of the frequency of chatting and greeting, ranging from 2 to 10,high ratings indicating cohesion.

In accordance with the hypotheses, residents from the settlements categorised as soft-edged, showmore greeting and chatting behaviour than those in the hard-edged settlements:

Space


confounders

Table XV: statistical significance of the clusters

The Clusters

57

Results

Scores on the Anonymity cluster

of the experimental groups

soft edge or hard edge?

hardsoft

Me

an

RA

NO

NT

OT

38,5

38,0

37,5

37,0

36,5

36,0

35,5

35,0

34,5

Scores on the Together cluster



hardsoft

Me

an

SA

MT

OT

14,0

13,5

13,0

12,5

12,0

11,5

11,0Scores on the Help cluster



hardsoft

Me

an

HU

LP

TO

T

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0Diagram C: comparing Help figures of soft vs. hard edged dwellings

Diagram B: comparing Together figures of soft vs. hard edged dwellings

Diagram A: comparing Integration figures of soft vs. hard edged dwellings


58

The following table shows the ratings of the frequency of chatting and greeting, ranging from 2 to 10, high ratings indicating cohesion.

In accordance with the hypotheses, residents from the settlements categorised as soft-edged, show more greeting and chatting behaviour than those in the hard-edged settlements:

Table XVI: greeting and chatting

However, ratings of chatting behaviour do not differ significantly between residents of hard and soft edged dwellings (t = 1.438; df = 91.853; p (2-tailed) = .154), the same holds true if the settlements are compared(t = -1.915; df = 51.765; p = .058).

The idea was that, firstly, cohesive neighbourhoods experience more conflicts while secondly, they tend to solve these among themselves.

It turned out that the number of residents who experience conflicts does not differ significantly between Koekoek-Spreeuw versus De Vuurtoren. Selecting those respondents that do experience conflicts, and considering the way these are solved, solely using the item “If I am annoyed by my neighbours, I solve this through the caretaker” (“Als mij iets aan mijn buren stoort, dan los ik dat via de huismeester op”) leads to significant differences, when comparing the settlements (Chi-Square = 9.5555; df = 2; p = .008), but not when comparing the categories soft edge versus hard edge. A low rank means weak agreement.

Table XVII: conflict solving through the caretaker

When comparing the soft versus hard edged groups, only values of the item “If my neighbours cause trouble, I call the police” (“Als mijn buren veel overlast veroorzaken, bel ik de politie”) differ significantly (Mann-Whitney U = 25.000; p = .077). A low rank means weak agreement.

Table XVIII: conflict solving through the police

Apparently, residents from De Vuurtoren tend to solve conflicts among themselves more than those from Koekoek-Spreeuw.

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 22

“Caretaker” Koekoek-Spreeuw De Vuurtoren

Mean Rank 35.90 22.00

N 15 10

Table XVII: conflict solving through the caretaker

When comparing the soft versus hard edged groups, only values of the item “If my neighbours causetrouble, I call the police” (“Als mijn buren veel overlast veroorzaken, bel ik de politie”) differ significantly(Mann-Whitney U = 25.000; p = .077). A low rank means weak agreement.

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 23

“Police” “Soft Edge” “Hard Edge”

Mean Rank 14.91 10.46

N 11 13

Table XVIII: conflict solvingthrough the police

Apparently, residents from De Vuurtoren tend to solve conflicts among themselves more than thosefrom Koekoek-Spreeuw.

Open questions and single items

This paragraph discussed loose items that were not allocated to any clusters, and the information thatcould be filtered out of the open questions.

The mean ratings of the “number of people known by name” do not differ significantly for the hard andshort edged groups. This is caused by the extremely great variance. The differences between thesettlements never reach a significant level either. Again, note the high levels of variance.

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 21

“Soft Edge” “Hard Edge” Koekoek-Spreeuw De Vuurtoren Total

mean 8.9107 8.4200 8.9130 8.2432 8.3810

SD 1.5049 1.9493 1.3905 2.2036 1.9263

N 56 50 69 37 210

Table XVI: greeting and chatting

However, ratings of chatting behaviour do not differ significantly between residents of hard and softedged dwellings (t = 1.438; df = 91.853; p (2-tailed) = .154), the same holds true if the settlements arecompared(t = -1.915; df = 51.765; p = .058).

Conflict solving

The idea was that, firstly, cohesive neighbourhoods experience more conflicts while secondly, theytend to solve these among themselves.

It turned out that the number of residents who experience conflicts does not differ significantlybetween Koekoek-Spreeuw versus De Vuurtoren. Selecting those respondents that do experienceconflicts, and considering the way these are solved, solely using the item “If I am annoyed by myneighbours, I solve this through the caretaker” (“Als mij iets aan mijn buren stoort, dan los ik dat via dehuismeester op”) leads to significant differences, when comparing the settlements (Chi-Square =9.5555; df = 2; p = .008), but not when comparing the categories soft edge versus hard edge. A lowrank means weak agreement.

Greeting and chat-ting

Conflict solving

59

Open questions and single items

This paragraph discussed loose items that were not allocated to any clusters, and the information that could be filtered out of the open questions.

The mean ratings of the “number of people known by name” do not differ significantly for the hard and short edged groups. This is caused by the extremely great variance. The differences between the settlements never reach a significant level either. Again, note the high levels of variance.

Table XIX: number of friends and people known by name

Neither the soft and hard edged groups nor the two settlements differ significantly in their judgement of the contacts within their settlement as more or less intense than those in other settlements they know.

The residents were asked whether any activities are organised (“Worden er wel eens activiteiten georganiseerd door de bewoners?”), and if yes, whether they participate. The majority of the residents of both settlements stated that resident initiated activities take place. Therefore, the mere frequency of self-initiated activities is not suitable for confirming or rejecting the theses. If we use a filter, selecting only those residents who confirmed that activities take place, and take a look at the second item (Do you participate? – “Zoja, doet u daaraan mee?”), we find that participation does not differ significantly. When asked about their reasons for staying on, especially residents of De Vuurtoren came up with social motives, such as ‘neighbourly contacts’, and ‘the atmosphere’.

Résumé

Results from the clustered items, especially those gathered using the Integration and the Help cluster, unambiguously confirm the hypothesis. The items on greeting and chatting point in the same direction. The other, loose items lead to results that are harder to interpret, since they are often statistically not significant. Furthermore, a comparison of the settlements sometimes leads to more extreme values than a comparison of the categories hard versus soft edge.

Results

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 24

“Soft Edge” “Hard Edge” Koekoek-Spreeuw De Vuurtoren Total

Mean 16.59 14.54 16.60 15.12 18.65

SD 15.17 9.35 13.13 9.94 17.69

known byname

N 34 54 180 43 23

Mean 7.04 5.70 5.22 5.91 8.16

SD 8.36 4.47 6.04 4.60 9.71

friends

N 28 53 170 44 19

Table XIX: number of friend and people known by name

Neither the soft and hard edged groups nor the two settlements differ significantly in their judgement ofthe contacts within their settlement as more or less intense than those in other settlements they know.

The residents were asked whether any activities are organised (“Worden er wel eens activiteitengeorganiseerd door de bewoners?”), and if yes, whether they participate. The majority of the residentsof both settlements stated that resident initiated activities take place. Therefore, the mere frequency ofself-initiated activities is not suitable for confirming or rejecting the theses. If we use a filter, selectingonly those residents who confirmed that activities take place, and take a look at the second item (Doyou participate? – “Zoja, doet u daaraan mee?”), we find that participation does not differ significantly.When asked about their reasons for staying on, especially residents of De Vuurtoren came up withsocial motives, such as ‘neighbourly contacts’, and ‘the atmosphere’.

