Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Privacy in private outdoor spaces in multifamily housing projects Gatt, Carmel 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A7_3 G38.pdf [ 13.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094484.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094484-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094484-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094484-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094484-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094484-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094484-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094484-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094484.ris

Full Text

PRIVACY IN PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACES IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS by CAR MEL GftTT! B. A. (ARCH. STUDIES), UNIVEBSITY OF MALTA, 1971; B. ARCH. (HONS.) , UNIVERSITY OF MALTA, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE BEQUIREMENTS:FOR THE DEGREE CF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE i n TBE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of ARCHITECTURE We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January, 1978 (c) CARMEL GATT, 1978 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I a g ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f Architecture The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date January 21st, 1978 ABSTRACT E v a l u a t i o n s t u d i e s on housing developments r a r e l y t a c k l e p r i v a c y i n depth, r e s t r i c t i n g themselves t o q u e s t i o n s such as "do-you-have-enough-privacy?" Most works on p r i v a c y are c o n c e p t u a l . There a l s o e x i s t s a general l a c k of i n t e r e s t i n the study of s o c i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l behaviour i n the spaces between b u i l d i n g s , and the e f f e c t of s i t e l a y o u t s i n housing. T h i s study combines the two i n an attempt to determine a t t i t u d e s towards p r i v a c y i n p r i v a t e open spaces i n m u l t i f a m i l y housing developments. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e d an emphasis on the aspect of c o n t r o l over the c u r t a i l m e n t of i n t e r a c t i o n , as opposed t o the more popular notion of p r i v a c y as withdrawal. T h i s concept was a p p l i e d i n t h i s study to r e s i d e n t s of m u l t i f a m i l y developments. I t was hypothesized t h a t c o m p a t i b i l i t y between neighbours would reduce the need f o r p h y s i c a l s e p a r a t i o n and demonstrate a r e l i a n c e on s o c i a l s t r a t e g i e s f o r c o n t r o l over i n t e r a c t i o n , below the t h r e s h o l d l e v e l of i n t r u s i o n . Moreover i t was hypothesized t h a t p r e f e r e n c e s and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s f o r p r i v a c y would be a s s o c i a t e d with the p e r c e i v e d adjustment of r e s i d e n t s t o the neighbourhood, as well as congruence with the neighbours. The concept of p r i v a c y was d i s s e c t e d i n t o f o u r s t a t e s , based on the works of H e s t i n {1970) and M a r s h a l l (1970). Two of these ( S e c l u s i o n and Intimacy) d e a l t with p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s , and the other two (Anonymity and Hot-Neighbouring) d e a l t with the s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s r e l a t e d to p r i v a c y . 50 respondents, were randomly s e l e c t e d from two low middle income, medium d e n s i t y housing developments. One was a c o - o p e r a t i v e and the o t h e r was a rent r e g u l a t e d housing complex. A s p e c i a l l y designed q u e s t i o n n a i r e board was used t o ask the s u b j e c t s t o r a t e t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r and assessment of, p r i v a c y i n p r i v a t e outdoor spaces, f o r 11 a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s , f o r the f o u r s t a t e s d e f i n e d . D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n was measured as the d i f f e r e n c e between the p r e f e r r e d and the achieved r a t i n g s . Although s t a t i s t i c a l l y the hypotheses were onl y proven p a r t i a l l y r i g h t , o t h e r evidence i n the study supports the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s : a. P r i v a c y i s very complex and changes with the a c t i v i t y , and the person i n v o l v e d . There i s no c l e a r c u t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n the u t i l i z a t i o n o f s o c i a l over p h y s i c a l mechanisms to maintain i t . A b s t r a c t i i i b. A few a c t i v i t i e s have very s p e c i f i c p r i v a c y requirements, but i n gen e r a l people do not care very much about the p r i v a c y i n p r i v a t e outdoor spaces. c. Management and/or tenure which improve r e l a t i o n s h i p s between neighbours c r e a t e a g r e a t e r community sense, cause a t o l e r a n c e f o r more i n t e r a c t i o n , and reduce emphasis f o r p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s . d. Perceived f i t i n the neighbourhood had a g r e a t e r e f f e c t on d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and p r e f e r e n c e s f o r p r i v a c y than congruence with the neighbours. The hypotheses a l s o generated a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g a t t i t u d e s towards s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l elements i n m u l t i f a m i l y p r o j e c t s , which are only remotely r e l a t e d to p r i v a c y . Dr.,N.G. Ro l f s e n i v TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1. PRIVACY 7 1.1 D e f i n i t i o n s of P r i v a c y 7 1.1.1 P r i v a c y as Uithdrawal 9 1.1.2 P r i v a c y as Personal C o n t r o l 10 1.2 Functions of P r i v a c y 12 1.3 Mechanisms of P r i v a c y 19 1.3.1 Environmental Mechanisms 20 Per s o n a l Space T e r r i t o r i a l i t y 1.4 Summary 25 CHAPTEB 2. CGNCEPTUAI. FRAHEUGBK AND HYPOTHESIS 28 2.1 Conceptual Framework 28 2.2 Hypotheses 31 CHAPTEB 3. METHODOLOGY 36 3.1 Development of T h e o r e t i c a l Components 36 3.1.1 P r i v a c y Components 36 3.1.2 C o m p a t i b i l i t y Components 37 3.1.3 The A c t i v i t i e s 38 3.2 The Survey 39 3.2.1 The Open Outdoors 40 3.2.2 Problems Encountered 42 3.3 The Sample 44 3.3.1 The P r o j e c t s 45 E n g l i s h Ivy V i l l a g e Southview Gardens 3.3.2 The Respondents 51 CHAPTEB 4. RESEARCH FINDINGS 61 4.1 The Neighbourhood 61 4.2 The Neighbours 64 4.3 P r i v a t e Outdoors 70 4.3.1 Adequacy of Outdoor Space 74 4.4 The A c t i v i t i e s ,. 76 4.4.1 P r i v a c y Preferences i n P r i v a t e Open Spaces 77 4.4.2 Achieved P r i v a c y i n P r i v a t e Open Spaces 84 4.4.3 D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n With P r i v a c y 86 Contents 4.5 4 .5.1 .4.6 CHAPTEB 5. 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2. 3 5.2.4 CHAPTEB 6. 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX I APPENDIX I I Response V a r i a t i o n s i n the Sample P r o j e c t s 91 Socio-economic Background 92 Income Age C l a s s S i m i l a r i t y of I n t e r e s t s Noise P r y i n g Summary 98 DISCUSSION 103 S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n of the Sample 104 E f f e c t o f Tenure on I n t e r a c t i o n 104 E f f e c t of Tenure on S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n 107 P h y s i c a l F a c t o r s Impinging on P r i v a c y 109 S i t e Layout 109 Ove r l o o k i n g 112 Crowding 115 Open Space 119 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMHENDATICNS 124 Con c l u s i o n s 124 Recommendations 127 Fur t h e r Research 133 Epilogue 135 136 L e t t e r o f I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the Respondents 149 Que s t i o n n a i r e 150 APPENDIX I I I A c t i v i t y D e s c r i p t i o n s and D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Frequency Tables 158 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 D i s t r i b u t i o n of People Within Households 54 Table 3.2 Age Distribution of Children i n Households 54 Table 3.3 Age Distribution of Respondents 54 Table 4.1 Attitudes Towards the Neighbourhood 62 Table 4.2 Attitudes Towards the Neighbours 65 Table 4.3 Length of Stay of respondents 67 Table 4.4 Preferred Privacy 83 Table 4.5 Achieved Privacy 85 Table 4.6 D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Indices 88 Appendix III D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Besponses by A c t i v i t y Category by State of Privacy 162 v i i LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS F i g u r e 3. i Kanata: S i t e Layout 48 F i g u r e 3. 2 Southview: S i t e Layout 51 F i g u r e a. 1 Kanata: T y p i c a l Bouse Plan 72 F i g u r e 4. 2 Southview: T y p i c a l House Plan 73 F i g u r e 4. 3 Achieved P r i v a c y by A c t i v i t y : C o n d i t i o n s 1 + 5 78 F i g u r e 4. 4 Achieved P r i v a c y by A c t i v i t y : C o n d i t i o n s 2 • 4 79 F i g u r e 4. 5 Achieved and P r e f e r r e d P r i v a c y : C o n d i t i o n 3 80 F i g u r e 4. 6 P r e f e r r e d P r i v a c y by A c t i v i t y : C o n d i t i o n s 2 + 4 81 Fig u r e 4. 7 P r e f e r r e d P r i v a c y by A c t i v i t y : C o n d i t i o n s 1 + 5 82 Appendix I I I Frequency Besponses by A c t i v i t y Category by S t a t e of P r i v a c y 161 P l a t e 3.1 Kanata: T y p i c a l C a r p o r t / F r o n t y a r d Arrangement 55 P l a t e 3.2 Kanata: - U n i t Arrangement Without C a r p o r t s 55 P l a t e 3.3 Kanata: Common Frontyards i n U n i t s Without C a r p o r t s 56 P l a t e 3.4 Kanata: Backyard Arrangement 56 P l a t e 3.5 Kanata: Backyard Arrangement 57 P l a t e 3.6 Southview: C l u s t e r Arrangement 57 P l a t e 3.7 Southview: Main Access Carport and P a t i o Arrangement—3 Storeys 58 P l a t e 3.8 Southview: Main Access and P a t i o Arrangement—2 Storeys 58 P l a t e 3.9 Southview: T y p i c a l Backyard Arrangement 59 P l a t e 3.10 Southview: Path Between Backyards 59 v i i i . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish t o express my s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e to my a d v i s o r s . Dr. N. G. R o l f s e n , and Dr. J . V i s c h e r who, through t h e i r experience and good humour s t e e r e d me through the storm, and kept me awake when I was becalmed. I a l s o wish t o express my g r a t i t u d e t o Mr. Wolfgang Gerson, the head of the Graduate School of A r c h i t e c t u r e , f o r h i s encouragement i n the p u r s u i t of t h i s f i e l d of endevour, very e a r l y i n the programme. I a l s o f e e l o b l i g e d to the f o l l o w i n g people, f o r t h e i r help at v a r i o u s stages of the r e s e a r c h . Mr. Bob Burgess, of G.V.R.D., Ms. N e t t i e Paraboom, f o r m e r l y o f C M . B.C. , Hrs. Innes, manager of Southview Gardens, Mr, P h i l i p de Chazaal, of the Kanata Housing C o - o p e r a t i v e , Mrs. N a t a l i e H a l l , l i b r a r i a n a t the School of A r c h i t e c t u r e , ( f o r keeping t r a c k o f the books on loan to me), Mr. Doug Mawhinney ( r e s i d e n t o f Kanata) f o r making r e l e v a n t comments on my d r a f t , Mr. David Ip, f o r a d v i c e on s t r a t e g y of r e s e a r c h , and help on how to t a c k l e s t a t i s i c a l a n a l y s i s , A s e d u c t i v e multiheaded being which, i n s p i t e of lengthy d i s c o u r s e and many disagreements, spurted out thousands o f words when t i c k l e d . To a l l those who had p i t y on me, cursed me, were p a t i e n t with me, or i n any other way urged me t o f u l f i l l t h i s g o a l , thank you! I hope I can r e t u r n the favour. My f i n a l note of g r a t i d u d e goes to somebody whom I th i n k would p r e f e r t o remain unnamed. Her patience and understanding extended the l e a r n i n g process f a r beyond the c o n f i n e s of t h i s academic e x c e r c i s e . By making me aware of my l i m i t a t i o n s , r e c u r r e n t weaknesses d u r i n g the development of t h i s r e s e a r c h , c o u l d be avoided. Vancouver, January, 1978. 1 INTBODUCTION "Re r e a l l y help when we c r e a t e the proper frames f o r a c t i o n , and not when we impose our plans on o t h e r s " . (Doxiadis) The concept of p r i v a c y i s complex. I t has been the s u b j e c t of study and d i s c u s s i o n i n many f i e l d s . Seme have d e s c r i b e d p r i v a c y as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l phenomenon, ot h e r s as a s o c i o l o g i c a l and a p o l i t i c a l phenomenon and s t i l l o thers as an economic phenomenon (Holfe and L a u f e r , 1974). For a long time the s u b j e c t has been t r e a t e d e x t e n s i v e l y i n the spheres of philosophy, p o l i t i c s and law, but d e s p i t e i t s importance, i t s d i s c o v e r y by the s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t has been very r e c e n t (Berardo, 1974). There i s as yet l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h done on p r i v a c y per se, e s p e c i a l l y i n the sphere of the r e s i d e n t i a l environment. Most o f the work on t h i s s u b j e c t has conc e n t r a t e d on proposing new t h o e r i e s and conceptual frameworks (AItman, 1S75) Although p r i v a c y i s u n i v e r s a l , each c u l t u r e has i t s own I n t r o d u c t i o n 2 ways of c o n t r o l l i n g s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n ( M a r s h a l l , 1970; Westin, 1970; Altaian, 1975). People i n western s o c i e t y today, seem to value p r i v a c y more than they d i d , say, a century ago ( M a r s h a l l , 1S70). This need f o r more p r i v a c y might be the r e s u l t of an i n c r e a s e d a c c e s s i b i l i t y to the i n d i v i d u a l * s i n n e r l i f e . Developments i n technology have made a v a i l a b l e s e v e r a l i n t r u s i o n c o n t r a p t i o n s , thus making p r i v a c y a s c a r c e r commodity (Pennock and Chapman, 1971; Westin, 1970). The i n c r e a s e i n p o p u l a t i o n i n urban c e n t r e s a l s o o f f e r s g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s o c i a l c o n t a c t and i n t e r a c t i o n , and consequently i n c r e a s e s the need f o r r e t r e a t and the c o n t r o l c f i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . By the nature of the commodities they are able to p r o v i d e , urban c e n t r e s have always been and w i l l always be a magnet f o r the p o p u l a t i o n . (Freedman, 1975: 206 et s e g . ) . l i m i t e d r esources ( p r i m a r i l y land) are f o r c i n g both the p u b l i c and the p r i v a t e s e c t o r t o p r o v i d e more housing at higher d e n s i t i e s . More housing i s being b u i l t i n the form of p r o j e c t developments and townhouses ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1975). I t i s t h e r e f o r e u s e l e s s t o argue a g a i n s t higher d e n s i t i e s - they are with us to s t a y . The a r c h i t e c t / p l a n n e r , then has to t h i n k i n terms of d e s i g n i n g whole communities r a t h e r than i n d i v i d u a l homes ( F e s t i n g e r , 1951). In the meantime accommodation of t h i s kind i s being b u i l t t o house a somewhat r e l u c t a n t r e s i d e n t . Higher d e n s i t y housing does not seem to be a c c e p t a b l e to I n t r o d u c t i o n 3 the present g e n e r a t i o n o f d w e l l e r s . Ownership of a s i n g l e f a m i l y detached d w e l l i n g i s s t i l l a d i s t i n c t i v e s e d u c t i o n , 1 but the high c o s t of t h i s type of housing i s c o n s t r a i n i n g them t o do otherwise. While t h i s p r o c e s s , o f a d a p t a t i o n t o new high d e n s i t y l i v i n g environments might cause s t r e s s (Dubos, 1965), l a c k of housing a l t e r n a t i v e s may p o s s i b l y f o r c e new behaviours, and frames o f mind, which would make t h i s new way of l i f e more acc e p t a b l e to the users.? T h i s work t r i e s t o shed some l i g h t cn the a t t i t u d e s towards p r i v a c y i n townhouse p r o j e c t s . A s p e c i f i c space w i t h i n the t e r r i t o r y of the house - p r i v a t e outdoor space - was s e l e c t e d f o r study. A p r e v i o u s review of the l i t e r a t u r e has shown t h a t r e s i d e n t s are more concerned with p r i v a t e outdoor spaces than with communal open spaces {Cooper, 1975). The choice of an outdoor space f o r study stemmed from a wider i n t e r e s t i n the b e h a v i o u r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f s i t e p l a n n i n g and of spaces between b u i l d i n g s , i n planned u n i t developments. Research i n t h i s f i e l d i s l a c k i n g . Most s t u d i e s of t h i s kind are w r i t t e n by a r c h i t e c t s and d e s i g n e r s (Katz, 1966; Lynch, 1972) with very l i t t l e r e f e r e n c e to behaviour. f The d e f i c i e n c y cannot be j u s t i f i e d , as most people seem to want to be i n t i m a t e with the t r e e s and green open spaces. Perhaps t h i s d e s i r e i s generated by a p e r c e i v e d s u f f o c a t i o n due to modern day urban l i v i n g , or from the p s y c h o l o g i c a l , i f not I n t r o d u c t i o n 4 the p h y s i c a l c onsciousness of a d e t r i m e n t a l environment, whose f e a r s are not unfounded, f o r the i n c i d e n c e of c e r t a i n d i s e a s e s have been l i n k e d with c e r t a i n environmental c o n d i t i o n s such as p o l l u t i o n (Wohlwill, 1970). urban sprawl and growth of c i t i e s i s g r a d u a l l y removing the wilderness from the c i t y d w e l l e r . Suburbia, which was intended as a compromise between the p r o x i m i t y o f c i t y l i v i n g and the low d e n s i t y of r u r a l l i v i n g , f a i l s a t both (Chermayeff and Alexander, 196 3). i Various authors uphold open space as an important c o n t r i b u t o r to personal development, i . e . , as an a i d i n comprehending the phenomenon of l i f e (Hoffman, 1967; Smith, Downer, Lynch, 1969). The outdoors may not by i t s e l f b r i n g about or m a t e r i a l l y a i d i n b r i n g i n g about mental h e a l t h . The s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a t i t b r i n g s occurs because people may be predisposed t o such enjoyment. For a l a r g e m i n o r i t y the outdoors i s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r r e l a x a t i o n and a change i n surroundings, but as much enjoyment can be o b t a i n e d from a backyard i f one i s predisposed to do so {Gans, 1968). Whether t h i s i s a p r i m o r d i a l d e s i r e of the human being or the remnants of a romantic emotion i n a hard i n d u s t r i a l i z e d environment of s t e e l and c o n c r e t e , the de s i g n e r and r e s e a r c h e r cannot be exhonerated from paying a t t e n t i o n to the b e h a v i o u r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of open space. The study presented here s e t s out to i n v e s t i g a t e r e s i d e n t I n t r o d u c t i o n 5 awareness and p e r c e p t i o n s o f p r i v a c y f o r v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s which are c a r r i e d out i n p r i v a t e outdoor spaces, i n m u l t i f a m i l y housing p r o j e c t s . 50 respondents from two medium d e n s i t y p r o j e c t s i n the Champlain Heights area of the C i t y of Vancouver were i n t e r v i e w e d about t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards f o u r very s p e c i f i c s t a t e s of p r i v a c y i n t h e i r p r i v a t e outdoor spaces, i n r e l a t i o n to eleven a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s which c o u l d be c a r r i e d on outdoors. The r e s u l t s are d i s c u s s e d i n chapter U and chapter 5. Recommendations are submitted i n Chapter 6., I n t r o d u c t i o n 6 Footnotes *In Southview Gardens, one of the p r o j e c t s s e l e c t e d f o r study, most r e s i d e n t s moved i n t o t h e i r own home. Few r e s i d e n t s i n the p r o j e c t expressed a d e s i r e to stay i n the townhouses. 2 I n an i n t e r v i e w with the manager of Southview Gardens, she suggested t h a t the r e s i d e n t s were understanding t h a t townhouse l i v i n g generated a d i f f e r e n t l i f e s t y l e , and that they had r e a c t e d p o s i t i v e l y t o i t . I n s p i t e o f t h i s 2-3 f a m i l i e s moved out of the p r o j e c t every, month, but the u n i t s were never vacant.: Names on the waiting l i s t are never s c a r c e and people w e r e p r e p a r e d to wait f o r months i n an attempt to get i n . Probably they were a f t e r the cheap r e n t r a t h e r than the l i f e s t y l e . 3 T h i s theme was explo r e d i n an unpublished term paper by the author. Gutman (1966) s t i l l seems to be the only r e s e a r c h e r who d i d t h e o r e t i c a l work on t h i s t o p i c . Many others d e a l with town c e n t r e s r a t h e r than planned u n i t developments. U s u a l l y i n f o r m a t i o n of t h i s nature i s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n e v a l u a t i o n s t u d i e s o f r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s , but these are very d i f f i c u l t to f i n d . 7 • PRIVACY "A l a r g e share of man's a c t i v i t i e s are s o c i a l , but they u l t i m a t e l y , however p r a c t i c a l and outgoing, have t h e i r source i n p r i v a c y . " (Chermayeff and Alexander, 196 3: 16) The concept o f p r i v a c y i n the r e s i d e n t i a l environment has to dc with more than j u s t minimum spacing between d w e l l i n g u n i t s , o r the p o s i t i o n of doors and windows, or the p r o v i s i o n of screens and b a r r i e r s . The aim of t h i s chapter i s t o o f f e r an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e concept i n s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l terms. 1.1 D e f i n i t i o n s of P r i v a c y The d i s t i n c t i o n between an i n n e r and an outer s e l f has long been p o i n t e d out. S o c r a t e s , before that l a s t and famous "bottoms up", made a d i s t i n c t i o n between h i s body, through which o t h e r s c o u l d r e l a t e to him, and the " h i m s e l f " , which was not t a n g i b l e (Konvitz, 1966). James (1890) placed the boundary of the s e l f so as to i n c l u d e o b j e c t s , possessions and a b s t r a c t Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 8 concepts.* Locke (192.) proposed a s i m i l a r n o t i o n and extended the meaning o f the s e l f to i n c l u d e property and p o s s e s s i o n s . In Locke's view, " . . . a l l t h a t (the i n d i v i d u a l ) becomes, and a l l that he makes are p a r t of h i s own person. 1* 2 A l l p o r t (1961) i n c l u d e d i n the s e l f those t h i n g s t h a t one f e e l s s t r o n g l y about. P r i v a c y has to do with the boundary between th e s e l f and o t h e r s . I t i s not o n l y the commonly accepted calm and serene s t a t e of mind, but i n v o l v e s a c o n f l i c t over the boundary of what i s s e l f and n o n - s e l f . T h i s process a i d s the development of p e r s o n a l i t y , s o c i e t y p r o v i d e s some norms and v a l u e s , as a b a s i s f o r r u l e s t h a t s i m p l i f y t h i s c o n f l i c t , and though they may be i n a continuous s t a t e o f f l u x , they are e s s e n t i a l t o e s t a b l i s h boundaries f o r p r i v a c y (Simmel, 1971). P r i v a c y o r i e n t e d behaviour i s intended t o defend the self-boundary ( M a r s h a l l , 1970), once i t has been d e f i n e d . Where the boundary i s s e t and what i t i n c l u d e s ( o b j e c t s , spaces etc.) as p a r t of the s e l f , depends on f a c t o r s such as c u l t u r e ( B a l l , 1966) i n t i m a c y o f person (Sommer, 1969) and the number of people i n t e r a c t e d with. I t i s d i f f i c u l t t c f i n d one a l l encompassing d e f i n i t i o n of p r i v a c y . The d e f i n i t i o n s given i n the l i t e r a t u r e seem to f a l l under two c a t e g o r i e s . One group p l a c e s emphasis on s e c l u s i o n , withdrawal and o v e r a l l avoidance of i n t e r a c t i o n with o t h e r s . Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 9 The second group puts l e s s emphasis on detachment and mere on c c n t r c l over i n t e r a c t i o n , on the opening and c l o s i n g of the s e l f to o t hers and on the freedom o f c h o i c e of i n t e r a c t i o n (Altaian, 1975). 1.1.1 P r i v a c y as Withdrawal T h i s i s the more popular n o t i o n generated i n the mind of laymen. Many authors support t h i s concept. " p r i v a c y . . . as a freedom from s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and o b s e r v a t i o n , when these are not d e s i r e d . " (Halmos, 1952) " p r i v a c y . . . a h i g h l y i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d form of withdrawal." (Schwartz, 196 8) " . . . d e s i r a b l e withdrawal from s t i m u l i presented by other people." ( P u l l e n , 1965) "an outcome of a person's wish to withold from others c e r t a i n knowledge as to h i s past and present experience and a c t i o n and i n t e n t i o n f o r the f u t u r e . . . and a d e s i r e t o c c n t r c l other's p e r c e p t i o n s and b e l i e f s v i s a v i s the s e l f c o n c e a l i n g person." ( J c u r a r d , 1966 ) 3 The importance of p r o v i d i n g s a n c t u a r i e s f o r withdrawal as an e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e of mental therapy has been suggested by 0smcnd(1957)* and Jourard (1966). ; P r i v a c y of t h i s nature can a l s o be obtained by o f f e n s i v e d i s p l a y , but t h i s i s q u i t e r a r e i n humans (Sommer, 1969). At the extreme, r e t r e a t takes the form of the p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t a t e of autism, where the i n d i v i d u a l i s so f a r removed from the r e a l Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 10 world, t h a t i n s u f f i c i e n t c o n t a c t damages h i s p e r s o n a l i t y or i t s i n t e g r a t i o n and a d a p t a t i o n i n t o s o c i e t y (Simmel, 1971). 1.1.2 P r i v a c y as P e r s o n a l ^ C o n t r o l Eecent c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s on p r i v a c y p l a c e l e s s emphasis on detachment and more on the theme of p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l - the freedom of c h o i c e to pursue or not to pursue i n t e r a c t i o n . . . or the a b i l i t y t o r e g u l a t e the boundary between the s e l f and o t h e r s . They s t r e s s freedom of choice concerning when and how much i n f o r m a t i o n one wishes to d i s c l o s e about o n e s e l f (Altman, 1975). L a u f e r , Proshansky and Wolfe (1973), d e s c r i b e three aspects of c o n t r o l : c o n t r o l over c h o i c e t o be p r i v a t e or not, c o n t r o l oyer access to o n e s e l f e i t h e r f o r p r o t e c t i v e reasons (concealment of i n f o r m a t i o n ) , enhancement of the s e l f c r simply f u n c t i o n a l (e.g., d i s t r a c t i o n ) , and c o n t r o l over s t i m u l a t i o n or c o n t r o l over the way p r i v a c y i s a c h i e v e d . Westin (1970) d e f i n e s p r i v a c y as " . . . the c l a i m o f i n d i v i d u a l s , groups, or i n s t i t u t i o n s to determine f o r themselves where, how and to what extent i n f o r m a t i o n about them i s communicated", so t h a t " t h e i n d i v i d u a l has " . . . the r i g h t . . . to decide f o r h i m s e l f . . . when and cn what terms h i s a c t s should be r e v e a l e d to the general p u b l i c . " I t t l e s o n , Proshansky and S i v l i n (1970) as w e l l as Altman (1974) d e f i n e p r i v a c y as a s e l e c t i v e c o n t r o l of access to o n e s e l f or t o one*s group. M a r s h a l l (1970) d e f i n e s i t as a Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 11 c o n t r o l over the t i m i n g and nature of ; one's c o n t a c t s with o t h e r s . K e l v i n (1973) views p r i v a c y i n terms of i n d i v i d u a l independence and freedom from c o n t r o l by o t h e r s . Power over one's own a c t i o n s makes one l e s s v u l n e r a b l e to o t h e r s , and reduces s t r e s s . Very low l e v e l s of c o n t r o l can r e s u l t i n t o t a l l y maladaptive behaviour ( B i c h t e r , 1966?). For K e l v i n , i s o l a t i o n i s a n e g a t i v e s t a t e ; i t d e p r i v e s s o c i a l c o n t a c t and consequently-the freedom of a c t i o n i f p r i v a c y can be p e r c e i v e d as a low l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n ( r a t h e r than as n o n - i n t e r a c t i o n ) i t a l l o w s t h i s e x c e r c i s e of freedom. Both i n the long and i n the s h o r t run, per s o n a l c o n t r o l over behaviour seems to reduce the s t r e s s f u l responses t o s i t u a t i o n s (Mowrier and Werk, 1948). Johnson's (1974) d e f i n t i o n s s d e s c r i b e s p r i v a c y as a behaviour, designed p r i m a r i l y to e s t a b l i s h seccjridaxj c c n t r o l over outcomes. Consequently i t i s a means t o an end, and does not i n i t s e l f s a t i s f y any fundamental need, but f a c i l i t a t e s the outcomes and attainment of other needs. Johnson argues t h a t the fundamental concern of p r i v a c y i s behaviour s e l e c t i o n c c n t r o l . c oncerning the a b i l i t y t o choose a b e h a v i o u r a l s t r a t e g y from among v a r i o u s o p t i o n s i n order to a t t a i n an outcome. He a l s o suggests that a l l a c t s o f p r i v a c y have a p o t e n t i a l t o induce s t r e s s , p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g the s e l e c t i o n o f the r i g h t Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 12 s t r a t e g y , as the i n d i v i d u a l may be presented with o p t i o n s and outcomes o f equal importance. The u n c e r t a i n t y about the adequacy of one's s t a t e of p r i v a c y behaviour i n pursuing an outcome, and a l l general i n c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s i n s e l e c t i o n of the r i g h t behaviour are l i k e l y to produce s t r e s s . C e r t a i n t y c f the outcome of an event and of the r i g h t b e h a v i o u r a l s t r a t e g y has minimal p o t e n t i a l f o r s t r e s s . I t i s very d i f f i c u l t t o assess whether one's c u r r e n t s t a t e of p r i v a c y i s i d e a l . As long as one's needs are s a t i s f i e d , the c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n o f p r i v a c y seems to be the most s a t i s f a c t o r y . D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with p r i v a c y a r i s e s out of an incongruence between v a r i o u s s t a t e s * of p r i v a c y and v a r i o u s needs t h a t have to be s a t i s f i e d . Hore complex forms of the s t a t e s might not n e c c e s s a r i l y improve the s i t u a t i o n . The degree of f i t between the s t a t e c f p r i v a c y and a need can only be assessed as scon as a new s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r i n g a new s e t of s t r a t e g i e s a r i s e s {Johnson, 1974). 1.2 Functions of P r i v a c y A l l d e f i n i t i o n s of p r i v a c y suggest a boundary; a t e r r i t o r i a l c l a i m around the s e l f with ownership and r i g h t to l i m i t access by o t h e r s . In an i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c s o c i e t y ( l i k e the Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 13 North American s o c i e t y ) , the s e l f a c q u i r e s more importance than i n a s o c i e t y which i s more s o c i a l l y i n t e q r a t e d . In the l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n s n o t i o n s o f p r i v a c y and boundaries take on a d i f f e r e n t meaning (Simmel, 1971). Nevertheless p r i v a c y e x i s t s i n a l l c u l t u r e s . The d i f f e r e n c e s l i e i n i t s m a n i f e s t a t i o n s and the mechanisms u t i l i z e d to achieve i t (Altman,1975). P r i v a c y as i t i s p e r c e i v e d today i s a very modern concept i n man's development. In North America the i n d i v i d u a l i s brought up to c h e r i s h i n d i v i d u a l i t y and freedom, as e x e m p l i f i e d by the d e s i r e f o r h i s own room when he i s young t o the l a t e r stage o f planning h i s own l i f e . Other s o c i e t i e s p l a c e more emphasis on one's r o l e as a part of the group (Westin, 1970). S o c i a l groups have an i n f l u e n c e on the a t t i t u d e s , o p i n i o n s and behaviour p a t t e r n s o f t h e i r members. The extent to which t h i s i n f l u e n c e (and change); v i s exerted, depends on the a t t r a c t i o n the qroup e x e r t s on i t s members, and on the extent to which i t s a t i s f i e s t h e i r needs ( F e s t i n g e r , 1951) . P s y c h o l o g i s t s argue that development of p e r s o n a l i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l depends on the exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n with the other members of the group. P e r s o n a l i t y i s viewed by some as a s e r i e s c f l a y e r s r e f l e c t i n q d i f f e r e n t i a l i n t i m a c y of a c c e s s i b i l i t y to e t h e r s (Altman and T a y l o r , 1973). Sepa r a t i o n a l l o w s the self-awareness of an i n d i v i d u a l being, p h y s i c a l l y and p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y (Simmel, 1971). Major developmental t h e o r i s t s argue t h a t the development Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 14 of the s e l f i s the process of s e p a r a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l from the s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l environment (Laufer et a l , 1974). P r i v a c y a c q u i r e s i t s meaning from the e x i s t e n c e of s o c i a l groups. There i s no group, with the exception of the f a m i l y t h a t uniquely c o n t r i b u t e s t o every aspect of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s l i f e . Membership t o most groups i s v o l u n t a r y . The f a m i l y i s an example of i n v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n s . . In the context of the r e s i d e n t i a l environment, v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n s a c q u i r e more meaning, as the choice o f the i n d i v i d u a l ' s d w e l l i n g w i l l c r e a t e v a r y i n g degrees of i n v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h i n the new community. 7 Frequent contact with o t h e r s does net n e c c e s s a r i l y engender more i n t e q r a t i o n i n t o the s o c i a l group.* Repeated i n t e r a c t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l s may cause p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n s and p e r s o n a l i t y development, but i t i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of r e t r e a t from i n t e r a c t i o n that helps to achieve t h i s p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g . The p o s s i b i l i t y of r e t r e a t makes the i n d i v i u a l more e f f e c t i v e within the qroup upon h i s r e t u r n to i t . , Besides the p o s s i b i l i t y of r e t r e a t preserves the group when c o n f l i c t s a r i s e , by a l l o w i n g the t e r m i n a t i o n of negative i n t e r a c t i o n s (Schwartz, 1968). P r i v a c y i s a means of a v o i d i n g c o n f l i c t s between i n d i v i d u a l d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s without being o s t r a c i z e d f o r i t by s o c i e t y (Simmel, 1971). People need t o d i s c l o s e themselves f o r Cha pter 1: Privacy 15 t h e i r own good, but they also require private places i f they are to maintain psychological, physical and s p i r i t u a l well-being. In these places the i n d i v i d u a l can be as he l i k e s without fear of sanctions from society. Where there i s no privacy there i s l i t t l e or no i n d i v i d u a l i t y (Jourard, 1971). The i n d i v i d u a l control foundation f o r privacy appears to provide r e l i e f from tension and opportunity for development of intimate r e l a t i o n s with others. I t allows the performance of a c t i v i t i e s not conforming i n standards with the s o c i a l groups we pertain to (Pennock, 1971). I t i s equally important that the i n d i v i d u a l ' s actions stem from a concern embedded in society's needs. The i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of s o c i a l norms and values i n the personality of ind i v i d u a l i s e s s e n t i a l to the order i n society. The individual's d e f i n i t i o n of himself eventually becomes part of how society defines him (Simmel, 1971). The b u i l t environment can modify qroup int e r a c t i o n and association patterns (Festinger, 1950; Whyte, 1956; Holler, 1968), but i t i s highly unlikely that i t determines them (Gans, 1967, 1968; Cooper, 1975). I n d i r e c t l y the manipulation of the environment w i l l a s s i s t or hinder personality development by aiding or obstructing i n t e r a c t i o n . &ny environment that t r i e s to i s o l a t e an i n d i v i d u a l from others may induce stress that would lead to distinguished personality changes (Schorr, 1963). Altman defines three functions of privacy. Privacy has an Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 16 i n t erp.gr son a 1 f u n c t i o n : knowledge of one's c a p a b i l i t e s and l i m i t a t i o n s a l l o w s c l e a r e r d e f i n t i o n o f the s e l f . I t pr o v i d e s an i n t e r f a c e between the s e l f and o t h e r s . 9 i t serves the important f u n c t i o n s of i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t r a t e g y r o l e s , plans and assessment of behaviour i n r e l a t i o n to o t h e r s , when not i n the presence of others.'! I t g i v e s b r e a t h i n g space f o r the i n d i v i d u a l to e v a l u a t e experiences f o r f u t u r e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . D e f i n i t i o n s of o u r s e l v e s and our f e e l i n g s only take meaning by comparison with o t h e r s . 