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 HOUSING PROJECTS  IN  MULTIFAMILY  by CAR MEL GftTT! B. A. B.  (ARCH. ARCH.  S T U D I E S ) , UNIVEBSITY OF MALTA, 1971; (HONS.) , UNIVERSITY OF MALTA, 1973  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE BEQUIREMENTS:FOR THE DEGREE CF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE  TBE  We  in FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES D e p a r t m e n t o f ARCHITECTURE  accept t h i s t h e s i s to t h e r e q u i r e d  as conforming standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January,  (c)  1978  CARMEL GATT,  1978  In  presenting  this  an a d v a n c e d  degree  the  shall  I  Library  f u r t h e r agree  for  scholarly  by h i s of  this  written  at make  that  thesis  it  freely  permission  purposes  for  in p a r t i a l  the U n i v e r s i t y  may  representatives.  financial  University  of  British  gain  Columbia  January 2 1 s t , 1978  of  Columbia,  British  by  for  shall  the  that  not  requirements I  agree  r e f e r e n c e and copying  t h e Head o f  understood  Architecture  of  2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  Date  is  of  for extensive  be g r a n t e d  It  fulfilment  available  permission.  Department  The  thesis  of  be a l l o w e d  or  that  study.  this  thesis  my D e p a r t m e n t  copying  for  or  publication  without  my  ABSTRACT  Evaluation studies on h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t s 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 to questions such as "do-you-have-enough-privacy?" Most works on privacy are conceptual. T h e r e a l s o e x i s t s a g e n e r a l l a c k of i n t e r e s t i n t h e study of social and psychological behaviour in the spaces between b u i l d i n g s , and t h e e f f e c t o f s i t e layouts in housing. T h i s s t u d y c o m b i n e s t h e two i n an a t t e m p t to d e t e r m i n e a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s p r i v a c y i n p r i v a t e open s p a c e s in multifamily 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 e m p h a s i s on t h e aspect of control over the curtailment of interaction, as opposed to the more p o p u l a r n o t i o n o f p r i v a c y as w i t h d r a w a l . This concept was applied in this study to residents of multifamily developments. It was hypothesized that c o m p a t i b i l i t y between neighbours would reduce the need for physical separation and demonstrate a reliance on social 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 threshold level of intrusion. Moreover i t was hypothesized that 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 w i t h t h e p e r c e i v e d a d j u s t m e n t o f r e s i d e n t s t o the n e i g h b o u r h o o d , as w e l l as c o n g r u e n c e w i t h t h e n e i g h b o u r s . The c o n c e p t o f p r i v a c y was dissected into four states, b a s e d on t h e works o f H e s t i n {1970) and M a r s h a l l ( 1 9 7 0 ) . Two of t h e s e ( S e c l u s i o n and I n t i m a c y ) d e a l t w i t h physical conditions, and the other two (Anonymity and H o t - N e i g h b o u r i n g ) d e a l t w i t h 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 r e s p o n d e n t s , were randomly selected from two low m i d d l e 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 t h e o t h e r was a rent regulated housing complex. A specially designed q u e s t i o n n a i r e b o a r d was u s e d t o ask t h e s u b j e c t s t o rate their preferences for and assessment of, p r i v a c y i n p r i v a t e outdoor s p a c e s , 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 t h e f o u r s t a t e s d e f i n e d . Dissatisfaction was measured as the difference between t h e p r e f e r r e d and t h e a c h i e v e d r a t i n g s . Although s t a t i s t i c a l l y the hypotheses were partially right, other evidence in the study following conclusions: a.  only proven s u p p o r t s the  Privacy i s v e r y complex and c h a n g e s w i t h the a c t i v i t y , and the person involved. T h e r e 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 of social over physical mechanisms to maintain i t .  