Résumé

Discussion

Conclusions

The principles described by Gehl cannot only be used in the construction of new residential areas butare also applicable to the improvement of existing buildings. Future research should not focus entirelyon new settlements but should include urban renewal and its potential for ‘softening the edges’, so tospeak, by establishing well-designed resting areas in front of houses. On a more abstract level, onecould say that efforts should be made to differentiate the entrance zones of residential buildingscreating not only semi-public but also semi-private spaces. Examples of such measures can be founde.g. in Hellersdorf, Berlin and Solothurn, Switzerland. On the latter residential estate, the buildingswere upgraded by a re-designing of the facades: extensions from the private space into the semi-public domain were made through conservatory-like balconies, using warmer materials. On the groundfloor, the apartments were connected directly to the outdoor space though a stairway. (Kennedy &Kennedy, 1997).

[insert pictures]

61

As far as socio-demographic and other confounding factors are concerned, although they did sometimes show a significant effect on the clusters used to measure social cohesion, the mean ratings of the settlements were mostly very similar, thus showing how well they were paired.

Considering the sample as a whole i.e. including respondents from GWL-Terrein, conclusions can be drawn on the impact of social structure on cohesion. It seems that ‘owning’ (in contrast to renting), being employed and being better educated, all correlate negatively with cohesion. It may very well be that the effect of education, the potential effect of income and owner versus rental tenure and can all be accounted for by the variable ‘occupation’ i.e. that the mere amount of time spent in the settlement is a strong predictor of cohesion. This would mean that using the variables ‘ownership’ or ‘education’ as indicators of cohesion is not legitimate. For the variables nationality and for urban background it was not possible to establish the effect on the cohesion clusters. The effect on cohesion of the other characteristics (sex, age, occupation, and perceived social homogeneity) never reached statistical significance. The possible effect of these factors was ruled out by the fact that – apart from rural - urban background, which was not analysable due to a formulation mistake – the settlements had similar mean ratings of all items.

Among the other confounding variables, a significant effect on cohesion could be observed for the “need for contact” while the majority of respondents confirmed that building deficiencies are often a cause for contacts. The settlements had similar mean ratings of all confounding items, which ruled out the effect of the confounding factors. Koekoek-Spreeuw‘s low rating of prevalence of building deficiencies and on need for contact makes it even less likely that stronger cohesion is caused by either of these.

On the other hand, several statistically significant differences could be observed when comparing the ratings of soft- and hard-edged dwellings. In particular, the three clusters ‘Integration’, ‘Together’ and ‘Help’ consistently showed stronger social cohesion for those dwellings categorised as soft-edged. Then the residents from the soft-edged dwellings show more greeting and chatting behaviour than those in the hard-edged settlements. Countering the hypothesis, it turned out that residents from the hard-edged dwellings tend to solve conflicts among themselves more than those from the soft-edged dwellings. Furthermore – when asked about their reasons for staying on –residents of the hard-edged dwellings especially came up with social motives, such as ‘neighbourly contacts’ and ‘the atmosphere’. Participation in arranged activities does not differ significantly in either group. This could be interpreted in favour of the hypothesis: the differences in social cohesion cannot be explained by social arrangements that stimulate cohesion; instead, some other, more spontaneous dynamic is at work here.

In an effort to build an empirical bridge between theories on territoriality and Gehl’s practical sugges-tions on entrance design, I tried to analyse the data gathered using items on the use of particular spaces. The bridge proved rather wobbly, but I did not want to keep the results from you, as they may instigate improvements in the design of the study. What is more, they are not in line with the hypothesis. The dwellings were categorised according to more or less objective features i.e. whether they had a semi-private zone as described in this study. To my surprise, the number of people who stated that they felt that there was no place to sit outdoors was negligible in both settlements. Remember that residents from De Vuurtoren do not have a balcony at their disposal. Perhaps perceiving an opportunity is different from actually seizing it. Making things even more confusing, respondents living in dwellings that were categorised as soft-edged perceive slightly less opportunity for chance encounters than those living in soft-edged apartments. Finally, when only those respond-ents who have a semi-private balcony are considered, no ties were found between frequency of use

Discussion



62

and cohesion. This undermines the idea that semi-private zones strengthen social cohesion because of the opportunity they offer for chance encounters, in which case those who live in soft-edged dwellings should perceive better opportunities for being outside, better opportunities for meeting neighbours and use this space more intensely. It is difficult to say how these results relate to the stronger cohesion found in the soft-edged dwellings, and to the fact that the residents of these dwellings show more chatting and greeting behaviour. Perhaps it is best to conclude that the method did not fit the research question i.e. whether neighbours are more socially cohesive because they spend more time outside their private territory, is best established using simple observatory methods.

A result that leaves room for some optimism in this respect is formed by the activities respondents list when asked about what actually takes place in the semi-private area. One Koekoek-Spreeuw resident gave a model answer, stating that on her bridge, she engages in “any activity that would normally take place indoors: eating drinking etc. reading1”. This is in complete accordance with Gehl’s criteria that activities can flow freely from in to outdoors.

Finally, a couple of remarks from respondents made it clear to me that one should always be careful not to overrate ‘social cohesion’ and avoid moralising. As Jacobs (1961) put it: “a certain degree of contacts is useful or enjoyable; but you do not want them in your hair. And they do not want you in theirs either.” (p. 56). Some respondents read disrespect in the questionnaire for those who are not keen on neighbourliness, and others expressed a fear of friendships that may fail at some point and then disturb the social environment in an irreversible manner. This result also speaks in favour of ‘soft edges’, and not ‘communal rooms’. Designing settlements is about ‘creating possibilities’ instead of restricting, about giving people the freedom to, at least in part, determine how to use their built environment (Gehl, 1987).

This chapter also serves as a disclaimer; it discusses factors that restrict the validity or reliability of the findings of this investigation. In general, territorial functioning is an open system that responds to exogenous input (Taylor & Brower, 1985) and the way territoriality functions in the semi-private arena is therefore also shaped by the overarching social and cultural context. This means that the results discussed in this study may not apply to territorial functioning in contexts that differ from the middle class urban environment in Amersfoort.

FormulationThe quote illustrates a problem all designers of questionnaires have to deal with: to make them more reliable, you implement a certain repetition of your items. Unfortunately this may have annoyed the more attentive and critical respondent...

Due to inattentiveness during the development of the questionnaire, certain formulations were not as clear as they could have been. Furthermore, I did not inform myself in detail on certain situational characteristics of the settlements. These conditions made it harder for the respondents to fill out the questionnaire and may have discouraged some residents from participating, resulting in increased non-response.

To be more precise, the matrix that was set up to determine what kind of activities take place in different areas turned out not to suit its purpose very well. The categories of activities did not appeal to the reference framework of the respondents, i.e. the locations mentioned did not match the real circumstances (e.g. residents from Koekoekstraat do not have a private balcony). Nevertheless, the way this matrix was filled out by respondents from GWL-Terrein did show a certain block-specific consistency, so that one is led to believe that it does make sense to give respondents such a task. In future, it may be better to adjust questionnaires precisely to entrance situations and to let people

1 „alles wat er normaal in huis gebeurt. Eten, drinken enz. enz, lezen“2”all those questions on whether you know people, they made me go berserk!”

“...al die vragen over of je mensen kent, ik werd er helemaal ture-luurs van!”2

63

describe in their own words what kind of activities go on in these areas. Another strategy that may result in helpful information is to ask residents for a description of the entrance area; it would be interesting to find out what they consider part of this area, where zones begin and where they end.

The item on motivation for moving to the settlement with the heading “having to do with the people” sometimes led to confusion: many respondents thought this to be a silly question since “they didn’t know the people before they moved there”. Other respondents did express the expectations they once had about their future neighbours. More effort should have been made to make clear that this was the kind of answer aimed at.

Due to inconsistencies in the terminology - i.e. sometimes the word ‘building’ was used, at other times ‘the neighbourhood’ - some of the statements may have been answered, thinking of the proper building block, while others were interpreted as referring to the whole neighbourhood, including surrounding blocks. Whenever settlements consist of more than one block, even more attention should be given to such definitions.