1 0 The l a s t but most important of Altman*s f u n c t i o n s i s the d e f i n i t i o n of the s e l f and the estab l i s h m e n t of a s e l f - i d e n t i t y . S e l f - o b s e r v a t i o n a l l o w s " . . . the i n d i v i d u a l or group to see, d e s c r i b e and e v a l u a t e themselves u s u a l l y when they are out of the presence of o t h e r s . " T h i s i s a broader statement than expressed by the second f u n c t i o n , s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . Here the i n d i v i d u a l goes " o f f - s t a g e " (Bates, 1964; Schwartz, 1968), l a y s a s i d e h i s s o c i a l l i f e and f i n d s an emotional r e l e a s e (Westin, 1970). While s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n as d e s c r i b e d above helps determine f u t u r e r e l a t i o n s h i p s by assessment of c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n s i n r e l a t i o n - t o o t h e r s , the l a t t e r d e s c r i p t i o n only i n v o l v e s the s e l f , as s u b j e c t and o b j e c t . Besides p e r s o n a l autonomy and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , Westin(1970) a t t r i b u t e s to p r i v a c y the f u n c t i o n s of emotional r e l e a s e . T h i s i s manifested i n the form cf r e l a x a t i o n from p l a y i n g s o c i a l r c l e s - and l i m i t e d communication e i t h e r to share Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 17 con f i d e n c e s and i n t i m a c i e s with others or t o set boundaries f o r communication between the most i n t i m a t e and the most p u b l i c . L a u f e r , Proshansky and Holfe (1973) c a t e g o r i z e seven c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p r i v a c y . In t h e i r s e l f - e g o dimension and i n t e r a c t i o n a l - d i m e n s i o n they r e i t e r a t e other authors withdrawal helps the development of the s e l f > as long as i t i s v o l i t i o n a l and t h a t p r i v a c y i s a mutual agreement to r e s p e c t each o t h e r ' s aloneness. I t i s a " c o n t r o l " over i n f o r m a t i o n i n the process of i n t e r a c t i n g with o t h e r s . P r i v a c y a l s o has a l i f e - c y c l e • dimension as they argue t h a t p r i v a c y needs, a b i l i t i e s , e x p e r i e n c e s and d e s i r e s as w e l l as s o c i e t y ' s demands and e x p e c t a t i o n s change with time. In t h e i r b i o g r a p h y - h i s t o r y dimensign the f u t u r e e f f e c t s of manipulation o f i n f o r m a t i o n are co n s i d e r e d . They suggest t h a t the C Q n & y g l dimension of p r i v a c y , " . . . a need to e x e r t c o n t r o l over . . . s e l f , o b j e c t s , i n f o r m a t i o n and behaviour" (p. 360), i s a c r i t i c a l element i n the concept of p r i v a c y . C o n t r o l tends t o get more complex with the i n c r e a s e i n s i z e of the s o c i a l u n i t . I n s t i t u t i o n s tend to generate h i e r a r c h i e s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s l e a d i n g t o s t a t u s , c l a s s and p o s i t i o n s which demand d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of c o n t r o l over experiences and i n f o r m a t i o n . The a b i l i t y t o in v a d e the p r i v a c y of others i s a s i g n o f r a n k i n g (Schwartz, 1968). The lower the i n d i v i d u a l i s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , the l e s s h i s c o n t r o l over h i s own p r i v a c y . I n d i v i d u a l s i n higher ranks of the o r g a n i z a t i o n are allowed i n v a s i o n of the p r i v a c y of t h e i r dependents, but the Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 18 rev e r s e i s not the case. An i n c r e a s e i n the s i z e of the group a m p l i f i e s the negative or p o s i t i v e p r i v a c y c o n t r o l s , depending on rank i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h i s s o c i e t y has always considered p r i v a c y a lu x u r y and i t s attainment a mark c f s t a t u s , both s o c i a l l y and p h y s i c a l l y . Laufer e t a l a l s o suggest t h a t some p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g s f e c c l p g i c a1-c ult u r a 1 dimension) and some tasks (task-o r i enta t l o n dimension) by t h e i r nature, evoke and s u s t a i n behaviours and experiences t h a t are p r i v a t e i n c h a r a c t e r . S o c i e t y may a l s o expect people t o perform c e r t a i n r i t u a l s i n non-public areas ( r i t u a l p r i v a c y dimension). In summary, p r i v a c y p r o v i d e s a pause f o r s e l f - a s s e s s n e n t , c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r f u t u r e a c t i o n s and the consequences o f these a c t i o n s (Schwartz, 1968). Moreover p r i v a c y can provide a b u f f e r between s o c i a l pressures cn the i n d i v i d u a l and h i s response to them. I t can p r o t e c t the s e l f and r e s t o r e s e l f - e s t e e m from mistakes which would be damaqinq or h u m i l i a t i n q to the i n d i v i d u a l or the qroup (Altman, 1976), by p e r m i t t i n q r e h e r s a l o f p u b l i c s i t u a t i o n s beforehand (Laufer et a l , 1973). The c o n t r o l , t h a t i t allows appears e s s e n t i a l to s e l f - r e s p e c t , d i q n i t y and a u t h e n t i c i t y (Pennock, 1971). I t helps t o p r o t e c t and n u r t u r e , or to enhance and extend the s e l f Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 19 {Laufer e t a l , 1973). I t a l s o enables the consumption of goods or experiences i n s e c r e t , and the p h y s i c a l p r e p a r a t i o n f o r p u b l i c l i f e by e n a b l i n g the enactment or r e h e r s a l of these behaviours, away from o t h e r s . 1.3 Mechanisms of P r i v a c y Humans u t i l i z e s p e c i f i c mechanisms t h a t are intended to maintain c o n t r o l over the degree of access t o the s e l f , and to d e f i n e i t s l i m i t s to sometimes i n c l u d e and sometimes exclude o t h e r s ( M a r s h a l l , 1972). No one mechanism a c t s by i t s e l f , and a l l d e t r a c t from or a i d the achievment of a d e r i v e d s t a t e of p r i v a c y (Altman and T a y l o r , 1973; Altman, 1976) P r i v a c y can be c o n t r o l l e d by manipulating e i t h e r the environment or one's p o s i t i o n i n i t . One can l i j i t S l l J r i l i s c i o s u r e by l i m i t i n g t i e exposure of one's b e l i e f s , thoughts and ether i n f o r m a t i o n about o n e s e l f ( M a r s h a l l , 1970; 1972). The mechanisms may take the form of v e r b a l or non-verbal behaviours (such as head/eye motions or hand gestures) (Altman, 1975). jourard(1966) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t people tend to d i s c l o s e more i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i r a t t i t u d e s and o p i n i o n s , t a s t e s and i n t e r e s t s , and work, than about money, p e r s o n a l i t y or t h e i r body. S o c i a l d i s t a n c i n g ( M a r s h a l l , 1970; West i n , 1970) c r e a t e s Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 20 norms and r i t u a l s by which people can communicate. T h i s s i g h t t a ke the form of f a m i l y r i t u a l s to use the bathroom or g a i n access to c e r t a i n rooms. Goffman (1963) e x p l a i n s how r i t u a l s develop t o keep a balance of i n t e r a c t i o n between p r i v a t e and p u b l i c domains. P r i v a c y mechanisms may vary with the c u l t u r e , as s o c i e t i e s tend t o develop t h e i r own c u l t u r a l • mechanisms.-Westin (1970), f o r i n s t a n c e , notes t h a t Americans tend t o have an i n f o r m a l a t t i t u d e towards s e p a r a t i o n by l e a v i n g doors open, but Altman and L e t t (1972) r e c o g n i z e the u n i v e r s a l i t y of "leave me a l o n e " as r e f l e c t e d by p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s such as c l o s e d doors, drawn c u r t a i n s and so on. P s y c h o l o g i c a l b a r r i e r s can be se t up t o maintain p r i v a c y i n a conscious or unconscious s t a t e . The meaning and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of mental images w i l l be i n f l u e n c e d by the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p r e v i o u s experience ( P u l l e n , 1965). Anonymity i s suggested by M a r s h a l l (1970) as a p o s s i b l e way of a c h i e v i n g p r i v a c y . T h i s i s the f e e l i n g of being l o s t i n a crowd. Urban f a m i l i e s tend to experience continuous anonymity, but are more capable of r e t a i n i n g t h e i r p r i v a c y than r u r a l f a m i l i e s (Bott, 1957). 1.3.1 Environmental Mechanisms Environmental mechanisms are the most obvious and perhaps the most p e r t i n e n t to t h i s work. Canter (1975) suggests that human s p a t i a l e xperience i s e s s e n t i a l l y a quest f o r p r i v a c y . V a r i o u s environmental d e v i c e s may be u t i l i z e d : c l o t h e s and Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 21 adornment (Altman, 1975), p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s ( S c a r t h , 1964; Altman and L e t t , 1972), p h y s i c a l d i s t a n c i n g ( H a l l , 1966; Scmraer, 1969) and t e r r i t o r i a l i t y ( f l a r s h a l l , 1970; Altman and T a y l o r , 1973). Time, although not a t a n g i b l e element may a l s o serve as a mechanism ( P u l l e n , 1965)., Phy sic.a 1 D i s t a n c i n g A f a i r amount of work has been undertaken r e g a r d i n g the r o l e of p h y s i c a l d i s t a n c i n g i n r e g u l a t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n between s p e c i e s . Personal space i s a f r e g u e n t l y invoked phrase, r e s u l t i n g from the i n c r e a s e d r e s e a r c h i n t o proxemics. I t r e f e r s "to an area with an i n v i s i b l e boundary surrounding the person's body i n t o which the i n t r u d e r may not come.V (Sommer, 1969: 26). Personal space i s a p o r t a b l e piece of t e r r i t o r y , and u s u a l l y a p p l i e s to a f i x e d g e o g r a p h i c a l r e g i o n . E.T. H a l l ' s much guoted study on proxemics d e s c r i b e d f o u r zones with v a r y i n g degrees of i n t i m a c y . An i n t i m a c y zone ranges from a c t u a l body c o n t a c t to 18 i n c h e s , a p e r s o n a l d i s t a n c e ( " . _ . v . a s m a l l p r o t e c t i v e sphere or bubble t h a t an organism maintains between i t s e l f and the ethers") ranging from 18 i n c h e s t o 4 f e e t , a s o c i a l d i s t a n c e ("a p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s t a n c e beyond which the organism f e e l s anxious about because of a need to be i n c o n t a c t with others") ranging from 4 f e e t to 12 f e e t and a fioblic zone, f o r d i s t a n c e s g r e a t e r than 12 f e e t . H a l l (1966) Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 22 emphasizes t h a t d i s t a n c e by i t s e l f i s not as important as the communication that i s made p o s s i b l e a t these d i s t a n c e s . Many d i f f e r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l frameworks have been proposed not n e c e s s a r i l y c o n t r a d i c t i n g each other, but not enough has been done on each to allow the emergence of one p a r t i c u l a r t r e n d . 1 1 The use of pe r s o n a l space seems to be determined by i n d i v i d u a l f a c t o r s (e.g., age, p e r s o n a l i t y , and c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s ) , i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s 1 2 and s i t u a t i o n a l determinants (e.g., f o r m a l i t y , strangeness, and l o c a t i o n ) . S t u d i e s support the idea t h a t d i s t a n c e of i n t e r a c t i o n a l s o depends on the f a m i l i a r i t y witnessed by the i n d i v i d u a l . There i s reason to b e l i e v e t h a t p r e v i o u s experience with a p l a c e w i l l cause people to d i s p l a y g r e a t e r w i l l i n g n e s s f o r c l o s e c o n t a c t with o t h e r s . T h i s s i t u a t i o n may a r i s e because they f e e l t h a t i n such a s e t t i n g , they have b e t t e r c o n t r o l over t h e i r c o n t a c t s with o t h e r s , T e r r i t o r i a l i t y Sometimes i t i s hard t o d i s t i n g u i s h between personal space and t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , e s p e c i a l l y when both are being used f o r one end, the defence of p r i v a c y (Sommer, 1969). While p e r s o n a l space i s c l o s e to the s e l f , t e r r i t o r i a l i t y u s u a l l y i n v o l v e s the use of p l a c e s and o b j e c t s i n the e n v i r o n m e n t . 1 3 Objects and other p h y s i c a l elements can become •personal* as a r e s u l t of Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 23 t h e i r uniqueness, t h e i r c o n s t a n t use or c u l t u r a l attachment to any one person. Sharing these p h y s i c a l elements with somebody e l s e u s u a l l y e n t a i l s a s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h a t person. (Altman and T a y l o r , 1973). L i k e o t h e r mechanisms, t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , i s a f l e x i b l e behaviour. I t can be adjusted and r e a d j u s t e d t o compliment and supplement other mechanisms over time, depending on how s u c c e s s f u l these other a l t e r n a t i v e or complimentary mechanisms are i n c o n t r o l l i n g i n t e r a c t i o n . , . The s e r i o u s n e s s o f t e r r i t o r i a l i n v a s i o n i s not r e l a t e d so much t o the method as i t t o the type of t e r r i t o r y that i s encroached upon, the i n t e n s i t y of the encroachment, and the mechanism a v a i l a b l e f o r response. A l l t e r r i t o r i a l v i o l a t i o n s do not have the same meaning nor are they responded t o i n the same way (Altman, 1975). A whole host of mechanisms ( v e r b a l , non-verbal, etc.) from the most harmless to the most a g g r e s s i v e are brought i n t o a c t i o n to defend the t e r r i t o r y . The importance of the t e r r i t o r y invaded w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n the demarcations t h a t are more or l e s s obvious and permanent as we l l as v a r i a t i o n s i n d e f e n s i v e a g g r e s s i o n s . Altman (1975) d e f i n e s three types c f t e r r i t o r i e s . Permanent t e r r i t o r i e s are c o n t r o l l e d e x c l u s i v e l y by i n d i v i d u a l s or groups, on a r e l a t i v e l y permanent b a s i s . Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 24 Secondary t e r r i t o r i e s are p l a c e s over which an i n d i v i d u a l has some c o n t r o l , ownership and r e g u l a t o r y powers but not to the same degree as primary t e r r i t o r i a l i t y . Such a s i t u a t i o n c r e a t e s a p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t due to the u n c e r t a i n t y of t h e i r nature (Hewman, 1972). Secondary zones should have a c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n of p a r t i a l . c o n t r o l . P u b l i c t e r r i t o r i e s " . . . have a temporary q u a l i t y and almost any one has a f r e e access and occupancy r i g h t s " (p. 118). Given inadequate p h y s i c a l means, users w i l l r e l y h e a v i l y on v e r b a l and non-verbal mechanisms to r e g u l a t e i n t e r a c t i o n . Although the body of knowledqe i s very l i m i t e d , c e r t a i n t r e n d s can be d i s c e r n e d . T e r r i t o r i a l behaviours seem to have a s t a b i l i z i n g f u n c t i o n f o r s o c i a l groups. By s e t t i n g c l e a r demarcations, c l a r i f y i n g r o l e s , and p r o v i d i n g v i s i b l e cues as to who i s doing what and where. 1 5 E m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h has noted the importance of rooms f o r i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y members f o r withdrawal frcm others (Jourard, 1966). Other s t u d i e s d e s c r i b e how p h y s i c a l elements such as windows, drapes, doors, fences and s i g n s are u t i l i z e d t o p r o t e c t people from unwanted i n t r u s i o n (Schwartz, 1968) and how inadequate s e p a r a t i o n can make p r i v a c y d i f f i c u l t . Chermayeff and Alexander (1963) propose the e x i s t e n c e of s i x domains or h i e r a r c h i e s of p u b l i c / p r i v a t e i n t e r a c t i o n , ranging from u r b a n — p u b l i c at one end of the s c a l e t o Chapter 1 : P r i v a c y 25 i n d i v i d u a l — p r i v a t e a t the o t her. They s t r e s s t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l i n t e g r i t y and s p e c i a l q u a l i t i e s of each domain must be preserved. T h e r e f o r e s e p a r a t i o n , i n s u l a t i o n and degree of access and c o n t r o l between each domain i s of extreme importance. They emphasize the need f o r l o c k s and b a r r i e r s from one space to another, and from one domain to.another. 1.4 Summary In t h i s c h a p t e r , an overview of p r i v a c y has been presented. Becent l i t e r a t u r e e x p l a i n s p r i v a c y i n terms of freedom and c o n t r o l over i n t e r a c t i o n between the s e l f and o t h e r s , r a t h e r than as withdrawal. V a r i o u s mechanisms can be used t o achieve t h i s c o n t r o l , u s u a l l y i n combination with ether mechanisms. The p h y s i c a l environment modifies p r i v a c y e i t h e r by the d i r e c t u t i l i z a t i o n of p h y s i c a l f a c t o r s , such as p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s , p h y s i c a l d i s t a n c i n g and t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , or by modifying o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 26 Footnotes *John Locke, The Second T r e a t i s e of C i v i l Government, p. 129, 1924, quoted i n Konvitz (1966): 275. 2W. James, The p r i n c i p l e s ; of Psychology. 1890, quoted i n M a r s h a l l (1970) . 3 To these one can add Bates (1964), K i r a (1966), and S. Milgram (1970). *H. Osmond, " F u n c t i o n as the b a s i s of a p s y c h i a t r i c Ward", Mental H o s p i t a l s . 8 (1957): 23-30, quoted i n Altman (1975). s " . . . ( p r i v a c y c o n s i s t s of) . . . those behaviours which enhance and maintain, those c o n t r o l s over outcomes i n d i r e c t l y , by c o n t r o l l i n q i n t e r a c t i o n s with o t h e r s . " (Johnson, 1974: 90). 6Such as r e s e r v e , anonymity, s e c l u s i o n and so on. More i s s a i d about these s t a t e s of p r i v a c y i n Chapter 2. 7These a s s o c i a t i o n s are i n v o l u n t a r y up to a p o i n t . A person w i l l attempt t o move i n t o qroups which s a t i s f y h i s p a r t i c u l a r needs ( F e s t i n g e r , 1951). In ,most cases the r e s i d e n t s have a c h o i c e ever the group or l i f e s t y l e (e.g., co-op versus condominium), but probably not over the immediate neighbours. "One study showed t h a t the p r o x i m i t y ended enmity. . *»: . . . the d e s i g n e r s were r i g h t i n assuming t h a t c l u s t e r i n g (of the housing u n i t s ) i n c r e a s e s s o c i a b i l i t y ; they d i d not a n t i c p a t e t h a t p r o x i m i t y would i n c r e a s e enmity " (Dean, 1976). 9 T h i s i s H e s t i n ' s s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . Others g i v e i t ether names such as r e f l e c t i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and meditation ( K i r a , 1966; Chermayeff and Alexander, 1963; J o u r a r d , 1966). 1 < J S o c i a l comparison theory proposed by L. F e s t i n g e r , "A Theory of S o c i a l Comparison Process" Human R e l a t i o n s , 7(1954): 117-140, quoted i n Altman (197 5) . t l s e e Altman (1975), Chapter 4 f o r a f u l l e r d e s c r i p t i o n of these frameworks, 1 R e l a t i o n s h i p s between people are a s s o c i a t e d with c l o s e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l d i s t a n c e s , or s m a l l e r p e r s o n a l space 2 o n e s . Conversely, people l o c a t e d at c l o s e (but net o v e r l y c l o s e ) d i s t a n c e s are viewed as havinq qood i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . (Scffmer, 1969). Chapter 1: P r i v a c y 27 1 3 P r i v a c y r e g u l a t i o n mechanisms have a powerful meaning i n Western C u l t u r e . Primary t e r r i t o r i e s are important boundary r e g u l a t i o n processes and i l l u s t r a t e the c l o s e l i n k a g e between p r i v a c y r e g u l a t i o n , t e r r i t o r y mechnanisms and s e l f - i d e n t i t y . " (filtman, 1975: 114). **See a l s o Lyman and S c o t t (1967) who d e f i n e f o u r types of t e r r i t o r i e s : p u b l i c t e r r i t o r i e s , home t e r r i t o r i e s , i n t e r a c t i o n a l t e r r i t o r i e s and body t e r r i t o r i e s . 1 S J o u r a r d (1971) a l s o speaks o f " . . . a sharp d i s t i n c t i o n between p u b l i c and p r i v a t e . . . t o make i t a f i t s o c i e t y f o r people to l i v e i n . f o r the r i c h experience of e x i s t e n c e t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the s o c i e t y a f f o r d s . " (p. 65) 28 o f • CONCEPTUAL FRAHEWOBK AND HYPOTHESES The purpose of t h i s study i s to apply a concept of p r i v a c y to the sphere o f r e s i d e n t i a l design, and e m p i r i c a l l y t e s t the t h e o r e t i c a l framework of three authors: Westin (1970), M a r s h a l l (1970, 1972), Altman (1974, 1975, 1976) and Altman et a l (1970, 1971, 1973). A l l t h r e e authors s t a r t from a common t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s , t h e i r study i s b u i l t on the d e f i n i t i o n o f p r i v a c y as a c o n t r o l over i n t e r a c t i o n . 2.1 Conceptual,, Framework Westin's work (1970), although p r i m a r i l y an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the m o r a l i t y o f i n t r u s i o n , devotes the f i r s t chapter tc the nature of p r i v a c y . Westin d i s s e c t s p r i v a c y i n t o f o u r s t a t e s . In the s t a t e of S o l i t u d e , the i n d i v i d u a l deems hi m s e l f alone, i n h i s m a t e r i a l and conscious s t a t e s , although u n c o n s c i o u s l y he Chapter 2: Hypotheses 29 might be observed, or might be i n s p i r i t u a l union with ether beings. In t h i s s t a t e the s e l f i s the s u b j e c t and o b j e c t of comiRunication. T h i s i s the most complete s t a t e of privacy that can be achieved by any i n d i v i d u a l . ; Intimacy on the other hand, i n v o l v e s the s e p a r a t i o n of a s m a l l group from others - the minimum number that can experience t h i s s t a t e i s t h e r e f o r e two. The i n d i v i d u a l i s " . . . a c t i n g as pa r t of a s m a l l s o c i a l u n i t t h a t c l a i m s and i s allowed to e x e r c i s e c o r p o r a t e s e c l u s i o n so th a t i t may achieve a c l o s e , r e l a x e d and frank r e l a t i o n s h i p between two o r more i n d i v i d u a l s " (p. 22). Anonymity i s the f e e l i n g o f being l o s t i n a crowd i n s p i t e of a multitude of people. The s t a t e can be achieved by conforming i n a c t i o n , thought and behaviour with h i s r e s p e c t i v e s o c i a l group t o the poi n t of being camouflaged. Reserve, the l a s t of westin*s s t a t e s , e n t a i l s " . . . the c r e a t i o n of a p s y c h o l o g i c a l b a r r i e r a g a i n s t unwanted i n t r u s i o n " (p. 32). Again t h i s s t a t e i n v o l v e s o n l y the i n d i v i d u a l , and together with i n t i m a c y , are f a r more common than the ether two s t a t e s . M a r s h a l l (1970, 1972) d e r i v e d s i x components of p r i v a c y . Her study i n v o l v e d c o l l e g e students and t h e i r parents, who were in t e r v i e w e d about t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r p r i v a c y . The questions made up the P r i v a c y Preference S c a l e , c o n s i s t i n g of a s e t of v a r i a b l e s r e l a t i n g t o v a r i o u s f a c t o r s conducive to p r i v a c y . The s t a t i s t i c a l f a c t o r i a l r o t a t i o n t h a t was a p p l i e d to the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the items on t h i s s c a l e loaded on s i x subscales,; Chapter 2: Hypotheses 30 a l l of which appeared both on the a d u l t and on the student samples. The f i r s t s u b s c a l e , Intimacy. " . . . was l a r g e l y concerned with items f o r u n i t s g r e a t e r than one (e.g., with i n t i m a t e f r i e n d s or f a m i l y ) " t h e con t e n t s of the items l o a d i n g on the Sot-Neighbouring s u b s c a l e d e a l t " . . . with d i s l i k i n g the tendency of f r i e n d s or neighbours to drop i n without warning, and with a preference f o r non-involvement with neighbours", e i t h e r by the l a y i n g down of norms f o r v i s i t i n g , or by choosing the " r i g h t " neighbours. S e c l u s i o n items d e a l t with " . . . v i s u a l and a u d i t o r y s e c l u s i o n o f the home, p l a c i n g i t cut of sound and s i g h t of neighbour and t r a f f i c " and to be alone. S o l i t u d e a l s o r e f l e c t e d a d e s i r e t o be alone, e i t h e r with others nearby, or f a r away from o t h e r s . Anonymity on the other hand, was s i m i l a r i n content to Westin's ' l o s t i n a crowd* e f f e c t , but was adapted to the anonymity of urban l i v i n g . The l a s t s u b s c a l e , Beserve ( M a r s h a l l , 1972) d e a l t with a preference not to d i s c l o s e much about o n e s e l f t o o t h e r s . Marshall»s s u b s c a l e s were g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s ( S o l i t u d e and S e c l u s i o n ) , s i z e o f u n i t seeking p r i v a c y (Intimacy) and d i s c l o s u r e (Not-Neighbouring, Anonymity and Beserve). The s i m i l a r i t i e s between Westin's t h e o r e t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s and M a r s h a l l ' s e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s are obvious. They seem to be Chapter 2: Hypotheses 31 the only two who have d i s s e c t e d the a b s t r a c t concept of • p r i v a c y * i n t o more o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s . Other e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s (as i n housing e v a l u a t i o n s ) r a r e l y make t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n , and u s u a l l y ask general q u e s t i o n s of the type Mdo~you-have-enough privacy-in-your-home?" M a r s h a l l (1970, 1972) i s perhaps the onl y one to c o n s i d e r these s i x s u b s c a l e s i n r e l a t i o n to environmental v a r i a b l e s t h a t were intended to measure the amount of p r i v a c y i n the past and present p h y s i c a l environments of her respondents. While M a r s h a l l ' s environmental q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1 c o n t a i n e d some r e f e r e n c e s to p r i v a c y i n outdoor spaces (e.g., a b i l i t y to sunbathe without being seen), the d e f i n i t i o n s were c a t e g o r i z e d by the c h a r a c t e r of p r i v a c y ( v i s u a l , n o i s e, odour etc.) r a t h e r than the s t a t e , or the type of a c t i v i t y that was performed i n a s p e c i f i c p l a c e . T h i s r e s e a r c h undertakes to u t i l i z e the o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of p r i v a c y by Westin and M a r s h a l l t o i n v e s t i g a t e the a t t i t u d e s towards t h i s experience i n r e l a t i o n to s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d out i n a s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n i n the h o u s e — t h e p r i v a t e outdoor space. 2.2 The.Hypotheses The d e f i n i t i o n o f p r i v a c y supported by t h i s work i s cne of c o n t r o l over access to the s e l f . Thoughts, b e l i e f s , behaviours, Chapter 2: Hypotheses 32 and even p h y s i c a l e n t i t i e s can be a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of s e l f . P r i v a c y p r i m a r i l y e n t a i l s a c o n t r o l over d i v u l g i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on these aspects of the s e l f . One would expect t h a t , under the same circumstances more c o n t r o l over d i s c l o s u r e of i n f o r m a t i o n would be e x e r c i s e d with people one gets along with r a t h e r than with those t h a t one does not. I f a person l i k e s someone with whom he/she i s about t o i n t e r a c t , or f e e l s a sense of i d e n t i t y with a group, r e c e p t i v i t y t o s o c i a l c o n t a c t w i l l be h i g h . 2 There i s evidence t o suggest t h a t s o c i a l l y (and p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y ) compatible u n i t s are c l o s e r t o g e t h e r . Altman and T a y l o r (1973), make a case f o r a c o s t / b e n e f i t assessment by the i n d i v i d u a l before proceeding to the next l e v e l ( p o s s i b l y more i n t i m a t e i n the case of an i n c r e a s i n g p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p ) . 3 Work on proxemics (Sommer, 1969) i n d i c a t e s t h a t such a person i s taken i n t o more i n t i m a t e p h y s i c a l d i s t a n c e s than s t r a n g e r s . Two s t u d i e s by Altman and Haythorn (1967) and Altman, T a y l o r and Wheeler (1971) suggest t h a t " . . . growing or compatible i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n v o l v e a gra d u a l e l i m i n a t i o n of p h y s i c a l i n t e r p e r s o n a l boundaries" (Altman and T a y l o r , 1973: 115). Hence i n the r e s i d e n t i a l environment one would expect t h a t these people would be taken i n t o g r e a t e r confidence with i n c r e a s e d mutual c o m p a t i b i l i t y . * The s i t u a t i o n a l placement of r e s i d e n t s i n high d e n s i t y environments makes i t d i f f i c u l t to a v o i d i n t r u s i o n by p h y s i c a l Chapter 2: Hypotheses 33 removal of the source or the o b j e c t of the i n t r u s i o n . Other means have t o be u t i l i z e d t o reduce the e f f e c t o f the i n t r u s i o n , i n the manner d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 1.3. The s t u d i e s by Altman et a l , mentioned above, suggest t h a t s o c i a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y c r e a t e s a s o c i a l bond which e v e n t u a l l y allows p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s such as t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , t o be removed. Subseguent s h a r i n g of spaces, o b j e c t s and a c t i v i t i e s may then occur. In view of the above arguments, i t was p o s s i b l e t o generate hypotheses r e l a t i n g to f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g , a. the c o n t r o l over i n t e r a c t i o n , and b. the manner i n which t h i s c o n t r o l was achieved. I t was hypothesized t h a t : "Given a t e r r i t o r i a l demarcation of a p r i v a t e outdoor space i n a m u l t i f a m i l y housing p r o j e c t , f o r respondents with s i m i l a r socio-economic background, the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with p r i v a c y w i l l depend on the s o c i a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y between the neighbours, and on how w e l l they f e e l they f i t i n the community and neighbourhood. Moreover, an i n c r e a s e i n incongruence between the neighbours w i l l be expressed through a g r e a t e r emphasis on p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s and l e s s on d i s c l o s u r e , and v i c e - v e r s a . " There are two b a s i c types of s o c i a l s t r a t e g i e s which are used to a s s i s t i n the achievement of p r i v a c y . These are c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d e x c l u s i o n techniques, and more commonly s e l f censure. Which technique i s used i s presumably a complex f u n c t i o n of the behaviour i n v o l v e d , the p h y s i c a l props a t hand and the i n t r u d e r * p s y c h o l o q i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s {Bossley, 1S76). Chapter 2: Hypotheses 34 The hypothesis suggests that compatible s o c i a l u n i t s would avoid i n t r u s i o n (and being invaded upon) by r e s t r i c t i o n of behaviours and a c t i v i t i e s r a t h e r than p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s . For s o c i a l l y i ncompatible u n i t s , c o n t r o l over a c t i v i t i e s i s not e f f e c t e d , dominance over t e r r i t o r y i s expressed by l i b e r a l performance of a c t i v i t i e s and neighbour i n t r u s i o n i s l i m i t e d by the use of p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s (or u l t i m a t e l y by moving o u t ) . In t h i s case p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s are a defence mechanism ( i n p u t ) , as l a c k of p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s would r e s u l t i n u n w i l f u l r e s t r a i n e d behaviour (Altman and T a y l o r , 1973), which might induce s t r e s s . Secondary hypotheses were a l s o generated i n r e l a t i o n t o the socio-economic s t a t u s , age, sex, amount of space i n the house and present crowding c o n d i t i o n s of the respondents, but these w i l l be expounded on throughout Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 2: Hypotheses 35 Footnotes * M a r s h a l l (1970) developed a t h r e e - p a r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r her study. The f i r s t , the P r i v a c y P r e f e r e n c e S c a l e , c o n s i s t e d of an 86-item s c a l e intended to measure p r i v a c y through agreement about statements r e g a r d i n g p r i v a c y i n a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s . An Environmental Q u e s t i o n n a i r e assessed the amount c f p r i v a c y , both p o t e n t i a l and r e a l i z e d , i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s present and c h i l d h o o d p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l environment, as w e l l as the number of people l i v e d with, p r i v a c y w i t h i n the house, p e r c e p t i o n of n o i s e , odour, perceived crowding, p e r c e i v e d p r i v a c y i n the home, perce i v e d p r i v a c y from neighbours and job d e n s i t y . ft L e g a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e assessed a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s about the " r i g h t t o p r i v a c y " . 2 I f i n t e r a c t i o n with a f r i e n d i s expected, c l o s e n e s s i s d e s i r a b l e whereas i n t e r a c t i o n with a s t r a n g e r would r e g u i r e an i n t e r m e d i a t e d i s t a n c e t h a t i s o p t i m a l : being too c l o s e or too f a r i s not i d e a l . For unexpected i n t e r a c t i o n s with a s t r a n g e r however, the g r e a t e r the d i s t a n c e the b e t t e r . Research suggests t h a t people are s e n s i t i v e t o one another's pe r s o n a l space zones and seek to avo i d i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n t r u s i o n i n t o these boundaries. When i n t r u s i o n occurs t h e r e are attempts t o be a p o l o g e t i c . 3 T h i s i s not always the case. Goffman d i s c o v e r e d t h a t people have a tendency to d i v u l g e c e r t a i n i n t i m a c i e s to s t r a n g e r s who they probably w i l l never meet aga i n . . . . with p e r c e i v e d c o m p a t i b i l i t y , there i s l i k e l y to be f u r t h e r mutual r e v e a l i n g and probing." See Altman and T a y l o r (1973), I n t r o d u c t i o n . They hypothesize t h a t : a. i n t e r p e r s o n a l exchange i n c r e a s e s from s u p e r f i c i a l t o i n t e n s e t c i n t i m a t e , as they make more of themselves known to o t h e r s ; b. the advancement of a r e l a t i o n s h i p depends cn the amount of rewards/costs which are assessed at each stage o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h i s reward/cost balance i s a l s o used p r e d i c t i v e l y t o assess the outcomes of f u t u r e i n t e r a c t i o n s . 36 ~ J •METHODOLOGY " . ... . and now f o r something completely d i f f e r e n t " (Monty Python's F l y i n g C i r c u s ) Simultaneously with the development c f a conceptual framework f o r t h i s study, many methods of g a t h e r i n g data were examined. fts the aims of the study p r o g r e s s i v e l y became c l e a r e r , i t was p o s s i b l e to weigh the advantages and disadvantages o f each survey method more a c c u r a t e l y . U l t i m a t e l y a q u e s t i o n n a i r e form was deemed as the most a p p r o p r i a t e . 3.1 Development o f the T h e o r e t i c a l Components 3.1.1 P r i v a c y Components From Westin's (1970) t h e o r e t i c a l and M a r s h a l l ' s (1970, 1972) e m p r i c a l l y d e r i v e d s t a t e s of p r i v a c y , f o u r were adopted f o r use i n t h i s study. These p r i v a c y components were S e c l u s i o n , Chapter 3: Methodology 37 Anonymity, Not Neighbouring,- and Intimacy. S o l i t u d e and Reserve had been e l i m i n a t e d at each of the two p r e - t e s t s . I t was f e l t t h a t given the l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s of the sample, there was l i t t l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t these s t a t e s would even occur. In a d d i t i o n , they were found too d i f f i c u l t t o implement i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The i m p l i c a t i o n s of the f o u r s t a t e s are not d i s s i m i l a r to M a r s h a l l ' s , but the d e f i n i t i o n s were amended to f i t the c o n t e x t of t h i s study. Thus the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e was concerned o n l y with i s o l a t i o n from the o b s e r v a t i o n by neighbours. The Anonymity s t a t e r e q u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n about conspicuousness as a household, i . e . about how much the respondents f e l t they stood out from the r e s t of the households. The Not-Neighbouring s t a t e was concerned with i n t e r r u p t i o n s by the neighbours and the Intimacy s t a t e was concerned with group s e c l u s i o n from o b s e r v a t i o n by the neighbours. 3.1.2 C o m p a t i b i l i t y Components To t e s t the l i k e / d i s l i k e c o m p a t i b i l i t y measures, two s e t s of d e s c r i p t o r s were developed, one t o d e s c r i b e the neighbourhood and one to d e s c r i b e the neighbours. The neighbourhood d e s c r i p t o r s are based on the work of Lansing, Marans and Zehner (1970). The d e s c r i p t o r s d e a l with p e r c e p t i o n s of n o i s e , a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , maintenance, p l e a s a n t n e s s , Chapter 3: Methodology 38 crowdedness, and the adequacy of the neighbourhood as a p l a c e to l i v e . Both s c a l e s are reproduced i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y i n Appendix I I , as q u e s t i o n s B1 and B2 r e s p e c t i v e l y . The l a t t e r was based on a study done by Mann (1951) i n which an e m p i r i c a l attempt was made to f i n d d e s c r i p t o r s by which i n d i v i d u a l s d e f i n e •neighbours'. The d e s c r i p t o r s i d e n t i f y p e r c e i v e d measures of f r i e n d l i n e s s , n o i s i n e s s , s i m i l a r i t y of i n t e r e s t s , h e l p f u l n e s s , and c l a s s , of the neighbours. 3.1.3 The . A c t i v i t i e s A set of 11 outdoor a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s were developed to measure v a r i a t i o n s o f p r i v a c y with a c t i v i t y . These a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s were d e r i v e d from the work by Chapin{1974) and CMHC(1974) but were amended, to f i t l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s . The a c t i v i t i e s d e scribed w i t h i n each category v a r i e d widely i n nature, (and consequently i n t h e i r p r i v a c y requirements). These t h r e e elements were put together i n the form of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix I I ) . Altman*s (1975) model of d e s i r e d and achieved p r i v a c y was i n c o r p o r a t e d t o d i s c o v e r the extent of p r e f e r e n c e s f o r p r i v a c y , to assess the c u r r e n t s t a t e of p r i v a c y i n the p r o j e c t s . According to h i s model, s a t i s f a c t i o n with p r i v a c y i s o n l y i d e a l when the d e s i r e d l e v e l Chapter 3: Methodology 39 equates with the achieved l e v e l . I t f o l l o w s t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the s e p a r a t i o n between the two responses would g i v e a measure c f the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , and moreover al l o w s one to i n f e r the n a t c r e o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n {whether p o s i t i v e or negative) by the l o c a t i o n on the s c a l e at which i t occurs. 3.2 The Survey The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was t e s t e d at two stages i n i t s development. I n i t i a l l y i t was t e s t e d on f o u r households from De Cosmos V i l l a g e , a neighbouring co-op a t Champlain Heights and at a l a t e r stage on s i x people from v a r i o u s walks of l i f e . 1 When the g u e s t i o n n a i r e was considered s a t i s f a c t o r y , a sample of 120 households was randomly s e l e c t e d from two m u l t i f a m i l y housing p r o j e c t s , d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 3.3.1. The management of each p r o j e c t was informed of the study and a l e t t e r (reproduced as Appendix I) was c i r c u l a t e d t o each household s e l e c t e d , before the i n t e r v i e w s were s t a r t e d . The i n f o r m a t i o n was c o l l e c t e d by one i n t e r v i e w e r , the author, from a sample comprising roughly 20% of the households from each p r o j e c t . 