Abstract  b. c.  d.  iii  A few a c t i v i t i e s have v e r y s p e c i f i c p r i v a c y r e q u i r e m e n t s , but i n g e n e r a l p e o p l e do n o t c a r e v e r y much a b o u t t h e p r i v a c y i n p r i v a t e outdoor spaces. Management a n d / o r t e n u r e w h i c h i m p r o v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between neighbours create a greater community sense, cause a t o l e r a n c e f o r more interaction, and r e d u c e emphasis f o r physical barriers. Perceived f i t i n t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d had a g r e a t e r effect on dissatisfaction and p r e f e r e n c e s f o r p r i v a c y t h a n c o n g r u e n c e with the neighbours.  The hypotheses also generated additional information regarding attitudes towards social and p h y s i c a l elements i n multifamily projects, which a r e only remotely related to privacy.  Dr.,N.G.  Rolfsen  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS  INTRODUCTION CHAPTER  1  1.  PRIVACY  7  1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3.1  Definitions of Privacy Privacy as Uithdrawal Privacy as Personal Control Functions of Privacy Mechanisms of Privacy E n v i r o n m e n t a l Mechanisms P e r s o n a l Space Territoriality  1.4  Summary  7 9 10 12 19 20  25  CHAPTEB 2.  CGNCEPTUAI.  2.1 2.2 CHAPTEB 3.  C o n c e p t u a l Framework Hypotheses METHODOLOGY  28 31 36  Development o f T h e o r e t i c a l Components Privacy Components Compatibility Components The A c t i v i t i e s The S u r v e y T h e Open O u t d o o r s Problems Encountered T h e Sample The P r o j e c t s 45 English Ivy Village Southview Gardens The R e s p o n d e n t s  36 36 37 38 39 40 42 44  RESEARCH  61  3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3 3.3.1  3.3.2 CHAPTEB 4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3.1 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3  FRAHEUGBK  AND HYPOTHESIS  FINDINGS  The N e i g h b o u r h o o d The Neighbours Private Outdoors Adequacy o f O u t d o o r Space The A c t i v i t i e s ,. Privacy P r e f e r e n c e s i n P r i v a t e Open S p a c e s Achieved Privacy i n Private Open Spaces Dissatisfaction With P r i v a c y  28  51  61 64 70 74 76 77 84 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  Response V a r i a t i o n s i n t h e Sample P r o j e c t s Socio-economic Background 92 Income Age Class S i m i l a r i t y of Interests Noise Prying  91  Summary  98  DISCUSSION Social O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e Sample Effect o f T e n u r e on I n t e r a c t i o n Effect o f T e n u r e on S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n Physical F a c t o r s I m p i n g i n g on P r i v a c y Site Layout Overlooking Crowding Open Space  103 104 104 107 109 109 112 115 119  CONCLUSIONS  124  AND RECOMHENDATICNS  Conclusions Recommendations Further Research Epilogue  124 127 133 135 136  BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX I  Letter  of Introduction  t o t h e Respondents  149  APPENDIX I I  Questionnaire  150  APPENDIX I I I  Activity Descriptions and D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Frequency T a b l e s  158  vi  LIST OF TABLES  Table Table Table  3.1 3.2 3.3  Distribution of People Within Households Age D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C h i l d r e n i n Households Age D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents  54 54 54  Table Table Table Table Table Table  4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6  A t t i t u d e s Towards the Neighbourhood A t t i t u d e s Towards the Neighbours Length of Stay o f respondents Preferred Privacy Achieved Privacy Dissatisfaction Indices  62 65 67 83 85  Appendix I I I  Dissatisfaction Besponses Category by S t a t e of P r i v a c y  by  88  Activity  162  vii  L I S T OF  ILLUSTRATIONS  Figure Figure  3. i 3. 2  Kanata: S i t e Layout Southview: S i t e Layout  48 51  Figure Figure Figure  a. 1 4. 2  72 73  Figure  4. 4  Figure  4. 5  Figure  4. 6  Figure  4. 7  Kanata: T y p i c a l Bouse P l a n Southview: T y p i c a l House P l a n Achieved Privacy by Conditions 1 + 5 Achieved Privacy by Conditions 2 • 4 Achieved and Preferred Condition 3 Preferred Privacy by Conditions 2 + 4 Preferred Privacy by Conditions 1 +5  Appendix  4. 