Non-responseWhenever I got the chance to talk to people who did not want to participate, I tried to pose questions on their impression of the settlement, and how they got along with other residents, in order to make a very cautious estimation of the bias cause by non-response, of the opinions of those hidden in the non-response.

One of the characteristics of a cohesive neighbourhood is the fact that residents identify with their neighbourhood. Someone who identifies with her neighbourhood is probably more likely to participate in an investigation such as this, than someone who does not. For this reason, it is quite likely that the non-respondents in this investigation form a specific group in terms of their integration in the neighbourhood and therefore in their potential contribution to the strength of the cohesion3. Another group of non-respondents not likely to be well integrated are the new-comers. They were reluctant to fill out the questionnaire, feeling they could not really answer the questions on neighbourly contacts.

A third segment of non-response consists of the respondents who were annoyed by the fact that the questionnaire differed from what they had expected after reading the cover sheet that introduced the survey as a project on living satisfaction (“woontevredenheid”) and neighbourly contacts. When they realised that most of the questions discussed the latter issue, while the first was of minor importance, they felt betrayed and were not motivated to complete the questionnaire. Especially GWL-Terrein residents made critical remarks of this kind. To avoid such feelings of frustration, it would have been wiser to include more open questions on general positive or negative remarks on the quality of living.

SeasonsSeasonal effects are of influence on those social interactions that occur outdoors. Since the crux of this project is to facilitate cohesion by shaping semi-private zones outdoors, one should be aware of the fact that the results were influenced by the time of year the data collection took place. In Koekoek-Spreeuw, for example, the effect of the spatial structure on social behaviour will be more

2 This is not necessarily the case. One respondent could not find the time to fill out the quesionnaire completely, she is a busy person, among other reasons because of the contacts she has in the settlement.

Discussion


64

salient in summer than in winter because the architectural strategies under investigation are largely dependent on what happens outdoors. Certain spatial structures need nice weather to be of any effect. Ideally, one would collect data different times of year.

Suggestions for improvement of the research designAlthough the design of this project was quite straightforward so that many confounding factors could be ruled out, uncertainty remains as to the real connection between interaction in semi-private zones and social cohesion. It would be interesting to categorise respondents according to their observable territorial behaviour. The conclusions of the investigation could gain meaning considerably if strength of cohesion is connected to the amount and quality of time spent in semi-private zones.

What may also be considered in future research of this kind, concerning precision in formulating the question and better preparation, is what goes on in zonal territories other than in the entrance area. To be more concrete: this investigation did not consider what goes on at the other side of Koekoek-Spreeuw where there are private balconies and gardens, for which reason no statement can be made about the role these structures play in the development of social cohesion.

65

The hypothesis of this research project was to a great extent confirmed: respondents living in dwellings rated as soft-edged appear to be more integrated in their neighbourhood, they undertake more with their neighbours, and they rely on them more readily in time of need in comparison with respondents living in dwellings rated as hard-edged. The two populations were very similar in a socio-demographic sense while the social life in both settlements is equally institutionalised through the presence of a caretaker and the existence of a communal room. Other confounding factors such as the pioneer-effect, need for contact or expectations about the sociability of their neighbours could also be ruled out. Another result in favour of the thesis is that the results on the Together cluster and on ‘number of friends’ do not seem to be affected to the same extent by the spatial structure as the other ratings. This is in line with the working definition of cohesion as something that is made out by chance encounters and other dynamics, more spontaneous than institutional or formal ‘togetherness’ or even friendship (Gehl, 1987; Jacobs, 1961).

I think it is justified to conclude that the development of social cohesion in a settlement is indeed facilitated by the semi-private zone in soft-edged dwellings. Linking results from the data to the theory points to a ‘chain’ of reasons that connect in a temporal and causal fashion:

In Koekoek-Spreeuw there is a space available outside the dwelling that is neither semi-public nor private and there is no great barrier between in and outdoors (such as a lift or staircase). This enables the indoor-outdoor-flow of activities that Gehl considers to be desirable if neighbourliness is to be facilitated. The answers residents give when asked what activities they engage in on their balconies show that this flow actually takes place: these are mostly activities that would normally take place indoors. The affluent marking of areas in the semi-private zone suggests that the occupants have indeed successfully appropriated this space; they behave in a territorial way, so to speak. The fact that ground floor units (which are rated as hard-edged) are accessed directly from the street has obviously resulted in the feeling that this space is entirely public; the occupants do not use it. And so we exposed another criteria for soft-edgedness: namely demarcating the semi-private from the semi-public zone. A transitional zone between the semi-public and private space that can be appropriated invites residents to spend more time outside the private space and thus offers better opportunities for spontaneous encounters with neighbours.

Referring to Altman’s theory, the soft edges ‘work’ because they offer the opportunity for people to meet without feelings of privacy being violated: neither of the communicating parties has to give up privacy and because interaction does not take place in a completely communal space, there is still some kind of intimacy. At the same time these semi-private spaces offer the possibility to assert oneself by means of decoration, so that it becomes a more personal place. This might add to the feeling of safety.

In the chapter on theory, I wrote that ‘communicative’ architecture may be an architecture that a) gives dwellers a clear idea of the residential group they belong to, while b) offering them plenty of opportunity to interact with these people. To my regret, the information retrieved on residents’ percep-tion of spatial characteristics could not be used to test these ideas. Where data could be analysed, they did not confirm that semi-private zones influence social-cohesion through chance encounters. However, the method of data-gathering did not suit its purpose very well. Non-participatory observa-tion would have been a more straightforward approach to establish what kind of interaction goes on in the semi-private zones.

The presence of other people, activities, events, inspiration and stimulation comprise one of the most important qualities of public spaces altogether. Therefore, an architects first concern should be to create objects that offer oppor-tunities to meet, see and hear other people (Gehl, 1987)

Conclusions



66

The principles described by Gehl cannot only be used in the construction of new residential areas but are also applicable to the improvement of existing buildings. Future research should not focus entirely on new settlements but should include urban renewal and its potential for ‘soften-ing the edges’, so to speak, by establishing well-designed resting areas in front of houses. On a more abstract level, one could say that efforts should be made to differentiate the entrance zones of residential buildings creating not only semi-public but also semi-private spaces. Examples of such measures can be found e.g. in Hellersdorf, Berlin and Solothurn, Switzerland. On the latter residential estate, the buildings were upgraded by a re-designing of the facades: extensions from the private space into the semi-public domain were made through conservatory-like balconies, using warmer materials. On the ground floor, the apart-ments were connected directly to the outdoor space though a stairway. (Kennedy & Kennedy, 1997).

This study provided the WohNach project with a terminol-ogy and research findings that proved to be of value for its strengthened focus on the meaning of open spaces and transitional zones. The physical structure of the envi-ronment is an essential precondition for social interaction in residential areas. I feel that right now, policies to encourage social cohesion are restricted to institutional instruments such as ‘quartiersmanagement’ (neighbour-hood social management).

(f)ormal types of local city organisations are frequently assumed by planners and even by some social workers to grow in direct, com-mon-sense fashion out of announcements of meetings the presence of meeting rooms, and the existence of problems of obvious public concern. Perhaps they grow so in suburbs and towns. They do not grow so in cities. (Jane Jacobs, 1961, p. 57)

I hope that research of this kind this may widen the focus to a more holistic approach that also considers the potential of spatial instruments or, as Gehl put it, recognises the preconditional character of spatial structure for the ‘life between buildings’.

Potential of urban Renewal for the creation of soft edges: Exemplary projects in Solothurn, Switzerland (top and middle, before and after renewal); and Berlin (below)Source: Kennedy & Haas (1993).