41SS of the respondents chosen p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the survey. Host of the respondents were not a t home a f t e r a Chapter 3: Methodology 40 second and sometimes a t h i r d c a l l , but on l y abcut s i x households b l a t a n t l y r e f u s e d t o cooperate. 3.2.1 The.Questionnaire As only s u b t l e d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between some of the g u e s t i o n s , the i n t e r v i e w e r had to be c o n s i s t e n t l y a l e r t to check, by probes or other means, that the respondents adequately understood what was being asked of them, and that they answered i n the r i g h t f a s h i o n . The i n t e r v i e w s v a r i e d i n d u r a t i o n from one and a h a l f hours t o twenty f i v e minutes. On the average they l a s t e d f o r t y f i v e minutes. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was composed o f two s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n c o n s i s t e d o f a s e t of 88 q u e s t i o n s , r e l a t e d t c the p r e f e r r e d and achieved l e v e l s of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the four s t a t e s of p r i v a c y d e s c r i b e d above, f o r v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s outdoors. Owing to the r e p e t i t i o n of the a c t i v i t i e s over the f o u r q u e s t i o n s t h a t were asked, and to s i m p l i f y the method of response, the respondents i n d i c a t e d t h e i r r e p l i e s cn an answer board designed f o r the purpose, on which the s e t of 11 outdoor a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s were d i s p l a y e d . The respondents were t o l d t h a t they were not expected t o perform a l l of the a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d . For those a c t i v i t i e s t h a t d i d cot a p p l y , each respondent was asked t o g i v e h i s preference i f the a c t i v i t y had to be performed. A probe q u e s t i o n was asked t o d i s c o v e r why the Chapter 3: Methodology 41 a c t i v i t i e s were not performed. A d e s c r i p t i o n of the types of a c t i v i t i e s , were d i s p l a y e d i n turn against a f i v e - p o i n t L i k e r t - s c a l e . The Scale had two s e c t i o n s , the top f o r p r e f e rence answers and the bottcm f o r achievement answers. The f i v e p o s i t i o n s on the L i k e r t - S c a l e r e l a t e d to a d e s c r i p t i o n a t the bottom of the board, i n d i c a t i n g what each l o c a t i o n on the f i v e p o i n t s meant., T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n changed from one p r i v a c y s t a t e t o the o t h e r , except f o r the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and the Intimacy s t a t e , which,both used the same s c a l e . The respondent was given a s e t o f markers (upturned, b r i g h t l y c o l o u r e d thumb tacks) and were asked to s l i d e the markers on the s c a l e a g a i n s t each a c t i v i t y , with each que s t i o n r e l a t i n g to the p r i v a c y s t a t e s . Four q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d to the f o u r d i f f e r e n t s t a t e s of p r i v a c y : Intimacy s t a t e , Not-Neiqhbourinq s t a t e , Anonymity s t a t e , and s e c l u s i o n s t a t e ( c f . Appendix I I ) . The q u e s t i o n s were worded on two s e t s of c a r d s , one f o r the i n t e r v i e w e r and the other ( i n abridqed form) was d i s p l a y e d i n f r o n t c f the respondent. The placement of each marker on the L i k e r t - S c a l e was marked on a s i m i l a r but s i m p l i f i e d sheet on the i n t e r v i e w e r ' s reponse sheet, a c c o r d i n q to the column numbers the markers were placed i n . In the second part of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , (Part E i n Chapter 3: Methodology Appendix II) the respondents were s u p p l i e d with two c a r d s f o r guestions B1 and B2 and asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r answers using the markers. The responses were t r a n s c r i b e d on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e sheet by the i n t e r v i e w e r . The l a s t q u e s t i o n i n t h i s s e c t i o n was an open ended q u e s t i o n i n t e n d e d to a l i o * the respondent to v o i c e any g r i e v a n c e s which were not covered by the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . As i t turned out very few of the respondents had anything to add about p r i v a c y outdoors, but d i d t a l k very much about other a s p e c t s of p r i v a c y . 3.2.2 Problems,Encountered The r e s e a r c h design developed i n t h i s study measures the s e p a r a t i o n between the p r e f e r r e d and the achieved c o n d i t i o n as deqrees of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . In some cases t h i s might not always work as seme respondents were w i l l i n g to accept a compromise becajyse they could not a f f o r d what they, p r e f e r r e d . The d o l l a r c o n s t r a i n t was f o r c i n g them t o adapt to a new l i v i n g s i t u a t i o n , where they had t o share more of the immediate r e s i d e n t i a l environment with the neighbours. The e x e r c i s e then becomes one of a s s e s s i n g t o what extent t h i s s i t u a t i o n induces s t r e s s (both long and short term) on the i n d i v i d u a l . T h i s was o u t s i d e the scope of t h i s t h e s i s . I f the p r e f e r r e d responses can be somewhat i d e a l i s t i c , the achieved responses can a l s o g i v e i n c o r r e c t r e s u l t s about what Chapter 3: Methodology 4 3 they are t r y i n g to d i s c o v e r . The p e r c e i v e d 'achieved* c o n d i t i o n i s a f u n c t i o n o f one's past experience,2 the present mental, p h y s i c a l and economic c o n d i t i o n , as w e l l as the a s p i r a t i o n s ( K a s l , 1 S 7 4 ) . T h e i r assessment of what they have a l s o took i n t o account t h e i r a t t i t u d e to compromise. The major problem encountered i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was i n making sure t h a t the respondents i n t e r p r e t e d the ques t i o n s c o r r e c t l y . Each respondent was t o l d at the s t a r t t h a t althouqh t h i s study was abcut " p r i v a c y " i n p r i v a t e outdoor spaces, they should c o n c e n t r a t e on each s p e c i f i c s t a t e of p r i v a c y being asked about. Of the f o u r q u e s t i o n s i n Part A , the most d i f f i c u l t proved to be the Hot-Neighbouring q u e s t i o n . The q u e s t i o n ran: "Row would you r a t e your l i k e o r d i s l i k e a t beinq i n t e r r u p t e d by the neiqhbour who s t a r t s communication with you while you were performinq any of these a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d on the board, so t h a t you had t o i n t e r r u p t them to . a ttend t o h i s need. I want t o knew your p r e f e r r e d l e v e l and your present l e v e l s of l i k e or d i s l i k e . " While i t was f a i r l y easy t o qive a preference l e v e l t o t h i s g u e s t i o n , most respondents were confused when they t r i e d to qi v e the achieved l e v e l response. The response had to be drawn from the respondents i n two p a r t s : a. by the frequency of i n t e r r u p t i o n s they s u f f e r ; and b. by the l e v e l of di s c o m f o r t ( d i s l i k e ) or cemfort ( l i k e ) that the respondents had i n t h e i r present s e t up. While t h i s made i t somewhat e a s i e r , some respondents s t i l l Chapter 3: Methodology 44 remained perplexed. The next gue s t i o n which l e d to some d i f f i c u l t y concerned the degree of s e c l u s i o n (on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and the Intimacy s t a t e ) . The purpose f o r t h i s guestion was t w o f o l d . In the f i r s t i n s t a n c e (and p r i m a r i l y ) i t was a measure of the d i f f e r e n c e between d e s i r e d p r i v a c y and achieved p r i v a c y with a group of i n t i m a t e s ( i . e . , the Intimacy s t a t e ) , as opposed to p r i v a c y by o n e s e l f ( i . e . , the s e c l u s i o n s t a t e ) . In most cases t h e r e was a d i f f e r e n c e between two responses. The second reason was t h a t t h i s acted as a check, to determine whether the respondent had understood the procedure, and was answering c o r r e c t l y . O v e r a l l the f i r s t s e c t i o n was the most d i f f i c u l t p a r t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . , I t was a l s o the l o n g e r p a r t to a d m i n i s t e r . When the survey was completed, the i n f o r m a t i o n was analysed using SPSS (a s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s programme f o r s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s ) , 3.3 The Sample The sample f o r the study was s e l e c t e d from two m u l t i f a m i l y housing p r o j e c t s . The two p r o j e c t s were s e l e c t e d from the area Chapter 3: Hethodology 45 known as Champlain H e i g h t s , s i t u a t e d i n the south-east corner of the C i t y of Vancouver. The area, i s being developed i n accordance with the proposals s e t f o r t h i n the r e p o r t f o r areas E and F of the r e g i o n (1974). The p l a n and implementation r e p o r t emphasize " , . . f a m i l y housing f o r a broad range of income and age groups, household mix, accommodation f o r a v a r i e t y of l i f e s t y l e s , l i v e a b i l i t y i n housing, p r e s e r v a t i o n of n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s , r e c r e a t i o n a l open spaces and community s e r v i c e needs, v e h i c u l a r and p e d e s t r i a l t r a f f i c requirements." ( C i t y of Vancouver, 1974). 3.3.1 The P r o j e c t s The two p r o j e c t s were s e l e c t e d a f t e r an i n s p e c t i o n c f a number of m u l t i f a m i l y housinq p r o j e c t s around the C h a n p l a i n Heights area. Other areas i n the C i t y and o u t s i d e had been v i s i t e d , but t h i s area o f f e r e d the widest v a r i e t y of p r o j e c t s . A s e t of c r i t e r i a were developed to guide the s e l e c t i o n o f the p r o j e c t s w i t h i n t h i s area. The c r i t e r i a were the f o l l o w i n g : a. Type,of housing: Only p r o j e c t s with f a m i l y housing were examined. As f a m i l y housing c o n s t i t u t e s the m a j o r i t y of the households being e r e c t e d , i t was f e l t t h a t the problems they present are more acute. Only the p r o j e c t s with f a m i l y u n i t s accompanied by p r i v a t e outdoor spaces were s e l e c t e d . The chosen p r o j e c t s have a few apartments or s i n q l e bedroom u n i t s o f f the qround which were excluded Chapter 3: Methodology 46 from the p o p u l a t i o n . S i t e . P l a n n i n g : A v a r i e t y of c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of both p r i v a t e outdoor spaces and s i t e l a y o u t s was d e s i r a b l e . I t was hypothesized t h a t s i n c e s i t e p l a n n i n g c o n f i g u r a t i o n s provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r neighbouring and s o c i a l c o n t a c t ( F e s t i n g e r , 1951; whyte, 1956), t h i s would i n c r e a s e or reduce the need f o r p r i v a c y depending on the i n c r e a s e c r decrease i n c o n t a c t between the neighbours* c» Socio-economic s t a t u s of^the,respondents; Respondents with comparable socio-economic l e v e l s were deened neccessary. I t was f e l t t h a t the i n t r o d u c t i o n of more v a r i a b l e s would have decreased the v a l i d i t y and c o n c l u s i v e n e s s of the study. d « Type„of Tenure; P r i v a t e market housing was p r e f e r a b l e . Research i n t o p u b l i c housing i s very p r o l i f i c , but i n g u i r y i n t o p r i v a t e housing i s r a t h e r scanty. e * Area: The two p r o j e c t s were s e l e c t e d from the same area p r i m a r i l y f o r convenience of the r e s e a r c h . T h i s had the added e f f e c t of d i m i n i s h i n g p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n s i n the respondent's p e r c e p t i o n s of the r e s i d e n t i a l environment, thus g i v i n g more meaningful r e s u l t s . Although both p r o j e c t s stand o u t s i d e mutual v i s u a l c o n t a c t , the r e s i d e n t s share the same shopping f a c i l i t i e s a t Champlain M a l l , as well as the same bus r o u t e s and r e c r e a t i o n a l c e n t r e s . There i s evidence to suggest t h a t d i f f e r e n t p r i v a c y p r e f e r e n c e s e x i s t at s u b c u l t u r a l l e v e l {Kuper, Chapter 3: Methodology .7 1966; Bossley, 1976) . f . S i z e : P r o j e c t s t o be s e l e c t e d were to be l a r g e enough to make the study meaningful but s m a l l enough to allow a s u f f i c i e n t number o f i n t e r v i e w s to be c a r r i e d out w i t h i n a l i m i t e d time. The two p r o j e c t s which f i t t e d a l l o f the above c r i t e r i a were Kanata Housing C o o p e r a t i v e , and Southview Gardens. Kanata_Hgusing_Cooperative T h i s p r o j e c t i s made up of a t o t a l of 150 u n i t s , of which 8 are one-bedroomed with deck access. These were e l i m i n a t e d from the sample. The r e s t , i n c l u d e 52 2-bedrcom, 70 3-bedroom, and 20 4-bedroom u n i t s . , Except f o r the s i n g l e bedrcomed u n i t s the p r o j e c t i s s e t out i n f o u r c l u s t e r s (see s i t e p l a n . F i g 3. 1)* Each c l u s t e r surrounds some form of communal parking. Each u n i t i s provided with 1.5 parking spaces, h a l f of which are open, and uncovered. 3 A l l f o u r c l u s t e r s have some form c f play area f o r c h i l d r e n . The spaces w i t h i n the c l u s t e r s are blacktopped with c o n t r i v e d areas of v e g e t a t i o n . T h i s i s a medium d e n s i t y p r o j e c t with 15 u n i t s t o the a c r e . The p r o j e c t ' s present s e t t i n g p r o v i d e s ample open space around i t . There are no b u i l d i n g s or developments on the three Chapter 3: Methodology 49 major s i d e s . On the f o u r t h (north east) c o r n e r , the p r o j e c t abuts the Champlain High School. Most of the occupants took up r e s i d e n c e i n 1975. The p r o j e c t was c o o p e r a t i v e l y designed - i n the sense t h a t seme of the present r e s i d e n t s had a say i n p h y s i c a l planning d e c i s i o n s . Members from the co-op had been e l e c t e d f o r the task, to rep r e s e n t the r e s t , but many of the o r i g i n a l members of the co-op, who were i n v o l v e d i n shaping the present design never made i t i n t o the co-op. Hence the i n t e r v i e w e r ' s probe q u e s t i o n on whether the respondent was i n v o l v e d at the design stage i n manipulating h i s own u n i t , was meaningless, as l e s s than f i v e of them were d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d . The u n i t s vary i n s i z e and l a y o u t . A l l u n i t s have a fenced area i n f r o n t o f the l i v i n g room, w i t h i n t h e i r t e r r i t o r y ( P l a t e s 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3), a l l are provided with a yard on the other s i d e of the house ( P l a t e s 3.4, 3.5). Each u n i t i s provided with two s o l i d timber f e n c e s , cn the s i d e of the l i v i n g room (the 'back')* between adjacent u n i t s . These fences are s i x f e e t h igh. The r e s i d e n t i s l e f t with the op t i o n of p r o v i d i n g the t h i r d fence at h i s cwn expense. T h i s fence can e i t h e r be 4 f e e t or 6 f e e t high, as long as i t i s made of the same m a t e r i a l ( i . e . wood) and the same design ( i . e . s o l i d ) as those a l r e a d y p r o v i d e d . About h a l f of the u n i t s l a c k Chapter 3: Methodology 50 t h i s t h i r d f e n c e . The f e n c e s between the backs o f u n i t s were provided to a f f o r d some p r o t e c t i o n from the neighbour's p e t s . . Admittedly t h i s h e l p s , but none o f the pets encountered {as the i n t e r v i e w e r had the misfortune t o experience) c o n f i n e d themselves w i t h i n t h e i r owners' t e r r i t o r y , and very few were on a l e a s h . Henceforth t h i s p r o j e c t s h a l l be r e f e r r e d to as KANATA. Sc,utj?yiew„Gardens Southview Gardens i s d e s c r i b e d as a " l i m i t e d d i v i d e n d development" - a r e n t - a s s i s t e d p r o j e c t f o r housing f o r the lower/middle income b r a c k e t . 5 The d e n s i t y of the p r o j e c t i s s l i g h t l y higher than a t Kanata, s t a n d i n g at 20 u n i t s per acre. There are a t o t a l of 140 u n i t s . The 28 apartments were e l i m i n a t e d from the sample. Of the r e s t , 77 are 2-bedroom, 25 are 3-bedrccm, and 10 are 4-bedroom u n i t s . Each u n i t i s rented, but t h i s does not deter the people on the long w a i t i n g l i s t . The houses are planned i n l i n e a r rows, on e i t h e r s i d e of three blacktopped c u l - d e - s a c s {see s i t e p l a n , F i g 3.2). These cu l - d e - s a c s d o v e t a i l the c a r p o r t s and the main ent r a n c e s a t the Chapter 3: Methodology 52 f r o n t of the houses. Parking p l a c e s d i v i d e the c u l - d e - s a c s i n t o t r a f f i c l a nes (Plate 3 . 6 ) . 6 A s o l i d w a l l s e p arates each c a r p o r t from the next. The l i v i n g room on the back opens on an outdoor space, d e l i m i t e d on a l l three s i d e s with 6 f o o t v e r t i c a l l y s l a t t e d timber fences ( P l a t e s 3.9, 3.10) A gate allows access to a g r a v e l pathway, s e p a r a t i n g the backs of the u n i t s . 7 A p a t i o over the c a r p o r t extends over the whole width of the u n i t ( p l a t e 3.8). The p r o j e c t i s run by a manager who, a c t i n g under d i r e c t i o n s from an almost defunct tenants* a s s o c i a t i o n , keeps very s t r i c t d i s c i p l i n e . 8 The r e s i d e n t s are allowed to modify the i n t e r i o r of t h e i r u n i t s , s u b j e c t to the a p p r o v a l cf the management, as long as each d w e l l i n g d i s p l a y s the same e x t e r n a l appears i n c l u d i n g d r a p e r i e s on the windows. Henceforth t h i s p r o j e c t s h a l l be r e f e r r e d t o as SOUTHVIEfl. 3.3.2 The, Respondents Of the f i f t y c a s e s , 18 respondents were male and 31 were female. There was a higher p r o p o r t i o n of male respondents i n Kanata (11 cases) than i n Southview (7 c a s e s ) . Each time the Chapter 3: Methodology 53 i n t e r v i e w e r s p e c i f i c a l l y asked f o r the person who uses the outdoors most. Table 3.1 summarizes the d i s t r i b u t i o n c f people within the households. The u n i t s i n both p r o j e c t s had a remarkably i d e n t i c a l average number of people per household (mean=2.95 p e r s o n s ) . The average number of c h i l d r e n per u n i t was a l s o i d e n t i c a l (1 c h i l d ) but i n Southview a higher percentage were aged below 12 years (Table 3.2). Conseguently the averace age (Table 3.3) was higher i n Kanata by about 10 years (means: Southview=36.4 years, Kanata=46.2 y e a r s ) . The average income was a l s o higher i n Kanata, where the majo r i t y (755.) of the households had an aggregate income above $12,500. In Southview only 235? were i n t h i s b r a c k e t . Chapter 3: Methodology 54 Table 3.1 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Households People Within persons 1 2 3 4 5 7 Kanata (%) 3,6 42.9 28,6 14.3 7.1 3.6 Southview (%) 4.5 27. 3 45.5 13.6 9.1 Table 3.2 Age D i s t r i b u t i o n Households o f C h i l d r e n i n 0-12 12-18 >19 years Kanata 39.3 14.2 46.5 % (28) Southview 68.2 4.5 27.3 % (22) [ ( ) N=number of respondents] Table 3.3 Age D i s t r i b u t i o n of Hespondents 18^34 35-54 55-74 >75 years Kanata 25.0 46.4 25.0 3.6 % (28) Southview 54.5 31.8 9.1 % (22) {( ) N=number of respondents] Chapter 3: Methodology 55 Plate 3.2 Kanata: Unit arrangements without carports Chapter 3: Methodology 56 Plate 3.4 Kanata: Backyard arrangement P l a t e 3 . 6 Southview: C l u s t e r arrangement Chapter 3: Methodology 58 P l a t e 3.8 Southview: Main acces s , c a r p o r t and p a t i o a r r a n g e a e n t — 2 s t o r e y s Chapter 3: Methodology P l a t e 3.10 Southview: Path between backyards Chapter 3: Methodology 60 Footnotes *This was p r i m a r i l y f o r the sake of convenience, as attempts to f i n d a s u i t a b l e housing p r o j e c t c l o s e t c the U n i v e r s i t y campus, o r w i l l i n g respondents o f f campus, f a i l e d . I t was f e l t t h a t the d i s p a r i t y i n the socio-economic s t a t u s of the t r i a l H's d i d not r e a l l y matter at t h i s stage. The survey instruments were being t e s t e d f o r t h e i r adeguacy r a t h e r than f o r the r e s u l t s they gave. 2 A l t h o u g h some people volunteered the i n f o r m a t i o n , the respondents were never asked about t h e i r p r e v i i o u s r e s i d e n t i a l experiences. Some respondents brought i t up as a f a c t o r which bore an i n f l u e n c e on what they p r e f e r r e d . 3 I n c l u d e d i n these are the r e s i d e n t ' s as well as the v i s i t o r ' s p a r k i n g . •To a v o i d c o n f u s i o n , the ' f r o n t * i s d e f i n e d as the s i d e of the house with the main i n g r e s s , i . e . , on the c a r p o r t s i d e . The opposite f a c e , on the l i v i n g room s i d e , s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d the 'back'. T h i s d e f i n i t i o n a p p l i e s to both p r o j e c t s s i n a l i m i t e d d i v i d e n d development, CMHC provides a low i n t e r e s t r a t e , and money i s matched by t h a t of an independent developer with the c o n s t r a i n t t h a t : a. the development be designed f o r f a m i l y accomodation; b. the Government c o n t r o l s the r e n t , l i m i t i n g the d i v i d e n d s to the owner; and c. the owner cannot take any p r o f i t f o r f i f t e e n y e a r s . *The design has c r e a t e d many b l i n d s p c t s . These ate i n the m a j o r i t y of cases a t the v e h i c u l a r e ntrances, due to the s o l i d w a l l s s e p a r a t i n g the c a r p o r t s . A b i c y c l e c i r c u i t i s i n c l u d e d i n the p r o j e c t , t o t a l l y enclosed and blacktopped. 7The extent to which t h i s was u t i l i z e d by the household i s d o u b t f u l ( c f . Question B5), s i n c e the main access door was on the other s i d e . Anybody using t h i s as an entrance would have to t r a v e r s e the garden and b r i n g d i r t i n t o the l i v i n g room. So presumably i t was a u s e f u l and guick way out f o r the c h i l d r e n . *No pets ( v i z . dogs or cats) are allowed i n the house, and t h r e e l o c a t i o n s are assigned f o r the c h i l d r e n ' s play areas. The management, at the reguest o f the Tenants' A s s o c i a t i o n has s e t a 9:00pm curfew on the youngsters, and has been e n t r u s t e d with a d m i n i s t e r i n g punishment by c o n f i n i n g the i n s u b o r d i n a t e c h i l d r e n to the outdoor spaces w i t h i n t h e i r homes. 61 • EESlAfiCH FINDINGS "The need f o r man t o extend t e r r i t o r i a l i t y r i g h t s from h i s home onto a p i e c e of ground or s e c t i o n outdoors seems t o be a strong and immutable one." [Cooper (1972): 18] The r e s u l t s d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s chapter are presented i n f i v e s e c t i o n s . They r e p r e s e n t the respondents* a t t i t u d e s towards the neighbourhood, the neighbours, the p r i v a t e open space i n the u n i t s , and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of p r i v a c y (or l a c k of i t ) with r e s p e c t t o a s e t of a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s . The l a s t s e c t i o n d i s c u s s e s f u r t h e r response v a r i a t i o n s w i t h i n the i n d i v i d u a l p r o j e c t s . 4.1 The Neighbourhood The respondents were asked t o r a t e t h e i r a t t i t u d e s 1 on a f i v e - p o i n t semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e , with r e s p e c t t o s i x d e s c r i p t o r s d e f i n i n g q u a l i t i e s o f the neighbourhood (Lansing, Mahrans and Zehner, 1970). Table 4.1 compares the responses frcm both p r o j e c t s f o r a l l s i x q u a l i t i e s . 3.6 14.3 46.4 32.1 3.6 % Kanata (28) B11 NOISY . - QUIET 4.5 9. 1 50.0 27.3 9. 1 % Southview (22) ' 3. 6 21. 4 21. 4 46. 4 7. 1 % Kanata (28) B12 UNATTRACTIVE : ATTRACTIVE - 3 1. 8 54. 5 13.6 % Southview (22) 3.6 7.1 21.4 46.4 21.4 % Kanata (28) B13 POORLY KEPT UP . — WELL KEPT UP 31. 8 60.2 % Southview (22) 3. 6 7. 1 10.7 50.0 29. 6 % Kanata (28) B14 UNPLEASANT . . PLEASANT - - 18. 2 63.6 18.2 % Southview (22) 7. 1 21. 4 28. 6 21. 4 21. 4 % Kanata (28) B15 OVERCROWDED — . NOT CROWDED 4. 5 18. 2 22.7 36.4 18.2 % Southview (22) B16 POOR 7. 1 3. 6 21.4 35.7 32. 1 % Kanata (28) GOOD PLACE TO LIVE PLACE TO LIVE 18. 2 50.0 31. 8 % Southview (22) n *_# J_t *_J _ J I_J 11 1 r\ m r% + r> *N _ , - . ______ ( n e g a t i v e " 8 1 ' 8 1 8 , 2 % Southview (22) p o s i t i v e ) 7. 1 2 1. 4 46. 4 25. 0 % Kanata (28) Tab l e 4.1 A t t i t u d e s Towards the Neighbourhood Chapter 4: Resu l t s 63 The term 'neighbourhood* was de f i n e d to the respondents as " . . . . the r e g i o n around your home to which you f e e l you belong." In most ca s e s , the respondents* p e r c e p t i o n of the neighbourhood was r e s t r i c t e d to the p r o j e c t they r e s i d e d i n . T h i s was understandable f o r Kanata, as i t was f a r removed from other developments. Southview however, was surrounded by a l l types of r e s i d e n t i a l developments, i n c l u d i n g a p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t (FP. 18), whose r e s i d e n t s became n o t o r i o u s f o r t h e i r c o n t i n u a l a f f i l i a t i o n s with the RCMP.2 A broader d e f i n i t i o n of •neighbourhood* beyond the t e r r i t o r y of t h e i r p r o j e c t would have had to i n c l u d e t h i s *less-than-worthy* p r o j e c t . I t i s e v i d e n t from the t a b l e t h a t i n s p i t e o f i t s higher e x t e r n a l d e n s i t y (20 u n i t s per acre as compared t o 15 upa i n Kanata) Southview i s p e r c e i v e d as l e s s crowded. T h i s supports more r e c e n t l i t e r a t u r e ( S t o k o l s , 1976; Baum and Davis, 1976; Choi et a l , 1976) which d i s t i n g u i s h e s between d e n s i t y as a p h y s i c a l measurement, and crowding as an e x p e r i e n t i a l s t a t e . C h i l d r e n and t r a f f i c are considered to be the main source of n o i s e , and " . . ,.. i t v a r i e s with the time of the day." One respondent commented t h a t the f r o n t was u s u a l l y more noi s y than the back, as t h i s i s where most of the outdoor a c t i v i t i e s took p l a c e . Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 64 Very few other comments were forthcoming r e g a r d i n g the q u a l i t i e s of the neighbourhood.. 4.2 The Neighbours The respondents were a l s o gueried about t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards t h e i r neiqhbours. By neighbours, the i n t e r v i e w e r intended " . . . the immediate neighbours, the h a l f a dozen f a m i l i e s l i v i n g n e a rest to you." Table 4.2 compares the freguency of response f o r t h i s q u e s t i o n f o r both p r o j e c t s . While the p o s i t i v e c o n d i t i o n s f o r each q u a l i t y are almost the same f o r both p r o j e c t s , the respondents i n Southview seem to d i s p l a y l e s s awareness of neiqhbours. They reported more • i n d i f f e r e n t 1 c o n d i t i o n 3 responses than i n Kanata, on a l l q u a l i t i e s except noise. In most cases these responses i n d i c a t e d a middle of the road c o n d i t i o n between one extreme of the r e s p e c t i v e q u a l i t y and the o t h e r , but i n many c a s e s , the respondents d i d not know t h e i r neiqhbours well enouqh t o be able to d e s c r i b e them. One respondent echoed many o t h e r s , " I t i s amazinq t h a t you can l i v e next door and not qet to know your neiqhbours." B21 UNFRIENDLY B22 PRYING B23 DISSIMILAR INTERESTS B24 UNHELPFUL B25 LOWER CLASS SB26 NOISY 7.1 14.3 7. 1 4.5 3 . 6 4.5 17. 9 50. 0 32. 1 % Kanata (28) 54. 4 22. 7 22.7 % Southview (22) 7. 1 9.1 7 2.7 14. 3 64.3 9.1 7 2. 7 13.6 3.6 14.3 9.1 31.3 10.7 75.0 4.5 86.4 28.6 42.9 % Kanata (28) 13.6 - % Southview (22) 3.6 10.7 % Kanata (28) % Southview (22) 35.7 46. 4 % Kanata (28) 31.8 27. 3 % Southview (22) 10.7 3.6 % Kanata (28) 9. 1 - % Southview (22) 7. 1 28. 6 42.9 17.9 % Kanata (28) 9. 1 18. 2 54. 5 13.6 55 Southview (22) FRIENDLY MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS SIMILAR INTERESTS HELPFUL HIGHER CLASS QUIET B1 OVERALL ASSESSMENT (nega t i v e 10.7 78.6 17.9 % Kanata (28) % Southview (22) p O S i t i v e ) 9.1 81.8 9. 1 Tabl e 4.2 A t t i t u d e s Towards the Neiqhbours Chapter 4: B e s u l t s 66 In Kanata the s i t u a t i o n was s l i g h t l y b e t t e r . fi s u b s t a n t i a l number of respondents, expressed a d i s t i n c t i o n between f r i e n d s h i p and neighbouring. Many, e s p e c i a l l y i n Southview, i n d i c a t e d t h a t they p r e f e r r e d to have f r i e n d s from o u t s i d e the p r o j e c t s . "I p r e f e r f r i e n d s from o u t s i d e the immediate area. Neighbours here have mutual r e s p e c t , but I do not have any f r i e n d s at a l l w i t h i n the p r o j e c t . although I am on s e v e r a l committees, i t i s through a sense of o b l i g a t i o n r a t h e r than a s p i r i t of c o o p e r a t i o n . " (Kanata) "Personal f r i e n d s are a l l from o u t s i d e the p r o j e c t . No v i s i t i n g i s done w i t h i n the p r o j e c t . " (Southview) The r e s i d e n t s of Kanata were i n v o l v e d more f r e q u e n t l y i n i n t e r a c t i v e behaviours with the neighbours than those at Southview. In Kanata, 75.\% t a l k e d to t h e i r neighbours at l e a s t once a week, while only 31.8% of Southview's r e s i d e n t s engaged i n t h i s a c t i v i t y with the same frequency. In the l a t t e r case, acquaintanceship was r e s t r i c t e d t o a few times a month. There might be v a r i o u s e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h i s i n a c t i v i t y . I t c o u l d be that the respondents were away from the p r o j e c t f o r the major p a r t of the day, c r e a t i n g many i n c o m p a t i b i l i t e s i n time s c h e d u l i n g , so t h a t neighbours never met; or the respondents d i d not l i k e to s o c i a l i z e and sought r e t r e a t . Lansing e t a l (1970) found a decrease i n neighbouring awareness with i n c r e a s i n g d e n s i t y , although i n t e r a c t i o n s are Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 67 l e s s reduced by d e n s i t y than i s knowledge about one's neighbours. The v a r i a t i o n i n the d e n s i t y between the two p r o j e c t s i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o make t h i s an important f a c t o r . One would be i n c l i n e d t o t h i n k that the length of stay i n one l o c a t i o n would impinge on the degree of acguaintanceship with other r e s i d e n t s . In Southview a higher p e r c e n t i l e c f the respondents l i v e d i n t h e i r p r o j e c t f o r a l o n g e r p e r i o d of time. Table 4.3 g i v e s an i n d i c a t i o n o f the length of stay i n each sample p r o j e c t . Table 4.3 Length of Stay o f Respondents 0 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 5 > 5 years Kanata 28.6 57. 1 14.3 - % (28) Southview 4.5 45.5 50.0 - % (22) f { ) N=nuiaber of respondents] S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s uncovered no c o r r e l a t i o n between the freguency of communication with the neighbours and the l e n g t h of s t a y o f the respondents. The d u r a t i o n i n r e s i d e n c e d i d not improve the s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighbours. F u r t h e r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s f a i l e d t o demonstrate any s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the periods i n r e s i d e n c e of the respondents and t h e i r l i k e or d i s l i k e of the neighbourhood., Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 68 I t was hypothesized that a p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g towards the neighbours might generate s a t i s f a c t i o n with the r e s i d e n t i a l environment with a consequent higher r a t i n g on the a t t i t u d e s c a l e . S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t although somewhat weak c o r r e l a t i o n (K-tau=0.189, s=0.03)* between the aggregate s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighbours and aggregate s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighboorhood. This confirms s i m i l a r works (Lansing et a l , 1970) which have a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d s a t i s f a c t i o n with neighbours as a p r e d i c t o r of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighbourhood. P e r c e p t i o n of the neighbours as compatible was found to be very s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d with neighbourhood s a t i s f a c t i o n . This l o g i c was extended to a s s o c i a t i o n s between aggregate s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighbours and s p e c i f i c q u a l i t i e s of the neighbourhood. ft r e l a t i o n s h i p was expected with a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , upkeep, and p l e a s a n t n e s s , and on the assessment o f the neighbourhood as a p l a c e t o l i v e . 3 There was a s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n (K-tau=0.17, s=0.07) between a t t r a c t i v e n e s s and f e e l i n g s towards the neighbours. No s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n e x i s t e d between neighbours l i k e / d i s l i k e and assessment of the neighbourhood as a p l a c e t o l i v e , but pleasantness was a l s o a s s o c i a t e d . On a s i m i l a r l i n e o f t h i n k i n g i t was presumed that Chapter 4; R e s u l t s 69 neighbour s a t i s f a c t i o n might m i t i g a t e n e g a t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s of crowding, but o v e r a l l there was none. The number of people i n the household did not i n f l u e n c e the p e r c e p t i o n of crowdedness. T h i s i s a l s o supported by the l a c k o f s t a t i s t i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n between another v a r i a b l e , adequacy of p r i v a t e outdoor space and the number of people i n the household. Of a l l the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents, crowding seems t o have been a s s o c i a t e d with the age of the respondents <K-tau=C.28, s=0.03). Older people tended t o p e r c e i v e the neighbourhood as l e s s crowded than younger p e o p l e . 6 I t was p o s t u l a t e d that income might have something t c do with the respondents* p r e f e r e n c e s and a t t i t u d e s , i n f l u e n c i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r c h o i c e of t h e i r acguaintances (and conseguently the freguency of s o c i a l i z i n g ) . 7 No s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was r e v e a l e d between t h i s v a r i a b l e and aggregate s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighbourhood, neighbourhood a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , upkeep, pleasantness or crowdedness. There was no c o r r e l a t i o n between the income of the household and the amount of outdoor space r e g u i r e d or p e r c e i v e d by the respondents, or the assessment of the neighbourhood as a place t c l i v e . No a s s o c i a t i o n e x i s t e d with any of the other g u a l i t i e s of the neighbourhood. Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 4.3 P r i v a t e Outdoors 70 Bach respondent was asked t o d e f i n e which outdoor spaces he/she c o n s i d e r e d p r i v a t e . Question B4 i n q u i r e d : B4 "Which open spaces around the house would you expect others o u t s i d e the f a m i l y t o c o n s i d e r as p r i v a t e spaces: the f r o n t yard, backyard, p a t i o , others or none". The p r e - t e s t had shown t h a t some c o n f u s i o n c o u l d a r i s e i n the d e f i n i t i o n of what respondents considered the * f r c n t * c r the •back* of the house. So question B5 was i n s e r t e d t o i n q u i r e : B5 "Which access t o the house do you use most, the f r o n t or the back? I s t h a t the one through which the (interviewer) came i n ? " T h i s s u p p l i e d f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on the e x t e n t to which e i t h e r opening was used as an e x i t / i n q r e s s , as a l l b u i l d i n g s had openings on both s i d e s . 8 The r e p l i e s to q u e s t i o n B4 have t c be i n t e r p r e t e d a c c o r d i n g to the p r o j e c t . Southview had d i f f e r e n t p r o v i s i o n s f o r p r i v a t e outdoor space than Kanata d i d . , 16% of the respondents shared the d e f i n i t i o n of ' f r o n t * as d e f i n e d i n t h i s monograph, while 22% considered t h i s s i d e to be the back of the house. In making t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n some were i n f l u e n c e d by what the a r c h i t e c t had c o n s i d e r e d and named •the f r o n t • , Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 71 " . . . when i t was designed, t h i s was intended t o be the f r o n t . " Others a s s o c i a t e d an entrance on the c a r p o r t with a l l e y entrances to s i n g l e f a m i l y detached houses. In these houses c a r p o r t s are u s u a l l y l o c a t e d a t the back, and from the c a r one makes a entrance to the 'back' of the house. another f a c t o r which a p p l i e s to Southview more than Kanata, concerns the l o c a t i o n o f the k i t c h e n at the f r o n t o f the house, c l o s e to the main entrance but separated by a hallway ( F i g s . 4.1 and 4.2) Seme perceived t h i s as an access on the k i t c h e n s i d e , which i n s i n g l e f a m i l y detached houses i s u s u a l l y l o c a t e d a t the back. In Kanata, the m a j o r i t y (57%) considered the backyard o n l y as p r i v a t e , but a t h i r d c o n s i d e r e d both f r o n t and back as p r i v a t e . T h i s was a much hig h e r p r o p o r t i o n than at Southview. 9 In Kanata there was a fenced area near the c a r p o r t . a higher fence would have provided more s e c l u s i o n , but t h i s i s not n e c c e s s a r i l y what the respondents wanted. Some f a m i l i e s , e s p e c i a l l y those whose u n i t s faced onto the play areas, commented fav o u r a b l y on the p o s s i b i l i t y of l o o k i n g out of the k i t c h e n , through the d i n i n g room window, Kanata l a c k e d the p a t i o on top of the c a r p o r t (provided i n Southview). Only 18$ of the respondents c o n s i d e r e d t h i s space as p r i v a t e . In f a c t very few commented on i t s e x i s t e n c e or i t s adeguacy, and those who d i d had mixed f e e l i n g s . The p a t i o was P i g . 4.1 Kanata: T y p i c a l House plans living room ll'3'i W-V ll-IO". f"*' fl kilchtn T"H 1 I! carport ^ bedroom 9-O'X I 4 6* 10*0* l0»6' 9 & nn*t F L O O R S C C O N D F L O O R feadroom badroom »•»•« g'-J-Blorag*] 14. badroom 10-0•« u •;,.o»t«oo'^ jo;*1* ioiti* (FIRST FLOOR •ECONO FLOOR TYPICAL 2 BEDRM. TOWNHOUSE TYPICAL 3 BEDRM. TOWNHOUSE .IRRT FLOOR e.CONO FLOOR TYPICAL 4 BEDRM. TOWNHOUSE C h a p t e r 4: R e s u l t s 74 p e r c e i v e d a s l e s s p r i v a t e t h a n t h e b a c k y a r d , i n s p i t e o f t h e f a c t t h a t i t was on t h e s e c o n d f l o o r , and s e c l u d e d f r o m t h e n e i g h b o u r s * w indows ( P l a t e s 3.7 a n d 3.8). Z e i s e l (1975) d i s c o v e r e d s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e s , b u t f o r low i n c o m e h o u s i n g , where p e o p l e t e n d e d t o p r e f e r e n c l o s e d b a c k y a r d s t c b a l c o n i e s . They were p e r c e i v e d a s more p r i v a t e . L a t e r f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e p a t i o on t h e most a c t i v e s i d e o f t h e house was c o n t r i b u t i n g t o i t s low u s e . M o r e o v e r t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h i s s p a c e i n r e l a t i o n t c t h e r e s t o f t h e h o u s e made a c c e s s t o i t d i f f i c u l t , a s i t was s i t u a t e d o u t s i d e t h e m a s t e r bedroom ( F i g . 