3  III  Plate Plate Plate  3.1 3.2 3.3  Plate Plate Plate Plate  3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7  Plate  3.8  Plate Plate  3.9 3.10  Frequency Besponses by S t a t e o f P r i v a c y  by A c t i v i t y  Activity: 78 Activity: 79 Privacy: 80 Activity: 81 Activity: 82 Category  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 K a n a t a : - U n i t Arrangement Without C a r p o r t s Kanata: Common Frontyards in Units Without C a r p o r t s Kanata: B a c k y a r d Arrangement Kanata: B a c k y a r d Arrangement Southview: C l u s t e r Arrangement Southview: Main Access Carport and Patio Arrangement—3 Storeys Southview: Main Access and Patio Arrangement—2 Storeys Southview: T y p i c a l Backyard Arrangement Southview: P a t h Between B a c k y a r d s  161  55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 59  viii  . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I wish t o e x p r e s s my s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e t o my a d v i s o r s . Dr. N. G. Rolfsen, and Dr. J. Vischer who, t h r o u g h t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e and good humour s t e e r e d me through t h e storm, and kept me awake when I was b e c a l m e d . I a l s o wish t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e t o Mr. W o l f g a n g G e r s o n , t h e head o f t h e Graduate School o f A r c h i t e c t u r e , f o r h i s encouragement i n t h e p u r s u i t o f t h i s f i e l d o f e n d e v o u r , v e r y e a r l y i n t h e programme. at  I also f e e l obliged to the following various stages of the r e s e a r c h .  people, f o r t h e i r  help  Mr. Bob B u r g e s s , o f 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. I n n e s , manager o f S o u t h v i e w G a r d e n s , Mr, Philip de C h a z a a l , o f the Kanata Housing Co-operative, Mrs. Natalie Hall, librarian a t the School of Architecture, ( f o r k e e p i n g t r a c k o f t h e books on l o a n t o 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 I p , f o r a d v i c e on s t r a t e g y o f r e s e a r c h , and h e l p on how t o 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 seductive multiheaded being which, i n s p i t e of l e n g t h y d i s c o u r s e and many d i s a g r e e m e n t s , s p u r t e d o u t t h o u s a n d s o f w o r d s when t i c k l e d . To a l l t h o s e who had p i t y on me, c u r s e d me, were patient with me, o r i n any o t h e r way u r g e d me t o f u l f i l l t h i s g o a l , thank you! I hope I c a n r e t u r n t h e f a v o u r . My f i n a l n o t e o f g r a t i d u d e goes t o somebody whom I think would p r e f e r t o r e m a i n unnamed. Her p a t i e n c e and u n d e r s t a n d i n g e x t e n d e d t h e l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s f a r beyond t h e c o n f i n e s of this academic excercise. By making me aware o f 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 t h e development of this research, c o u l d be a v o i d e d .  Vancouver, J a n u a r y , 1978.  1  INTBODUCTION  "Re r e a l l y h e l p when we c r e a t e t h e p r o p e r not when we impose o u r p l a n s on o t h e r s " . (Doxiadis)  The subject  concept o f of  described  study  privacy  sociological  and  and  subject  philosophy, discovery 1974).  has  discussion  a political (Holfe been  by t h e s o c i a l  per  environment. on  complex. in  proposing  se,  as  It  and L a u f e r ,  1974).  extensively  especially  in  thoeries  as  a  others  a s an  long  time  i n the spheres of  i t s importance,  empirical  recent  research  its  (Berardo, done  on  the sphere of the r e s i d e n t i a l  Most o f t h e work on t h i s s u b j e c t new  the  Seme have  others  For a  s c i e n t i s t has been v e r y little  been  many f i e l d s .  phenomenon and s t i l l  treated  yet  has  phenomenon,  p o l i t i c s and l a w , b u t d e s p i t e  There i s  privacy  is  as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l  e c o n o m i c phenomenon the  privacy  f r a m e s f o r a c t i o n , and  and c o n c e p t u a l  has  concentrated  frameworks  (AItman,  1S75)  Although  privacy  i s u n i v e r s a l , each c u l t u r e  has  i t s own  2  Introduction  ways  of c o n t r o l l i n g  1970;  Altaian, 1975).  value  privacy  1S70).  This  increased  s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n (Marshall, People  Westin,  i n western s o c i e t y today,  more t h a n t h e y  d i d , say,  a century  need f o r more p r i v a c y m i g h t be accessibility  1970;  to  the  the  ago  seem  (Marshall,  result  individual*s  to  of  inner  an  life.  