67

So what have we learned from this investigation? Can we instruct the architect and the urban planner to create semi-private areas wherever they can and expect the residents to be happier? Naturally, this modest attempt to study the relationship between spatial structures and social behaviour can by no means explain the complexities of reality. Furthermore, “planning aims and principles go hand in hand with values” ( F. Choay, cited in Living Cities, p. 121, 1984) so that we have to ask ourselves what our values are before we try to force them onto occupants.

Designing urban areas is all about creating possibilities or destroying opportunities. Decision-makers in this field should have in mind that “people need the possibility of self-determination, of making their own choice”. Therefore I plea for a design of urban areas that is not only ‘communicative’ but also ‘flexible’ (Herzog, 1992) in that opportunities for chance encounters are offered, while also providing in the needs of those who have no desire for such interaction. More generally speaking, occupants should have the opportunity to allocate functions to their built environment according to their own needs. Provide them with the basic ingredients, instead of the microwave-meal. As Broady (cited in Living Cities, p. 62) puts it:

(Architecture’s) prime social function is to facilitate people’s doing what they wish, or are obliged to do. The architect achieves this by designing a physical structure that is able to meet known and predictable activities as conveniently and economically as possible. However, human behaviour is like runny jelly – not formless, but wobbly and changeable; and since he cannot predict its changes, the designer has to also allow as best as he can for such new demands as may come to be made of his buildings.

Another argument in favour of so-called flexible housing is that it is inherently sustainable: waves of new household forms with different preferences and needs would not require replacing entire neighbourhoods that become useless just because their floorplan is out of date (Haas-Arndt, 1999). Furthermore, giving occupants room for design according to their own needs shall result in a differentiated area, where everyone can recognise their own home and identify with it. These are important prerequisites for healthy areas (see e.g. DifU, 2000; Kennedy & Kennedy, 1997).

Finally, I would like to point out that many research results that could be of benefit to residential quality never leave the ivory tower. Architects communicate foremost with visual means: an architect taking notes will probably do so using a crayon or something of the like; presentations are always carefully prepared: if more than one image is shown simultaneously, they are moved around long enough to form a visually pleasing composition. Sadly, most results from social-scientific research are published in an aesthetically rather dissatisfactory – some would say ‘dull’ – format, while ignoring the complex framework of mainly financial and legislative restrictions looming over urban development. Now the social sciences cannot avoid expressing their ideas verbally, but they will have to adjust their mode of presentation to their audience. In dealing with architects, visualisation of ideas and an appealing presentation is of major importance. Architects are experts in designing their way round the framework of restrictions, coming up with clever solutions. If the social sciences want designers to internalise that their design affects people, to integrate research results into this framework, then they should present their findings in an appealing way.

Epilogue


De ivoren toren – Der Elfenbein-turm

69

Appendix

LIterature

Questionnaire items from Skjaeveland & Garling

Questionnaire items from Abu-Ghazzeh

Table XX

The questionnaire - original version

The questionnaire - translated


71

Literature

Abu-Ghazzeh, T. M. (1999). Housing layout, social interaction, and the place of contact in Abu-Nuseir, Jordan. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1, 41-73.

Altman, I. & C. M. Werner (Eds.) (1985). Home Environments, 183-212, New York: Plenum Press

Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behaviour. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Barker, R. G., & Schoggen, P. (1978). Measures of habitat and behavior output. In R. G. Barker (Ed.) Habitats, environments, and human behavior: Studies in eco-behavioral science from the Midwest Psychological Field Station. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, R. P. (1999). Multidimensional perception of residential quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 331-352.

Brundtland, Gro Harlem. (1987). Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

BUND & Misereor (Eds.) (1995). Zukunftsfähiges Deutschland. Studie des Wuppertal-Instituts für Klima, Umwelt und Energie. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.

Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik (Ed.) (2000). Programmgrundlagen. Arbeitspapiere zum Programm Sozial Stadt. Berlin: DIfU.

Dovey, K. (1985). Home and homelessness. In I. Altman & C. M. Werner (Eds.), Home Environments, 33-64, New York: Plenum Press.

Enquete-Kommission (1998). Konzept Nachhaltigkeit. Vom Leitbild zur Umsetzung. Bonn: Dt. Bundestag, Referat Öffentlichkeitsarbeti.

Fisher, C., Baldassare, M., Gerson, K., Jackson, R. M., Jones, L. M. & Stueve, C. A. (1977). Networks and Places: social relations in the urban setting. New York: Free Press.

Fowler, F.J. (1995). Improving survey questions: design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Gehl, J. (1987) Life Between Buildings: using public space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. (First published in Danish in 1980).

Goffmann, E. (1961). Asylums. New York: Doubleday.

Green, Cynthia. (1992). The Environment and Population Growth: Decade for Action. Popula-tion Reports. Vol.20, No.2, p.1-40.

Greenbaum, P. E. & Greenbaum, S. D. (1981). Territorial personalization: Group identity and social interaction in a Slavic-American neighbourhood. Environment and Behaviour, 5, 574-589.

Haas-Arndt, D. (1999). Ästhetische Qualitäten des Ökologischen Bauens und Wohnens – ein Beitrag zu neuen Denkansätzen in der Architekturkonzeption. Dissertation Fachbereich der Universität Hannover.

Harloff, H. J. (Ed.). (1993). Psychologie der Wohnungs- und Siedlungsbaus. Psychologie im Dienste von Architektur und Stadtplanung. Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie.



72

Harloff, H. J., Christiaanse, K. W., Wendorf, G. & Zillich, K. (1998). Die Bedeutung von Wohngruppen für die Bildung nachhaltiger Konsummuster. Projektantrag. Berlin: Zentrum für Technik und Gesellschaft.

Harloff, H. J., Christiaanse, K. W., Wendorf, G. & Zillich, K. (2000). Die Bedeutung von Wohngruppen für die Bildung nachhaltiger Konsummuster. Zwischenbericht. Berlin: Zentrum für Technik und Gesellschaft.

Herzog, T. (1992). Bauten 1978-1992 Buildings. Ein Werkbericht. Stuttgart.

High, T. & Sundstorm, E. (1977). Room flexibility and space use in a dormitory. Environment and Behaviour, 9, 81-90.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.

Keller, S. (1968). The Urban Neighbourhood. New York: Random House.

Kennedy, M. & Haas, D. (1993). Zukunftsweisender Ökologischer Siedlungsbau in Europa. Ein Erfahrungsbericht. Commissioned by the European Academy for Urban Environment. Kissing: WEKA Fachverlag für Behörden und Institutionen.

Kennedy, M. & Kennedy, D. (eds.) (1997). Designing Ecological Settlements. Ecological Planning and Building: Experiences in new housing and in the renewal of existing housing quarters in European countries. Commissioned by the European Academy of the Urban Environment. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Kiesel, K. and Ellies, K. (1999). Das Konzept der Nachhaltigkeit. Seminararbeit im Rahmen des Seminars „Ökonomische Aspekte der Nachhaltigkeit“. TU Berlin.

Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York.

Kruse, L. (1974). Räumliche Umwelt. Die Phänomenologie des Räumlichen Verhalten als Beitrag zu einer Psychologischen Umwelttheorie. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Kupritz, V. W. (1998). Privacy in the work place: the impact of building design. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 341-356.

Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of personality. New York.

MacAndrew, F. T. (1993). Environmental Psychology. Monterey CA: Brooks/Cole.

Morville, J. (1969). Planning for Children in Multi-story Housing Areas. Danish Building Research Institute, report II. Copenhagen: Teknisk Forlag.

Newman, 0. (1972). Defensible space.- Crime prevention through urban design. New York: MacMillian.

Nielsen, J. R. (1999). Compliance and legitimacy in Danish Fisheries Management. An analytical framework. In: A. Eide and T. Vassdal (eds.): IIFET 98 Proceedings - Proceedings of the 9th International Institute of Fisheries Economics & Trade - Tromsø, Norway 1998, 565-572. Tromsø: IIFET.