4.2). T h i s makes i t s o l e l y a c c e s s i b l e t o t h e a d u l t s , b u t v e r y few r e s p o n d e n t s commented on i t s u s e , e x c e p t a s a s u n d e c k , and a l w a y s r e f e r r e d t o g r o u n d f l o o r s p a c e w h i l e c h e c k i n g i n t h e i r r e s p o n s e s . Many c f t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h i s p r o j e c t were u n d e r t w e l v e , and r e g u i r e d s u p e r v i s i o n . The b a c k y a r d was t h e r e f o r e a more l i k e l y p l a c e f o r p l a y t h a n t h e p a t i o . 1 0 4.3.1 Adequacy o f O u t d o o r S p a c e A s u b s t a n t i a l number (52%) r e p l i e d t h a t t h e y d i d n o t have enough open s p a c e a r o u n d t h e h o u s e . T h i s p e r c e n t a g e was l o w e r t h a n e x p e c t e d . 38% r e s p o n d e d t h a t t h e y had t h e r i g h t amount, e i t h e r b e c a u s e t h e y c o u l d n o t p r o p e r l y m a i n t a i n a l a r g e r a r e a , c r p e r h a p s more i m p o r t a n t l y , o t h e r f a c t o r s d i c t a t e d a Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 75 compromise, " . . . i t i s always b e t t e r t o have more, but f o r what we are paying, I guess i t i s a l r i g h t . " Sanoff and Sawney (1S72) found that a higher s a t i s f a c t i o n with the d w e l l i n g was a s s o c i a t e d with a higher s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighbourhood. I t was presumed, t h e r e f o r e , that there a l s o might be a r e l a t i o n between s a t i s f a c t i o n with some elements of the house, p r i v a t e outdoor space, and s a t i s f a c t i o n c f the neighbourhood. O v e r a l l there was a very s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n between p r i v a t e outdoor space and neighbourhood s a t i s f a c t i o n (K-tau=0.42, s=0.0017). Inadequate outdoor space tended to generate d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s with neighbourhood. Very s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s (K~tau=0.4, s=0.0006) were encountered between adequacy of outdoor space and neighbourhood n o i s e . Increased s a t i s f a c t i o n with the outdoors seemed to be r e l a t e d to an i n c r e a s i n g l y p e r c e i v e d q u i e t n e s s of the neighbourhood. The adequacy o f p r i v a t e outdoor space was weakly but s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d (K-tau=0.28, s=0.016) to p e r c e i v e d neighbourhood a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , upkeep (R-tau=0.28, s=0.021) and pleasantness (K-tau=0.24, s=0.042). No a s s o c i a t i o n was found between p e r c e p t i o n s of crowdedness and adeguacy of p r i v a t e outdoor space, although one would have expected the number of people i n the household t o have an e f f e c t on the perceived adequacy of the p r i v a t e outdoor space. Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 76 Age, income, ana sex had nothing t o do with how adeguate the p r i v a t e outdoor space was. 4.4 The A c t i v i t i e s Although no question s p e c i f i c a l l y i n q u i r e d about the i n t e n s i t y o f use of the outdoor spaces, from the responses and the comments made by the respondents, i t was p o s s i b l e t o i n f e r the i n t e n s i t y of engagement i n any one p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y c ateqory. I t seems that these were performed as f o l l o w s , i n descendinq order o f i n t e n s i t y . A c t i v i t i e s performed by o n e s e l f 1. Best and R e l a x a t i o n 2. Hobbies and C r a f t s 3. Home Maintenance and Repair , 4. Storage 5. Games 6. Pet Care (not a p p l i c a b l e i n Southview) A c t i v i t i e s ^ p e r f o r m e d with f a m i l y or i n t i m a t e f r i e n d s 1. Rest and Rel a x a t i o n 2. Hobbies and C r a f t s / I n f o r m a l S o c i a l A c t i v i t i e s 3. Home Maintenance and Repair 4. Housework/Household Business 5. Games 6. Formal S o c i a l A c t i v i t i e s 7. C h i l d O r i e n t e d A c t i v i t i e s 8. Storage 9. Pet Care (not a p p l i c a b l e i n Southview) Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 77 Shankland et a l (1967), BoHLG (1972) and Cooper {1967, 1975) g i v e a d i f f e r e n t order to the a c t i v i t i e s that were performed i n t h e i r sample p r o j e c t s . T h e i r respondents, taken from p u b l i c housing developments, placed c l o t h e s d r y i n g a t the top of t h e i r somewhat s h o r t e r l i s t . In the sample under s c r u t i n y here, the respondents e i t h e r had t h e i r own laundry machines, or were provided with communal laundry f a c i l i t i e s . One should a l s o keep i n mind that the l i s t o f a c t i v i t i e s i n t h i s study covers a l l p o s s i b l e a c t i v i t i e s outdoors, and consequently are not a l l n e c c e s s a r i l y performed by the respondents. 4.4.1 P r i v a c y P r e f e r e n c e s i n P r i v a t e Outdoor, Spaces I t i s immediately apparent from F i g s . 4.3 - 4.7, and Table 4.4, t h a t the h i g h e s t amount were ' i n d i f f e r e n t 1 c o n d i t i o n responses. T h i s c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean e i t h e r the respondents d i d not care o r , as i n the m a j o r i t y of the cases, they gave middle-of-the-road responses. For a l l the a c t i v i t i e s , and f o r 11=50, most responses on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e were f o r p r e f e r r e d s e c l u s i o n , with a small m i n o r i t y demanding extreme s e c l u s i o n . T h i s c o n t r a s t s with responses on the Intimacy s t a t e , which were mostly i n d i f f e r e n t . On the Anonymity s t a t e , the m a j o r i t y (62%) p r e f e r r e d t c be inconspicuous, with about a t h i r d f e e l i n g i n d i f f e r e n t . On the Mot-Neighbouring s t a t e , almost as many who p r e f e r r e d not tc be 78 t Pest • Pelpxntlon in -. Hobbies • C r a f t s °o I [Seaes U J t j ^£ • I n f o r a n l S o c i a l \ A c t i v i t i e s Formal S o c i a l V A c t i v i t i e s Pet Cars Y- Household Business C h i l d A c t i v i t i e s -Housework i y i / > Home Maintenance J i i / Storege Condition 1 Condition 5 Seclusion (S ) Anonymity ( A ) •ot Neighbouring (Nil) Intimacy (I ) Extremely Secluded Extremely Conscicuous Extremely Like Extremely Secluded Extremely Unsecluded Extremely Inconsoicuous Extremely Dislike Extremely Unsecluded Pest + Relaxation \ \ X Hobbies • C r a f t s _ Genes Q3A3 / / T n f o n a l S o c i a l SI y I a A c t i v i t i e s Formal S o c i a l •• A c t i v i t i e s Pet Care A •/ Household Business \ w C h i l d A c t i v i t i e s • - -Housework -— >s / z *>/ ••. / Homo Maintenance '- 4X Storage i 3 P i g . 4 .3 $* Achieved 8 Privacy bi r A c t i v i t y o C o n d i t i o n s 1 and 5 79 Rest * Relaxation •«JP Bobbies * Crafta SQ > r -1.1— Oases ACH! CONC • —- Inforaal Social Activities Jbraal Social •i "— Activltlas Pat Care ^^^^ Household Business Child ActlTitles / Housework / Rons Maintenance Storafe Seclusion ( S ) Inonynlty ( A) Hot Neighbouring Intimacy ( I ) Secluded Conspicuous l i k e Secluded Oneecluded Iaeonsoieuou3 Dislike Unseduded Rest • Relaxation CM \ \ \ Robbies * Crafts Si Games m — - x Znfonaal Social Activities Pbreal Social Activities Pet Care i Ttousehold Business Child Activities * { Houseworif \ \ Hone Maintenance Storego 3 8 o Fig. <*.<. Achieved Privacy by A c t i v i t y Conditions 2 and U 8o Condition 3 Seclusion Anonymity tot neighbouring (mi) Indifferent Intimacy CI ) Indifferent (S ) Indifferent ( A ) Indifferent Pig. 4.5 Achieved and Preferred Privacy by A c t i v i t y Condition 3 Condition 2 Condition 4 Seclusion ( S ) iaonymity ( A) lot Neighbouring (NN) Intimacy ( I ) Secluded Coascicuoos Like Secluded S e s i • °elar*tlon CM D UJ~» S / Hobbies • C r a f t s £ g U J — uio - / X Ga»es U J Z C O Ir.forn^l S o c l e l 1 j 1 • /* -/ . ! . ' r • • A c t i v i t i e s Feraal S s c i a l s A c t i v i t i e s Pet Care . 1 Household Business C h i l d A c t i v i t i e s / Foueewo T'K i V Kose Maintenance ;N. Storage s o #•1 1 o Unsecluded InconsDicuous Dislike Unsecluded Fig 4.6 Preferred Privacy by Activity. Conditions 2 and 4 82 in Cl Pest • Relaxation Hobbies • C r a f t s C-O Genes PREI CON / # ' i I n f o r o a l S o c i a l A c t i v i t i e s Fbraal S o c i a l ^ . . ^ — A c t i v i t i e s Pet Care >-- (' "> Household Business \ NS\ C h i l d A c t i v i t i e s J Housework • Rone Maintenance Storage Seclusion (S ) Anonymity ( A ) Hot Neighbouring (NN) Intimacy ( I ) Condition 1 Extremely Secluded Extreaely Conspicuous Extremely Like Extremely Secluded Condition 5 Extremely Unsecladed Extremely Inconspicuous Extremely Cislike Extremely Unsecladed Pe3t • Relaxation o 11 IT* 1 J i / Hobbies • C r a f t s / \ \ j Games L U Z c o I n f o r o a l S o c i a l w A c t i v i t i e s Formal S o c i a l A c t i v i t i e s Pet Care Household Business V \ \ C h i l d A c t i v i t i e s 1 Houcemrk \ K i — \ Home Maintenance i Storage s s o b o Fig. 4 . 7 Preferred Privacy by A c t i v i t y Conditions 1 and 5 10.7 89.3 SECLUSION Secluded 18.2 81.8 14.3 82.1 3.6 INTIMACY Sec l u d e d 4. 5 13. 6 68. 2 13.6 ' - - 35. 7 60.7 ANONYMITY Conspicuous 4. 5 27. 3 63.6 NOT - - 46. 4 50.0 NEIGHBOURING L i k e 4. 5 50. 0 40.9 4.5 T a b l e 4.4 P r e f e r r e d P r i v a c y t Kanata (28) % Southview (22) Unsecluded % Kanata (28) % Southview (22) % Kanata (28) % Southview (22) Unsecluded I n c o n s p i c u o u s % Kanata (28) D i s l i k e % Southview (22) Chapter 4: Res u l t s 84 i n t e r r u p t e d (46%) d i d not care whether they were or not. Tabl e 4.4 a l s o demonstrates t h a t , except f o r the Intimacy s t a t e , responses d i d not vary c o n s i d e r a b l y from p r o j e c t to p r o j e c t . Only a few a c t i v i t i e s had peak responses other than • i n d i f f e r e n t 1 . These were Rest and Re l a x a t i o n ( a l l fo u r s t a t e s ) . Informal S o c i a l A c t i v i t i e s (Intimacy s t a t e , Anonymity s t a t e , and Not-Neighbouring s t a t e ) , Hobbies and C r a f t s ( S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and Anonymity s t a t e ) , Housework ( S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and Intimacy s t a t e ) , C h i l d O r i e n t e d A c t i v i t i e s and Storage (Intimacy s t a t e ) . 1 1 4.4.2 Achieved P r i v a c y i n P r i v a t e Outdoor Spaces On t h i s l e v e l , the m a j o r i t y of the respondents* r e p l i e s i n d i c a t e d an ' i n d i f f e r e n t * i n c l i n a t i o n to most a c t i v i t i e s , and on a l l four s t a t e s . Table 4.5 d e s c r i b e s the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the achieved l e v e l f o r each s t a t e of p r i v a c y i n each p r o j e c t . Although respondents were more s p e c i f i c i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards one a c t i v i t y than another. Rest and R e l a x a t i o n aqain emerges as an a c t i v i t y c a t e q o r y which people were very s p e c i f i c about.» 2 Residents were predominantly i n d i f f e r e n t t c a l l a c t i v i t i e s on the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e . SECLUSION S e c l u d e d 3. 6 53. 6 32. 1 4.5 45.5 36.4 7. 1 4.5 INTIMACY Secl u d e d 7. 1 64.3 21 .4 7.4 13.6 31.8 45.5 9.1 ANONYMITY Conspicuous 7. 1 32. 1 39.3 18.2 50.0 27.3 N 0 T 3.6 7. 1 42. 9 35.7 10.7 NEIGHBOURING L i k e i 9.1 50.0 27.3 Table 4.5 Achieved P r i v a c y % Kanata (28) % Southview (22) Unsecluded % Kanata (28) Unsecluded % Southview (22) % Kanata (28) In c o n s p i c u o u s % Southview (22) % Kanata (28) D i s l i k e % Southview (22) CO VJl Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 86 In a d d i t i o n , Table 4.5 demonstrates t h a t i n Southview a l a r g e r number o f respondents than at Kanata were concerned about b e i n g seen when doing a c t i v i t i e s with i n t i m a t e s , but i n both p r o j e c t s they were as unconcerned when a l o n e . 1 3 T h i s i s an i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t many respondents a t Kanata d i d not have a fenced backyard. S i m i l a r l y , respondents i n Kanata tended to f e e l more inconspicuous, but expressed a h i g h e r d i s l i k e a t being i n t e r r u p t e d during t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s d e s i r e was echoed i n t h e i r p r eferences f o r l e s s i n t e r r u p t i o n s (Table 4 . 4 ) . 4.4.3 D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s .with P r i v a c y The measures o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n developed i n t h i s methodology, d i d not f o r s e e the extent of the n o n - a p p l i c a b l e responses. While d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s f o r each s t a t e were worked out from the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l and the achieved l e v e l responses, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o compare the r e s u l t s of each a c t i v i t y , due to the d i f f e r e n t number of missing c a s e s . The reader i s t h e r e f o r e r e f e r r e d t o the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n t a b l e s i n Appendix I I I , i f c l o s e r s c r u t i n y i s d e s i r e d . These t a b l e s i n d i c a t e the predominance of s l i g h t d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on a l l a c t i v i t i e s . For example the a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s with the highest numerical ' s a t i s f i e d ' responses are Home Maintenance and R e p a i r , Household Business, and Hobbies and C r a f t s , a l l of which have peak • i n d i f f e r e n t * c o n d i t i o n responses at both l e v e l s . I t can be Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 87 concluded t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n a rose, i n many cases, from the f a c t t h a t respondents were i n d i f f e r e n t about the p r i v a c y s t a t e f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y . The Not-Neighbouring s t a t e was the o n l y s t a t e t o show an extreme c o n d i t i o n o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , and on one a c t i v i t y only. There was no s i m i l a r i t y i n the order of c o n d i t i o n responses {i . e . from one extreme to the other o p p o s i t e extreme c o n d i t i o n ) f o r the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and the i n t i m a c y s t a t e . In general respondents tended t o be d i s s a t i s f i e d more on the Intimacy s t a t e than the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e , as i s a l s o evident from Table 4.6. The t a b l e s i n Appendix I I I a l s o shew some demand f o r negative d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s , i n d i c a t e d by the negative codes. The l a r g e r number can be found on the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e where people p r e f e r r e d t o be more conspicuous than they were. C h i l d o r i e n t e d A c t i v i t e s , Household Business, Informal S o c i a l i z i n g and Hobbies and C r a f t s were a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s with such responses. From t h e i r comments, respondents i n these s i t u a t i o n s (on the Not-Neighbouring state) were w i l l i n g t o t o l e r a t e i n t e r r u p t i o n s e i t h e r through a need f o r a r e s t , or t o show o f f , or to educate and share experiences. Through s t a t i s t i c a l manipulation, i t was p o s s i b l e to c r e a t e an o v e r a l l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n index f o r each s t a t e , shown i n Table 4.6 P e r f e c t l y S a t i s f i e d 0 1 2 3 4 Extremely d i s s a t i s f i e d SECLUSION 28.6 .39.3 14.3 3.6 31.8 % Kanata (28) **'5 - % Southview (22) 40.9 22.7 INTIMACY 10.7 60.7 17.9 10.7 13.6 36.4 45.5 44.5 % Kanata (28) % Southview (22) ANONYMITY 25.0 50.0 25.0 13. 6 63. 6 22.7 % Kanata (28) % Southview (22) NOT 42.9 53.6 3.6 NEIGHBOURING 31.8 54.5 13.6 % Kanata (28) % Southview (22) Tabl e 4.6 D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n I n d i c e s Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 89 In summary, t h i s t a b l e p o i n t s to the f o l l o w i n g : 1. There are no extreme d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s . There are a f a i r amount of ' p e r f e c t l y s a t i s f i e d ' responses, but these may have accrued from the huge number of ' i n d i f f e r e n t ' responses on both the achieved l e v e l and the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l . 2. S a t i s f a c t i o n i s higher i n Kanata on the anonymity s t a t e and the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e . 3. O v e r a l l , respondents tended to be more d i s s a t i s f i e d with Intimacy s t a t e than S e c l u s i o n s t a t e . D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on the Intimacy s t a t e i s more extreme i n Southview, while d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e i s more extrene i n Kanata. The d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n d i c e s on a l l four s t a t e s were very s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with each other. l* Only d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with a t t i t u d e s towards the neighbours (s=0.0189). On the other hand, the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e was the only one which was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with a t t i t u d e s towards the neighbourhood, where d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n cn the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e was the most s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d . A l l a s s o c i a t i o n s were p o s i t i v e , i . e . a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e towards the neighbours and neighbourhood generated an i n c r e a s i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n with a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e . These a s s o c i a t i o n s p a r t l y d i s p r o v e the hypotheses. They i n d i c a t e that there i s no simple Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 90 pa t t e r n i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with p r i v a c y and neighbouring a t t i t u d e s , p r i v a c y d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s and neighbourhood a t t i t u d e s . The second p a r t of the hypotheses a l s o seems to te untrue. No a s s o c i a t i o n s were found between pre f e r e n c e s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e of p r i v a c y and incongruence with the neighbours or the neighbourhood. From the r e s u l t s i t seems t h a t p r i v a c y p references are predetermined i r r e s p e c t i v e c f the f i t i n the community. These a t t i t u d e s a l s o seem to be immutable with time (no a s s o c i a t i o n was d i s c o v e r e d with l e n g t h o f stay i n r e s i d e n c e ) , but pre f e r e n c e s f o r l i m i t a t i o n of neighbour i n t e r r u p t i o n s (Not-Neighbouring state) seem to be m i t i g a t e d by freguency of i n t e r a c t i o n with the neighbours. S i m i l a r l y p r e f e r e n c e s f o r l e s s conspicuousness were a s s o c i a t e d with the number of people i n the h o u s e h o l d s — t h e g r e a t e r the number, the l e s s people p r e f e r r e d t o f e e l conspicuous. J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the k i n d of achieved s e c l u s i o n i s not obvious. T h i s was the only c o n d i t i o n (both cn the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and the Intimacy state) which was s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with the o v e r a l l assessment of the neighbourhood. No achieved s t a t e of p r i v a c y was a s s o c i a t e d with o v e r a l l a t t i t u d e s towards the neighbours, but neighbours d e s c r i b e d as prying seemed to decrease the amount of achieved i n t i m a c y and Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 91 i n c r e a s e the d i s l i k e to be i n t e r r u p t e d by the neighbours. 4.5 Response V a r i a t i o n s i n the Sample P r o j e c t s The l a c k of an o v e r a l l p a t t e r n o f a s s o c i a t i o n i n the whole sample, suggested f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the p r i v a c y responses i n the i n d i v i d u a l p r o j e c t s . The ensuing d i s c u s s i o n w i l l focus on the s o c i a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the twc p r o j e c t s i n an attempt to b r i n g out the s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s t h a t might c o n t r i b u t e t o the v a r i o u s c o n d i t i o n s of p r i v a c y . P r i v a c y has been presented as the c o n t r o l over the s e l f / o t h e r boundary. Where t h i s boundary i s set w i l l depend on v a r i o u s f a c t o r s — p e r s o n a l , i n t e r p e r s o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l {Altman, 1975), p e r s o n a l i t y development and u p b r i n g i n g (Wolfe and L a u f e r , 1974), p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( W i l l i s , 1963 b ) , past r e s i d e n t i a l experience ( M a r s h a l l , 1970-b) and socio-economic s t a t u s ( W i l l i s , 1963-a) the l a s t v a r i a b l e i s the most d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t t o the a r c h i t e c t / d e s i g n e r . Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 92 1.5. 1 Sgcig-econcmic Background Income Hichelson (1970) suggests t h a t income i s l e s s of a determining f a c t o r i n s a t i s f a c t i o n with housing than, say, educ a t i o n , and both are l e s s i n f l u e n t i a l than the l i f e s t y l e of the respondent. In both our samples, d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s with a l l f o u r s t a t e s of p r i v a c y were not a s s o c i a t e d with income, but the s p e c i f i c p r eferences f o r p r i v a c y were. I t has already been po i n t e d out that there were v a r i a t i o n s i n the average income i n each p r o j e c t . T h i s was probably more a f u n c t i o n of age than s o c i a l s t a t u s . The respondents i n Kanata were on the average ten years o l d e r (Table 3.3) than those i n Southview. One c o u l d assume these people would be i n a b e t t e r job p o s i t i o n . In Kanata income was found t c be a s s o c i a t e d with a preference f o r the Hot-Neighbouring s t a t e , s u g g e s t i n g , as i n the study by W i l l i s (1963) t h a t lower income f a m i l i e s , i n c o n t r a s t to higher income f a m i l i e s , p r e f e r r e d no i n t e r r u p t i o n s , and d i s l i k e d d i s c l o s i n g t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s t o the neighbours. C o n t r o l over input/output i n t e r a c t i o n s i s u s u a l l y s t r o n g e r i n lower income f a m i l i e s . For then p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l over housing and other a s p e c t s of t h e i r l i f e i s a fundamental need. T h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s does not allow them many o p p o r t u n i t i e s to e x c e r c i s e t h i s c o n t r o l . Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 93 Aae D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e i n both p r o j e c t s tended t o decrease w i t h age. Only Kanata d i s p l a y e d an a s s o c i a t i o n between p r e f e r e n c e s and age. Older people were i n c l i n e d t o be more conspicuous. T h i s f i n d i n g would suggest t h a t age was a more important determinant of a t t i t u d e s on p r i v a c y than income, as c i d e r people tended t o be more outgoing. M a r s h a l l (1970-c) a l s o found an a s s o c i a t i o n with age, but i n her study o l d e r people were i n c l i n e d t o opt f o r Reserve (lack of d i s c l o s u r e about o n e s e l f ) and Non-Involvement with the neighbours. However, other r e s e a r c h (Onibokun, 1976), concluded t h a t age i s not a f a c t o r i n determining housing s a t i s f a c t i o n , or p r i v a c y ( W i l l i s , 1963-c). Frcm the comments made by the respondents, i t seems t h a t a t t i t u d e s expressed i n t h i s study are the r e s u l t of confidence a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the respondent's achievements i n l i f e . These accomplishments are a r e f l e c t i o n of the p o s i t i o n i n the l i f e c y c l e r a t h e r than age per se. C l a s s By Michelson's (1970) d e f i n i t i o n , both p r o j e c t s housed respondents i n the working t o low middle c l a s s range. Most respondents i n both p r o j e c t s agreed that they belonged to the same c l a s s as t h e i r neighbours (Table 4.2). Disagreements were found however i n the Kanata p r o j e c t . In Kanata respondents who Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 94 perce i v e d t h e i r neighbours as belonging t o a higher c l a s s demonstrated a preference f o r gr e a t e r ccnspicuousness when performing t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . 1 5 The d e s i r e t o be conspicuous may again be the r e s u l t of the respondents' stage i n the l i f e c y c l e . The p r eference f o r conspicuousness maybe a d e s i r e t c i n s t r u c t ether people i n c e r t a i n ways, r a t h e r than an attempt t o demonstrate equal s t a t u s . T h i s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g comments. "People s h o u l d watch o t h e r s t e a c h i n g k i d s " (Kanata) "I l o v e working on my garden and enjoy people e n j o y i n g my garden." (Kanata) S i m i l a r i t y . o f I n t e r e s t s C o m p a t i b i l i t y i n the neighbourhood i s a f u n c t i o n of s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t s and a t t i t u d e s (Gans,1967). Shared a t t i t u d e s as w e l l as e v a l u a t i o n s concerning the neighbourhood and the community are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a p o s i t i v e neighbourhood assessment r a t h e r than demographic, e t h n i c or socio-economic f e a t u r e s (Lansing, Marans and Zehner, 1970). Increased v e r b a l communication with the neighbours seemed to engender a g r e a t e r f e e l i n g of f r i e n d l i n e s s from the neighbours, but o n l y i n Southview were there i n c r e a s e d p e r c e p t i o n s o f the g u a l t i e s of h e l p f u l n e s s and i n t e r e s t s i m i l a r i t y q u a l i t i e s . 1 6 In s p i t e o f t h i s , Southview s t i l l Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 95 seemed to l a c k s u f f i c i e n t neighbouring t o enable neighbours to knew each other's q u a l i t i e s . 1 7 F r i e n d l i n e s s d i d not a f f e c t the e v a l u a t i o n of p r i v a c y i n e i t h e r p r o j e c t on any of the f o u r s t a t e s , but i t d i d seem to a f f e c t the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l of i n t e r r u p t i o n s t h a t would be t o l e r a t e d . Higher p e r c e p t i o n s of neighbours as f r i e n d l i e r were a s s o c i a t e d with a preference f o r l e s s d i s l i k e of i n t e r r u p t i o n s . D i s s i m i l a r i t y of i n t e r e s t s seemed to a f f e c t the achieved l e v e l of p r i v a c y on the anonymity s t a t e and the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e . 1 8 People with s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t s seemed to f e e l l e s s conspicuous while performing t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s outdoors and tended t o d i s l i k e i n t e r r u p t i o n s from neighbours with d i s s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t s . 1 9 Noise Noise i s one of the most common sources of l a c k of p r i v a c y , e s p e c i a l l y i n m u l t i f a m i l y h o u s i n g — b o t h to the r e c i p i e n t (by excess) and the a c t o r {by l i m i t i n g the number of a c t i v i t i e s one can perform) (Bossley, 1976) . Noise has a l s o been found to c o n t r i b u t e towards neighbourhood d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n (Lansing et a l , 1970). In n e i t h e r p r o j e c t d i d neighbour's n o i s e have any impact Chapter 4: Re s u l t s 96 on tbe achieved l e v e l of any p r i v a c y s t a t e . Host respondents i n both p r o j e c t s (Table 4.2) p e r c e i v e the neighbours as g u i e t , but at the d e n s i t y of these p r o j e c t s , i t may be p o s s i b l e that i n d i v i d u a l s do not r e a l l y c a r e whether or not they hear the neighbours (Lansing et a l , 1970). In both p r o j e c t s many respondents were more aware o f n e i g h b o u r s noi s e i n s i d e the house, r a t h e r than o u t s i d e . C r i t i c i s m s of t h i s nature were more freguent i n Southview than a t K a n a t a . 2 0 Neighbourhood noise seems to be a more important element i n the respondent's a t t i t u d e s to p r i v a c y than neighbour n c i s e . Neighbourhood n o i s e was found to c o n t r i b u t e t o d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on a l l f o u r s t a t e s of p r i v a c y . What i s even more s u r p r i s i n g i s t h a t a l l a s s o c i a t i o n s were found i n Kanata, and none i n Southview. 2 1 c o n c o m i t a n t l y , neighbourhood noise d i d not a f f e c t the achieved l e v e l o f the p r i v a c y s t a t e s , but respondents who f e l t they l i v e d i n a noisy neighbourhood p r e f e r r e d to be more inconspicuous. These a s s o c i a t i o n s should not be construed as caus e - a n d - e f f e c t . The a s s o c i a t i o n between S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and Intimacy s t a t e , an exper i e n c e concerned with o b s e r v a t i o n , and n o i s e , i s d i f f i c u l t to e x p l a i n . Respondents who were next to g u i e t neighbours u s u a l l y a l s o f e l t s a t i s f i e d with the amount of s e c l u s i o n . T h i s i s an important point t o remember when c o n s i d e r i n g that the a c t i v i t y engaged i n most i s r e s t and Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 97 r e l a x a t i o n , which u s u a l l y r e q u i r e s both s e c l u s i o n and q u i e t . 2 2 Another e x l a n a t i o n might be t h a t the respondents construed 'ob s e r v a t i o n * i n the sense of awareness, i . e . noise generated a subconscious f e e l i n g of somebody cn the other si d e o f the fence and t h e r e f o r e the p o s s i b i l i t y that the respondents might be observed. Consequently the respondent would have f e l t s l i g h t l y more conspicuous. In e f f e c t , assessment on the Anonymity s t a t e decreased with n o i s i n e s s of the neighbours. There was a l s o a preference f o r inconspicuousness with i n c r e a s e d n o i s e . P r y i n g Next to n o i s e , t h i s q u a l i t y seems t o have e l i c i t e d most r e s p o n s e s — i n both p r o j e c t s (Table 4.2), But respondents were mere aware of the extent of t h e i r neighbours i n t r u s i o n s i n Kanata than i n Southview. P r y i n g engendered a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n with d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with s e c l u s i o n i n Kanata (K-tau=0.31, s=0.061), sugge s t i n g that prying was a v i s u a l i n t r u s i o n . In Southview, a s s o c i a t i o n s a l s o tended to confirm the same t h i n g . But here the a s s o c i a t i o n s were s t r o n g e r with the Intimacy s t a t e . There i s no obvious answer f o r the nature of these r e s u l t s . The only e x p l a n a t i o n that can be o f f e r e d i s t h a t stemming from an e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n cn socio-economic s t a t u s . Respondents i n Southview were i n the lower income bracket and were l e s s i n t e r e s t e d i n making t h e i r f a m i l y a f f a i r s known to others. Hence they would not be keen on exposing Chapter 4: B e s u l t s 98 f a m i l y a c t i v i t i e s t o the u n c o n t r o l l e d s c r u t i n y of the neighbours. 4.6 Summary In the r e s u l t s presented here, there does not seem to be an immediately obvious p a t t e r n of a s s o c i a t i o n s , which d i s t i n g u i s h between s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l s t a t e s of p r i v a c y . There i s , however, an emphasis on c e r t a i n t r e n d s . 1. Respondents i n Kanata are more aware of t h e i r neighbours* c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than those i n Southview. 2. There i s a high i n d i f f e r e n c e f o r p r e f e r r e d p r i v a c y and achieved p r i v a c y outdoors. Consequently there i s a high r a t e of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the s t a t u s quo. 3. Respondents tended t o be more d i s s a t i s f i e d with s e c l u s i o n f o r a c t i v i t i e s with f a m i l y and i n t i m a t e s (the Intimacy state) than f o r s o l o a c t i v i t i e s . The neiqhbours c o n r i b u t e d only to d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e but not on the Intimacy s t a t e . 4. The neighbourhood c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s seem to be more r e l a t e d to p r i v a c y a t t i t u d e s than neiqhbours. 5. Noise both from neighbours and neighbourhood i s the most important c o n t r i b u t o r to d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with p r i v a c y . 6. F u r t h e r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n t o the response v a r i a t i o n s Chapter 4: Resu l t s 99 between the two sample p r o j e c t s r e v e a l e d f a r more a s s o c i a t i o n s were found i n Kanata than i n Southview. Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 100 Footnotes *Each response, f o r each q u a l i t y , was g i v e n a score from 1 to 5 (1=extremely n e g a t i v e , 5=extremely p o s i t i v e ) and added up. The r e s u l t s were then recoded and r e a d j u s t e d to g i v e the t o t a l s c o r e a t the bottom of the t a b l e s . T h i s score g i v e s the o v e r a l l l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n e i t h e r with the neighbourhood (Table 4.1) or the neighbours (Table 4.2). 2 I n t e r v i e w with the manager of Southview, and comments made by some of the respondents. 3 F o r the sake of c l a r i t y , the f o l l o w i n g terms have been assigned the f o l l o w i n g meanings: s t a t e r e f e r e s t o any one of the four p r i v a c y s t a t e s ; q u a l i t y r e f e r s t o any one o f the s i x d e s c r i p t o r s on q u e s t i o n s B1 and B2; a c t i v i t y category r e f e r s to any one of the a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s d e s c r i b e d i n Part A of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ; l e v e l r e f e r s to e i t h e r the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l or the achieved l e v e l , and conditon r e f e r s to any one of the a t t i t u d e s on the L i k e r t S c a l e or Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e . • K e n d a l l ' s Tau i s a non-parametric measurement between two o r d i n a l l e v e l v a r i a b l e s , based cn the rank o r d e r i n g of the two v a r i a b l e s . A s s o c i a t i o n s were deemed i n s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the 0.0 8 l e v e l . s T h i s hypothesis was based on the assumption that the respondents equated the neighbourhood with the p r o j e c t s they l i v e d i n . * 0 l d e r people seemed to be bothered l e s s by p r y i n g from the neiqhbours. 7 S e p a r a t e a n a l y s i s showed otherwise. In Kanata there was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p (K-tau=0.3, s=0.01) between inccmeand frequency o f communication between neighbours. Shere the higher income r e s i d e n t s s o c i a l i z e d more f r e q u e n t l y than lower income r e s i d e n t s . No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was d i s c o v e r e d i n Southview. 8The i n t e r v i e w e r always made an entrance from the f r o n t , a c c o r d i n g t o the d e f i n i t i o n of ' f r o n t ' given e a r l i e r . T h i s was the only access to the house with a l o c k which c o u l d be operated from the o u t s i d e . T h i s always meant the entrance by the c a r p o r t , or f o r Kanata, on the s i d e of the p a r k i n g l o t . 'Only 1% of t h e respondent i n Kanata considered the f r o n t only as p r i v a t e , compared with 14SI i n Southview. Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 101 *°As i t stands i n Southview t h i s p a t i o i n the author's view i s awkward space. In the Mediterranean f o r example, the same kind of space i s used f o r laundry purposes, neighbouring and s o c i a l i z i n g a c t i v i t i e s , but p r i m a r i l y i t f u n c t i o n s as a f r o n t seat to the show of l i f e enacted on the s t r e e t . T h i s i s h a r d l y the case i n Southview. The weather does not allow t h i s . Secondly the people do not i n t e r a c t as much outdoors. Onder these circumstances, the s t r e e t s then become merely communication a r t e r i e s and conveyors of t r a f f i c . Indeed i n Southview they seem to have been designed with only t h a t i n mind. A l l t h r e e c u l - d e - s a c s , prevent t h e i r use by o u t s i d e r s with no business i n the p r o j e c t , thus c u t t i n g down on f u r t h e r a c t i v i t i e s . The management has c o n f i n e d c h i l d r e n ' s play a c t i v i t i e s t o s p e c i f i c areas, away from the s t r e e t s . Admittedly such procedures may f o r c e s t r a n g e r s i n t o the p r o j e c t to be e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d (Jacobs, 1961; Newman, 1972), but the author qu e s t i o n s the extent t o which r e s i d e n t s can i d e n t i f y each other, as there seems to be l i t t l e c o n t a c t between the neighbours anyway. One respondent c o u l d not d i s t i n g u i s h between p r i v a c y from neighbours and p r i v a c y from s t r a n g e r s . He suggested that the two were one and the same.each Cul-de-sac houses a r e s i d e n t manager who presumably i s i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to i d e n t i f y r e s i d e n t s i n a p a r t i c u l a r c l u s t e r . 1 4 T h i s does not exclude the f a c t t h a t other c o n d i t i o n s c o u l d have been g i v e n near-to-peak responses, and v i c e - v e r s a . The reader i s t h e r e f o r e r e f e r r e d to the freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n diagrams f o r each a c t i v i t y i n Appendix I I I . **The other a c t i v i t i e s with a predominanace other than • i n d i f f e r e n t ' were Games (on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and Intimacy s t a t e ) . Formal S o c i a l , C h i l d and Storage a c t i v i t i e s (on the Anonymity s t a t e and Intimacy s t a t e ) . Housework (on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and Intimacy s t a t e ) , and Informal S o c i a l and Pet Care a c t i v i t i e s (on the Intimacy s t a t e ) . 1 3Whether the achieved s e c l u s i o n i s good or bad, can only be measured i n r e l a t i o n to the respondents' p r e f e r e n c e s . Hence the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n d i c e s are more a p p r o p r i a t e measures of p r i v a c y . **The a s s o c i a t i o n s were as f o l l o w s : S e c l u s i o n s t a t e by Not-Neighbouring s t a t e K-tau=0.29, s=0.013 Anonymity s t a t e by Intimacy s t a t e s=0.0G09 Not-Neighbouring s t a t e by Intimacy s t a t e s=0.001 S e c l u s i o n s t a t e by Anonymity s t a t e s=0.0000 S e c l u s i o n s t a t e by Intimacy s t a t e K-tau=0.'