D e v e l o p m e n t s i n t e c h n o l o g y 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 contraptions, and  thus  Chapman, 1971;  urban c e n t r e s  making p r i v a c y Westin,  i n t e r a c t i o n , and  and  the  the  increases  resources private  commodities they  have a l w a y s been and  population.  (Freedman,  sector  to  i s being  townhouses  useless  to  stay.  The  designing  provide built  in population  for social  in  contact  the  need  for retreat  are  able  to  argue a g a i n s t  i n the  higher  (Festinger,  1951).  built  Higher  communities In  t o house  density  the  206  housing form  Canada,  architect/planner, whole  a l w a y s be  f o r c i n g both more  (Statistics  will  1975:  ( p r i m a r i l y land) are  More h o u s i n g  being  opportunity  consequently  nature of the  urban c e n t r e s  is  increase  (Pennock  control cf i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  By  and  The  also o f f e r s greater  and  the  1970).  a s c a r c e r commodity  seg.).  the  public  at higher  of p r o j e c t 1975).  rather  has  It  seem t o  and  the  therefore  with  us  to  i n terms  individual  meantime accommodation o f  does not  limited  densities.  is  to t h i n k  than  for  developments  d e n s i t i e s - they are then  magnet  et  a somewhat r e l u c t a n t  housing  a  provide,  of  homes  this  kind  resident.  be  acceptable  to  3  Introduction  the  present  family the  generation  detached  high c o s t  otherwise.  of  dwellers.  dwelling i s s t i l l  of t h i s  environments  housing frames  a distinctive  might  stress  a l t e r n a t i v e s may  possibly  force  of  would  make  this  shed  some  light  which  (Dubos, new  single  seduction,  p r o c e s s , o f a d a p t a t i o n t o new cause  mind,  of a  type of housing i s c o n s t r a i n i n g  While t h i s  living  Ownership  but  1  them t o  high  density  1965), l a c k  behaviours,  new  way  do  of and  of l i f e  more  a c c e p t a b l e to the u s e r s . ?  T h i s work t r i e s towards the  privacy  territory  selected shown t h a t spaces  c h o i c e o f an  spaces  house  study.  A  with  A specific  private  outdoor  concerned  communal  outdoor  the  attitudes  space space  within -  was  p r e v i o u s review o f the l i t e r a t u r e  space  between in  buildings,  this  field  open for  with  spaces study  with very l i t t l e  The  deficiency  in  private  {Cooper,  stemmed  planned  i s lacking.  w r i t t e n by a r c h i t e c t s  1972)  -  cn  outdoor  1975).  from  a  The wider  and  reference  cannot  unit  Most s t u d i e s o f t h i s  designers to  (Katz,  1966;  Lynch,  Perhaps  i s g e n e r a t e d by a p e r c e i v e d s u f f o c a t i o n  modern day  desire urban  trees  l i v i n g , o r from t h e  and  green  p e o p l e seem t o  with  this  kind  behaviour.f  be j u s t i f i e d , as most the  of  developments.  want t o be i n t i m a t e  to  has  i n t h e 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  Research are  the  r e s i d e n t s a r e more  than  interest  i n townhouse p r o j e c t s .  of  for  to  open  psychological,  spaces.  i f  due not  Introduction  the  4  physical  c o n s c i o u s n e s s of a d e t r i m e n t a l environment,  f e a r s a r e not unfounded, have  been  linked  pollution is  which  proximity  of  a t both  1970).  removing  Suburbia,  fails  with c e r t a i n  (Wohlwill,  gradually  f o r the incidence of  was  city  (Chermayeff  s p r a w l and growth  wilderness  intended living  diseases  environmental c o n d i t i o n s such as  urban  the  certain  whose  as  a  of  from t h e c i t y  compromise  and t h e low d e n s i t y  and A l e x a n d e r ,  cities  dweller.  between  of r u r a l  the  living,  196 3 ) .  i  Various contributor  authors to  uphold  personal  about  Lynch,  1969).  or materially  satisfaction predisposed outdoors  that to  is  The  i t brings  this of  i f  opportunity  romantic  s t e e l and  The  emotion  mental  from  paying  o f open  study  designer  a  large  relaxation can  and  attention  aid in Smith,  be  may  minority  and  obtained  the  from  be the  a  Whether remnants  environment  the  The  a change i n  researcher to  bring  health. people  i n a hard i n d u s t r i a l i z e d  the  implications  an  may n o t by i t s e l f  because  For  important  1967;  d e s i r e o f t h e human b e i n g o r  concrete,  exhonerated  occurs  enjoyment  as  (Hoffman,  outdoors  for  an  one i s p r e d i s p o s e d t o do s o {Gans, 1 9 6 8 ) .  