Osmond, H. (1957). Function as a basis of psychiatric ward design. Mental Hospitals, 8, 23-29.

Reijndorp, A., Kompier, V., Metaal, S., Noi, I. and Truijens, B. (1998). Buitenwijk. Stedelijkheid op afstand. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers.

Rusterholz, H. (1981). Kleine Netze, Erklärung eines Grundbegriffes. In: Deubner, H. &

73

Schuller, H. (eds.): Ökosiedlung Gärtnerhof. Dokumentation eines Projektes. Gänserndorf.

Skjaeveland, O., and Garling, T. (1997). Effects of interactional space on neighbouring. Environmental Psychology, 17, 181-198.

Sundstrom, E. (1977). Theories in the impact of the physical working environment: analytical framework and selective review. ARCC Workshop on The Impact of the Work Environment on Productivity. NSF Funding. Washington DC: ARCC.

Tange, J., Vlaeminck, S. & Berghoef, J. (1984). Living Cities. A Case for Urbanism and Guidelines for Re-urbanisation. Originally written in Dutch under the title Wonen of Wijken. Oxford: Pergamon

Taylor, R. B. and Brower, S. (1985). Home and near-home territories. In I. Altman & C. M. Werner (Eds.), Home Environments, 183-212, New York: Plenum Press.

Werner, C. M., Altman, I. & Oxley, D. (1985). Temporal aspects of homes: a transactional perspective. In I. Altman & C. M. Werner (Eds.), Home Environments, 1-32, New York: Plenum Press.

Appendix


74

Questionnaire items from Skjaeveland & Garling (1997)• If I need a little company, I can stop by a neighbour I know

• If I have a personal crisis, I have a neighbour I can talk to

• I have made new friends by living here

• If I don’t have something I need for my cooking, I can borrow it from a neighbour

• How many neighbours do you visit now and then?

• How often do you help your neighbours with small things, or they help you?

• Noise which my neighbours make, can occasionally be a big problem

• How often are you irritated with some of your neighbours?

• In this house I never feel quite safe

• I feel strongly attached to this residence

• I don’t feel at home in this neighbourhood

• I would have better contacts with friends, family, etc., if I lived in another part of town

• How many of your closest neighbours do you typically stop and chat with when you run into them?

• How many of your neighbours who live near you do you say hello to when you meet them?

75

Questionnaire items from Abu-Ghazzeh (1999)• Number of people known by name in your building

• Number of people known by name in your residential block

• Number of people you consider friends in your neighbourhood (including those who live in your building)

• Frequency of visits to people living in your building

• Frequency of visits to people living in your residential block

• Greeting and chatting1

• Place of contact

• With whom? r2

• Participation in scheduled social activities

• Participation in ad hoc social activities

• Borrowing habits

• Acquaintance upon emergency (e.g. illness of spouse, personal illness, injury, birth, electrical problems, death)

• Acquaintance due to children

• Conflicts with neighbours because of children fighting

• Annoyed by neighbour’s noise

Appendix


76

Table XXNumbers of questionnaires handed out and collected in the three settlements.

Of the two settlements for people over 55, all residents were called upon; of GWL-Terrein, out of 600 apartments, blocks 2c, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 13 were selected for the survey since they are equipped with the more experimental or special access situations.

Table XX: detailed information on distribution and collection

Erstelldatum 21.05.00 14:385a23/p23. 25

Settlement Distribution Refusalstraight away

Refusal bynew-

comers

Refusalbecause of

languagebarrier

Not in Collection Responserate

Koekoek-Spreeuw

100 9 1 - 10 70 70 %

Koekoekstraat 28 3 - - 3 22

Spreeuwstraat 72 6 1 - 7 48

DeVuurtoren1

75 9 2 1 3 37 49 %

GWL-Terrein 162 10 - 2 44 109 67 %

Blokrand 20 5 16

Blokrand portiek 78 8 - 1 27 23

Blok 5 24 12

Blok 10 17 2 1 8 5

Blok 11 20 4 15

Total 337 216 64 %

Table XX: distribution, collection, and non-response, detailed

1 on the top floor a plage of insects was combatted with poison, so that the interviewers decided to ignore these appartments.

77

Questionnaire - the original versionlie

Ho

e en w

aarom

...D

e T

echnische U

niversiteit van

Berlijn

is bezig

met

een onderzoek

naarw

oontevredenheid en

buurtcontacten. G

ezien de

bijzondere traditie

van de

Nederlandse w

oningbouw w

ordt een aantal woningbouw

projecten in Am

sterdam en

Am

ersfoort bij het onderzoek betrokken. Zo ook uw

woongebied.

Aangezien u de expert bent in uw

eigen omgeving, w

illen we u heel graag een aantal

vragen stellen over uw eigen straat en hoe het is om

hier te wonen.

Hieronder

staat een

aantal belangrijke

aanwijzigen

m.b.t.

het invullen

van de

vragenlijst:

x B

ij de meeste vragen zijn al antw

oorden voorgegeven, waar u uit kunt kiezen.

Deze vragen staan steeds in een hokje, m

et daarnaast de antwoordcategorieën.

x V

eel van

de vragen

zijn uitspraken,

waarbij

u gevraagd

wordt

op een

zogenaamde “vijf-punts-schaal” aan te geven in hoeverre u het m

et die uitspraakeens bent. R

echts van het antwoord vindt u dan vijf hokjes, w

aarvan u er telkenséén aankruist.

x A

ls u het moeilijk vindt om

een keus te maken, denk dan niet te lang na, m

aarkies het antw

oord dat het eerst in u opkomt.

x U

kunt geen ‘goede’ of ‘foute’ antwoorden geven. H

et gaat erom dat u het

antwoord kiest dat het beste m

et uw m

ening overeenkomt.

x E

en voorbeeld. De uitspraak luidt: “M

ijn vakantie vier ik het liefst in Nederland”.

Stel, dat u uw

vakantie graag in Nederland doorbrengt, m

aar ook wel eens naar

een ander land wilt, dan zou u deze vraag kunnen beantw

oorden door een kruisjete zetten in het hokje dat hoort bij het antw

oord “enigszins mee eens”. D

at ziet erdan zo uit:

mee

eens

enigszinsm

eeeens

weet niet- geenm

ening

enigszinsm

eeoneens

mee

oneens

Mijn vakantie vier ik het liefst in N

ederland.

Uw

ingevulde vragenlijst wordt anoniem

behandeld. Dat w

il zeggen dat een bepaaldantw

oord niet tot een bepaalde persoon te herleiden is. U hoeft uw

naam dan ook

niet in te vullen. De enquêteurs vullen bij het aanbieden van de vragenlijst w

el uwhuisnum

mer in. D

at is voor de onderzoekers namelijk belangrijke inform

atie.

Veel plezier!

Beste bew

oner of bewoonster van K

oekoek- enS

preeuwstraat,

We zijn in uw

woongebied bezig m

et een onderzoek naar woon-

tevredenheid en buurtcontacten. Vandaar dat deze vragenlijst

nu voor u ligt. In de open brief hebben wij onze kom

st aange-kondigt, en nu is het zover.H

et invullen vergt een beetje van uw tijd en energie. W

e hopendat u bereid bent door uw

medew

erking ons project te onder-steunen.

Op

de volgende

pagina vindt

u nog

een korte

toelichting.O

p ……

september halen w

ij de vragenlijst weer op. A

ls u op diedag niet thuis bent, gelieve dan de ingevulde vragenlijst af tegeven bij de huism

eester, Jan Landman.

Bij voorbaat dank,

Friedem

ann Röm

hildenC

arolien Hoogland.