*8, K-tau=0.37, K-tau=0.54, K-tau=0.37, Chapter 4: R e s u l t s 102 s=0.0002 Anonymity s t a t e by Not-Neighbouring s t a t e K-tau=0.37, s=0.0059. 1 S A very s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n e x i s t e d between age and p e r c e p t i o n of neighbour's c l a s s (K-tau=0 .36, s=0. 0082). l * I t i s important t o keep i n mind t h a t the q u a l i t i e s of f r i e n d l i n e s s and, e s p e c i a l l y , h e l p f u l n e s s i n some cases were those Jgerceived to be so r a t h e r than experienced. T h i s tends to i d e a l i z e the s i t u a t i o n so t h a t even neighbours who are not c o n s i d e r e d f r i e n d l y were p e r c e i v e d as so ". . . i f the need a r i s e s " The a s s o c i a t i o n s were more s i g n i f i c a n t i n Kanata (s=0.027) than i n Southview (s=0.053). 4 7 S e e Table 4.2. The frequency of response on a l l q u a l i t i e s except n o i s e are more s p e c i f i c i n Kanata than Southview. **The a s s o c i a t i o n s were as f o l l o w s . Anonymity s t a t e s=0.034; Not-Neiqhbourinq s t a t e s=0.063 Both are to be found i n Kanata. 1 9 T h e a s s o c i a t i o n s should be read t o g e t h e r with the o v e r a l l asessment o f the neiqhbours* responses, a l r e a d y d e s c r i b e d i n Table 4.2. One should keep i n mind the l a r q e number of i n d i f f e r e n t and non-committal responses. 2 O T h i s was construed from the r e p l i e s to q u e s t i o n B12. In q e n e r a l comments about o v e r a l l p r i v a c y were very f a v o u r a b l e . C r i t i c i s m s about i n t e r n a l p r i v a c y were more frequent i n Southview than Kanata. In t h e l a t t e r p r o j e c t , co-op members provided b e t t e r i n s u l a t i o n than CHHC minimum requirements. With K-tau=0.31, K-tau=0.27, 2 1 T h e a s s o c i a t i o n s with neiqhbourhood n o i s e were as f e l l o w s . H i t h : d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n S e c l u s i o n s t a t e K - t au= 0.43, s=0.0093 D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Intimacy s t a t e K -tau= 0.33, s=0.02 D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Anonymity s t a t e K -tau= 0.40, s=0.0162 D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Not-Neiqhbourinq s t a t e K--tau= 0.27, s=0.086 2 2 T h e i n c o m p a t i b i l i t e s o f s e c l u s i o n and n o i s e i n Southview was probably the reason why the p a t i o was not used as much. See a l s o S e c t i o n 4.3. 103 5 -DISCUSSION By now i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a r r i v e at some deeper understanding of how p r i v a c y , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n p r i v a t e outdoor spaces, i s p e r c e i v e d . •, Whereas no simple p a t t e r n of a s s o c i a t i o n i n v o l v i n g p r i v a c y s t a t e s and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of neighbours and neighbourhood i s e v i d e n t , i t i s being submitted that there i s another s e t c f r e s u l t s t h a t are p o i n t i n g i n the same d i r e c t i o n , v i z . , t h e f a c t t h a t there are f a r more a s s o c i a t i o n s i n Kanata than a t southview. I t i s a l s o being submitted t h a t these r e s u l t s a r i s e from a b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e between the p r o j e c t s — t e n u r e . P h y s i c a l f a c t o r s f u r t h e r enhance the e f f e c t of tenure. Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 5.1 S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n of the Sample P r o j e c t s 104 5.1.1 E f f e c t of Tenure on I n t e r a c t i o n fl walk through the p r o j e c t s w i l l g u i c k l y v e r i f y that there i s more a c t i v i t y i n Kanata than Southview. Kanata r e s i d e n t s , as i n d i c a t e d are more acquainted with t h e i r neighbours. T h i s a l l o w s them t o be more s p e c i f i c about t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards p r i v a c y . I t i s p o s s i b l e that excess neighbouring, might have had the r e v e r s e e f f e c t . Since the same number of i n t e r v i e w s i n both p r o j e c t s were c a r r i e d out i n the evenings, i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t the l a c k o f i n t e r a c t i o n s i n Southview i s the r e s u l t of time s c h e d u l i n g . Gans (1967), Lansing et a l (1970), and Cooper (1975), a l l support the i n f l u e n c e of homogeneity i n c r e a t i n g more cohesive neighbourhoods. Gans (1961) p o i n t s t o stage i n the l i f e c y c l e , c l a s s , education and e t h n i c i t y , as the f o u r most important elements of homogeneity. As i s e v i d e n t from Chapter 3, Kanata was more homogenous with r e s p e c t to the f i r s t two f a c t o r s . T h i s f e a t u r e i s enhanced by another f a c t o r , the f a c t t h at Kanata i s a c o - o p e r a t i v e housing p r o j e c t . C o - o p e r a t i v e housing i s a waj o f l i f e , and f a i l u r e t o understand t h i s can l e a d to d i f f i c u l t i e s . 1 Consequently, people Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 105 e n t e r i n g i n t o a co-op are screened f o r s u i t a b i l i t y . Co-op members buy shares and thus become p a r t owners i n the p r o j e c t . T h i s g i v e s them a say i n d e c i s i o n making. In Southview, s c r e e n i n g i s absent, and r e s i d e n t s do not have the same r e s p o n s a b i l i t i e s , suggesting that t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n s i n terms of housing requirements are probably d i f f e r e n t . Being, on the average, younger Southview respondents have more time i n which to a t t a i n (or hope to a t t a i n ) t h e i r u l t i m a t e g o a l — t h e i r own house. There i s t h e r e f o r e l e s s commitment to t h e i r p r o j e c t , as demonstrated by the higher turnover. Concomitantly the management i n Southview does not encourage communication t h e r e . 2 The Southview r e s i d e n t s are excluded from a l l p r o j e c t - r e l a t e d decisions-^-they are t o l d what kind of c u r t a i n s they must have. I t ' s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t the Tenants* a s s o c i a t i o n i s v i r t u a l l y defunct. Southview's ' c o n d i t i o n * i s r e f l e c t e d i n a study by Cooper, Day and Levine(1972). She found a s i m i l a r l a c k of commitment i n r e n t a l p r o j e c t s . Moreover t h e i r study a t St. F r a n c i s S q u a r e — a co-op housing c o m p l e x — i n d i c a t e d an i n c r e a s e i n neighbouring frequency as compared to other p r o j e c t s examined. 3 These r e s u l t s p a r a l l e l those of the Kanata r e s i d e n c e . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h i s type of tenure a l l o w s b e t t e r c o n t r o l over i n t e r p e r s o n a l boundary r e l a t i o n s , and a f f e c t s p e r c e p t i o n s of p r i v a c y . The same study comments on the use of communal f a c i l i t e s as Vice Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 106 breakers*. In another {Beck, Rowan, Teasdale, 1975) laundry rooms, community eguipment and parking l o t s were areas where one commonly met people. S i m i l a r f a c i l i t i e s i n Southview d i d not f u n c t i o n as w e l l , but the laundry was sometimes mentioned. The same study proposes t h a t , " S p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s are r e g u i r e d to i n i t i a t e c o n t a c t s because of the common i n t e r e s t s communicated, but once c o n t a c t i n i t i a t e d and the ' i c e * broken involvement i n common p u r s u i t s are no longer necessary t o pursue communication." T h i s i s p r e c i s e l y what seemed to be happening i n Kanata. The co-op he l d monthly meetings as w e l l as an annual ge n e r a l meeting. The author was informed of a men's d a r t s c l u b and a women's sewing c l u b . During the p e r i o d o f the i n t e r v i e w the r e s i d e n t s were engaged i n a plantathon to f u r t h e r improve the l a n d s c a p i n g . Other a c t i v i t i e s , f o r example, hikes f o r j u n i o r members of the Boy's scouts, were a l s o organized w i t h i n the c l u s t e r s . Onder such c o n d i t i o n s of community formation^ p r i v a c y as a withdrawal from human i n t e r a c t i o n has been found to be unimportant ( W i l l i s , 1963-c) . a l l these o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r contact were ca u s i n g a b e t t e r d e f i n i t i o n of where the i n t e r p e r s o n a l boundary {Altman, 1975) should be s e t , by v i r t u e of more knowledge about the a c t o r s . I t should a l s o be emphasized however, t h a t the Jejsth of the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s with p r i v a c y i s not g r e a t . Hot only was there a high r a t e of i n d i f f e r e n c e cn the s t a t e s , but none c f the Chapter 5 : D i s c u s s i o n 107 a s s o c i a t i o n s d i s c u s s e d so f a r , are very s t r o n g , although some were very h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t . 5.1.2 E f f e c t of Tenure on. Social.;Organization Each p r o j e c t d i s p l a y s a d i f f e r e n t way of a c h i e v i n g p r i v a c y — a t a high l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n i n Kanata, and a low l e v e l i n Southview. The l a c k of emphasis on the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l and the achieved l e v e l of the s t a t e s does not d e t r a c t frcm the o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n . I t j u s t s t a t e s the extent of a p p r e c i a t i o n c f the problems. The high l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n and the o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n with p r i v a c y at Kanata, suggest not only the establishment of a boundary, but i t s maintenance through s o c i a l s t r a t e g i e s . P h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s , e.g., f e n c e s , were e i t h e r not emphasized, or the o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e f o r more s e c l u s i o n not taken. Despite the absence of s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n s t o support t h i s p o s t u l a t e , the type of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n within the p r o j e c t was s e t t i n g up a s o c i a l i n t e r f a c e by which to achieve p r i v a c y . • T h i s does not mean t h a t one type of p r i v a c y i s b e t t e r than-another. T y p i c a l of s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , one i s averaging the behaviour o f many. P r i v a c y , i f i t i s indeed t o be a p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l of i n t e r a c t i o n , v a r i e s with the need of each i n d i v i d u a l and the a c t i v i t y engaged i n . The l i n k to a more g e n e r a l community Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 108 i n t e r a c t i o n should be underscored. I n t e r a c t i o n i s b e n e f i c i a l t o both the group and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p s y c h o l o g i c a l development (see Chapter 1). I t i s i n t h i s r e s p e c t t h a t the p r i v a c y at Kanata i s b e t t e r . That p r i v a c y i s p o s s i b l e at t h i s l e v e l , i n t h i s kind of environment i s an important r e a l i z a t i o n , i n the l i g h t of the c u r r e n t disenchantment with such p r o j e c t s , p r i v a c y does not have t o be achieved by withdrawal. The manager at Southview seemed keen to run the p r o j e c t i n t h i s way. One wonders i n f a c t whether t h i s i s what the respondents wanted. T a b l e 4.4 i n d i c a t e s , that the p r e f e r e n c e s f o r s e c l e s i o n , conspicuoushess e t c . , are comparable to those at Kanata. 5 One must a l s o keep i n mind t h a t t h i s study i s d e a l i n g with p r i v a c y outdoors. I f one i s to conclude anything, i t i s t h a t p r i v a c y i n s i d e the house i s more sa c r o s a n t than outdoors. In most cases people do not care how they are per c e i v e d o u t d o o r s . 6 However, d e s p i t e t h e i r i n s i s t a n c e that p r i v a c y d i d not hinder t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s outdoors, t h e i r responses, as i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , suggest t h a t indeed they a r e , and t h a t some would p r e f e r more s e c l u s i o n . P r i v a c y indoors i s more important. When one f e e l s more compatible with the neighbours, more emphasis w i l l be l a i d on s o c i a l s t r a t e g i e s than on p h y s i c a l s e p a r a t i o n , by l i m i t a t i o n i n engagement i n c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s . Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 5.2 P h y s i c a l F a c t o r s Impinging on P r i v a c y 109 P h y s i c a l v a r i a t i o n s i n the p r o j e c t seem t o be r e i n f o r c i n g i n t e r a c t i o n s (or l a c k o f them). Coupled with more homogeneity, s i t e l a y o u t may be s u s t a i n i n g s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . The l o c a t i o n and l a y o u t of the p r i v a t e outdoor spaces, as w e l l the p r o v i s i o n of communal f a c i l i t e s f u r t h e r c o n t r i b u t e t o t h i s f a c t o r . 5.2.1 S i t e Layout The s i t e l a y o u t i n Kanata may be generating more o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r c o n t a c t . To guote Cooper et a l (1972), "When the arrangement of d w e l l i n g s with r e s p e c t to c e r t a i n shared f a c i l i t i e s i s such that r e g u l a r and r e s p e c t i v e c o n t a c t s between s m a l l subgroups of neighbours takes p l a c e , t h e r e w i l l be a g r e a t e r l i k e l i h o o d of r e c o g n i t i o n and s o c i a l c o n t a c t . 1 1 The importance of s i t e l a y o u t i n s o c i a l behaviour has been d i s c u s s e d by s e v e r a l authors, but there seem t o be disagreement on the nature and extent o f the i n f l u e n c e , s t u d i e s on p h y s i c a l p r o x i m i t y show t h a t the amount of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n i s c o r r e l a t e d with p h y s i c a l s e p a r a t i o n and t h a t i n homogenous p o p u l a t i o n s , p r o p i n q u i t y and f r i e n d s h i p formation are a s s o c i a t e d . S p a t i a l p r o x i m i t y i s a f u n c t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the a c t o r s (see Chapter 2 ). In heterecgenous p o p u l a t i o n s housing p r o x i m i t y i s probably not enough to overcome Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n s o c i a l c l a s s h a r r i e r s , although c e r t a i n a t t i t u d i n a l changes may take place ( K a s l , 1974). Being more homogenous, the Kanata lay o u t may support more c p p o r t u n i t e s f o r i n t e r a c t i o n . These c o n t a c t s may a l s o account f o r the g r e a t e r neighbourhood s a t i s f a c t i o n the Kanata respondents expressed. In e f f e c t the s i t e l a y o u t s of the two p r o j e c t s are the same i n p r i n c i p l e . Kanata was planned i n f o u r c l u s t e r s , while Southview was designed around t h r e e c u l - d e - s a c s (see Chapter 3). St u d i e s on the i m p l i c a t i o n s of s i t e l a y o u t s do not d i s t i n g u i s h between c u l - d e - s a c s and c o u r t l a y o u t s . Both are appa r e n t l y l e a s t s u s c e p t i b l e t o l a c k of p r i v a c y i n terms of nois e and can o f f e r as much p r i v a c y i n t h e i r outdoor spaces as s i n g l e f a m i l y houses (Lansing e t a l , 1970).? I t i s being submitted t h a t i n f a c t , t h e r e e x i s t s a d i f f e r e n c e i n the l a y o u t of the two sample p r o j e c t s which r e s u l t e d i n g r e a t e r neighbour c o n t a c t i n one p r o j e c t . There i s evidence to suggest t h a t c o u r t developments c r e a t e more o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r neighbouring than other s i t e arrangements. Gans (1967) and Cooper (1975) suggest that f o r v a r y i n g c l a s s e s of people, neighbouring s t a r t s i n the backyard and moves forward to the f r o n t yard, as the stay gets l o n g e r . People t r y to f i n d comfort i n each other by s h a r i n g o p i n i o n s , i n s e c u r i t i e s o f l i v i n g i n a new p l a c e , f i x i n g f u r n i t u r e , Richard Nixon,* and so on. As r e s i d e n t s become more c o n f i d e n t o f t h e i r r o l e s , and Chapter 5: Discussion 111 friendships become deeper, encounters move to the front, and s t a r t without any need or cause. It i s more l i k e l y however, that the neighbouring patterns both i n Kanata and i n Southview skip the f i r s t stage, or are carried out in the front space r i g h t away. The six foot fences between units at the back do not allow much inter a c t i o n , No conversations were observed between people on d i f f e r e n t house l e v e l s . 9 People were observed chatting in the front, but r a r e l y at the back. A physical design that increases day to day contact does not neccessarily increase f r i e n d l i n e s s — i n f a c t the contrary might be true (Goard, 1975; Dean, 1976). Kanata's configuration augments contact. A l l units have a f u l l length window opening onto the front. I t i s therefore much easier for neighbours to be aware of each other's comings and goings. In Southview, no openings whatsoever were provided at t h i s l e v e l . Additionally only Kanata's carports were separated by a s o l i d wall. In Southview t h i s wall was taken further out, between the main access and the carport {Plate 3,7). Even i f the front door was l e f t open, the view would be r e s t r i c t e d by the width cf the access corridor. Some units i n Kanata also shared a common front yard {Plates 3.2 and 3.3). A s i m i l a r arrangement existed in Southview, where the entrance access corridor was shared with one other tenant, but the respondents did not hint at much interaction with t h i s neighbour. Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 112 F r o n t yard a c t i v i t y i n Kanata was f u r t h e r enhanced by the g r e a t e r p r o v i s i o n f o r communal parking, f o r the u n i t s without a c a r p o r t {Fig 3.2). Here the p l a y areas were l o c a t e d w i t h i n the c l u s t e r s , whereas i n Southview they were l o c a t e d between c l u s t e r s . Both l a y o u t s had a p e d e s t r i a n system which ran between the backyards. In Southview because the arrangement was cn the opposite s i d e of the main access i t was r a r e l y used by a d u l t s . In a d d i t i o n , none of the paths went through to the road. In Kanata, paths were more d i r e c t r o u t e s , but one tended to take s h o r t c u t s through the other c l u s t e r s , thus i n c r e a s i n g c o n t a c t p o s s i b i l i t i e s . In Southview, a l l three c l u s t e r s lead o f f the same bus r o u t e , which made i t h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t anyone would walk to h i s house other than through h i s own c l u s t e r . 5.2.2 Overlooking None of the respondents i n e i t h e r of the p r o j e c t s under study complained about the degree of e n c l o s u r e . Even when there was no t h i r d fence {in Kanata), respondents i n u n i t s adjacent to moderately used p e d e s t r i a n paths d i d not f e e l uncomfortable, as they b e l i e v e d people r e f r a i n e d from l o o k i n g i n s i d e . Undoubtedly seme respondents would p r e f e r t h e view, others t o be a b l e tc see people walk by or chat (Cooper, 1967). In most cases the l a c k of a fence meant t h a t they c o u l d extend t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s i n t o Chapter 5 : D i s c u s s i o n 113 common t e r r i t o r y , as most backyards extended n a t u r a l l y i n t o the surrounding green. The f a c t t h a t only one cf the respondents b u i l t a s i x f o o t fence suggests that e n c l o s u r e was not intended f o r s e c l u s i o n but ' p r a c t i c a l i t i e s ' as e x e m p l i f i e d by wind p r o t e c t i o n , noise p r o t e c t i o n , keeping out animals and c h i l d r e n , and p r e v e n t i n g easy access by b u r g l a r s . admittedly v a r i o u s s t u d i e s on p u b l i c housing (Shankland et a l , 1967; Cooper, 1967, 1972) i n d i c a t e t h a t r e s i d e n t s r e g u i r e fences around t h e i r backyard to improve u t i l i z a t i o n of space by reducing o v e r l o o k i n g . In W i l l i s ' s study (1963-b) o v e r l o o k i n g was an important element of p r i v a c y . Whether i t was ignored or not depended more on the type of people, what they were doing, who l o o k s i n , how, and when, r a t h e r than p h y s i c a l p r o x i m i t y of people or b u i l d i n g s . Some respondents i n the p r o j e c t s expressed concern about being overlooked, but i n g e n e r a l i t d i d not seem to c r e a t e e x c e s s i v e pressures. "There i s a c e r t a i n amount of o v e r l o o k i n g , fihen you move to a row house you have to give up a c e r t a i n measure of s e c l u s i o n which one would have i n a h a l f a c r e l o t . " (Kanata) " P e r s o n a l l y I do not g i v e a i f I am watched." (Southview) " L i t t l e worry about a c t i v i t i e s . Sometimes i n h i b i t i n g . When we moved i n at f i r s t , people looked i n a l o t because neighbours wanted to know each o t h e r . " (Kanata) "For us no problem because everyone i s away a l l the time. Maximum amount of p r i v a c y f o r a town house." Chapter 5; D i s c u s s i o n (Southview) although s e c l u s i o n on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e seemed t c be h i g h l y p r e f e r r e d (Table 4.4) i n both p r o j e c t s , the respondents i n Southview f e l t they had l e s s s e c l u s i o n while engaging i n f a m i l y a c t i v i t i e s and were more d i s s a t i s f i e d on the Intimacy s t a t e . The i n t e n s i t y o f responses on the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l f o r the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e was approximately the same f o r both p r o j e c t s . T h i s i s not to say that the p r o j e c t s s a t i s f i e d t h e i r s e c l u s i o n needs i n r e l a t i o n to the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e , as Tables 4.5 and 4.6 i n d i c a t e . a t the same time these respondents a l s o f e l t more conspicuous, i n s p i t e o f the higher fences. I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g , t h e r e f o r e , to f i n d t h a t the number of n o n - a p p l i c a b l e responses i n Southview i s a higher percentage than a t Kanata. I t seems, t h e r e f o r e , that the reasons s u p p l i e d by the respondents f o r not engaging i n a c t i v i t i e s may not apply, e s p e c i a l l y l a c k of space, as i n f a c t Kanata had s m a l l e r u n i t s . These r e s u l t s suggest two p o i n t s . F i r s t there may be other reasons f o r t h i s p e r c e i v e d l a c k of s e c l u s i o n . The p o s s i b i l i t y of a c t u a l l y being overlooked was s c a r s e . Fences were high enough and neighbours were r e p o r t e d as minding t h e i r own business. Hence the respondents must be aware of t h e i r neighbours i n other ways, say by the amount of noi s e they make (or by t h e i r cooking odours i f they are M a l t e s e ) . Shat seems l i k e l y i s that respondents experience i n s e c u r i t y when d i s p l a y i n g t h e i r f a m i l y a c t i v i t i e s and consequently indulge i n withdrawal. Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 115 Such an experience seems t o be c u r t a i l i n g t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s outdoors, i n s p i t e o f r e p o r t s to the c o n t r a r y . T h i s k ind of r e a c t i o n i s not uncommon f o r t h i s k i n d c f c l a s s of people. W i l l i s (1963-b), speaking of the d i f f e r e n c e i n the p e r c e p t i o n c f p r i v a c y between the middle and working c l a s s , r e p o r t s that the middle c l a s s , "are a f r a i d of being c r i t i c i z e d by o t h e r s , g e t t i n g a f e e l i n g of g u i l t at not conforming to the expected p a t t e r n . They seem more conscious of other people and they bear i n mind other people's f e e l i n g s " On the other hand, the working c l a s s , "tend to f e e l l e s s as being judged p e r s o n a l l y and are more a f r a i d of nosey p a r k e r s . They are a f r a i d o f people passing on d e t a i l s of t h e i r p o ssessions and of what people t h i n k of the c o n d i t i o n of the home . . . ; Home i s p e r s o n a l and . . . they should not look i n as t h i s i s i n t r u d i n g on privacy.*' The amount of s e c l u s i o n p r e f e r r e d and achieved v a r i e d with the type of a c t i v i t y . The a c t i v i t y c a t e g o r i e s most a f f e c t e d have al r e a d y been mentioned. 5.2.3 Crowding Altman (1975) d e f i n e s crowding as a f a i l u r e of p r i v a c y mechanisms t o r e t a i n a balance between the d e s i r e d and achieved i n t e r a c t i o n , when the former i s l e s s than the l a t t e r . Various s t u d i e s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t attempts to r e e s t a b l i s h the i n t e r p e r s o n a l boundary balance, takes the form of e i t h e r Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 116 withdrawal, ag g r e s s i o n or other n e g a t i v e behaviours, as w e l l as v e r b a l and p a r a v e r b a l , i n a mixture of q u a l i t y and g u a n t i t y . while the m a j o r i t y of the respondents d i d not p e r c e i v e the p r o j e c t s as overcrowded, t h e r e i s no evidence that those who d i d r e s o r t e d t o any a q q r e s s i v e means to reduce i n t e r a c t i o n . Rather r e s u l t s tend to support the idea that no one s p e c i f i c mechanism i s adopted but one maybe emphasized when combined with o t h e r s . The d i f f e r e n c e between crowdinq, c o n s i d e r e d to be an e x p e r i e n t i a l s t a t e , and d e n s i t y , a p h y s i c a l measurement and u s u a l l y a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r crowdinq, has a l r e a d y been mentioned. Density can be measured i n v a r i o u s ways and each has i t s own i m p l i c a t i o n s {Katz, 1964; Evans, 1973). I n t e r n a l d e n s i t y i s as c r u c i a l as e x t e r n a l d e n s i t y . When people are overcrowded there i s l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y to c a r r y on b a s i c a c t i v i t i e s away from other members of the f a m i l y , and i n t e r n a l p r i v a c y becomes important. Both sample p r o j e c t s i n t h i s study had d i f f e r e n t e x t e r n a l d e n s i t i e s but the same average i n t e r n a l d e n s i t y (2.95 persons per d w e l l i n q ) , However, Southview u n i t s were l a r q e r than those at Kanata ( f o r the same number of bedrooms) and t h i s may have qiven r i s e t o the d i f f e r e n t crowding responses reported e a r l i e r . 1 1 Research has shown t h a t the p r e f e r e n c e s f o r lower d e n s i t i e s a r i s e from a s s o c i a t i o n s f o r g r e a t e r p r i v a c y and l e s s n o i s e (Lansing e t a l , 1970). The s u b j e c t of n o i s e has a l r e a d y Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 117 been d i s c u s s e d . In both sample p r o j e c t s , crowding made an impact on the f e e l i n g of s e c l u s i o n i n both p r o j e c t s , on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e . In Kanata d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on t h i s s t a t e i n c r e a s e d with i n c r e a s i n g crowding p e r c e p t i o n . In Southview, on the same s t a t e , the p r o j e c t was p e r c e i v e d as l e s s secluded by those who perce i v e d the p r o j e c t crowded. The a s s o c i a t i o n between the Anonymity s t a t e and crowding (K-tau=0.39, s=0.026) would a l s o seem to i n d i c a t e that there might be an excess of o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n t e r a c t i o n at Kanata, causing a tendency f o r the r e v e r s e e x p e r i e n c e . T h i s might not n e c e s s a r i l y be the case, one can be conspicuous by not i n t e r a c t i n g too much. The number of people i n the household a l s o seeited to a f f e c t the p r e f e r e n c e s but not the assessment c f p r i v a c y i n the p r o j e c t . Thus i n Kanata, more people i n the household u s u a l l y generated a demand f o r more s e c l u s i o n on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and a d e s i r e t o be more inconspicuous* S i m i l a r a s s o c i a t i o n s were not dis c o v e r e d i n Southview where, on the other hand, respondents demanded l e s s s e c l u s i o n with i n c r e a s i n g number of people i n the household (cn the Intimacy s t a t e ) . These r e s u l t s l e a d t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the i n t e n s i t y of stim u l u s w i t h i n the household i s a f f e c t i n g e x t e r n a l v i s u a l i n t e r a c t i o n . As the u n i t s were s m a l l e r i n Kanata, one would be Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 118 i n c l i n e d to t h i n k t h a t the stimulus would be h i g h e r thus e l i m i n a t i n g the d e s i r e f o r more extraneous s t i m u l i (Mehrabian, 1 9 7 6 ) . 1 3 In Southview, the c o n t r a r y would be t r u e . Moreover, assuming the same d e n s i t y per d w e l l i n g i n both p r o j e c t s , i t can be argued that i n Southview, the backyards could be e x c e s s i v e l y enclosed and the people were w i l l i n g t o t o l e r a t e more v i s u a l i n t e r a c t i o n . T h i s c o n t r a d i c t s an e a r l i e r argument t h a t i n Southview, people were a c t u a l l y withdrawing from i n t e r a c t i o n , f o r a c t i v i t i e s with the f a m i l y . The e a r l i e r argument seems more p l a u s a b l e , s i n c e p r e f e r e n c e s f o r s e c l u s i o n on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e was very high f o r both p r o j e c t s and there were i n d i c a t i o n s f o r withdrawal on the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e {Table 4.4). This can be seen as another l i n k i n the c h a i n . The p h y s i c a l environment i s c r e a t i n g more o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s t i m u l u s from w i t h i n the house i n Kanata and c u r t a i l i n g i t i n Southview, causing a d e s i r e f o r a re v e r s e experience. In n e i t h e r p r o j e c t was t h i s response a s s o c i a t e d with the number of people i n the household, which i s not s u r p r i s i n g , c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t p e r c e p t i o n s of crowding were a l s o not a s s o c i a t e d with per c e i v e d adeguacy of the p r i v a t e outdoor space. In any case, crowding d i d not i n c r e a s e or decrease the s a t i s f a c t i o n with the p r o j e c t s . Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 5.2.4 Open_Space The adequacy of outdoor spaces f o r f a m i l y a c t i v i t i e s i s a f a c t o r i n neighbourhood s a t i s f a c t i o n only i f r e s i d e n t s f e e l they have too l i t t l e space a v a i l a b l e . , In high d e n s i t y areas, adequacy of outdoor space f o r f a m i l y a c t i v i t i e s becomes important. The more space a v a i l a b l e the h i g h e r i s the s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighbourhood (Lansing e t a l , 1970). Moreover t h e r e i s evidence to suggest t h a t not only does the amount of outdoor space l i m i t the kind of a c t i v i t i e s performed outdoors (Smith, Down, Lynch and Winter, 1969) , but t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n with p r i v a c y i s a s s o c i a t e d with s a t i s f a c t i o n with the open spaces ( Z e i s e l and G r i f f i n , 1976). An equal number of respondents i n both p r o j e c t s f e l t t h a t they d i d not have enough space to support t h e i r outdoor a c t i v i t i e s . However more people i n Kanata, i n s p i t e of the sm a l l e r outdoor spaces, p e r c e i v e d i t as adeguate. , perhaps the op p o r t u n i t y t o extend a c t i v i t i e s beyond t h e i r t e r r i t o r y made them p e r c e i v e i t as l a r g e r than i t r e a l l y was. In Kanata, adequacy of the p r i v a t e outdoor space was a s s o c i a t e d with the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n d i c e s on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e , Not-Neiqhbourinq s t a t e and Intimacy s t a t e . A l l tended to i n c r e a s e with the p e r c e i v e d inadequacy of open space. In Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 120 Southview a s i m i l a r a s s o c i a t i o n i n the same d i r e c t i o n occured on the Anonymity s t a t e o n l y . Larger open spaces may fee a s o l u t i o n . I t would i n c r e a s e the s e p a r a t i o n between the u n i t s . T h i s i n c r e a s e would perhaps l i m i t i n t e r a c t i o n on the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e . The S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and the Intimacy s t a t e would not n e c c e s s a r i l y be a f f e c t e d . Some respondents i n d i c a t e d a p r e f e r e n c e f o r l a r g e r open areas by s t a t i n g the d e s i r e t o l i v e on a 10-acre l o t i f they c o u l d . In a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of the i n t e r v i e w s , t h i s a t t i t u d e proved t o be a problem. As the respondents were s a t i s f i e d with what they had i n terms of housing, but would p r e f e r t h i s o p t i o n , given no l i m i t a t i o n s . Thus i n a s k i n g f o r p r e f e r e n c e s without s e t t i n g some degree o f c o n s t r a i n t , the r e p l i e s seem to express i d e a l i s t i c d e s i r e s . I t i s d o u b t f u l whether i n f a c t these respondents r e a l i z e the f u l l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s a t t i t u d e and whether they would s u r v i v e i n i t . I t i s true t h a t humans adapt, but s e c l u s i o n of t h i s nature i s not b e n e f i c i a l t o personal growth (see Chapter 1). Other p r a c t i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s would a l s o be i n h i b i t i n g , but one would assume t h a t i f they c o u l d a f f o r d to own a t e n - a c r e l o t they could a l s o a f f o r d to h i r e somebody to maintain i t . There i s no doubt t h a t t h e r e i s need f o r p r i v a t e outdoor spaces, but a denser and more compact l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n (in the Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 121 range o f 100-150 persons per acre) would l i b e r a t e a l o t of p u b l i c open space f o r other purposes, a g r i c u l t u r a l c r otherwise. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , so f a r , t h i s i s anathema t o the average North American. Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 122 Footnotes l I n the preceding study {Gatt and Iwata, 1976), the ffajor complaint arose from a misunderstanding of what co-op housing i s a l l about. Respondents f e l t they had too many r e s r i c t i o n s , and wanted to be a b l e t o s e l l the u n i t s they l i v e d i n . «One would assume that the number of times one t a l k s with one's neighbours i n c r e a s e s the degree of i n f o r m a t i o n about the neighbour. S u r p r i s i n g l y enough i n n e i t h e r p r o j e c t , the frequency of t a l k was not a s s o c i a t e d with e i t h e r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with p r i v a c y , assessment or p e r f e r e n c e s . I t seems t h e r e f o r e t h a t i n Kanata, i n c r e a s e d t a l k was e i t h e r the r e s u l t of acquaintanceship s t r u c k somewhere e l s e , or was t r i v i a l to g e t t i n i n f o r m a t i o n about the n e i g h b o u r s . i n Southview, on the ether hand, such an a s s o c i a t i o n e x i s t e d . Lack of other a c t i v i t i e s l e f t neighbours with only t h i s way to get to know each o t h e r . ^another co-op study i n the Champlain Heights area (Gatt and Iwata, 1976) r e v e a l e d s i m i l a r i n t e n s i t i e s of frequency of communication with the neighbours. , The impression given by the manager a t Southview was t h a t the detachment encountered there was a l i f e s t y l e which the r e s i d e n t s chose. To what extent t h i s i s t r u e i s hot c e r t a i n . Maybe newcomers to the p r o j e c t are • i n s t r u c t e d * i n t h i s l i f e s t y l e . s o m e Respondents comented on the s t r i c t n e s s with which the p r o j e c t i s run.even So i t i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t t h i s was c a u s i n g undue s t r s s . Because the r e s i d e n t s , -always had an image of how bad i t can get without c o n t r o l , i n the p u b l i c housing p r o j e c t o p p o s i t e ; -almost a l l were moving out some time or other and were w i l l i n g t o adapt to the inconvenience f o r a s h o r t ' w h i l e ; -presumably some were g e t t i n g used to l i v i n g to townhouses anyway. •The s t a t i s t i c a l procedure used, u t i l i z i n g a rank-crder measurment, may not be t o t a l l y s u i t e d to the high c l u s t e r i n g of responses on one c o n d i t i o n — * i n d i f f e r e n t * . The high number of missing cases on the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n d i c e s may a l s c have c o n t r i b u t e d to the l a c k of c o r r e l a t i o n . s i t has a l r e a d y been p o i n t e d out that i n f a c t respondents i n Southview perceived the p r o j e c t not secluded enough f o r s o l o a c t i v i t i e s . Now i f the p a t i o i s not normally u t i l i z e d one can conclude t h a t the f a m i l y and s o l o a c t i v i t i e s share the same v i s u a l p r i v a c y . So the problem does not stand with f a m i l y Chapter 5: D i s c u s s i o n 123 i n t r u s i o n , . The respondent may have been i n s e c u r e and a f r a i d to d i s p l a y h i s l i f e s t y l e i n a r e l a x e d manner. T h i s i s understandable, s i n c e the respondent i s young, i n s e c u r e and probably has l i t t l e r e s i d e n t i a l experience of t h i s nature. *Besponses to Question B12. ^ V a r i o u s respondents commented on the adeguacy of p r i v a t e outdoors as " . .,. . Sometimes more than i n a detached house." 8 B o t h s t u d i e s took American samples. I f they had been Canadian they would t a l k about the Saskatchewan rogh r i d e r s or the mole on Bene Lavesque's l e f t n o s t r i l . 'The unopenable windows i n Kanata would not allow such an event. '•OKanata, the p r o j e c t with the higher average age, and lower d e n s i t y was p e r c e i v e d more crowded. ^ M a r s h a l l ' s r e s u l t s i n t h i s r e s p e c t tend to f o l l o w the ones i n Southview. Her argument was an based cn a d a p t a t i o n l e v e l theory. Respondent who were subjected t c low l e v e l s of p r i v a c y i n the home ( i . e . , high number o f persons i n the household) would tend to indulge i n a c t i v i t i e s with l a c k of p r i v a c y r a t h e r than more. 124 1 1 •CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENBATIGNS T h i s r e s e a r c h not only provided i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the u t i l i z a t i o n o f p r i v a t e outdoor spaces i n m u l t i f a m i l y housing but a l s o enabled data concerning other areas somewhat r e l a t e d to p r i v a c y to be c o l l e c t e d . 