i s a primordial a  life  enjoyment.  s u r r o u n d i n g s , b u t a s much backyard  of  as  i.e.,  a i d i n b r i n g i n g about  such  an  space  development,  c o m p r e h e n d i n g t h e phenomenon Downer,  open  cannot  of be  behavioural  space.  presented here s e t s out t o i n v e s t i g a t e  resident  Introduction  awareness  and  5  perceptions  which a r e c a r r i e d housing  projects.  of  privacy  out i n p r i v a t e outdoor spaces, i n 50  respondents  from  p r o j e c t s i n the Champlain H e i g h t s area were  interviewed  about  specific  states of privacy  relation  to eleven  outdoors.  f o r various  activity  The r e s u l t s  their  are d i s c u s s e d  Recommendations a r e s u b m i t t e d  which c o u l d  i n chapter  i n Chapter  6.,  of  towards  p r i v a t e outdoor  categories  multifamily  medium  of the C i t y  attitudes  in their  two  activities  density Vancouver  four  very  spaces,  in  be c a r r i e d  on  U and c h a p t e r  5.  Introduction  6  Footnotes  *In Southview Gardens, one o f t h e p r o j e c t s s e l e c t e d f o r s t u d y , most r e s i d e n t s moved i n t o t h e i r own home. Few residents i n the p r o j e c t expressed a d e s i r e t o s t a y i n t h e townhouses. In an i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e manager o f S o u t h v i e w G a r d e n s , she suggested that the residents were understanding that townhouse l i v i n g g e n e r a t e d a d i f f e r e n t l i f e s t y l e , and t h a t t h e y had r e a c t e d p o s i t i v e l y t o i t . In spite of this 2-3 families moved o u t o f t h e p r o j e c t every, month, b u t t h e u n i t s were n e v e r vacant.: Names on t h e w a i t i n g l i s t a r e n e v e r s c a r c e and people wereprepared t o wait f o r months i n an attempt t o g e t i n . Probably they were after t h e cheap rent rather than the lifestyle. 2  This theme was e x p l o r e d i n an u n p u b l i s h e d t e r m p a p e r by the author. Gutman (1966) s t i l l seems t o be t h e o n l y researcher 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 o t h e r s d e a l w i t h town c e n t r e s r a t h e r t h a n planned unit developments. Usually information o f 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 t h e s e a r e very d i f f i c u l t to f i n d . 3  7  • PRIVACY  "A large share o f man's a c t i v i t i e s are s o c i a l , u l t i m a t e l y , however p r a c t i c a l and o u t g o i n g , have t h e i r privacy. " ( C h e r m a y e f f and A l e x a n d e r , 196 3: 16)  The to  dc w i t h  units,  concept o f p r i v a c y more  out.  could relate  tangible the  (Konvitz,  s e l f so a s t o  dwelling  is  to  offer  an  i n s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l terms.  between  an  Socrates,  " b o t t o m s up", made a d i s t i n c t i o n others  between  of Privacy  distinction  been p o i n t e d  spacing  The aim o f t h i s c h a p t e r  o f t h e concept  Definitions  The  minimum  environment has  o f d o o r s and windows, o r t h e p r o v i s i o n o f  and b a r r i e r s .  interpretation  long  just  or the position  screens  1.1  than  i n the r e s i d e n t i a l  but they source i n  inner  before  include  that  last  s e l f has  and  famous  between h i s body, t h r o u g h  t o him, and t h e 1966).  and an o u t e r  James  "himself",  (1890)  objects,  placed  possessions  which  was  which not  t h e boundary o f and  abstract  Chapter  1:  Privacy  concepts.*  Locke  the  meaning o f t h e  Locke's  view,  all  he  that  included  8  (192.) p r o p o s e d a s i m i l a r n o t i o n self  " . . .  makes a r e  i n the  Privacy  to i n c l u d e  self  has  a l l that part  of  others.  I t i s not  only  s t a t e of  mind, b u t  involves  is  self  and  non-self.  personality, for a  continuous  state  of  Privacy self-boundary  boundary i s s e t  as  part  of the  intimacy  It  self,  two  conflict,  flux,  In  aids  they  calm  are  about.  self  and  and  serene  boundary o f  the  and  and  A l l p o r t (1961)  2  feels strongly  over the  what  development  values,  as  though they  a  of  basis  may  be  in  essential to establish  1971).  is  intended  1 9 7 0 ) , once i t has what i t i n c l u d e s  d e p e n d s on  of person  defend  the  been d e f i n e d .  