Wo

hN

ac

hF

orsch

un

gsp

roje

kt Wo

hn

en

un

d N

ach

ha

ltigke

it

ZE

NT

RU

MT

EC

HN

IK U

ND

GE

SE

LLSC

HA

FT

Het project “W

ohNach - w

onen en duurzaamheid” is een interdisciplinair w

etenschappe-

lijke onderzoek van sociale wetenschappers, architecten en econom

en aan de TU

Berlijn naar w

oontevredenheid en woonom

geving.

We zijn bereikbaar bij:

TU

Berlin, Z

TG

, Sekr. H

AD

38, Hardenbergstr. 4-5, D

-10623 Berlin

Tel. 030 314-23665, Fax: 030 314-26917, e-m

ail: [email protected]


78

3

Als ik behoefte heb aan een beetje gezelschap,

dan ga ik even bij de buren langs.

Het is m

oeilijk om hier buiten te zijn zonder dat

iemand een praatje kom

t maken.

Als ik behoefte heb aan gezelschap, dan zoek ik

contact met een vriend of fam

ilie.

Hieronder volgt een aantal vragen over de frequentie w

aarmee iets sam

en met uw

buren onderneemt.

Vaak zult u een schatting m

oeten geven. Probeert u dit zo nauw

keurig mogelijk te doen.

Ja, er worden w

el eensactiviteiten georganiseerd

Nee,

dit komt nooit voor

Worden er w

el eens activiteiten georganiseerddoor de flatbew

oners, of komt dit nooit voor?

Zo ja, doet u daaraan m

ee?N

ee, ik doe niet mee

Ja, ik doe mee

Nooit

Een aantal

keren perjaar

Maan-

delijksW

ekelijksE

en aantalkeren per

week

Hoe vaak onderneem

t u iets met een

medebew

oner?

Hoe vaak kom

en uw buren bij u op bezoek?

Hoe vaak gaat u bij uw

buren op bezoek?

Hoe vaak gaat u sam

en met uw

buren op stap?

nuléén

twee

drieM

eerdan drie

Bij hoeveel verschillende buren gaat u af en toe

op bezoek? (partners, die een woning delen,

tellen als één)

Nooit

Een aantal

keren perjaar

Maan-

delijksW

ekelijksE

en aantalkeren per

week

Hoe vaak m

aakt u een praatje met andere

bewoners van de flat?

Als u in de flat een bew

oner tegenkomt, hoe vaak

komt het dan voor dat u een praatje m

aakt?.

We w

illen graag weten w

at voor uw gevoel trefpunten bij uitstek zijn, in uw

woongebied: plaatsen w

aaru regelm

atig andere bewoners tegenkom

t, en enige tijd doorbrengt. Hieronder w

ordt telkens gevraagdw

aar ontmoetingen en gebeurtenissen plaatsvinden.

Ja, die zijn erN

ee, die zijn er nietZ

ijn er bepaalde plaatsen in of om de flat w

aar uregelm

atig blijft staan om een praatje te m

aken?

Zoja, w

aar?

2

De vrag

enlijst

Met hoeveel m

ensen in de flat bent u bevriend?

Hoeveel m

ensen in de flat kent u bij naam?

mee

eens

enigszinsm

eeeens

weet niet- geenm

ening

enigszinsm

eeoneens

mee

oneens

De bew

oners groeten elkaar in de flat.

De m

eeste bewoners ken ik alleen van gezicht.

Vreem

den die hier rondlopen vallen mij

onmiddellijk op.

Ik kan goed met de m

ensen in deze flat overweg.

Als iem

and in de flat problemen heeft, dat krijgt de

rest van de bewoners dat m

ee.

De m

ensen in deze flat kennen elkaar nauwelijks.

De bew

oners leven langs elkaar heen.

Voor m

ensen die hier nieuw kom

en wonen, is het

makkelijk om

andere bewoners te leren kennen.

Wanneer ik langere tijd één van de bew

oners nietzie, dan valt m

e dat op.

In het geval dat uw buren nooit aanleiding zijn tot ergernis, kunt u de volgende d

rie vragen overslaan.

mee

eens

enigszinsm

eeeens

weet niet- geenm

ening

enigszinsm

eeoneens

mee

oneensA

ls mij iets aan m

ijn buren stoort, dan lossen we

dat onderling op.

Als m

ij iets aan mijn buren stoort, dan los ik dat

via de huismeester op.

Als m

ijn buren veel overlast veroorzaken, dan belik de politie.

De flat is bijna een soort dorp, w

aar iedereenelkaar kent.

Er is in deze buurt w

einig samenhang tussen de

mensen.

In deze buurt heerst een soortgem

eenschapsgevoel.

Veel m

ensen die hier wonen, ken ik al heel lang.

79

4

In de onderstaande tabel wordt u verzocht achter een aantal ‘plaatsen’ aan te geven, hoe vaak u deze

gebruikt.

Als u buiten w

ilt zijn, waar gaat u dan zitten, en hoe vaak gebruikt u deze ruim

te?

Plaats:

Nooit

Een aantal

keren perjaar

Maan-

delijksw

ekelijksE

en aantalkeren per

week

Op m

ijn privé-balkon

Op m

ijn balkon dat grenst aan de galerij

In mijn tuin, aangrenzend aan m

ijn woning

Ik gebruik de publieke groenvoorziening

Ergens anders

Ik kan hier nergens buiten zitten

Ik heb geen behoefte om buiten te zitten

Als u buiten zit, w

aar bent u dan bijvoorbeeld mee

bezig?

Hieronder

staat een

tabel. D

aarin zijn

een aantal

plaatsen in

de flat

genoemd,

en een

aantalactiviteiten die daar m

ogelijk plaats vinden. Geef door m

iddel van een kruisje bij elke plaats aan, wat

voor activiteiten daar plaats vinden.

Activiteiten

:K

omen en

gaanG

esprekvoeren

Zitten

Klusjesdoen

Brievenbus

Vuilcontainers

Parkeerplaats

Bij de voordeur

Buiten, voor de ingang van de flat

Hal van de ingang van de flat

Lift

Trappenhuis

5

Activiteiten

:K

omen en

gaanG

esprekvoeren

Zitten

Klusjesdoen

Een andere plaats, nam

elijk…

……

……

……

……

De koffiekam

er

Iedereen heeft wel eens hulp nodig. G

eeft u hier alstublieft aan, op wie u in dergelijke situaties

meestal terugvalt: een bew

oner uit de flat, een persoon of instantie buiten uw w

oongebied of, in hetgeval u geen ondersteuning vraagt, niem

and.

Een bew

onerP

ersoon ofinstantie elders

niemand

Wie heeft een reserve sleutel van uw

woning?

Wie vraagt u in geval van ziekte om

hulp?

Wie

geeft de

planten w

ater als

u op

vakantiebent?

Als u hulp nodig hebt vanw

ege ziekte, op wie doet

u dan een beroep?

Wie vraagt u w

el eens om een boodschap voor u

te doen?

Als u iem

and nodig hebt die u ergens naartoebrengt, bij w

ie vraagt u dan om een lift?

Als u tijdens het koken m

erkt u iets niet in huisheeft, bij w

ie leent u dat dan?

Als u bij het klussen m

erkt dat het u ontbreekt aaneen stuk gereedschap, bij w

ie leent u dat dan?

Tot zover de vragen over hulp.

Hieronder w

ordt u telkens gevraagd om een beschrijving te geven. E

r zijn geen antwoorden

voorgegeven. De beschrijving m

ag heel kort zijn. Belangrijk is, dat u de vraag precies en volledig

beantwoordt. U

iteraard hoeft u vragen die volgens u niet van toepassing zijn, bijvoorbeeld omdat u

geen contacten heeft in deze buurt, niet te beantwoorden.

Mogelijk heeft u m

et een aantal van de bewoners in deze flat contact. A

ls u denkt aan de persoonw

aarmee u het nauw

ste contact onderhoudt, wat w

as dan de aanleiding voor het contact met deze

persoon?

Questionnaire - the original version


80

7

Noem

een reden om hier naartoe te verhuizen die te m

aken heeft met de flat.