6.1 Co n c l u s i o n s a. PRIVACY IS A PERSONAL CONTROL OVER INTERACTION. IT INVOLVES TBE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BOUNDARY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE SOCIAL GROUPS TO CONTROL THE INPUT AND OUTPUT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE SELF. AS SUCH, IT VARIES FROM PERSON TO PERSON, GROUP TO GROUP AND CIRCUMSTANCE TO CIRCUMSTANCE. Pr i v a c y has been d i s s e c t e d i n t o s o c i a l s t a t e s {Anonymity s t a t e and Not-Neighbouring s t a t e ) , and p h y s i c a l s t a t e s ( S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and Intimacy s t a t e ) . Chapter 6: C o n c l u s i o n s 125 D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with any one of these s t a t e s was found to i n c r e a s e with an i n c r e a s e i n d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with any of the oth e r s . Each s t a t e , however, was expressed independently of the ot h e r s . There i s s t a t i s t i c a l support f o r the hypothesis t h a t p r i v a c y depends on the p e r c e i v e d f i t of the i n d i v i d u a l w i t h i n the neighbourhood. On the c o n t r a r y , there i s l i t t l e evidence t o support the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i t i s a s s o c i a t e d with neighbour c o m p a t i b i l i t y . S i m i l a r l y there i s no simple and c l e a r l y e v ident p a t t e r n o f a s s o c i a t i o n which allows one t o d i s c e r n when and under what c o n d i t i o n s s o c i a l s t r a t e g i e s are u t i l i z e d over p h y s i c a l s t r a t e g i e s to r e t a i n p r i v a c y . b. TENDHE AND MANAGEMENT PLAY AN IMPORTANT PART IN TBE ACHIEVEMENT OF PRIVACY, BUT THEY ABE NOT THE ONLY CONTROLLING FACTORS. IHPROVED SOCIAL INTERACTION MADE POSSIBLE BY THE TYPE OF TENURE DETERMINES WHERE THE INTERPERSONAL BOUNDARY IS SET. THIS EARBIER MAY BE ESTABLISHED TO ALLOW EITHER A HIGH DEGREE OF INTERACTION OR NONE AT ALL. E f f e c t i v e p r i v a c y can be achieved without withdrawal. The sample p r o j e c t s demonstrated low l e v e l s of p r i v a c y d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n a t two opposite l e v e l s of i n t e r a c t i o n . High i n t e r a c t i o n improves knowledge about s o c i a l groups, and allow s a b e t t e r understanding of where the i n t r u s i o n t h r e s h o l d i s s e t . Consequently there i s l e s s r e l i a n c e on p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s and more on s o c i a l s t r a t e g i e s . Lew i n t e r a c t i o n g i v e s r i s e t o the opposite e f f e c t . Increased communication i s Chapter 6: Co n c l u s i o n s 126 b e n e f i c i a l . I t engenders more f e e l i n g s of f r i e n d l i n e s s , h e l p f u l n e s s and c o m p a t i b i l i t y , which i n t u r n can c r e a t e b e t t e r f e e l i n g s about one*s neighbourhood. TOO much communication can be d e b i l i t a t i n g . C o - o p e r a t i v e s , or s i m i l a r l y organized communities can pr o v i d e b e t t e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r more frequent i n t e r a c t i o n . They may generate a g r e a t e r sense of commitment t o , community i n , and s a t i s f a c t i o n with the development. Rental p r o j e c t s , u n l e s s o f a f a i r l y s t a b l e nature, w i l l not achieve as much. c. , PRIVACY BASED ON WITHDRAWAL, HINDERS THE NOHBER OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PERFORMED OUTDOORS. F a m i l i e s i n the e a r l y stages o f the l i f e c y c l e tend to be more s u s c e p t i b l e t o l a c k o f s e c l u s i o n on a c t i v i t i e s with f a m i l i e s or i n t i m a t e s , i n s p i t e o f higher v i s u a l b a r r i e r s . d. IN THE PARTICULAR RESIDENTIAL ENVIRCNEHT UNDER STUDY, PRIVACY PREFERENCES SEEM TO BE SET AND IMMUTABLE OVER TIME. THEY ARE PROBABLY DETERMINED BY PREVIOUS RESIDENTIAL EXPERIENCE. WITHIN THE SOCIAL STRATA CONSIDERED HERE, AGE INCOME AND SEX HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH DISPOSTIONS TOWARD PRIVACY IN THIS SPACE. e. PRIVACY IN PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACES IS NOT A NEED, BUT A DESIRE. HOST PEOPLE FIND PRIVACY OUTDOORS IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS NOT MUCH DIFFERENT FROM SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSES. f. THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT HELPS OR HINDERS PRIVACY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT HELPS OR HINDERS INTERACTION. Chapter 6: C o n c l u s i o n s 127 The p h y s i c a l environment can c r e a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r more i n t e r a c t i o n . Under such circumstances, p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s are provided f o r reasons other than p r o t e c t i o n from i n t r u s i o n . 6.2 Recommendations The Unit a. PROVIDE A HIGHLY SECLUDED OUTDOOR SPACE, FOR USE BY ONE PERSON, AHAY FROM NEIGHBOUR AND FAMILY INTERRUPTIONS, OBSERVATIONS AND NOISE. Need: The a c t i v i t y c ategory which e l i c i t e d very d e f i n i t e p r i v a c y reguirements was Rest-and-Relaxation. Here t h e r e was a high p r e f e r e n c e f o r v i s u a l s e c l u s i o n on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and the Intimacy s t a t e and a tremendous d i s l i k e f o r i n t e r r u p t i o n s . Although there was a very low preference f o r extreme s e c l u s i o n , a remarkably high preference f o r the 'secluded* c o n d i t i o n i n c o n n e c t i o n with s o l o a c t i v i t i e s was found, e s p e c i a l l y f o r Hobbies-and-Crafts (and Rest-and-Relaxation). The f o l l o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s were noted as having s p e c i f i c p r i v a c y reguirements, i n r e l a t i o n to the l i s t e d s t a t e s . S e c l u s i o n f o r A c t i v i t i e s with Intimates Chapter 6: Co n c l u s i o n s 128 Informal s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s Formal s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s C h i l d o r i e n t e d a c t i v i t i e s housework Storage Inconspicuousness Hobbies and C r a f t s Formal S o c i a l A c t i v i t i e s No I n t e r r u p t i o n s Informal S o c i a l A c t i v i t i e s Formal S o c i a l A c t i v i t i e s . Form: Small b a l c o n i e s or p a t i o s immediately attached t o one's bedrooms, secluded from o b s e r v a t i o n and neighbourhood n o i s e (eg., t r a f f i c ) . Any such p r o v i s i o n i s i n a d d i t i o n to f a m i l y outdoor space. b. PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPEN SPACE TO SUSTAIN THE FOLLOWING COMMON ACTIVITIES: HOBBIES AND CRAFTS INFORMAL SOCIAL ACTIVITIES HOME MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR HOUSEWORK Need: Adeguacy of p r i v a t e outdoor space improves s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighbourhood. Gardening was a very popular form of outdoor a c t i v i t y , e s p e c i a l l y when the housing r u l e s s p e c i f i e d tenant p a t i c i p a t i o n i n the upkeep of the v i s i b l e p r i v a t e outdoor space. The absence o f a basement or communal working f a c i l i t i e s , i n c r e a s e d u t i l i z a t i o n of the outdoor space f o r h e a v i e r work. S u f f i c i e n t hard s u r f a c e s should be provided Chapter 6: C o n c l u s i o n s 129 a c c o r d i n g l y . , P r i v a t e outdoor spaces should be provided with some form of weather p r o t e c t i o n . T h i s may i n v o l v e a p a r t i a l c o v e r i n g or c o n s t r u c t i o n or a t l e a s t the users should be allowed to b u i l d t h e i r own. C h i l d r e n tend t o play on the same l e v e l where f a m i l y a c t i v i t i e s occur. Small c h i l d r e n have t c be under d i r e c t eye c o n t a c t and p l a y i n the same l o c a t i o n where the parent" works. Form: In Kanata 700 s g . f t . (325 sg. f t . at the f r o n t and 375 sg. f t . a t the back) f o r a t h r e e bedroom house i s co n s i d e r e d s u f f i c i e n t by 85% of the respondents t h e r e . In Southview 575 sg. f t . f o r the same house i s only c o n s i d e r e d enough by H5% of the p o p u l a t i o n t h e r e . Other f a c t o r s (e.g e n c l o s u r e , d i s t r i b u t i o n of space, and so on) are a l s o c o n t r i b u t i n g to t h i s f e a t u r e . C. PROVIDE CLEAR LABEL TO 'BACK' AND •FRONT* OF THE HODSE. Need: People appear to a s s o c i a t e the back of the house with p r i v a c y , whereas the f r o n t i s considered the p u b l i c s i d e of the house. T h i s kind of recommendation a f f e c t s the i n t e r n a l l a y o u t of the house, and the d i s p o s i t i o n of the entrance i c r e l a t i o n to the c a r p o r t , k i t c h e n and the Chapter 6: C o n c l u s i o n s 130 formal rooms. An entrance on the same s i d e as the c a r p o r t and / o r k i t c h e n i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with use by c l o s e f r i e n d s of the f a m i l y or i t s members, and g e n e r a l l y i s allowed to support messy a c t i v i t i e s {exemplified by car washing). The f r o n t tends t o be used f o r s o c i a l d i s p l a y . Open spaces f o r ' p r i v a t e ' consumption here do not work as such but are t r e a t e d as se m i - p u b l i c spaces, i r r e s p e c t i v e of the degree of s e c l u s i o n . Form: Separate main entrance from the c a r p o r t . Provide enclosed space f o r storage of maintenance eguipment, e t c . , o r hide away from ' p u b l i c ' eyes. Provide a l l ' p r i v a t e ' open spaces on the ' p r i v a t e ' s i d e of the house (the back). Allow p e r s o n a l i z a t i o n of the f r o n t of the house. d. RELIANCE ON PHYSICAL BARRIERS IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD EXHIBITS HIGH LEVEL OF INTERACTION BETWEEN THE RESIDENTS. Need: Pryin g and o v e r l o o k i n g d i m i n i s h achieved s e c l u s i o n and i n c r e a s e the d i s l i k e f o r neighbour i n t e r r u p t i o n s . The f e e l i n g s of being observed are most s e r i o u s when p r i v a c y i s achieved by withdrawal, r a t h e r than when i t i s achieved by high l e v e l i n t e r a c t i o n . L i t t l e w i l f u l p r y i n g was found. When i t happened i t was u s u a l l y the r e s u l t of adjustment to the p r o j e c t and hence was only present i n the i n i t i a l s t a g e s of the residenc e . Form: Provide o p t i o n s i n the p r o v i s i o n of p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s . Chapter 6: C o n c l u s i o n s 131 i n c l u d i n g o p t i o n of t a k i n g down the fences. €. EMPHASIS SHOULD BE LAID ON INDOOB PBIVACY AS OPPOSED TO PRIVACY IN PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACES. Need: There were a l a r g e number of i n d i f f e r e n t or non-committal responses. D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s were very s l i g h t on most a c t i v i t i e s . Furthermore, an open ended g u e s t i o n e x t r a c t e d more complaints about l a c k of p r i v a c y w i t h i n the house. The treatment of the i n t e r f a c e between the i n d o o r s and the outdoors can be important, i f the f e e l i n g of outdoors i s to be designed with the p r i v a c y of the outdoors. Low s t i m u l u s load w i t h i n the house may generate needs f o r g r e a t e r v i s u a l c o n t a c t with what goes on o u t s i d e . Form: T h i s ought t o be the s u b j e c t of f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . f . PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PHYSICAL FLEXIBILITY, TO ALLOW FOR THE VARYING NEEDS OF PERSONAL CONTROL OVER INTERACTION. Need: Backyards are the most b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i v e r s e spaces i n the house. Some respondents h i n t e d at a need f o r l e s s s e c l u s i o n and more i n t e r r u p t i o n s than they had. Two respondents had agreed to take the common fence between t h e i r u n i t s down. Form: Options t o b u i l d fences such as was found at Kanata i s to be commended. . Chapter 6: C o n c l u s i o n s 132 Permeable fences between u n i t s c o u l d p o s s i b l y work as w e l l , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n , e x p l a i n e d e a r l i e r , was high. In t h i s c o n d i t i o n of i n t e r a c t i o n , demarcation of t e r r i t o r i a l i t y i s more important than v i s u a l s e c l u s i o n . S i t e Layout g. PROVIDE VISUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC OB SEMI-PUELIC SPACE IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE THE HOUSE. Need: I n t e r a c t i o n s between the u n i t s and a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e are d e s i r a b l e f o r many reasons. Form: Windows onto the f r o n t porch, and v i s u a l a c c e s s i b i l i t y to the o u t s i d e from the back. Covered porches, b a l c o n i e s i n frequent use can a l s o serve t h i s purpose. h. CLUSTER HOUSING AROUND SHARED FACILITIES, SUCH AS COMMUNAL PARKING LOTS, CHILD PLAY AREAS, ADULT RECREATION AND NODES OF ACTIVITIES. Need: I f i n v o l u n t a r y s o c i a l c o n t a c t s are reduced amonq immediate neiqhbours, i t i s e q u a l l y important to design f o r ether forms of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , as long as the r e s i d e n t s are not f o r c e d i n t o s i t u a t i o n s they cannot get out c f . Form: The above f recommendation (h) ]. P r o p e r l y l a i d out pathways which take r e s i d e n t s through d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of the p r o j e c t , and f a c i l i t i e s such as communal l a u n d r i e s may Chapter 6: C o n c l u s i o n s 133 be b e n e f i c i a l i n t h i s r e s p e c t . The l a t t e r may net be popular f o r i t s inconvenience. Court l a y o u t s work b e t t e r i n engendering c o n t a c t than any other form of l a y o u t . j . LOCATE HIGHLY SECLUDED AREAS A8AY FRCM NEIGHBOURHOOD NOISE SOURCES. Need: Neighbourhood noise i s more d e t r i m e n t a l to p r i v a c y than neighbour's n o i s e . C h i l d r e n and t r a f f i c are the twe most common sources of d i s t u r b a n c e s . Noise was found to a f f e c t the amount of p e r c e i v e d s e c l u s i o n . , Form: Provide the d i s t i n c t i o n between f r o n t and back mentioned e a r l i e r . Separate n o i s e sources and concentreate neighbourhood noise on one s i d e of the house p r e f e r a b l y the f r o n t . 6.3 F u r t h e r Research The most important r e l e v a n t c o n c l u s i o n f o r t h i s s e c t i o n i s t h a t a high degree of p r i v a c y i n p r i v a t e outdoor spaces i s not a c r i t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e — i t i s not a need. , S t u d i e s about p r i v a c y should be d i r e c t e d towards f u r t h e r i n g knowledge about p r i v a c y w i t h i n the d w e l l i n g . Within the l i m i t s s e t by t h i s statement, t h i s study can be extended i n the f o l l o w i n g ways: Chapter 6; Conclusions 134 a. Similar research could tackle the trade-offs residents are w i l l i n g to make, when faced with cer t a i n constraints. Finances seem to be the most common. Various research methods e x i s t f o r t h i s purpose {e.g., games).. Studies of t h i s nature should include o v e r a l l privacy within the home, and should not be l i m i t e d to private outdoor spaces. In t h i s study the only constraints on these attitudes were those set by the projects themselves i . e . , i n the ratings of assessment of achieved privacy. This study only shows how the e x i s t i n g units performed, but does not give any indica t i o n of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of other combinations of the elements involved. b. The concept of privacy within the family should be explored further. This research points to the need of small highly secluded areas for the i n d i v i d u a l , away from other family members. The provision of a communal family area i s also understood to be b e n e f i c i a l . c. I f s o c i a l organization within the project i s important, then other 'well organized* projects, not necessarily co-ops, ought to show si m i l a r trends. d. This study shows that privacy can exist at two l e v e l s ^ - a t a high interaction and at a low i n t e r a c t i o n — b u t does not indicate which one i s better {e.g, which one induces less stress) . e. A s i m i l a r study should be undertaken with variations in the physical form of the project, such as, Chapter 6: C o n c l u s i o n s 135 - s i t e l a y o u t , with v a r i a t i o n s i n the t h i r d dimension, f o r example apartments, or stacked housing, - t h i s study i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e are i n s t a n c e s where l e s s importance i s a t t r i b u t e d t o p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s . S t u d i e s c f p r o j e c t s where such p a r t i t i o n s are absent, have t o be c a r r i e d out to determine the extent of the v a r i a t i o n s , f. I f another study i s undertaken where p r i v a c y i s d i s s e c t e d i n t o o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s , then the survey method sh o u l d a l s o i n c l u d e a q u e s t i o n about respondents 1 a t t i t u d e s t o o v e r a l l p r i v a c y . This a l l o w s b e t t e r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the p a r t s to the whole. 6.4 E p i l o g u e The concept of p r i v a c y now ought to be a l i t t l e l e s s complex. 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY I n t e r personal, R e l a t i o n s h i p s and P r i v a c y {Including P ersonal Space, T e r r i t o r i a l i t y and Crowding) Altman, I . " P r i v a c y : A Conceptual A n a l y s i s . " In Man Environment I n t e r a c t i o n s : E v a l u a t i o n s and A p p l i c a t i o n s . P a r t 2. Se c t i o n 6: P r i v a c y pp.3-28. E d i t e d by D a n i e l H. Carson. Stroudsberg, Penn.: Dowden Hutchinson and Boss Inc., 1974. — Environment and S o c i a l Behaviour: P r i v a c y , P ersonal Space, T e r r i t o r y , Crowding. Monterey, C a l . : Brooks-Cole P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1975. — • " P r i v a c y : A Conceptual A n a l y s i s . " Environment and Behavior 8 (March 1976): 7-29. Altman, I . . and L e t t , E.E. "The Ecology of I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s : C l a s s i f i c a t i o n System and Conceptual Model." In J.E. McGrath, ed., S o c i a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l F a c t o r s i n s t r e s s New York: H o l t R e i n h a r t and Winston, IncT, ~1970, pp. 177-201. Altman, I., and T a y l o r , D.A. S o c i a l P e n e t r a t i o n : The • Development of I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s . New York: H o l t , R e i n h a r t and Winston, Inc., 1973. Altman, I . ; T a y l o r , D.A.; and Wheeler, L. " E c o l o g i c a l Aspects of Group Behaviour i n S o c i a l I s o l a t i o n . " J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology 1 (1971): 76-100. Anderson, J . , and T i n d a l l M. "The Concept of the Home Range: New Data f o r the Study of T e r r i t o r i a l Behaviour." In Environmental Design: Research and P r a c t i c e . Proceedings of the EDRA 3/A1 8 Conference Volume 1, Paper 1.1. Edi t e d by W i l l i a m M i t c h e l l . Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1972. Bates, A. P. " P r i v a c y , a U s e f u l Concept?" S o c i a l Forces 42 (1964): 429-34. Baum, A., and Davis, G. E. " S p a t i a l and S o c i a l Aspects of Crowding P e r c e p t i o n . " Environment and Behaviour. 8 (December 1976): 527-44. Berardo, F. M. " M a r i t a l I n v i s i b i l i t y and F a n i l y P r i v a c y . " In Man-Environment I n t e r a c t i o n s : E v a l u a t i o n s and B i b l i o g r a p h y 137 a p p l i c a t i o n s . Part 2, S e c t i o n 6: P r i v a c y . Pp. 55-72. E d i t e d by D a n i e l B. Carson. Stroudsberg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc., 1974. B o s s l e y , a . I . " P r i v a c y and Crowding: a M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y a n a l y s i s . " Man-Environment Systems 6 ( #1 1976): 8-19. Calhoun, J . B. " P o p u l a t i o n Density and S o c i a l Pathology." S c i e n t i f i c America {February 1962): 139-1 B o t t , E., Family and S o c i a l Network. London, T a v i s t o c k , 1957. [guoted i n M a r s h a l l (1970) ] C h o i , S.C.; M i r j a f a r i , A.; and Heaver, H.B. •'The Concept of Crowding: A C r i t i c a l Review and Pro p o s a l of an A l t e r n a t i v e Approach." Environment and Behaviour 8 {September 1976): 345-62. D a n i e l H. Carson. Stroudsberg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson an Ross Inc., 1974. C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n . "User Study Of P r i v a t e Open Spaces i n a Courtyard Housing P r o j e c t . " Working Paper #10. A r c h i t e c t u r e and P l a n n i n g : P r o f e s s i o n a l Standards and S e r v i c e s Group, August 1974. Chermayeff, s., and Alexander, C. Community and P r i v a c y : Towards a New A r c h i t e c t u r e of Humanism. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1963. Dean, L.M.; Pugh, H.M.; and Gunderson, E.K.E. " S p a t i a l and P e r c e p t a u l Components of Crowding: E f f e c t s on Health and S a t i s f a c t i o n . " Environment and Behaviour 7{June 1975): 225-36. Edney, J . J . "Human T e r r i t o r i e s : Comment on F u n c t i o n a l P r o p e r t i e s . " Environment and Behaviour 8 (March 1976): 31-47. Evans, G.H., and Eichelman, W. " P r e l i m i n a r y Models of Conceptual Linkages Among Proxemic V a r i a b l e s . " Environment and Behaviour 8 (March 1976): 87-116. Evans, G.W., and Howard, R.B. "Personal Space." P s y c h o l o g i c a l J S l i e t j t i a 80 (#4 1973) : 334-44. Freedman, J.L. Crowding and Behaviour. San F r a n c i s c o : W.H, Freeman and Co., 1975. Goffman, E. Behaviour i n P u b l i c Spaces. New York: The Free Press, 1963. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . " P r i v a c y i n Compact B i b l i o g r a p h y 138 Housing: T e r r i t o r y and I n d i v i d u a l C o n t r o l . " Prepared by Walkey/Olsen f o r GVRD Pla n n i n g Department. Vancouver: March 1976. H a l l , E.T. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday and Co. Inc., 1966. Hedley, A. " P r i v a c y as a F a c t o r i n R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g s and S i t e Developments." An Annotated B i b l i o g r a p h y . N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l , D i v i s i o n of B u i l d i n g Research. Ottawa, 1S66. H o f f e r , A. "The Importance of P r i v a c y i n B u i l d i n g Human Values i n t o the Community." Community Planning Review 19 (Summer 1969) : 13-16. I t t l e s o n W.H., Proshansky, H.H.; and R i v l i n , l . G . "A study of bedroom use on two P s y c h i a t r i c Wards." H o s p i t a l and Community P s y c h i a t r y 21 (#6 1970): 177-180. Halmos, P. ; " S o l i t u d e and P r i v a c y " Johnson, C. A. " P r i v a c y as P e r s o n a l C o n t r o l . " In Man-Enyiron me n t I n t e r a c t i o n s : E v a l u a t i o n s and A p p l i c a t i o n s . P a r t 2, S e c t i o n 6: P r i v a c y , pp. 83-100. E d i t e d by D a n i e l H. Carson. Stroudsberg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc., 1974. Jo u r a r d , S.M. "Some P s y c h o l o g i c a l Aspects of P r i v a c y . " lajs and Contemporary Problems. 31 (#2, Spring 1966): 307-318. J o u r a r d . S.M. "The Need f o r P r i v a c y . " In S.M. Jo u r a r d The Transparent S e l f pp. 64-72. New York,: Van Nostrand Rei n h c l d Co., 1964. Revised 1971. K e l v i n , P. "A S o c i a l - P s y c h o l o g i c a l Examination of P r i v a c y . " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l Psychology. 12(1973): 248-61. Kuper, B. " P r i v a c y and P r i v a t e Housing." B u i l d i n g Design P a r t n e r s h i p Graphics U n i t . London, 1967. Ko n v i t z , M.R. " P r i v a c y and the Law: A P h i l o s o p h i c a l P r e l u d e . " Law and Contemporary Problems 31(#2 Sp r i n g 1966): 272-280. Laufer, R.S.; Proshansky, H.M.; and Wolfe, M. "Some A n a l y t i c a l Dimensions o f P r i v a c y . " In A r c h i t e c t u r a l Psychology. Proceedings of the Lund Conference. pp. 353-72. Stroudsberg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc., 1973. B i b l i o g r a p h y 139 Lyman, S.M., and S c o t t , M.B. " T e r r i t o r i a l i t y : A Neglected S o c i o l o g i c a l Dimension." S o c i a l Problems 15 (1967): 235-49. H a r g u l i s , S. T. " P r i v a c y as a B e h a v i o u r a l Phenomenon: Coming of Age." In Han-Environment I n t e r a c t i o n s : E v a l u a t i o n s and A p p l i c a t i o n s . Part 2, S e c t i o n 6: P r i v a c y . , pp. 101-21. E d i t e d by D a n i e l H. Carson. Stroudsberg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Boss I n c . , 1974. M a r s h a l l , N. J . " O r i e n t a t i o n s Towards P r i v a c y : Environmental and P e r s o n a l i t y Components." Unpublished Ph. D. D i s s e r t a t i o n i n Psychology. U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l y , 1970. -• "Environmental Components of O r i e n t a t i o n s Towards P r i v a c y . " Proceedings of the Second Annual Environmental Design Besearch A s s o c i a t i o n Conference. pp. 316-319. E d i t e d by L. Archea and C. Eastman. P i t t s b u r g h : Carnegie Mellon U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. (a) " P r i v a c y and Environment." Human Ecology 1(#2 1972): 93-110. Hehrabian, A. P u b l i c P l a c e s and P r i v a t e Spaces, New York: B a s i c Books, 1976. Pennock, J . B., and Chapman, J . w. P r i v a c y . New York: Atherton Press, 1971. ,-P e t t y , B. H. Crowdino: a. S e l e c t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y . P u l l e n , A. R. " P r i v a c y " . June 4, 1965. S c a r t h , D. St. C l a i r . " P r i v a c y as an Aspect of the R e s i d e n t i a l Environment." D i s s e r t a t i o n , M. Sc. In Community and Regional Planning. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1964. S c h i f f e n b a u e r , A. I . ; Brown, J . E.; P e r r y , P. L.; Shulack, L. K.; and Zanzola, A. M. "The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Density and Crowding. Environment and Behaviour. 9 (March 1977) : 3-14. o Schwartz, B. "The S o c i a l Psychology of P r i v a c y . " American J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , 73 (1968): 741-52. Shankland, Cox and A s s o c i a t e s . "Front and Back: Problems of the T h r e s h o l d . " A r c h i t e c t s ^ J o u r n a l 146{#21, November 1967): 1307-1312. Simmel, A. " P r i v a c y i s Not an I s o l a t e d Freedom." In P r i v a c y , e d i t e d by J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman. New York: B i b l i o g r a p h y 140 Atherton Press, 1971, pp. 71-87. Smith, R. H.; Downer, D. B.; Lynch, a . T.; and Winter, M. " P r i v a c y and I n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n the Family as Related to Dwelling Space. 1' J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family 31{#3 August 1969): 559-566. Scmmer, R. "The Ecology of P r i v a c y . " The L i b r a r y Q u a r t e r l y 36 (#3, 1966): 234-48. Sommer, R. Personal Space: The B e h a v i o u r a l B a s i s of Design. New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l Inc., 1969. Sommer, R., and Beeher, F. D. " T e r r i t o r i a l Defence and the Good Neighbour.!' J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology 11 (#2, 1 f69) : 85-92. S t o k c l s , D.; R a i l , M.; Pinner, B.; and Schopler,, J . " P h y s i c a l , S o c i a l and Personal Determinants of the P e r c e p t i o n o f Crowding." Environment and Behaviour 5(March 1973): 87-115. Wallace, A. F. C. "Planned P r i v a c y : What's I t s Importance f o r the Neighbourhood?" J o u r n a l of Housing 13(January 1956): 13-14. Westin, A. P r i v a c y and Freedom. New York: Atheneum, 1970. W i l l i s , M. "What i s P r i v a c y ? " Architects» J o u r n a l . (May 29, 1963) : 1137-41. (a) " O v e r l o o k i n g " A r c h i t e c t s ' J o u r n a l . (June 5, 1963): 1181-87. (b) . "Personal R e l a t i o n s h i p s . " A r c h i t e c t s ' J o u r n a l . (June 12, 1963): 1231-36. (c) "Designing f o r P r i v a c y . " E k i s t i k s 9 8 ( J a n u a r y 1964): 47-51. Wolfe, M., and L a u f e r , R. "The Concept of P r i v a c y i n Childhood and Adolescence." In Man-Environment I n t e r a c t i o n s : E v a l u a t i o n s and A p p l i c a t i o n s . P a r t 2, S e c t i o n 6: P r i v a c y . pp., 29- 54. E d i t e d by D a n i e l H. Carson. Stroudsberg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc., 1974. B i b l i o g r a p h y 141 Mult i f apnily_Housing S t u d i e s Andrews, H., and B r e s l a u e r , H. J . "Cooperative Housing Study: fl P r e l i m i n a r y A n a l y s i s of A c t i v i t y Diary Data." Research Paper #77. Centre f o r Urban and Community S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1975. Beazly, E. Design and D e t a i l of the Space Between B u i l d i n g s . London: A r c h i t e c t u r a l P r e s s , 1960. Beck, R. J . ; Rowan, R. ; and Teasdale, P. User Generated Programme f o r Low-rise M u l t i p l e Dwelliija, Housing. 2 volumes. Produced f o r CMHC by Centre de Secherches et d'Innovation Urbaines, U n i v e r s i t y of Montreal, 1975. Becker, F.D. "The E f f e c t of P h y s i c a l and S o c i a l F a c t o r s on R e s i d e n t s ' Sense of S e c u r i t y i n M u l t i f a m i l y Housing Developments." J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Research (February 1975): 18-25. B r o l i n , B.C., And Z e i s e l , J . "Mass Housing and S o c i a l Research." A r c h i t e c t u r a l Forum 129 (July-August 1S68): 66-71. Brewer, S. N., and Williamson, P. "Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n as a Function of the Urban Housing Environment." Environment and Behaviour 6 (September 1974): 295-345. Coates, G., and Sanoff, H. " B e h a v i o u r a l Mapping: The Ecology o f C h i l d Behaviour i n a Planned R e s i d e n t i a l S e t t i n g . " i n Environmental d e s i g n : Research and P r a c t i c e . Proceedings o f the EDRA 3/AR 8 Conference. Paper 13.2. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m M i t c h e l l . Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1972. Cooper, C. "Fenced Backyards; unfenced F r o n t y a r d s ; Enclosed Porch." J o u r n a l of Housing 4 (June 1967): 268-73. . East er H i l l V i l l a g e : Some S o c i a l I m p l i c a t i o n s of Design. London: The Free P r e s s , 1975. ~ Cooper, C.; Day, N.; And L e v i n e , B. "Resi dent D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n M u l t i f a m i l y Housing." Working Paper # 160. U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , March 1972. Dean, A.O. " E v a l u a t i o n : A Much P r a i s e d Ho using P r o j e c t Nearly Becomes 'The West Coast's P r u i t t - I g o e ' . " AIA J o u r n a l , August 1976) : 22-25. B i b l i o g r a p h y 142 Evans, P. "Housing Layout and Density." working Paper #75. Centre f o r Land Use and B u i l t Form S t u d i e s . U n i v e r s i t y of Cambridge, 1973. F e s t i n g e r , L.; Schacter, S.; and Back, K. S o c i a l P r e s s u r e s i n Informal Groups. S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1950. •—- " A r c h i t e c t u r e and Group Membersbup. " J o u r n a l of S o c i a l I s s u e s . 7(1951): 152-163. -• " A r c h i t e c t u r e and Group Membership." J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Issues 7(1954): 152-63. Francescato, G.; Weideoann, S.; Anderson, J . ; And Chenowarth, B. " P r e d i c t o r s o f Residents* S a t i s f a c t i o n i n High Rise and Low Rise Housing." J o u r n a l o f A r c h i t e c t u r a l Research 48 #3{december 1975); 4-9. Gatt C., and Iwata, N. "De-Cosmos V i l l a g e Study." Unpublished Term Paper, School of A r c h i t e c t u r e , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, May, 1976. Great B r i t a i n : M i n i s t r y o f Housing and L o c a l Government. F a m i l i e s L i v i n g At High D e n s i t i e s : A Study o f E s t a t e s i n Leeds, L i v e r p o o l and London. Design B u l l e t t i n #21. HMSO, 1970. Great B r i t a i n : M i n i s t r y of Housing And L o c a l Government. The Jstai® O u t s i d e The Dwel l i n g : Reactions c f Residents to Aspects o f Housing Layout. London: HMSO, 1972. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . "A Q u a l i t a t i v e C h e c k l i s t f o r Compact Housing." GVRD Planning Department. Vancouver: (February 1975). Handlin, D. P. "The Detached House i n the Age of the Object and Beyond." In Environmental Design: Research and P r a c t i c e . Proceedings of the EDRA 3/AR 8 Conference, Volume T, paper 7.2. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m flitchell. Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1972. Hinds, E. R., and Hawhinney, D, J . "Champlain H e i g h t s . " Unpublished term paper, School of A r c h i t e c t u r e , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, May 1976. Hoffman, H. Urban Low-Rise Group Housing. S t u t t g a r t : Verlag Gerd Hatje, 1967. Jacobs, J . The Death and L i f e of Great American C i t i e s . New York : Random House, 1961. Katz, R. D. " I n t e n s i t y o f Development and L i v a b i l i t y i n B i b l i o g r a p h y 143 M u l t i f a m i l y Housing P r o j e c t s . " E k i s t i j c s 98 (January 1964) : 59-66. Katz, B.D. Design of the Housing S i t e : A C r i t i q u e of American P r a c t i c e . I l l i n o i s : U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1966. Kuper, L., ed. l i v i n g I n Towns. London, C r e s s e t P r e s s , 1953. Lansing, J.B.; Marans, R.W.; and Zehner, H.B. Planned i e s i d e n t i a l Environments. Michigan: U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1970. Lynch, K. S i t e P l a n n i n g . Massachusetts: MIT P r e s s , 1972. Marans, R.W., and Zehner, H.B. ''Some Observed P a t t e r n s of R e s i d e n t i a l D e n s i t y and S o c i a l Interaction.»' In Housing: New Trends and Concepts pp. 62-69. E d i t e d by by K. Bernhardt. Ann Arbor, Mich.: U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1972. Michelson, f . "The P h y s i c a l Environment as A t t r a c t i o n and Determinant: S o c i a l E f f e c t s i n Housing." Research Eaper #22. Centre f o r Urban and Community S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1969. Murray, J.A., and P l i e s s , H. "Famly Housing: A Study of H o r i z o n t a l m u l t i p l e Housing Techniques." Canada Housing Design C o u n c i l Ottawa: 1970. Newman 0. D e f e n s i b l e Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan P u b l i s h i n g Co., ( C o l l i e r Books) 1973. Onibokun, A.G. " S o c i a l System C o r r e l a t e s of R e s i d e n t i a l S a t i s f a c t i o n . " Environment and Behaviour 8 (September 1976): 323-44. P a t t i , R. "Some S o c i o - S p a t i a l Aspects of Low Income Family Housing. C u l l o d e n C o u r t : A Case Study." M. Arch. D i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972. Pcllowy, A. M. "The C h i l d i n Urban Housing: Towards the I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f S p a t i a l Requirements. In Proceedings of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on Urban Housing, pp 137-141. E d i t e d by V a s i l y Kouskoulos. D e t r o i t , Mich.: Wayne State U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. P u n i , K.P. "An E v a l u a t i o n of P a t t e r n s : A Study of a l l of the House P a t t e r n s of Acadia Park C l u s t e r s . " M. Arch. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972. B i b l i o g r a p h y 144 Have12, A. Model e s t a t e : Planned Housing at Quarry H i l l , - Leeds. London: Croom H e l l L t d . , 1974. ~ Royal I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h a r c h i t e c t s . Family L i f e i n High Density Housing, with P a r t i c u l a r Reference to the Design of Sjgace about B u i l d i n g s . R.I.E.A., London, 1957. S a i l e , D.G.; Eorooah ,R.; and W i l l i a m s , M.G. " F a m i l i e s i n P u b l i c Housing: a Study of Three L o c a l i t i e s i n Rcckford I l l i n o i s . In Proceedings of EDRA 3/AR 8 Conference Paper 13.7. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m M i t c h e l l . Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1972. Sanoff, H., and Sawhney, M. " R e s i d e n t i a l L i v a b i l i t y : a Study of Oser a t t i t u d e s Towards T h e i r R e s i d e n t i a l Environment." In Environmental Design: Research and P r a c t i c e . Proceedings o f the E D B a 3/iS 8 Conference. Paper 13.8. Ed i t e d by W i l l i a m M i t c h e l l . Los angeles: O n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1972. Sauer, L., and M a r s h a l l , D . " a n a r c h i t e c t u r a l Survey o f How S i x F a m i l i e s Dse Space i n T h e i r E x i s t i n g Homes." In Environmental d e s i g n : Research and P r a c t i c e . Proceedings of the EDRA 3/AR 8 Conference. Paper 13.9. E d i t e d by Wi l l i a m M i t c h e l l . Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1972. S t a h l , F. I . " E f f e c t s of Housing P r o j e c t S i z e on Environmental Maintenance Concern and Behaviour: an A p p l i c a t i o n of Behaviour S e t t i n g Theory." In The Proceedings of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference of Urban Housing, pp. 13 3-136. E d i t e d by V a s i l y Kouskoulos. D e t r o i t Mich.: Wayne State U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. Stroom, L. "Urban R e s i d e n t i a l Development: the State o f the A r t . 1 1 In The Proceedings of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Ccpfernce on Urban Housing. pp. 167-172. E d i t e d by V a s i l y Kouskoulos. D e t r o i t Mich.: Wayne Sta t e I n i v e r s i t y , 1972. Thompson, Berwick, P r a t t and P a r t n e r s . "Design G u i d e l i n e s f o r the F a l s e Creek Area 6. P r o p o s a l s . " S p r i n g , 1974. (Mimeographed). T r a n c i k , R. "A s o c i o p h y s i c a l E v a l u a t i o n of a New Community: Studlands Park, England." E k i s t i k s (June 1975): 417-22. Turner, J . " L o c a l A u t h o r i t y Housing: A Comparative Study c f the Land Use and the B u i l t Form o f 110 Housing Schemes." A r c h i t e c t s ' J o u r n a l (1 August 1975): 265-280. Urban Land I n s t i t u t e . "The Pros and Cons of C l u s t e r Housing." B i b l i o g r a p h y 145 A t r a n s c r i p t of a debate conducted by the Community B u i l d e r s 1 a s s o c i a t i o n i n A t a l a n t a , Georgia. flay, 1968. Ward, L . M.; Ashmore, R. D.; and Wexler, D. , a . " P s y c h o l o g i a l P r i n c i p l e s f o r the Design o f D w e l l i n g s . " M a n-E n y i ron me n t Systems 5 {November 1975): 395-405. Whyte, W.H. The O r g a n i z a t i o n Wan. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956. - C l u s t e r Development. New York: Woodhaven Press a s s o c i a t e d C o r p o r a t i o n , 1964. " C l u s t e r Development." In Taming M e g a l o p o l i s . pp. 462-77. E d i t e d by H. W. E l d r i d g e . New York: Doubleday and Co. I n c . , 1967. Wilner, D. M.; Walkey, R. P.; P i n k e r t o n , T. L.; and Tayback, Mw "The Housing Environment and Family l i f e . " In People and B u i l d i n g s , pp. 190-201. E d i t e d by Robert Gutman. New York: B a s i c Books Inc., 1972. Yamamoto, T. "The Family L i f e C y c l e and the Family Needs i n a Housing P r o j e c t . " M. arch. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. Z e i s e l , J . , and G r i f f i n , M. Charlesview Housing: J| D i a g n o s t i c ' E v a l u a t i o n . a r c h i t e c t u r e Research O f f i c e . Graduate School of Design, Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1 975. Sccipr-psychglogical I n f l u e n c e s of the  P h y s i c a l Environment Canter, B. "The S p a t i a l Environment." I n D. Canter et a l Environmental I n t e r a c t i o n : P s y c h o l o g i c a l approaches t o our P h y s i c a l Surrpundings. London, Surrey U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s: 1975. ~ Chapin, F. S. ( J r . ) . Human A c t i v i t y P a t t e r n s i n the C i t y . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974. Dennis, N. "Who Needs Neighbours?" New S o c i e t y 4 3 ( J u l y 25): 8-11. ; Dubos, R. Man Adapting. C o n n e c t i c u t : Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1965. B i b l i o g r a p h y 146 "Environmental Determinants of Human L i f e . " In Environmental I n f l u e n c e . E d i t e d by D. C. G l a s s . New York: R o c k e f e l l e r U n i v e r s i t y Press and R u s s e l l Sage Foundation, 1968. Gans, H.J. "P l a n n i n g and S o c i a l L i f e . " J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners 28 (Hay 1961): 134-140. The L e v i t t p w n e r s . New York, Random House, 1967. People and Pl a n s : Essays on Urban Problems and S o l u t i o n s . New York: B a s i c Books Inc., 1968. Gdard, I . f l . " S o c i a l Design G u i d e l i n e s . " A P r e l i m i n a r y Report f o r D u n h i l l Development C o r p o r a t i o n . August 1975. (mimeo) Gutman, R. " S i t e P l a n n i n g and S o c i a l Behaviour.'? J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Issues 22 <#4, 1966): 103-115. Gutman, E. , ed. People and Plans. New York. B a s i c Eooks Inc . , 1972. K a s l , S. " E f f e c t s o f Housing on P h y s i c a l and Mental H e a l t h . " Man-Enyircnment Systems. 4{#4 1974): 207- 226. K e l l e r , S. The Urban Neighbourhood: a S o c i o l p g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e . New York: Random House, 1968. K i r a , A. The Bathroom. New York: V i k i n g P r e s s . Revised E d i t i o n 1976. H i c h e l s o n , f?. Man and His Urban Environment: A S o c i o l o g i c a l Approach. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1970. Michelson, W. "Environmental Change." Research Paper #60. Centre f o r Urban and Community S t u d i e s . U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1973. Milgram, S. "The Experience of L i v i n g i n C i t i e s . " s c i e n c e 167(1970): 1461-1468. [quoted i n Altman (1975)1. H o l l e r , C.B. flrchitectural Environment and Our Mental Health. New York: Horizon Pess, 1868. Proshansky H.M.; I t t l e s o n , W.H.; and R i v l i n , L.G., eds. Environmental Psychology: Han and His P h y s i c a l S e t t i n g . New York: H o l t , R e i n h a r t , and Winston Inc., 1970. Rapcport, A., And Kantor, R. "Complexity and ambiguity i n Environmental Design." J o u r n a l o f the flmerican I n s t i t u t e B i b l i o g r a p h y 147 of Planners 33{July 1967): 201-21. R i c h t e r , 1966 Rcscw, I. "The S o c i a l E f f e c t s o f the P h y s i c a l Environments." J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners 27 {May 1961): 127-33. Sandahl, C. A. "Conceptions of S e l f as I n d i v i d u a l O r i e n t a t i o n s t o the S p a t i a l E n v i r o n m e n t . I n Environmental Design: Research and P r a c t i c e . Proceedings of the EDRA 3/AR 8 Conference. Volume 1, Paper 2.3. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m M i t c h e l l . Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , 1972. S p r o t t , W.J.H. Human Groups. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1958., • • • S t o k o l s , D., ed. Readings i n Environmental Psychology. New York: MSS Information Corp., 1974. Tandy, C.R.V., ed. Landscape and Human L i f e : The Impact of Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e Upon Human A c t i v i t i e s . Amsterdam, Djambatan, 1966. W c h l w i l l , J . F. "The P h y s i c a l Environment: A Problem f o r a Psychology of S t i m u l a t i o n . " J o u r n a l of S o c i a l I s s u e s . 22 {#4, 1966): 29-38. "The Emerging D i s c i p l i n e o f Environmental Psychology." American P s y c h o l o g i s t . 25(1970): 303-312. I n v e s t i g a t i v e Technigues F e s t i n g e r , L., and Katz, D., e d i t o r s . Research Methods i n the Be h a v i o u r a l S c i e n c e . New York: Dryden Press, 1953. Michelson, H., ed. Behavioural Research Methods i n iSZl£6iBS§atal Design. Community Development S e r i e s , Volume 8. Stroudsberg, Penn.: Dowden Hutchinson and Ross Inc., 1975. Horoney, M. J . F a c t s From F i g u r e s . Middlesex, England: Penguin Books L t d . ; Paperback e d i t i o n 1975. Mosser, C A., and K a l t o n , G. Survey Methods i n S o c i a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n . London: Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l B i b l i o g r a p h y 148 S p i e g e l , M. R. Theory and Problems of S t a t i s t i c s . Schaums O u t l i n e S e r i e s . Hew York: McGraw H i l l Eock Co., 1961. I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research Survey Research Centre. I n t e r v i e w e r s * Manual. The O n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1976. Walker, H. M.# and Lee, J . , Elementary S t a t i s t i c a l Methods 3rd. E d i t i o n . New York: H o l t Reinhart and Winston Inc., 1969. B i b l i o g r a Phies B e l l , G. ; R a n d a l l , E.; and Roeder, J.E. Urban Environments and Human Behaviour: An Annotated B i b l i o g r a p h y . Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross I n c . , 1973. Chang, D. S o c i a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Aspects of Housing. A Review o f the L i t e r a t u r e . C o u n c i l of Planning L i b r a r i a n s Exchange B i b l i o g r a p h y #557. 1974. Hol l a n d e r , A. P. H^gh Density Environments: Some C u l t u r a l . P h y s i c l o g i c a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o s i d e r a t i o n s . An Annotated B i b l i o g r a p h y . C o u n c i l of Planning L i b r a r i a n s Exchange B i b l i o g r a p h y #221, 1971. Ostrander, E. R. S e l e c t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y on the Psychology gf the Near Environment. C o u n c i l Of Planning L i b r a r i a n s Exchange B i b l i o g r a p h y #327.:: 1972. C o u n c i l o f Planning L i b r a r i a n s Exchange B i b l i o g r a p h y #240, 1971. , P r e i s e r , W. Environment and S p a t i a l Behavior: A S e l e c t e d Plkijgggaphy. C o u n c i l of Planning L i b r a r i a n s Exchange B i b l i o g r a p h y #235, 1971. Sanoff, H., and Burgwyn, H. S o c i a l I m p l i c a t i o n s of the P h y s i c a l Environment with the P a r t i c u l a r Emphasis on Bousing and the Neighbourhood C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . C o u n c i l o f Planning L i b r a r i a n s Exchange B i b l i o g r a p h y #145. 1970. Seaton, R. W. S o c i a l F a c t o r s i n A r c h i t e c t u r a l and Urban Design. B i b l i o g r a p h y . C o u n c i l of Planning L i b r a r i a n s Exchange B i b l i o g r a p h y #201, 1971. 150 APPENDIX'II QUESTIONNAIRE Pa r t A (Interviewer t o f i l l i n t h i s part of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e from respondents* c h o i c e s a t the board. Probe f o r reasons f o r a c t i v i t i e s not performed). Sec A NN I n t 0 . STORAGE (preferred) . •„ •• •.••„••••- . . . (achieved) 1. ROME MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 2. HOUSEWORK 3. CHILD ORIENTED ACTIVITIES U. HOUSEHOLD BUSINESS 5. PET CARE Appendix I I : Qu e s t i o n n a i r e 151 6. FCEMAL SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 7 . INFORMAL SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 8. GAMES 9. HOBBIES AND CRAFTS 1 0 . BEST AND RELAXATION The f o l l o w i n g guestions p e r t a i n t o each s t a t e c f p r i v a c y . Each g u e s t i o n was read to the respondent i n the order i t i s presented here. SECIDSION " I f you had to perform i n your p r i v a t e open space any of the s e t s of a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d on the board, t o what extent would you, as an i n d i v i d u a l , want t o be secluded, t h a t i s having i s o l a t i o n from o b s e r v a t i o n by the neighbours. I want t o know your p r e f e r r e d and your present achieved l e v e l s of s e c l u s i o n . " appendix I I : Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 152 ANONYMITY " I f you had to perform i n your p r i v a t e open space any of the a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d on the board, t o what e x t e n t would you be a b l e t o perform them without f e e l i n g conspicuous as a household, t h a t i s without g e t t i n g the f e e l i n g of st a n d i n g out from the r e s t o f t h e households i n the immediate neighbourhood. I would l i k e t o know your p r e f e r r d f e e l i n g f o r anonymity as w e l l as your present achieved s t a t e of anonymity." NOT-NEIGHBOURING "How would you r a t e your l i k e or d i s l i k e a t being i n t e r r u p t e d by a neighbour who s t a r t s communication with you while you were performing any of the a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d on the board, so that you had to i n t e r r u p t them to attend to h i s need. I want t o know your p r e f e r r e d and your present l e v e l s of l i k e c r d i s l i k e . " INTIMACY " I f you had to perform i n your p r i v a t e open space any of the a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d on the board, i n v o l v i n g you with any other member or members c f the f a m i l y , or r e l a t i v e s or c l o s e f r i e n d s , to what exte n t would you want to be s e c l u d e d from o b s e r v a t i o n by the neighbours. I want to know your p r e f e r r e d and your present achieved l e v e l s of s e c l u s i o n . " appendix I I : Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Part B 153 B1. Mow I am going t o show you some words and phrases which I would l i k e you t o use t o d e s c r i b e your neighbourhood. By neighbourhood I mean the r e g i o n around your house to which you f e e l you belong. These g u a l i t i e s range frcm one extreme, say extremely n o i s y to another o p p o s i t e extreme, say extremely g u i e t . The centre column i s the n e i t h e r / n o r or i n d i f f e r e n t column. The in-between columns i n d i c a t e a p o s i t i o n somewhere in-between. I want you to i n d i c a t e on the c a r d how these words and phrases can d e s c r i b e your neighbourhood. ( 1 (B11) NOISY :_ (E12) U N a T T R a C T I V E : . <B13) P O G B L Y KEPT U P (B11) U N P L E a S a N T (B15) OVERCROWDED (B16) POOR PtaCE T O LIVE 5 ) QUIET AT TRACTIVE HELL KEPT UP PLEaSANT NOT CROWDED GOOD PLaCE TO LIVE appendix I I : Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 154 B2. Now I would l i k e to ask you a few que s t i o n s about your immediate neighbours, I mean the h a l f a dozen f a m i l i e s l i v i n g nearest t o you. How would you d e s c r i b e your immediate neighbours? Again I am going t o show you some words and phrases, and I want you to f o l l o w the same procedure as i n the pr e v i o u s q u e s t i o n . ( 1 2 3 4 5 ) (B21) UNFRIENDLY : (B2 2) MINDING THEIR ,OWN BUSINESS : (E23) SAME INTERESTS AS MINE : (B24) HELPFUL : (B25) HIGHER CLASS OF PEOPLE ' : (B26) NOISY : B3. How o f t e n do you t a l k t o any of these h a l f a dozen f a m i l i e s who l i v e c l o s e s t t o you, j u s t t o chat or during a s o c i a l v i s i t ? Would i t be: 1, EVERYDAY 2. SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK 3. ONCE A WEEK 4. ___2-3 TIMES A MONTH 5. ___ONCE A MONTH 6. A FEW TIMES A YEAR 7. NEVER : FRIENDLY : NOSEY DISSIMILAR INTERESTS * TO MINE : UNHELPFUL LOWER CLASS : OF PEOPLE : QUIET Appendix I I : Qu e s t i o n n a i r e 155 B«. Which open spaces around the house do you expect to be cons i d e r e d by others o u t s i d e the f a m i l y as p r i v a t e spaces? Would i t be: 1. .FRONT YARD 2. SIDE YARD 3. BACK YARD 4. ALLEY 5. SIDEWALK/PATH 6. OTHER B5. Which access t o the house do you use most? Would i t be: 1. _ FRONT 2. BACK 3. _ OTHER Is that the one through which (the i n t e r v i e w e r ) came i n ? 1. YES 2. ___N0 (Interviewer d e s c r i p t i o n : • ,: -•• • •. • •  - - - i • • • - -) appendix I I : Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 156 B6. How do you f e e l about the amount of outdoor space immediately attached t o your home, which members c f your f a m i l y can use f o r t h e i r d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s ? Do you f e e l t h a t your space i s : 1. MORE THAN NEEDED 2. ___RIGHT AMOUNT 3. TOO LITTLE ( . ;__) B7. How long have you been s t a y i n g i n t h i s house? 1. 0-1 YEARS 2. ___1-2 YEARS 3. _ 2-5 YEARS 4. MORE THAN 5 YEARS E8. How many people l i v e i n t h i s house? 1. ___0-12 YEARS OLD 2. _13-18 YEARS OLD 3. OVER 19 YEARS OLD B9. What i s the aggregate income o f the f a m i l y ? 1. UNDER $5000 2. ___BETHEEN $5000 AND $9999 3. _ BETWEEN $10000 AND $12499 4. .BETWEEN $12500 AND $14999 5. OVER $15000 Appendix I I : Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 157 B10. Respondent*s age (by observation) _18-34 YEARS _35-54 YEARS 3. _55~74 YEARS 4. OVER 75 YEARS B11. Respondent*s Sex 1. MALE 2. FEMALE B12. Can you t e l l me your g e n e r a l f e e l i n g s about the o v e r a l l p r i v a c y i n t h i s p r o j e c t and i n your house? (Probe: a c o u s t i c problems, problems with neighbours, s i t e arrangement and s i m i l a r ) . 158 APPENDIX I I I ACTIVITY CATEGORY RESPONSES The f o l l o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s are presented i n the same order they were submitted to the respondents. A c t i v i t y 0: Storage D e s c r i p t i o n " f o r example: u t i l i z a t i o n of p r i v a t e outdoor space f o r the open s t o r a g e o f di s u s e d f u r n i t u r e ; excess b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s , and other u n d e r u t i l i z e d household wares." R e s u l t s F i g . A3.0 g i v e s the o v e r a l l frequency of d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the S e c l u s i o n , Anonymity, Not-Neighbouring and Intimacy s t a t e s . The diagram c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s the predominance of responses i n the ' i n d i f f e r e n t * c o n d i t i o n f o r three s t a t e s . I t a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t , with the e x c e p t i o n of the Anonymity s t a t e * the achieved l e v e l responses f o l l o w the p r o f i l e of the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l responses, although at a reduced i n t e n s i t y . The diagram a l s o compares the responses f o r the two s t a t e s o f Intimacy and S e c l u s i o n f o r t h i s a c t i v i t y . Appendix I I I 159 The T a bles A3.01-A3.04 qive an i n d i c a t i o n of the the degree of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n experienced by the respondents f o r t h i s a c t i v i t y . The codes i n d i c a t e the degree of s e p a r a t i o n on the L i k e r t Scale between the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l s and the achieved l e v e l s f o r each of the four s t a t e s . Code 0 on these t a b l e s i n d i c a t e s no s e p a r a t i o n between the p r e f e r r e d and the achieved l e v e l s , and conseguently shows th a t t h e r e i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h a t p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e o f p r i v a c y . The negative codes on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e i n d i c a t e t h a t the respondents p r e f e r r e d l e s s s e c l u s i o n than was achieved. While the p o s i t i v e codes i n d i c a t e p r e f e r e n c e f o r more s e c l u s i o n . The codes on the Intimacy s t a t e have the same meaning as those on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e . On the Anonymity s t a t e the negative codes i n d i c a t e a preference f o r more conspicuousness, while cn the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e , they i n d i c a t e a pr e f e r e n c e f o r l i k i n g i n t e r r u p t i o n s . The T a b l e s show the very high r a t e c f response i n the i n d i f f e r e n t / n o n e c o n d i t i o n , the highest Standard D e v i a t i o n s being f o r the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and Intimacy s t a t e , and the lowest f o r the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e . Appendix I I I 160 Remarks People seem t o have confused the a c t i v i t y — t h e a c t cf s t o r i n g t h i n g s , with the e v e n t — s t o r e d a r t i f a c t s . Storage space was r e p o r t e d as a problem i n both p r o j e c t s , but i s f e l t t o be more acute i n Southview, as the u n i t s lack a basement. Some respondents asked f o r and were granted permission to c l o s e o f f p a r t of the c a r p o r t t o u t i l i z e i t f o r t h i s purpose. T h i s made the storage space " . . . p r i v a t e , i n the sense t h a t i t i s e n c l o s e d . " 14 cases r e p o r t e d t h a t they d i d not s t o r e anything outdoors a t a l l mainly f o r reasons of s e c u r i t y {" . . . no fence was a v a i l a b l e " ) , other a l t e r n a t i v e s (" . . . I st o r e t h i n g s i n the basement"), v i s u a l c o n g e s t i o n , s e c l u s i o n ("Shen I am o u t s i d e , I do not want t o do anything I do not want seen"), l a c k of space, both indoors and outdoors, and management r e s t r i c t i o n s {" . ; • . the manager has a u t h o r i t y over the removal of the m a t e r i a l i n the backyard"). 161 EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) EXTREMELY DISLIKE (NNj~ IHCONSPICPOnS ( A ) DISLIKE INDIFFERENT ( A ) INDIFFERENT (NN) CONSPICUOUS ( A ) LIKE (NN) EXTREMELY CONSPICTOnS EXTREMELY LIKE (JQ_ XNNT EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED UNSECLUDED INDIFFERENT SECLUDED EXTREMELY SECLUDED F i g . A 3 . 0 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Achieved Responses per P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Cateqory 0 APPENDIX I I I 162 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEli SO TABLE A3.01 DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) STORAGE RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) GREAT DEAL -3. 1 2. 0 3.2 3.2 SOME -1 1 2. 0 3.2 3.2 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 17 34. 0 54. 8 61.3 SOME 1. 6 12. 0 19.4 80.6 VERY 2. 4 8.0 12.9 93.5 GREAT DEAL 3. 1 2.0 3.2 96.8 EXTREME 4. 1 2.0 3.2 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 19 38, 0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 MEAN 0.548 STD ERR 0.226 MEDIAN 0.294 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 1. 26 1 VARIANCE 1.589 KURTOSIS 2.510 SKEWNESS 0.310 RANGE 7.000 MINIMUM -3.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 VALID CASES 31 MISSING CASES 19 APPENDIX I I I 163 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW 10 TABLE A3. 02 DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) STORAGE RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 13 26.0 46.4 46.4 SOME 1. 3 6.0 10.7 57. 1 VERY 2. 6 12. 0 21.4 78.6 GREAT DEAL 3. 6 12. 0 21. 4 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 22 44.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN 1. 179 STD ERR 0.23 6 MEDIAN 0.833 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 1.249 VARIANCE 1.560 KURTOSIS -1.579 SKEWNESS 0.374 RANGE 3.0 MINIMUM 0.0 MAXIMUM 3.000 VALID CASES 28 MISSING CASES 22 APPENDIX I I I 164 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW AO TABLE A3.0 3 DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY) STORAGE RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) VERY -2. 1 2. 0 3.4 3.4 SOME -1. 1 2. 0 3.4 6.9 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 15 30. 0 51.7 58.6 SOME 1. 4 8. 0 13. 8 72.4 VERY 2. 6 12. 0 20.7 93.1 GREAT DEAL 3. 2 4. 0 6.9 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 21 42. 0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 MEAN 0.6 55 STD ERR 0.218 MEDIAN 0.333 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 1. 173 VARIANCE 1.377 KURTOSIS -0.079 SKEWSESS 0.310 RANGE 5.000 MINIMUM -2.000 MAXIMUM 3.000 VALID CASES 29 MISSING CASES 21 APPENDIX I I I 165 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW NNO TABLE A3. 04 DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING) STO CATEGORY LABEL CODE ABSOLUTE FREQ RELATIVE FREQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) CUM FREQ (PCT) SOME -1. 2 4.0 6.9 6.9 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 25 50.0 86. 2 93.1 SOME 1. 1 2.0 3.4 96.6 4. 1 2. 0 3.4 100.0 NO ANSHEB 99. 21 42. 0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM 0. 10 3 0.0 19.910 -1.000 STD ERR STD DEV SKE8NESS MAXIMUM 0.152 0.817 4.021 4.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE 0.0 0.667 5.000 VALID CASES 29 MISSING CASES 21 appendix I I I a c t i v i t y 1: Home Maintenance and Description " f o r example: e x t e r n a l maintenance o f the house and other areas w i t h i n your p r i v a t e open space; removal c f i c e and snow; t a k i n g out the garbage; burning t r a s h ; g e n e r a l heavy garden maintenance (e.g. landscaping, e t c . ) , not i n c l u d e d i n a c t i v i t y 9 (Hobbies and C r a f t s ) below." R e s u l t s F i g . a3.1 shows the freguency of d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the S e c l u s i o n , anonymity, Not-Neighbouring and Intimacy s t a t e s . The diagrams i l l u s t r a t e the predominance of the ' i n d i f f e r e n t * c o n d i t i o n response, on both l e v e l s of each s t a t e . One can a l s o d i s c e r n the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n i n t e n s i t y f o r the s t a t e s f c r the r e s p e c t i v e p r e f e r r e d and achieved l e v e l responses. Tables a3.11-A3.14 show the freguency of d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r s e v e r a l degrees of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the f o u r s t a t e s . The nature of the codes expresses the same meaning as t h a t d e s c r i b e d f o r a c t i v i t y 0 (Storage). A predominance of the 'no d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ' c o n d i t i o n i s ev i d e n t , i n s p i t e o f the high number of i n a p p l i c a b l e responses. 166 Repair Appendix I I I 167 The lowest standard d e v i a t i o n was obtained i n the Mot-Neighbouring s t a t e , which a l s o had the highest number of i n a p p l i c a b l e cases. Remarks Only 4 cases responded t h a t such a c t i v i t i e s have never been c a r r i e d out. These respondents s a i d t h a t they were very c o n s i d e r a t e o f the neighbours, and d i d not want to d i s t u r b them. The wide range of a c t i v i t i e s under t h i s category a l s o generated a wide range of a t t i t u d e s . "I f e e l extremely conspicuous while I am i n s t a l l i n g a chimney, but not while I am r e p a i r i n g a c h a i r . " I n t e r r u p t i o n s were welcome by some. " I t i s about the only time I would want them" "I would not r e a l l y l i k e them but i t would be a good i n t e r r u p t i o n . " There were very few respondents who r e p o r t e d i n t e r r u p t i o n s by the neighbours, hence the high response on the i n d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n on the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e . Some s e c l u s i o n was reguested f o r s e c u r i t y reasons but, " . . . not extremely s e c l u d e d because i f someone swipes t h i n g s . . . " 168 HOME j MAINTENANCE AND | REPAIR EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) EXTREMELY DISLIKE (NNT INCONSPICUOUS (_A ) "^NNT DISLIKE INDIFFERENT ( A ) I N D I F F E R E N T ( N N ) CONSPICUOUS ( A ) LIKE (NN) EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS ( A ) EXTREMELY LIKE ' TSNT EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED UNSECLUDED INDIFFERENT SECLUDED EXTREMELY SECLUDED P i g . A3.1 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Achieved Besponses per P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Category 1 APPENDIX I I I 169 KAN.AT.A AND SOUTHVIEW S1 TABLE A3.11 DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) HOME MAINTENA RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) SOME - 1 . 1 2. 0 2.4 2.4 NO DISSATISFACTION o..,. 24 48. 0 57. 1 59.5 SOME 1. 10 20.0 23.8 83.3 VERY 2. 4 8.0 9.5 92.9 GREAT DEAL 3. 2 4.0 4.8 97.6 4. 1 2. 0 2.4 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 8 16.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. o 100.0 MEAN 0.643 STD ERR 0. 159 MEDIAN 0.333 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 1.032 VARIANCE 1.064 KURTOSIS 2.097 SKEWNESS 1. 485 RANGE 5.000 MINIMUM -1.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 VALID CASES 42 MISSING CASES 8 APPENDIX I I I 170 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW 11 TABLE A3.12 DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) HOME MAINTENAN RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FBEQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) SOME -1. 2 4.0 4.7 4.7 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. , 29 58. 0 67.4 72. 1 SOME 1. 7 14. 0 16.3 88.4 VEBY 2. 3 6. 0 7.0 95.3 GREAT DEAL 3. , 2 4.0 4.7 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 7 14.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN 0.395 STD ERR 0. 134 MEDIAN 0. 172 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 0.877 VARIANCE 0.769 KURTOSIS 2.408 SKEWNESS 1.559 RANGE 4.000 MINIMUM -1.000 MAXIMUM 3.000 VALID CASES 43 MISSING CASES 7 APPENDIX I I I 171 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEH A1 TABLE A3. 13 DISSATISFACTION (ANONYM ITY) HOME m ilNTENA RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGCBY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) VERY -2. 2 4.0 4. 3 4.3 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 30 60.0 65.2 69.6 SOME 1. 9 18. 0 19.6 89.1 VERY 2. 4 8.0 8.7 97.8 GREAT DEAL 3. 1 2. 0 2.2 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 4 8.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.o MEAN 0.348 STD ERR 0. 133 MEDIAN 0.200 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 0.900 VARIANCE C. 810 KURTOSIS 2.294 SKEWNESS 0.384 RANGE 5.000 MINIMUM -2.000 MAXIMUM 3.000 VALID CASES 46 MISSING CASES 4 APPENDIX I I I 172 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEH NN1 TABLE A3.14 DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NE1GHBOUBING) HOME RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FBEQ FBEQ FBEQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) VERY -2. 1 2. 0 2.4 2.4 SOME -1. , 4 8.0 9.8 12.2 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 33 66. 0 80.5 92.7 SOME 1. 2 4. 0 4.9 97.6 GREAT DEAL 3. 1 2. 0 2.4 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 9 18. 0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. o 100.0 MEAN -0.024 STD EBB 0. 108 MEDIAN -0.030 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 0.689 VABIANCE G.474 KURTOSIS 10.279 SKEWNESS 1.479 RANGE 5.000 MINIMUM -2.000 MAXIMUM 3.000 VALID CASES 41 MISSING CASES 9 Appendix I I I A c t i v i t y 2: Housekeeping 173 D e s c r i p t i o n " f o r example: doing the laundry out i n your p r i v a t e open space, hanging the laundry to dry out i n the open, other c l e a n i n g chores connected with the house, but c a r r i e d out i n your p r i v a t e open space." Resu l t s F i g . A3.2 g i v e s the freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e . Anonymity s t a t e , Not-Neighbouring s t a t e , and the Intimacy s t a t e . I t i s e v i d e n t from the diagram t h a t f o r the S e c l u s i o n and the Intimacy s t a t e s , there i s a predominance of p r e f e r r e d s e c l u s i o n . The achieved c o n d i t i o n f o r these two s t a t e s i s l e s s c l e a r . There i s predominance on the achieved s e c l u s i o n on the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e but achieved u n s e c l u s i o n on the Intimacy s t a t e . On the Anonymity s t a t e the peaks c o i n c i d e at the ' i n d i f f e r e n t 1 c o n d i t i o n . T a b les A3.21-A3.24 gi v e the freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r s e v e r a l degrees of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the f o u r s t a t e s . The d e s c r i p t i o n and signage of the codes have the same meaning as f o r A c t i v i t y 0 (Storage). Appendix I I I 174 Remarks Only one respondent s a i d t h a t he never d i d any of the a c t i v i t i e s t h a t f a l l under t h i s category. Most who r e f r a i n e d from doing the laundry, d i d so e i t h e r because communal laundry f a c i l i t i e s ( i n c l u d i n g dryers) were provided i n the p r o j e c t , or because they thought they were not allowed by the management to hang t h e i r laundry o u t s i d e . In r e a l i t y the management, cn the a u t h o r i t y of the Tenants* A s s o c i a t i o n , d i d not allow any laundry, or anything e l s e f o r t h a t matter, t h a t would stand above the 6 f o o t high fences. I t had a l s o been agreed t h a t no hanging of the laundry was allowed on weekends, as presumably these were the days when most people e n t e r t a i n e d . Some r e f r a i n e d from hanging the laundry o u t s i d e because, •»I hate to see laundry hanging o u t s i d e , " and consequently "I f e e l extremely conspicuous." A number of people had t h e i r own laundry f a c i l i t i e s o r , " . . . would r a t h e r laundry i n a p r i v a t e place than i n a communal l a u n d r y . " 175 EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) EXTREMELY D I S L I K E " (NNT~ F i g . A3.2 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and" Achieved Responses per P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Category 2 A P P E N D I X I I I 176 KANATA AND SOOTHVIEW S2 T A B L E A 3 . 2 1 D I S S A T I S F A C T I O N ( S E C L U S I O N ) H 0 U S E 8 0 B K R E L A T I V E A D J U S T E D CUM A B S O L U T E F B E Q FBEQ FBEQ CATEGOBY L A B E L CODE F R E Q (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) SOME - 1 . 4 8.0 9. 1 9.1 NO D I S S A T I S F A C T I O N 0. . 23 4 6 . 0 5 2 , 3 6 1 . 4 SOME •1. 7 14. 0 15. 9 7 7 . 3 VEBY 2. 8 16. 0 18.2 9 5 . 5 G E E A T DEAL 3. 2 4. 0 4. 5 100.0 NO ANS8EB 9 9 . 6 12.0 M I S S I N G 100.0 T O T A L 50 100. 0 1 0 0 . 0 MEAN 0 . 5 6 8 MODE 0.0 K U R T O S I S - 0 . 2 7 7 MINIMUM - 1 . 0 0 0 STD EBB STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0. 1 5 7 1. 0 4 3 0 . 7 1 2 3.00 0 MEDIAN V A R I A N C E RANGE 0. 283 1.088 4 . 0 0 0 V A L I D C A S E S 44 M I S S I N G C A S E S 6 APPENDIX I I I 177 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW 12 TABLE A3.21 DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) HOUS E80RK RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) GREAT DEAL -3. 1 2. 0 2.3 2.3 VEBY : -2. 1 2. 0 2.3 4.5 SOME -1. 4 8.0 9.1 13.6 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 17 34. 0 38. 6 52.3 SOME 1. 6 12.0 13.6 65.9 VEBY 2. 10 20. 0 22.7 88.6 GREAT DEAL 3. 4 8. 0 9.1 97.7 4. 1 2. 0 2. 3 100.0 NG ANSWER 99. 6 12.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN 0.750 STD ERR 0.218 MEDIAN 0.441 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 1. 449 VABIANCE 2.099 KURTOSIS 0.035 SKEWNESS -0.021 RANGE 7.000 MINIMUM -3.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 VALID CASES 44 MISSING CASES 6 APPENDIX I I I 178 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW A2 TABLE A3.23 DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY) HOUSEWORK CATEGORY LABEL CODE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE FREQ FBEQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) CUM FBEQ (PCT) VEBY -2. 3 6. 0 6.7 6.7 SOME -1. 4 8. 0 8.9 15.6 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 22 4 4.0 48.9 64.4 SOME 1. 7 14.0 15. 6 80.0 VERY 2. 7 14.0 15.6 95.6 GREAT DEAL 3. 1 2. 0 2.2 97.8 4. 1 2. 0 2.2 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 5 10.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100. 0 MEAN 0.400 MODE 0.0 KURTOSIS 0.789 MINIMUM -2.000 STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0. 186 1.250 0.493 4.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE 0.205 1.564 6.000 VALID CASES 45 MISSING CASES 5 APPENDIX I I I 179 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW NN2 TABLE A3.24 DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING) HOUSEW CATEGORY LABEL CODE ABSOLUTE FREQ RELATIVE FREQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) CUM FREQ (PCT) VERY -2. 1 2.0 2. 3 2. 3 SOHE -1. 7 14. 0 16.3 18.6 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 31 62.0 72. 1 90.7 SOKE 1. 3 6. 0 7.0 97.7 VERY 2. .• 1 2. 0 2. 3 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 7 14.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN -0.093 MODE 0.0 KURTOSIS 3.234 MINIMUM -2.000 STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0.099 0.648 0. 088 2.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE -0.065 0.420 4.000 VALID CASES 43 MISSING CASES 7 C h i l d O r i e n t e d A c t i v i t i e s 180 D e s c r i p t i o n " f o r example: pa s s i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n {e.g. Batching, l i s t e n i n g ) i n c h i l d * s play, h e l p i n g c h i l d r e n pursue t h e i r i n t e r e s t s , hobbies e t c . , r e a d i n g t o c h i l d r e n , a d m i n i s t e r i n g punishment; i n your p r i v a t e outdoor space." R e s u l t s F i g . A3.3 shows the freguency of d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the Anonymity, Not-neighbouring and Intimacy s c a l e s . T h i s was an a c t i v i t y where the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e did not apply. 36$ c f the respondents were without c h i l d r e n i n the house. I n the others the c h i l d r e n were e i t h e r not o l d enough or too o l d f o r any of the a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d under t h i s category. I t i s immediately e v i d e n t from the diagram t h a t on the Intimacy s t a t e the p r e f e r r e d and achieved responses s t r e s s e d opposite c o n d i t i o n s . , I t i s a l s o evident t h a t while most were i n d i f f e r e n t whether they p r e f e r r e d t o be conspicuous or not, they f e l t conspicuous while performing anyone of the a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d . On the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e , most people were i n d i f f e r e n t and almost the same amount d i s l i k e d any kind of i n t e r r u p t i o n from the neighbours. In f a c t very few had Appendix I I I 181 experienced any i n t e r r u p t i o n s , hence the high r a t e of ' i n d i f f e r e n t 1 responses. Tables A3.31-A3.34 g i v e s the freguency d i s t r i t u t i c n f o r v a r i o u s degrees of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . A l l three s t a t e s e x h i b i t a high r a t e of ' i n d i f f e r e n t ' responses. Remarks In s p i t e of the r e l a t i v e l y high degree of p r e f e r r e d s e c l u s i o n on the Intimacy s t a t e , some respondents f e l t i t would be b e n e f i c i a l i f they were seen with the c h i l d r e n , " I don't t h i n k t h a t s i t t i n g with the c h i l d i s an u n a t t r a c t i v e t h i n g " " . . . people ought t o be i n v o l v e d with each o t h e r s ' c h i l d r e n . " Some a c t i v i t i e s r e g u i r e more s e c l u s i o n than o t h e r s . The l a s t a c t i v i t y i n the d e s c r i p t i o n generated unusual s e n s a t i o n s . " I am i n d i f f e r e n t except f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g punishment . . . I t h i n k i t should be administered i n d o o r s . " "I want t o speak t o my k i d s a l o n e . " The source of conspicuousness was u s u a l l y the c h i l d r e n ' s n o i s e (screaming, c r y i n g , e t c . ) . T h i s bothered a few of the respondents who were " . . . concerened with d i s t u r b i n g the neighbours." Appendix I I I 182 Not many neighbours i n t e r r u p t while t h i s a c t i v i t y i s t a k i n g p l a c e , and even i f they do only the m i n o r i t y (12%) d i s l i k e s the i n t e r r u p t i o n s . Some would, " . . . b r i n g the neighbour i n i f the i n t e r r u p t i o n s occur o u t s i d e . " . Due t o the high r a t e of * non - a p p l i c a b l e * responses i t becomes d i f f i c u l t to determine the degree of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the sample. 1 8 3 LO EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) EXTREMELY DISLIKE (NH) INCONSPICUOUS ( A) « ^ > OO DISLIKE (NN) INDIFFERENT ( A ) CN \ { INDIFFERENT (NN) CONSPICUOUS ( A ) k L I K E (NN) EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS ( A ) LO 3. CHILE ORIEb ACTIV 1 TTED ITIES EXTREMELY L I K E (NN) EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED UNSECLUDED CO INDIFFERENT CN 7 / SECLUDED """ — > • EXTREM ELY SECLUDED 8 a *9 o CM • •o o ' F i g . A3. 3 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Achieved Besponses per P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Cateqory 3 APPENDIX I I I 184 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW S3 TABLE A3.31 DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) CHILD ACTIVIT RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FBEQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) NO ANSWER 99. 50 100.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 VALID CASES 0 MISSING CASES 50 APPENDIX I I I 185 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW 13 TABLE A3. 32 DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) CHILD ACTIVITI BEL ATIV E ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FBEQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) SOME -1. 3 6. 0 8. 6 8.6 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 19 38.0 54.3 62.9 SOME 1. 3 6. 0 8.6 71.4 VEBY 2. 7 14. 0 20.0 91.4 GBEAT DEAL 3. 3 6.0 8.6 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 15 30.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN 0.657 STD ERR 0.196 M EDIAN 0.263 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 1. 162 VARIANCE 1.350 KURTOSIS -0.599 SKEWNESS 0.728 RANGE 4 . 000 MINIMUM -1.000 MAXIMUM 3.000 VALID CASES 35 MISSING CASES 15 APPENDIX I I I 186 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW A3 TABLE A3.33 DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY) CHILD ACTI RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FBEQ FBEQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) VERY - 2 . 2 4.0 5.4 5.4 SOME - 1 . , 1 2.0 2.7 8.1 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 20 40. 0 54.1 62.2 SOME 1. 5 10.0 13. 5 75.7 VERY 2. , 8 16.0 21.6 97.3 GREAT DEAL 3. 1 2. 0 2.7 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 13 26.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN 0.5 m STD ERR 0. 184 MEDIAN 0.275 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 1. 121 VARIANCE 1.257 KUBTOSIS 0. 141 SKEWNESS 0.089 RANGE 5.000 MINIMUM -2 .000 MAXIMUM 3.000 VALID CASES 37 MISSING CASES 13 APPENDIX I I I 187 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW NN3 TABLE A3. 34 DISSATISFACTION {NOT-NEIGHBOURING) CHILD RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FBEQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) VERY -2. 3 6. 0 10.0 10.0 SOME -1. 8 16.0 26. 7 36.7 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 16 32. 0 53.3 90.0 SOME 1. 2 4. 0 6.7 96.7 VERY 2. 1 2. 0 3.3 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 20 40. 0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 MEAN -0.333 STD ERR 0. 161 MEDIAN -0.250 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 0.884 VARIANCE 0.782 KORTOSIS 0.891 SKEWNESS 0.095 RANGE 4.000 MINIMUM -2.000 MAXIMUM 2.000 VALID CASES 30 MISSING CASES 20 Appendix I I I A c t i v i t y 4 : Household Business 188 D e s c r i p t i o n " f o r example: d e a l i n g with s a l e s p e r s o n s , peddlars and people of s i m i l a r p r o f e s s i o n who show up at your p r i v a t e yard entrance; showing repairmen and i n s p e c t o r s i n t o your p r i v a t e outdoor space." R e s u l t s F i g . A3.4 shows the freguency of d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the anonymity s t a t e , the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e and the Intimacy s t a t e , as t h i s was an a c t i v i t y were the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e d i d not aPPiy« I t 1 S e v i d e n t from the diagram, that a l l peaks a r e at the ' i n d i f f e r e n t ' c a t e g o r y , with a d i s t i n c t predominance o f t h i s c o n d i t i o n . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e a high p r o p o r t i o n o f i n d i f f e r e n c e on the Intimacy s c a l e , perhaps because t h e r e are very few i n s t a n c e s when t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y arose i n the f a s h i o n the g u e s t i o n was worded. The guestion was framed to g i v e the respondents t o understand that such an a c t i v i t y would be c a r r i e d out i n the backyard. Host of the a c t o r s of t h i s a c t i v i t y , however, commonly show up at the f r o n t door. In Southview they would h a r d l y ever get past the a n t i - p e d d l a r i n s t i n c t u a l sensors of the Appendix I I I 189 manager. Tables A3.41-A3.4U give the freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r va r i o u s degrees of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the f o u r s t a t e s . Lack of i n t e r r u p t i o n s from the neighbours during the performance o f t h i s a c t i v i t y generated the high r a t e of missing cases i n the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e . 190 L O EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A) EXTREMELY DISLIKE (NN) INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) C O i ! /# DISLIKE (NN) INDIFFERENT ( A ) CM \ INDIFFERENT (NN) CONSPICUOUS ( A ) LIKE (NN) ^ EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS ( A ) L O 4. H0U5 Busir EHOli ^ESS ) EXTREMELY LIKE (NN) EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED / / / / / UNSECLUDED C O INDIFFERENT CNl SECLUDED \ N \ \ \ EXTREMELY SECLUDED 7.09 3 v.oc •* o F i g . A3.4 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of P r e f e r r e d and Achieved Responses per P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Cateqory 4 APPENDIX I I I 191 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW S4 TABLE A3.41 DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) HOD SEHOLD CATEGOBY LABEL NO ANSWER RELATIVE ADJUSTED ABSOLUTE FREQ FBEQ CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) 9 9 . TOTAL 50 50 100.0 100. 0 MISSING 100.0 CUM FREQ (PCT) 100.0 VALID CASES 0 MISSING CASES 50 APPENDIX I I I 192 KAN AT A AND SOUTHVIEW 14 TABLE A3.42 DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) HOUSEHOLD RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FBEQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) SOME -1. 1 2. 0 2.4 2.4 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 31 62. 0 73.8 76.2 SOME 1. 5 10.0 11.9 88.1 VERY 2. , 3 6.0 7. 1 95.2 GREAT DEAL 3. 2 4. 0 4.8 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. , 8 16. 0 MISSING 10 0.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN 0. 381 STD ERR 0. 132 MEDIAN 0. 145 MODE 0. 0 STD DEV 0.854 VARIANCE 0.729 KURTOSIS 3. 123 SKEWNESS 1.871 RANGE 4.000 MINIMUM -1. 000 MAXIMUM 3.000 VALID CASES 42 MISSING CASES 8 APPENDIX I I I 193 KANATA AND SOOTHVIEW A4 TABLE A3.43 DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY) HODSEHOLD CATEGORY LABEL CODE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) CUM FREQ (PCT) VEBY -2. 1 2.0 2. 2 2.2 SGME -1. 2 4.0 4.3 6.5 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 30 60.0 65.2 71.7 SOME 1. 5 10.0 10.9 82.6 VEBY 2. 7 14. 0 15. 2 97.8 GREAT DEAL 3. 1 2. 0 2.2 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 4 8. 0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN 0.391 MODE 0 .0 KURTOSIS 0.921 MINIMUM -2.000 STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0. 141 0.954 0.727 3.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE 0. 167 •0.910 5.000 VALID CASES 46 MISSING CASES 4 APPENDIX I I I 194 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW NN4 TAB1E A3. 44 DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING) HOUSEH RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CAT EGOBI LABEL CODE FBEQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) SOME -1. 9 18.0 23.7 23.7 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 26 52. 0 68.4 92.1 SOME 1. 3 6. 0 7. ? 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 12 24. 0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN -0.158 STD ERR 0.089 MEDIAN -0. 115 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 0.547 VARIANCE 0.299 KURTOSIS 0.280 SKEWNESS -0.107 RANGE 2.000 MINIMUM -1.000 MAXIMUM 1.000 VALID CASES 38 MISSING CASES 12 Appendix I I I A c t i v i t y 5 : Pet Care 195 D e s c r i p t i o n " f o r example: f e e d i n g , washing, grooming and gen e r a l c a r e of pets, play (which does not generate e x c e s s i v e noise) with pet s , storage of pets i n your p r i v a t e open space. R e s u l t s F i g . A3.5 demonstrates the freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e , the Anonymity s t a t e , the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e and the Intimacy s t a t e . The diagram i n d i c a t e s the c l o s e a s s o c i a t i o n between the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l f o r S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and Intimacy s t a t e . The c o n s i d e r a b l y reduced i n t e n s i t y of response cn the achieved l e v e l s i s a l s o e v i d e n t . The Anonymity s t a t e and S e c l u s i o n s t a t e a l s o show a s i m i l a r i t y i n p r o f i l e f o r the preference and achievement l e v e l s , although the l a t t e r e x i s t at a c o n s i d e r a b l y reduced i n t e n s i t y . Both diagrams show the predominance of responses on the • i n d i f f e r e n t ' c o n d i t i o n . T a bles A3.51~A3.54 give the freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r va r i o u s degrees of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the f o u r s t a t e s . Because of the high r a t e of n o n - a p p l i c a b l e c o n d i t i o n s , a measure of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on t h i s a c t i v i t y i s not very meaningful. The r e l a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the degrees of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r Appendix I I I 196 those a c t i v i t i e s t h a t do not apply. Remarks In most of the r e s p o n d e n t s minds, the term »pet» i m p l i e d a c a t or a dog., In Kanata 13 cases d i d not have any such animals. In Southview the management d i d not allow any pets of t h i s nature, hence the high number of missing cases. Some respondents thought t h a t to keep a dog or a c a t , " . . . i s not f a i r t o the dog or c a t . .. .:„. to l e a v e them i n a c o n f i n e d space." A number of respondents a l s o commented t h a t " . . . i t i s u n f a i r f o r the neighbours." 1 9 7 L O -EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) EXTREMELY DISLIKE (NN) INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) C O DISLIKE , (NN) INDIFFERENT ( A ) C N — INDIFFERENT (5N) CONSPICUOUS ( A ) V \ \ LIKE (NN) EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS ( A ) L O 5. PET CAR[ : EXTREMELY LIKE (NN) EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED •<S-A/1 /l \ i i UNSECLUDED C O \ \ INDIFFERENT C N \ \ / / SECLUDED \ EXTREMELY SECLUDED e t • o F i g . A3.5 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Achieved Responses per P r i v a c y S t a t e ; A c t i v i t y . Category 5 APPENDIX I I I 198 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW S5 TABLE A3.51 DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) PET CARE CATEGOBY LABEL CODE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FBEQ (PCT) CUM FREQ (PCT) UO DISSATISFACTION 0. 10 20. 0 76. 9 76.9 SOME 1. , 2 4.0 15. 4 92.3 GREAT DEAL 3. 1 2.0 7.7 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. .. 37 74.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM 0.385 0.0 7.470 0.0 STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0.241 0. 870 2.66 3 3.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE 0. 150 0.756 3.000 VALID CASES 13 MISSING CASES 37 APPENDIX I I I 199 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW 15 TABLE A3.52 DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) PET CARE RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FBEQ FREQ FREQ CATEGOBY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT SOME -1. 1 2.0 6.7 6.7 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 11 22.0 73.3 80.0 VEBY 2. 3 6.0 20.0 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 35 70.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 MEAN 0.333 STD EBB 0.232 MEDIAN 0.091 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 0.900 VABIANCE C.810 KDBTOSIS 0.665 SKEWNESS 1.257 RANGE 3.000 MINIMUM -1.000 MAXIMUM 2.000 VALID CASES 15 MISSING CASES 35 APPENDIX I I I 200 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW A5 TABLE A3.53 DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY) PET CABE CATEGORY LABEL CODE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) CUM FREQ (PCT) VERY - 2 . 1 2. 0 4.3 4.3 SOME - 1 . 1 2.0 4. 3 8.7 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 17 34. 0 73.9 82.6 SOME 1. 3 6.0 13.0 95.7 VEBY 2. 1 2. 0 4.3 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 27 54.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. o 100.0 MEAN 0.087 HODE 0.0 KURTOSIS 3.954 MINIMUM -2 .000 STD EBR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0.153 0.733 -0 .139 2.000 HEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE 0. 059 0.538 4.000 VALID CASES 23 MISSING CASES 27 APPENDIX I I I 201 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW NN5 TABLE A3.54 DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING) PET CA CATEGORY LABEL CODE ABSOLUTE FBEQ BEL ATIV E FREQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) CUM FREQ (PCT) SOME - 1 . 1 2. 0 6.3 6.3 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 14 28.0 87.5 93.8 SOME 1. 1 2. 0 6.3 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 34 68. 0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 10 0. o 100.0 MEAN 0.0 MODE 0.0 KDBTOSIS 7.500 MINIMUM -1.000 STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0.091 0.365 0.0 1.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE 0.0 0. 133 2.000 VALID CASES 16 MISSING CASES 34 Appendix I I I A c t i v i t y 6 : Formal S o c i a l A c t v i t i e s 202 D e s c r i p t i o n " f o r example: formal g a t h e r i n g s , such as brunches, tea and dinner p a r t i e s , and s i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s f o r s p e c i a l l y i n v i t e d guests, from the immediate neighbourhood as w e l l as from other remote parts of the r e g i o n . " R e s u l t s F i g . A3.6 i l l u s t r a t e s the freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r both the achieved l e v e l and the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l , f o r three s t a t e s , t h i s was an a c t i v i t y where the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e d i d not apply. The diagrams r e f l e c t the emphasis t h a t was l a i d on the * secluded* c o n d i t i o n at the ( p r e f e r r e d l e v e l ) and the e x i s t i n g •unsecluded* c o n d i t i o n of the p r o j e c t s , with s i n i l a r emphasis on opp o s i t e c o n d i t i o n s of the p r e f e r r e d and the achieved l e v e l s f o r the Anonymity s t a t e , and Not-Neighbouring s t a t e . The achieved l e v e l a l s o showed a high p r o p o r t i o n of * i n d i f f e r e n t * c o n d i t i o n responses. Tables A3.61-A3. 6*1 demonstrate the o v e r a l l degree of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with v a r i o u s s t a t e s of higher l e v e l of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on the Intimacy s t a t e than on any of the ether two s t a t e s . There was a high p r o p o r t i o n of n o n - a p p l i c a b l e Appendix I I I 203 responses. Very few i n t e r r u p t i o n s were r e p o r t e d , hence perhaps the reason f o r the higher i n t e n s i t y on the ' i n d i f f e r e n t 1 c o n d i t i o n on the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e . The t a b l e s a l s o i l l u s t r a t e the high p r o p o r t i o n of response f o r the 'conspicuous' c o n d i t i o n . Remarks Only i n 8 cases, was t h e r e no formal e n t e r t a i n i n g a t a l l , because such events never occured i n the l i f e s t y l e of the respondents. In o t h e r cases they r e f r a i n e d from such an undertaking, as the s i z e of the u n i t d i d not allow i t . One respondent d i d not e n t e r t a i n f o r m a l l y because, " . . . 1 do not want the neighbours to know t h a t I am having one ( p a r t y ) . " On the whole comments v a r i e d c o n s i d e r a b l e . I t was c l e a r l y e x p l a i n e d to the respondents t h a t t h i s f u n c t i o n would be c a r r i e d on outdoors. In general more p r i v a c y was reguested, "I would l i k e t o be l e f t alone when I am e n t e r t a i n i n g . " "I do not mind people l o o k i n g i n , but I do not p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e them s t a r i n g a t me while I am e a t i n g d i n n e r . " Few i n t e r r u p t i o n s by the neighbours were r e p o r t e d , e s p e c i a l l y i f the neighbours were aware of the nature of the f u n c t i o n , t u t i n each case would be t r e a t e d on i t s own m e r i t s , depending cn the nature of the c a l l and c f i t s a c t o r . The manager at Southview Appendix I I I 204 e x p l a i n e d how such a c t i v i t i e s had become a c c e p t a b l e t o the l i f e s t y l e of r e s i d e n t s of the p r o j e c t , and hence were not gazed upon and d i d not r e q u i r e extreme s e c l u s i o n . In Kanata t h i s d e s i r e f o r more s e c l u s i o n could have been attenuated by the e r e c t i o n of the the t h i r d fence but i t i s h i q h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t those t h a t do not have i t w i l l e ver c o n s t r u c t i t . 205 L O EXTREMELY inconspicuous ( A ) — ' EXTREMELY DISLIKE. (NN) INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) oo >^ / DISLIKE (NN) INDIFFERENT ( A ) C N A (a) / t \ \ \ <\\ INDIFFERENT (NN) CONSPICUOUS ( A ) \ \ \ LIKE (NN) EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS ( A) L O 6. F O R I S O C I ACIW *1AL A L /ITIES EXTREMELY LIKE (NN) EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED / / ' / / UNSECLUDED 00 V •;.\ INDIFFERENT C N / / SECLUDED EXTREMELY SECLUDED • • "ii • o F i g . A3.6 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Achieved Responses per P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Cateqory 6 APPENDIX I I I 206 KANATfi AND SOOTHVIEW S6 TABLE A3.61 DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) FOB HAL CATEGORY LABEL NO ANSWER RELATIVE ADJUSTED ABSOLUTE FBEQ FREQ CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) 99. TOTAL 50 50 100.0 100.0 HISSING 100.0 CUH FREQ (PCT) 100.0 VALID CASES 0 HISSING CASES 50 APPENDIX I I I 207 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW 16 TABLE A3.62 DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) FORMAL CATEGORY LABEL CODE ABSOLUTE FR EQ RELATIVE FBEQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FBEQ (PCT) CUM FREQ (PCT) GREAT DEAL -3. 1 2. 0 2.7 2.7 VEBY -2. 2 4.0 5.4 8.1 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. , 14 28. 0 37. 8 45.9 SOME 1. 1 2. 0 2.7 48.6 VERY 2. 8 16.0 21.6 70.3 GREAT DEAL 3. 8 16.0 21.6 91.9 4. 3 6. 0 8.1 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 13 26.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN 1.243 MODE 0.0 KURTOSIS -0.490 MINIMUM -3.000 STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0.291 1.770 -0.327 4.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE 1.563 3. 134 7.000 VALID CASES 37 MISSING CASES 13 APPENDIX I I I 208 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW A6 TABLE A3.63 DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY) FORMAL RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FBEQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) VEBY -2. 2 4.0 5.3 5.3 SOME -1. 1 2.0 2.6 7.9 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 18 36 .0 47.4 55.3 SOME 1. 4 8.0 10.5 65.8 VERY 2. 11 22.0 28.9 94.7 GREAT DEAL 3. , 2 4.0 5.3 100.0 NG ANSWER 99. , 12 24.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 MEAN 0.711 STD ERR 0. 199 MEDIAN 0.389 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 1.228 VARIANCE 1.509 KORTOSIS -0.375 SKEWNESS -0.056 RANGE 5.000 MINIMUM -2.000 MAXIMUM 3. 000 VALID CASES 38 MISSING CASES 12 APPENDIX I I I 209 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW NN6 TABLE A3.64 DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOUSING) FORMAL RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) EXTREME -4. 1 2. 0 3.2 3.2 VERY -2. 2 4. 0 6. 5 9.7 SOME -1. 9 18.0 29.0 38.7 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 14 28. 0 45.2 83.9 SOME 1. 3 6.0 9.7 93.5 VERY 2. 2 4. 0 6. 5 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 19 3 8.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN -0.323 STD ERR 0.209 MEDIAN -0.250 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 1. 166 VARIANCE 1.359 KURTOSIS 2.586 SKEWNESS -0.663 RANGE 6.000 MINIMUM -4.000 MAXIMUM 2.000 VALID CASES 31 MISSING CASES 19 Appendix I I I 210 A c t i v i t y 7 : Informal S o c i a l A c t i v i t i e s D e s c r i p t i o n " f o r example: cookouts and p a r t i e s f o r f a m i l y and r e l a t i v e s ; c a s u a l and i n f o r m a l e n t e r t a i n i n g of f r i e n d s and acguaintances i n your p r i v a t e outdoor space." Results F i g . A3.7 g i v e s the freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the Anonymity s t a t e , Not-Neighbouring s t a t e and Intimacy s t a t e . T h i s was another a c t i v i t y were the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e d i d not apply. The diagrams show s i m i l a r i t y i n trend with A c t i v i t y 6 [Formal S o c i a l A c t i v i t i e s ( c f . F i g . A3.6) ], except f o r the Anonymity s t a t e where the • i n d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n predominates. There i s a more inten s e preference f o r s e c l u s i o n on the Intimacy s t a t e , with c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s emphasis or pr e f e r e n c e f o r extreme form of t h i s c o n d i t i o n . Tables A3.71-A3.74 g i v e the freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r va r i o u s degrees of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the Anonymity s t a t e , the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e and the Intimacy s t a t e . I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t most people were e i t h e r s a t i s f i e d or were minimally d i s s a t i s f i e d on the Anonymity s t a t e (codes 1, - 1 ) . A s i m i l a r c o n d i t i o n e x i s t e d on the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e . Although a Appendix I I I 211 high p r o p o r t i o n were s a t i s f i e d on the Intimacy s t a t e s c a l e , the a t t i t u d e of a f a i r amount were a t the e x t r e m i t i e s o f the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e . Remarks Only one respondent d i d not ever perform t h i s f u n c t i o n , but no reason was forthcoming. The h i g h e s t percentage of • n o t - a p p l i c a b l e ' answers were f o r the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e , as the neighbours r a r e l y i n t e r r u p t e d whenever t h i s a c t i v i t y occured. Otherwise the respondents had l i t t l e comments t o make about t h i s a c t i v i t y . , 212 LO EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) v * — ir~**a*— EXTREMELY DISLIKE (NN) INCONSPICUOUS ( A) CO • DISLIKE (NN) INDIFFERENT ( A ) CM \ s INDIFFERENT (NN) CONSPICUOUS ( A ) / \ LIKE (NN) EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS ( A ) LO 7 INFOf SOCI; ACTIV ?MAL \L ITIES EXTREMELY LIKE (NN) EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED / / / / / UNSECLUDED CO 1 1 . / INDIFFERENT CVJ — SECLUDED EXTREMELY SECLUDED *S s CM • o F i g . A3.7 Freguency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Achieved Responses per P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Category 7 APPENDIX I I I 213 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW S7 TABLE A3.71 DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) INFORMAL CATEGORY LABEL NO ANSWER RELATIVE ADJUSTED ABSOLUTE FREQ FBEQ CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) 99J TOTAL 50 50 100.0 100.0 MISSING 100.0 CUM FREQ (PCT) 100.0 VALID CASES 0 MISSING CASES 50 APPENDIX I I I 214 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW 17 TABLE A3.72 DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) INFORMAL REL ATI VE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FBEQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) EXTREME -4. 1 2. 0 2. 2 2.2 VEBY -2. 3 6. 0 6.5 8.7 SOME -1. , 2 4. 0 4. 3 13.0 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 20 40. 0 43.5 56.5 SOME 1. 6 12. 0 13.0 69.6 VEBY 2. 8 16.0 17.4 87.0 GREAT DEAL 3. 6 12. 0 13.0 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 4 8.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN 0.609 STD ERR 0.225 MEDIAN 0.350 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 1.527 VARIANCE 2.332 KURTOSIS 0.675 SKEWNESS -0.392 RANGE 7.000 MINIMUM •4.000 MAXIMUM 3.000 VALID CASES 46 MISSING CASES 4 APPENDIX- I I I 215 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW A7 TABLE A3.73 DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY) INFORMAL CATEGORY LABEL CODE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE FBEQ FBEQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) CUM FBEQ (PCT) SOME -1. 2 4.0 4.3 4.3 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 28 56. 0 60.9 65.2 SOME 1. 8 16. 0 17.4 82.6 VERY 2. 6 12. 0 13.0 95.7 GBEAT DEAL 3. 1 2. 0 2.2 97.8 4. 1 2.0 2. 2 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 4 8.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100. 0 MEAN 0.543 MODE 0.0 KURTOSIS 2.282 MINIMUM -1.000 STD EBB STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0. 148 1. 005 1,457 4.000 HFDIAN VABIANCE RANGE 0.250 1.009 5.000 VALID CASES 46 MISSING CASES 4 APPENDIX I I I 216 KAN AT ft AND SOUTHVIEW NN7 TABLE A3. 74 DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING) INFORMAL CATEGORY LABEL CODE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) CUM FBEQ (PCT) VERY -2. 3 6. 0 7.5 7.5 SOME • -1. , 8 16. 0 20.0 27.5 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 24 4 8.0 60.0 87.5 SOME 1. 3 6.0 7.5 95.0 VERY 2. 2 4. 0 5.0 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 10 20. 0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN -0.175 MODE 0.0 KURTOSIS 1.244 MINIMUM -2.000 STD ERE STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0. 138 0. 874 0.115 2.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE -0. 125 0.763 4. 000 VALID CASES 40 MISSING CASES 10 Appendix I I I A c t i v i t y 8 : Games 217 D e s c r i p t i o n " f o r example; s p o r t i n g games i n v o l v i n g p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s (such as b a s k e t b a l l r i n g , badminton, etc.) and other l e s s a c t i v e games, such as c a r d s , bingo and other t a b l e games." Res u l t s F i g A3.8 r e p r e s e n t s the freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n of the p r e f e r r e d and achieved l e v e l s over the f o u r s t a t e s of p r i v a c y . The graphs exemplify the predominance of the ' i n d i f f e r e n t ' c o n d i t i o n response on both l e v e l s of a l l four s t a t e s . The diagram a l s o shows the i d e n t i c a l s t r e n g t h of response a t the peak f o r the p r e f e r r e d and achieved l e v e l s o f the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e , the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l of the Anonymity s t a t e , and the sharp s l o p e s towards e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or negative c o n d i t i o n s on the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l s o f the th r e e s t a t e s . Tables A3.81-A3.84 express the degree o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on each of the fou r s t a t e s . The codes express the same meaning as e x p l a i n e d i n A c t i v i t y 0 ( s t o r a g e ) . S a t i s f a c t i o n predominates on a l l f o u r s t a t e s . Appendix I I I 218 Remarks T h i s was an a c t i v i t y were the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e almost d i d not apply., 16 cases were n o n - a p p l i c a b l e on the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l and 27 on the achieved l e v e l o f t h i s s t a t e because these respondents d i d not engage on outdoor a c t i v i t i e s by themselves. Only f o u r cases never engaged i n any kind of outdoor games. The o n l y other i n s t a n c e of high n o n - a p p l i c a b i l i t y i s on the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e , as u s u a l l y the neighbours d i d not i n t e r r u p t d u r i n g such a c t i v i t i e s . Some respondent d i d not play f o r l a c k of space, others because they f e l t they might d i s t u r b the neighbours. 219 r/TRiyg,Y INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) S X T R M E L Y D I S L I K E (Sfflj" INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) F i g . A3.8 Freguency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Achieved Responses per P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Category 8 APPENDIX I I I 220 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW S8 TABLE A3.81 DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) GAMES RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FBEQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FBEQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) SOME -1. 2 4. 0 8.7 8.7 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 14 28.0 60.9 69.6 SOME 1. 3 6. 0 13.0 82.6 VEBY 2. ,, 4 8. 0 17.4 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 27 54.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 MEAN 0.391 STD EBB 0. 186 MEDIAN 0. 179 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 0.891 VARI ANCE 0.794 KDBTOSIS -0.142 SKEWNESS 0.781 RANGE 3.000 MINIMUM -1.000 MAXIMUM 2.000 VALID CASES 23 MISSING CASES 27 APPENDIX I I I 221 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW 18 TABLE A3.82 DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) GAMES RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FBEQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) VEBY -2. 3 6. 0 7.7 7.7 SOME -1. 4 8.0 10.3 17.9 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. , 20 40. 0 51.3 69.2 SOME 1. 5 10. 0 12.8 82. 1 VEBY 2. , 4 8.0 10.3 92.3 GREAT DEAL 3. 2 4.0 5.1 97.4 4. 1 2.0 2.6 100.0 NG ANSWER 99. 11 22.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN 0.333 STD EBB 0.212 MEDIAN 0. 125 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 1. 325 VARIANCE 1.754 KURTOSIS 0.909 SKEWNESS 0. 703 RANGE 6.000 MINIMUM -2.000 MAXIMUM 4.000 VALID CASES 39 MISSING CASES 1 1 APPENDIX I I I 222 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW A8 TABLE A3.83 DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY) GAMES RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FBEQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) SOKE -1. 1 2. 0 2.4 2.4 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 23 46.0 54.8 57. 1 SOKE 1. 7 14. 0 16.7 i 73.8 VERY 2. 11 22. 0 26.2 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 8 16.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN 0.667 STD ERR 0. 139 MEDIAN 0. 370 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 0.902 V ARIA NCE 0. 813 KURTOSIS -1.220 SKEWNESS 0.520 RANGE 3.000 MINIMUM -1.000 MAXIMUM 2.000 VALID CASES 42 MISSING CASES 8 APPENDIX I I I 223 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW NN8 TABLE A3.84 DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING) GAMES RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) VERY -2. 2 4.0 5.7 5.7 SOME -1. 5 10.0 14. 3 20.0 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 24 48.0 68.6 88.6 SOME 1. 2 4. 0 5.7 94.3 VERY 2. 2 4.0 5.7 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 15 30.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 MEAN -0.086 STD ERR 0. 138 MEDIAN -0.063 MODE o . o STD DEV 0.818 VARIANCE 0.669 KURTOSIS 2.283 SKEWNESS 0.164 RANGE 4.000 MINIMUM -2.000 MAXIMUM 2.000 VALID CASES 35 MISSING CASES 15 Appendix I I I A c t i v i t y 9 : Hobbies and C r a f t s 224 D e s c r i p t i o n " f o r example: garden c a r e , other than as d e s c r i b e d i n A c t v i t y 1 (Home Maintenance and B e p a i r ) ; h a n d i c r a f t s , which exclude the use of heavy machinery, other l i g h t p u r s u i t s such as dancing, p a i n t i n g , and other f i n e a r t s . " Besuits F i g . A3.9 demonstrates the frequency of response f o r the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e , the Anonymity s t a t e , the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e and the Intimacy s t a t e . The diagrams show the predominance of the ' i n d i f f e r e n t ' c o n d i t i o n response on almost a l l f o u r s c a l e s . One can a l s o d i s c e r n the negative g u a l i t y of the present environment on the s e c l u s i o n s t a t e , and the preference f o r the opposite c o n d i t i o n of the same s t a t e . Another a f f i r m a t i o n to the same e f f e c t can be observed on the Anonymity s t a t e (peak at •inconspicuous' c o n d i t i o n on the p r e f e r r e d l e v e l ) . T a b l e s A3.91-A3.94 a l s o d e s c r i b e the frequency of d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r v a r i o u s degrees of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the f o u r s t a t e s , emphasizing the o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n on a l l the f o u r s t a t e s . appendix I I I 225 Remarks Every respondent, at one time or another, p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s a c t i v i t y c ategory. Some respondents f e l t t h a t they had to s p l i t t h e i r responses, on the achieved and p r e f e r r e d l e v e l s , with r e s p e c t to i n d i v i d u a l a c t i v i t i e s . Thus gardening was o f t e n s i n g l e d out i n a category of i t s own. n I have d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s between gardening versus dancing." " . . . . i f I l i k e communicating with o t h e r s , I move o u t s i d e . I f I want t o be l e f t alone I would r a t h e r do i t i n s i d e . " P a i n t i n g , dancing and other a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t i e s u s u a l l y demanded more s e c l u s i o n . 226 DISLIKE HOBBIES AND i CRAFTS EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A_) EXTREMELY" DISLIKE (NNJ-INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) NNT~ INDIFFERENT ( A ) IN DlFFERENT CNN) CONSPICUOUS ( A ) (NN) EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS ( A ) EXTREMELY LIKE F i g . A3.9 Freguency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Achieved Responses per P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Category 9 (NiO APPENDIX I I I 227 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW S9 TABLE A3.91 DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) HOBBIES RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CAT EGCEY LABEL CODE FBEQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) VEBY -2. 1 2. 0 2.4 2.4 SOME -1. 2 4.0 4.9 7.3 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 20 40.0 48. 8 56.1 SOME 1. 8 16.0 19.5 75.6 VEBY 2. 9 18.0 22.0 97.6 GBEAT DEAL 3. 1 2. 0 2.4 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 9 18. 0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 MEAN 0. 610 STD ERR 0. 163 MEDIAN 0. 375 MODE 0. 0 STD DEV 1. 046 VARIANCE 1.094 KURTOSIS -0. 107 SKEWNESS 0.176 RA NGE 5.000 MINIMUM -2. 000 MAXIMUM 3.000 VALID CASES 41 MISSING CASES 9 APPENDIX I I I 228 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW 19 TABLE A3.92 DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) HOBBIES RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGGBY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) VERY -2. 2 4.0 4. 4 4.4 SOME -1. 2 4.0 4.4 8.9 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 28 56. 0 62.2 71.1 SOME 1. 4 8.0 8.9 80.0 VERY 2. 6 12. 0 13. 3 93.3 GREAT DEAL 3. 3 6.0 6.7 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 5 10. 0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 MEAN 0.422 STD ERR 0. 170 MEDIAN 0. 161 MODE 0. 0 STD DEV 1. 138 VARIANCE 1.295 KURTOSIS 0.637 SKEWNESS 0.637 RANGE 5.000 MINIMUM 2.000 MAXIMUM 3.000 VALID CASES 45 MISSING CASES 5 ftp PIN MX I I I 229 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW A9 TABLE A3.93 DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY) HOBBIES CATEGOBY LABEL CODE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) CUM FREQ (PCT) SOME - 1 . 2 4. 0 4. 4 4.4 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 27 54. 0 60.0 64.4 SOME 1. 8 16. 0 17. 8 82.2 VEBY 7 14.0 15.6 97.8 GREAT DEAL 3. ; 1 2. 0 2.2 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 5 10.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. o 100.0 MEAN 0.511 MODE 0.0 KDBTOSIS 0.255 MINIMUM -1.000 STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0. 133 0.895 C.960 3.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE 0.259 0.801 3.000 VALID CASES 45 MISSING CASES 5 APPENDIX I I I 230 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW NN9 TABLE A3.94 DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING) HOBBIES RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM CATEGOBY LABEL CODE ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ (PCT) (PCT) FREQ (PCT) VEBY -2. 1 2. 0 2.7 2.7 SOME -1. 5 10.0 13. 5 16.2 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 27 54.0 73.0 89.2 SOME 1. 3 6.0 8. 1 97.3 VERY 2. 1 2. 0 2.7 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 13 26.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN -0.054 MODE 0.0 KURTOSIS 3.444 MINIMUM -2.000 STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0. 109 0.664 0. 058 2.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE -0.037 0.441 4.000 VALID CASES 37 MISSING CASES 13 R e l a x a t i o n 231 D e s c r i p t i o n " f o r example: napping; sunbathing; daydreaming; l i s t e n i n g to music; reading books; studying and paperwork, and/or meditating i n your p r i v a t e outdoor space." R e s u l t s F i g . S3.10 g i v e s an i n d i c a t i o n of the freguency of d i s t r i b u t i o n c f the p r e f e r r e d and the achieved l e v e l s f c r the f o u r s t a t e s . I t i s evident from these diagrams t h a t , a. The p r e f e r e n c e s f o r the S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and the Intimacy s t a t e were i d e n t i c a l i n i n t e n s i t y ; b. There was a high p r e f e r e n c e f o r extreme s e c l u s i o n as compared to other a c t i v i t i e s , with a peak at the p r e f e r r e d s e c l u s i o n . There was a l s o a c l e a r d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t the spaces were unsecluded; c. There Was a s i m i l a r emphasis on *inconspicuousness* and • d i s l i k e 1 c o n d i t i o n s f o r the anonymity and the Mot-Neighbouring s t a t e s . There was e g u i v o c a l agreement on a •conspicuous' f e e l i n g of the respondents while performing these a c t i v i t i e s . The high response f o r the ' i n d i f f e r e n t 1 c o n d i t i o n on the achieved l e v e l of the Not-Neighbouring s t a t e was the r e s u l t of high non-involvement of the neighbours. Appendix I I I 232 Tab l e s A3.101-A3.104 express the freguency of d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r v a r i o u s degrees of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the fo u r s t a t e s . The high degree o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i s e s p e c i a l l y e v ident on the S e c l u s i o n and Intimacy s t a t e s , as w e l l as Anonymity s t a t e . I t i s l e a s t , but more than i n other a c t i v i t i e s , on the Sot-Neighbouring s t a t e , f o r reasons a l r e a d y expounded upon. Remarks Only one respondent never had a chance to use the p r i v a t e outdoor space. The a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n t h i s c a t e g o r y c o u l d e a s l y be performed i n any c f the p r i v a t e outdoor spaces around the u n i t s . Most people r e f e r r e d to sunbathing and napping much more than any o f the other a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d i n these c a t e g o r i e s . I t i s i n f e r r e d t h a t such a c t i v i t i e s are more e a s i l y prformed i n summer than i n winter. , "Summer i s coming. At t h i s p o i n t i n time, I have a l l the s e c l u s i o n I need. I do not b e l e i v e t h a t i t (s e c l u s i o n ) w i l l decrease i n summer." 233 EXTREMELY INCONSPICOOUS ( A) EXTREMELY DISLIKE (NUf" 10.1 RESTl AND RELAXATION EXTREMELY CONSPICDOOS ( A ) EXTREMELY LIKE (NN) EXTREKELY UNSECLUDED F i g . A3.10 Freguency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Achieved Responses per P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Category 10 APPENDIX I I I 234 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW S10 TABLE A3.101 DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) BEST • BELAX CATEGORY LABEL CODE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) CUM FREQ (PCT) NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 13 26. 0 29.5 29.5 SOME 1. 9 18.0 20.5 50.0 VERY 2. 11 22. 0 25.0 75.0 GREAT DEAL 3. 7 14.0 15.9 90.9 4. 4 8.0 9. 1 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 6 12.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. G 100.0 MEAN 1.545 MODE 0.0 KURTOSIS -1.001 MINIMUM 0.0 STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0. 199 1. 320 0. 342 4.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE 1. 500 1.742 4.000 VALID CASES 44 MISSING CASES 6 APPENDIX I I I 235 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW 110 TABLE A3. 102 DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) BEST AND RELAX RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM ABSOLUTE FREQ FREQ FREQ CATEGORY LABEL CODE FREQ (PCT) (PCT) (PCT) GREAT DEAL -3. 1 2.0 2. 1 2. 1 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 14 28. 0 29.8 31.9 SOME 1. 11 22. 0 23.4 55.3 VERY 2. 11 22. 0 23.4 78.7 GREAT DEAL 3. .. 7 14.0 14.9 93.6 4. . 3 6.0 6.4 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 3 6. 0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 MEAN 1.340 STD ERR 0. 20 5 MEDIAN 1.27.3 MODE 0.0 STD DEV 1. 403 VARIANCE 1. 969 KURTOSIS 0.664 SKEWNESS -0. 200 RANGE 7.000 MINIMUM 3.000 MAXIMUM 4. 000 VALID CASES 47 MISSING CASES 3 APPENDIX I I I 236 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW A10 TABLE A3.106 DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY) BEST AND BEL AX RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUM CATEGORY LABEL CODE ABSOLUTE FBEQ FREQ FREQ (PCT) (PCT) FBEQ (PCT) VERY -2. 2 4.0 4.2 4.2 SOME -1. 2 4.0 4.2 8.3 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 24 48.0 50.0 58.3 SOME 1. 6 12. 0 12.5 70.8 VERY 2. 8 16. 0 16.7 87.5 GREAT DEAL 3. 5 10.0 10. 4 97.9 4. 1 2. 0 2. 1 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 2 4.0 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100. 0 100.0 MEAN 0.729 MODE 0.0 KURTOSIS -0.106 MINIMUM -2.000 STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM 0. 192 1.333 0.467 4.000 MEDIAN VABIANCE RANGE 0.333 1.776 6.000 VALID CASES 48 MISSING CASES 2 APPENDIX I I I 237 KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW NN10 TABLE A3.104 DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING) REST CATEGORY LABEL CODE ABSOLUTE FREQ BEL ATIVE FBEQ (PCT) ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) CUM FREQ (PCT) GREAT DEAL -3. 1 2. 0 2.4 2.4 VERY -2. 6 12.0 14.6 17.1 SOKE -1. 5 10.0 12. 2 29.3 NO DISSATISFACTION 0. 24 48. 0 58.5 87.8 SOME 1. 2 4. 0 4.9 92.7 VERY 2. 1 2. 0 2.4 95.1 GREAT DEAL 3. 2 4.0 4.9 100.0 NO ANSWER 99. 9 18.0 HISSING 100.0 TOTAL 50 100.0 100.0 MEAN MODE KURTOSIS HINIHUH •0.244 STD EBB 0.0 STD DEV 1.584 SKEWNESS •3.000 MAXIMUM 0. 191 1. 220 0.408 3.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE -0.146 1.489 6.000 VALID CASES 41 HISSING CASES 9 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094484/manifest

Comment

Related Items