Noem


aken heeft met de m

ensen die er wonen.

Noem

nog één andere reden om hiernaartoe te verhuizen.

Noem

de voor u belangrijkste reden om hier te blijven w

onen.

Nu volgen nog enkele vragen over een aantal huishoudelijke gew

oontes. Wederom

gaat het omuitspraken, w

aarbij u gevraagd wordt aan te kruisen, hoe vaak u deze gew

oonte bezigt.

Nooit

zeldenaf en toe

vaakaltijd

Ik gebruik spaarlampen.

Lege batterijen gooi ik bij het gewone huisvuil.

Voor korte afstanden neem

ik de fiets.

Ik verwarm

alle kamers gelijkm

atig (op de gelijketem

peratuur).

Ik houd mijn G

FT

-afval apart.

U bent bijna bij het einde van de vragenlijst aangekom

en. Hieronder volgend nog enkele korte vragen

naar feitelijke zaken over uw persoon

Wanneer bent u hier naartoe verhuisd?

……

……

……

……

……

(maand)

19…

.

in eengrote stad

in eenkleine stad

in een dorpop het

platte land

In wat voor een gebied lag uw

vorige woning

In welk jaar bent u geboren?

Wat is uw

nationaliteit?

Bent u een vrouw

of een man?

Vrouw

Man

Alleenstaand

Getrouw

dG

escheidenW

eduwe(naar)

Bent u alleenstaand, sam

enwonend, getrouw

d,gescheiden, of w

eduwe(naar)?

Hoeveel kinderen heeft u? H

oeveel ervan wonen

in Am

ersfoort?…

...

Kinderen, w

aarvan…

...

in Am

ersfoort

6

Som

s is het zo, dat mensen m

et elkaar in contact komen naar aanleiding van klachten over de flat of

over de omgeving. Iedereen ergert zich eraan, en dat levert gespreksstof op. M

isschien moet er zelfs

iets ondernomen w

orden, waarbij het belangrijk is dat bew

oners zich samen sterk m

aken.

Is er bij u in de flat sprake van dergelijke klachten,of

is zoiets

in het

verleden w

el eens

voorgekom

en?Ja

Nee

Hebben deze klachten geleid tot contacten tussen

de bewoners onderling?

JaN

ee

Waar grotere groepen m

ensen wonen, vorm

en zich soms sub-groepen van m

ensen, die elkaar wat

beter kennen.

Is dat in deze flat ook zo?Ja

Nee

Zoja, hoeveel van die groepen zijn er volgens u?

…..

sub-groepen

Hier volgt w

ederom een aantal m

eningsvragen.

mee

eens

enigszinsm

eeeens

weet niet- geenm

ening

enigszinsm

eeoneens

mee

oneensIk heb geen behoefte aan contact m

et de anderebew

oners van de flat.

Hier w

onen heel verschillende mensen.

Som

s kies ik een andere weg naar huis om

maar

niemand tegen te kom

en.

Ik ga de andere bewoners af en toe bew

ust uit dew

eg.

Ik vind

het belangrijk

om

goede contacten

tehebben in m

ijn buurt.

In deze flat woont een bepaald soort m

ensen.

veelm

inderintensief

minder

intensiefgelijk

intensiefintensiever

veelintensiever

In vergelijking met andere buurten is de m

ate vancontact

tussen de

bewoners

in deze

flat veel

minder intensief, m

inder intensief, gelijk intensief,intensiever veel intensiever.

Tot zover de vragen over uw

contacten in de buurt. Nu volgen een aantal vragen over uw

besluit omhier te gaan w

onen.

Er zijn diverse redenen denkbaar, w

aarom u voor een bepaalde w

oning kiest. Som

mige hebben te

maken m

et de ligging van een woning, andere hebben m

et de woning zelf te m

aken, en mogelijk zijn

er nog andere zaken die een rol spelen bij de keuze van een woning. H

ieronder wordt naar die

redenen gevraagd. Als u vindt dat bepaalde redenen bij in uw

geval geen rol gespeeld hebben, danvult u daar niets in.

Noem


aken heeft met de w

oning zelf.

81

8

Wat is u hoogst genoten opleiding?

Minderdan

fl1.200

Tussen

fl1.200en

fl1.500

Tussen

fl1.500en

fl2.000

Tussen

fl2.000en

fl2.500

Meer danfl2.500

In w

elke van de

volgende categorieën

valt het

maandelijkse inkom

en van uw huishouden?

Bent u huurder of eigenaar van dit appartem

ent?H

uurderE

igenaar

Lag uw vorige w

oning ook in Liendert?Ja

Nee, ergens anders

Uit hoeveel personen bestaat uw

huishouden?U

it…

..personen

werk

huishoudenvrijw

illigers-w

erkA

ndersW

at is uw belangrijkste dagelijkse bezigheid?

Dit w

as de laatste vraag. Mochten er bij het invullen van de vragenlijst vragen zijn

gerezen, aarzel dan niet om deze te stellen aan de persoon die de ingevulde lijst

komt ophalen.

Hartelijk bedankt voor uw

tijd en moeite!

Questionnaire - the original version

83

Th

e questionnair

e – translated

Ho

w an

d w

hy...

De T

echnical University of B

erlin is currently carrying out a research project on residential satisfactionand neighbourly contacts. In view

of the special tradition of Dutch housing it included a num

ber ofsettlem

ents in Am

sterdam and A

mersfoort. Y

our settlement w

as also selected.

Since you are the expert in your ow

n environment, w

e would like to ask a few

questions on your own

street and what it is like to live here.

Below

you will find a num

ber of important instructions pertaining to the filling out of the questionnaire:

� F

or most questions m

ultiple choice answers are already form

ulated. These questions are in a box,

with the answ

er categories next to it.

� M

any of the questions are statem

ents, expecting you to indicate on a five-point scale to what

extent you agree with the statem

ent. To the right of the statem

ent you find five boxes, of which

you alwa

ys tick only one.

� If you have difficulties m

aking a choice, then do not spend too much tim

e trying to make up your

mind, but just choose the answ

er that comes up spontaneously.

� Y

ou cannot give ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answ

ers. The point is to choose the answ

er that reflects youropinion best.

� A

n example. T

he statement is: “I prefer to spend m

y holidays in the N

etherlands”. Suppose you

like spending your holidays in the N

etherlands, but sometim

es opt for another country. In this caseyou w

ould answer the question by ticking the box under ‘ I slightly agree’:

I agreeI slightlyagree

Do not

know –

noopinion

I slightlydisagree

Idisagree

I prefer to spend my holidays in the N

etherlands.

� P

lease check if you did not omit an

y answers; the list is seven pages long.

Your filled out questionnaire is treated anonym

ously. This m

eans that a particular answer cannot be

traced to a particular person. You w

ill not be asked for your name. T

he interviewers w

ill note yourhousenum

ber on handing out the questionnaire, since this information is of m

ajor importance for the

investigators.

Enjoy!

Th

e qu

estion

naire

With how

many people in this building are you

befriended?

How

many people in this building do you know

by

name?


do notknow

- noopinion

I slightlydisagree

Idisagree

The residents greet each other.

Most resident I only know

by face.

Strangers im

mediately catch m

y attention.

I get along well w

ith most people in this building.

Whenever anyone in this building is in trouble, the

others know about it.

The people in this building hardly know

eachother.

The residents lead separate lives.

It is really easy for new-com

ers to get to knowother residents.

I notice it whenever I do not see one of the

residents for a longer period of time.

Incase your neighbours are never a reason for annoyance, you can skip the following th

ree questions.


do notknow

- noopinion

I slightlydisagree

Idisagree

Whenever som

ething about my neighbours

annoys m

e, we solve it together.

Whenever som

ething about my neighbours

annoys m

e, I solve this over the caretaker.

If my neighbours cause anno

yance, I call thepolice.

This building is alm

ost a kind of village, where

everyone knows each other.

There is little social consistence in this area.

This neighbourhood know

s a certain comm

unityfeeling .

From

the people who live here, I have know

nquite a lot for quite a long tim

e.

Questionnaire - the translated version


84

Whenever I feel the need for som

e company, I call

on a neighbour.

It is hard to spend time outside w

ithout some one

starting a conversation.

Whenever I feel the need for som

e company, I call

on a friend or a mem

ber of my fam

ily.

Hereafter you w

ill find several questions on the frequency with w

hich you undertake activities with your

neighbours. Often you w

ill find that you have make an estim

ation. Please do this as accurately as you

can.

Yes, activities are

sometim

es initiatedN

o, this never happensD

o residents ever initiate activities, or does thisnever happen?

If yes, do you ever participate?N

o, I never participateY

es, I participate

Never

A couple

of times a

yearM

onthlyW

eeklyA

coupleof tim

es aw

eekH

ow often do you do som

ething together with a

co-resident?

How

often do your neighbours visit you?

How

often do you visit your neighbours?

How

often do you have outings together with your

neighbours?

nilone

two

threeM

orethanthree

How

many different neighbours do you visit from

time to tim

e? (partners, sharing a flat, count asone)

Never

A couple

of times a

yearM

onthlyW

eeklyA

coupleof tim

es aw

eekH

ow often do you chat to other residents of this

building?

If you meet another residents in the building, how

often does it occur that you stop and chat?.

We w

ould like to know w

hat you consider to be meeting points par excellence, in your area; places

where you often m

eet other residents, and pass time. H

ereafter you are asked where encounters and

events take place.

Yes, there are such

placesN

o, there are no suchplaces

Would you know

of any particular places in or

around your building where you regularly stop to

chat?

If yes, where?

Please use the table below

to indicate how often you use particular locations.

If you want to be outside, w

here to you sit down, and how

often do you use this space?

Lo

cation

:N

everA

coupleof tim

es ayear

Monthly

Weekly

A couple

of times a

week

On m

y private balcony

In my garden, bordering on m

y dwelling

In my garden on G

WL-T

errein

I use the comm

unal green spaces.

Som

ewhere else

There is now

here I can sit outside

I never have the desire to sit outside

If you sit outside, what are you usually occupied

with?

The table below

names a num

ber of locations and activities that might take place there. P

lease tick theboxes under activities that take place at each location.

Activities:

Com

ingand going

Conversat

ionS

ittingdow

nD

oingchores

Letter box

Waste containers

Parking lot

At the front door

Outside, in front of the building

The entrance hall of the building

Lift

Staircase

85

Activities:

Com

ingand going

Conversat

ionS

ittingdow

nD

oingchores

Another place, nam

ely…

……

……

……

……

The restaurant at the G

WL-T

errein

Everyone needs a helping hand at som

e point. Please indicate below

whom

you rely on in suchsituations: a resident from

this building, a person or institution outside the settlement or, in case you do

not ask anyone for support, no one.

A resident

Person or

institutionelsew

here

No one

Who has a key to your flat?

Who do you ask for help in case of illness?

Who w

aters your plants if you are on holiday?

Who do your som

etimes ask to do an errand for

you?

If you need to be taken somew

here, who do you

ask for a ride?

If you realise, while cooking, that you have run out

of some ingredient, w

ho do you borrow it from

?

If you need a tool for your DIY

, who do you borrow

it from?

Those w

ere all the questions on helping.

Hereafter you w

ill be asked to describe motivations, i.e. no m

ultiple choice answers are form

ulated.T

he description can be very short. It is important that your answ

er is precise and complete. N

aturallyyou do not have to answ

er questions that do not apply to your situation, e.g. because you do not haveany contacts in this neighbourhood.

Possible you are acquainted w

ith a number of neighbours in this building. If you think of the person

you are closest to, what w

as the original reason for that contact?

Som

etimes people becom

e acquainted following com

plaints about construction deficiencies. Everyone

is annoyed, and it gives rise to discussions. Perhaps residents even have to take legal action, so that it

is important that they organise them

selves..

Has your building ever show

n any construction

deficiencies?Y

esN

o

Did this ever lead to the developm

ent of contactsbetw

een residents?Y

esN

o

Where larger groups of people live, sub-groups som

etimes form

, that know each other a bit better.

Is that the case in this building?Y

esN

o

If yes,

how

many

of these

sub-groups exist,

according to you?…

..sub-groups

Below

you will find m

ore questions on your opinion.


do notknow

- noopinion

I slightlydisagree

Idisagree

I do not feel the need for contact with the other

residents of this building.

The people w

ho live here are very different fromeach other.

Som

etimes I take another w

ay

home,

to avoid

meeting an

ybody.

I sometim

es consciously avoid other residents.

I find

it im

portant to

have good

neighbourlycontacts.

In this building, a particular kind of people live.

much

weaker

weaker

asintense

strongerm

uchstronger

In com

parison to

other neighbourhoods,

theintensity of the neighbourly contacts in this area ism

uch weaker, w

eaker, as intense, stronger, much

stronger.

Those w

ere the questions on neighbourly contacts. Hereafter you w

ill find a number of questions on

your decision to move here.

Questionnaire - the translated version


86

One can think of several reasons to choose a particular dw

elling. Som

e have to do with the location,

others have to do with the dw

elling itself, and other factors may also play a role in the choise of a

dwelling. H

ereafter you will be asked about these reasons. If you find that particular reasons w

ere ofno relevance in your case, then you can leave the box blank.

Nam

e a reason for moving here having to do w

ith the dwelling itself.

Nam


ith the building.

Nam


ith the people who live here.

Nam

e one other reason for moving here.

Nam

e the main reason for you to sta

y here.

Now

a couple of questions on household habits follow. A

gain, they are statements, and you are asked

to tick the box under the frequency with w

hich you show this habit.

Never

seldomE

veryonce ina w

hile

oftenalw

ays

I use energy efficient light bulbs.

I dispose

of em

pty batteries

together w

ith the

ordinary waste.

On short distances, I go by bike.

I heat all rooms evenly (sam

e temperature).

I separate my organic w

aste.

You have nearly com

pleted the questionnaire. Now

you will find a few

short and factual questionsabout yourself.

When did you m

ove here?…

……

……

……

……

…(m

onth)19

….

in a cityin a tow

nin a village

In thecountry

Where did you live before?

In what year w

ere you born?

What is your nationality?

Are you fem

ale or male?

female

male

singleLiving

togetherm

arrieddivorced

widow

edA

re you single, do you live together with your

partner, are you married, divorced or w

idowed?

How

many children do you have? H

ow m

any ofthese live in A

msterdam

?…

...

children, of which

…..

.in A

msterdam

What

is the

highest level

of education

youcom

pleted?

Less thanfl1.200

Betw

eenfl1.200

andfl1.500

Betw

eenfl1.500

andfl2.000

Betw

eenfl2.000

andfl2.500

More

thanfl2.500

Into which of the follow

ing categories does yourm

onthly income fall?

Do you rent or do you ow

n this apartment?

Rent

Ow

n

Did you previously live in W

esterpark?Y

esN

o, somew

here else

Do you have a garden on the prem

ises of GW

L-T

errein; does it border on your dwelling?

Yes, m

y gardenborders on m

ydw

elling

My garden

is locatedon G

WL-

Terrein

No, I do

not have agarden

Of how

may people does your fam

ily consist?…

..people

jobhousehold

voluntaryw

orkotherw

iseW

hat is your main daily occupation?

This w

as the last question. Incase any questions have arisen during the filling out of the questionnaire,then do not hesitate to discuss them

with the person w

ho comes to collect it.

Thanks for your tim

e and assistance!

Veciatate- Zone Semiprivate

Documents

Transcript of Veciatate- Zone Semiprivate