Where  (objects, spaces  etc.)  f a c t o r s such  (Sommer, 1969)  to  and  the  as  culture  (Ball,  number o f  people  with.  is difficult  privacy. under  and  one  some norms and  behaviour  (Marshall,  the  interacted  process  (Simmel,  oriented  1  b o u n d a r y between t h e  a conflict  simplify this  possessions.  person. *  commonly a c c e p t e d  This  boundaries f o r privacy  1966)  the  s o c i e t y provides  rules that  that  with the  and  extended  ( t h e i n d i v i d u a l ) becomes,  h i s own  those things  t o do  property  and  The  tc find  d e f i n i t i o n s given  categories.  w i t h d r a w a l and  one  One  a l l encompassing  i n the  literature  group p l a c e s  o v e r a l l avoidance  of  definition seem  e m p h a s i s on  interaction  to  of  fall  seclusion,  with  others.  Chapter  The  1: P r i v a c y  second  ccntrcl to  9  group  puts l e s s  over i n t e r a c t i o n ,  others  and  on  e m p h a s i s on the  on t h e f r e e d o m  opening  d e t a c h m e n t and and  closing  mere on  o f the  self  of choice of i n t e r a c t i o n  (Altaian,  notion generated  mind  1975).  1.1.1  P r i v a c y as  Withdrawal  T h i s i s t h e more p o p u l a r laymen.  Many a u t h o r s s u p p o r t t h i s  i n the  of  concept.  "privacy . . . as a f r e e d o m 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 t h e s e a r e n o t d e s i r e d . " (Halmos, 1952) "privacy . . . withdrawal." ( S c h w a r t z , 196 8) " . . . by o t h e r (Pullen,  a highly  desirable people." 1965)  institutionalized  withdrawal  from  stimuli  form  of  presented  "an outcome of a person's wish t o w i t h o l d from o t h e r s c e r t a i n knowledge a s t o h i s p a s t and present experience and a c t i o n and i n t e n t i o n f o r t h e 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 perceptions and b e l i e f s v i s a v i s t h e s e l f c o n c e a l i n g p e r s o n . " (Jcurard,  The  1966)3  importance  essential  of  feature  0 s m c n d ( 1 9 5 7 ) * and  Privacy display, the of  of  but t h i s  extreme, autism,  providing of  mental  s a n c t u a r i e s f o r withdrawal therapy  has  been  as  suggested  an by  J o u r a r d (1966). ;  this  nature can  i s quite rare  retreat  takes  the  where t h e i n d i v i d u a l  a l s o be o b t a i n e d by  i n humans form i s so  (Sommer,  offensive  1969).  of the p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a r removed  from  the  At state real  Chapter  1:  Privacy  world,  that  integration  1.1.2  insufficient and  Privacy  Eecent on  as  and  to  more on  to  one  oyer  the  functional  as  as  to  control -  the  pursue i n t e r a c t i o n . . . or  the  concerning  has  describe  three  Wolfe  (1973),  "  public."  to oneself  to  oneself  and  others.  Proshansky  and  when  and  1975).  private  distraction), way  and  claim  about  . . .  the  of  them  is  right  . . .  Westin  (1974) d e f i n e  where, how  or t o one*s group.  simply  and  to  decide  to  for  what  himself to  (1970) as  as a s e l e c t i v e c o n t r o l o f Marshall  or  that"the  be r e v e a l e d  Sivlin  or  defines  groups,  communicated", so  P r o s h a n s k y and  privacy  cr  (1970)  individuals,  c n what t e r m s h i s a c t s s h o u l d Ittleson,  not,  c o n t r o l over s t i m u l a t i o n  privacy i s achieved. the  or  e i t h e r f o r p r o t e c t i v e reasons  determine f o r themselves  when and  Altman  self  (Altman,  " . . . to  emphasis  wishes t o d i s c l o s e about o n e s e l f  information  individual  general  theme o f p e r s o n a l  b o u n d a r y between t h e  choice  less  much  (e.g.,  institutions  . .  privacy place  i n f o r m a t i o n ) , enhancement o f t h e s e l f  over the  privacy  1971).  how  access  (concealment of  .  (Simmel,  o f c o n t r o l : c o n t r o l o v e r c h o i c e t o be  control  extent  the  pursue or not  regulate  Laufer,  control  into society  c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s on  They s t r e s s freedom o f  aspects  damages h i s p e r s o n a l i t y o r i t s  Personal^Control  freedom o f c h o i c e  information  contact  adaptation  detachment  ability  10  (1970) d e f i n e s i t  the well  access as  a  Chapter  1: P r i v a c y  control  over  11  the  timing  and  nature  o f ; one's c o n t a c t s with  others.  Kelvin  (1973)  independence  and  o n e ' s own a c t i o n s reduces totally  freedom  a  Very  low  levels  behaviour  it the the  a  allows this short  e x c e r c i s e o f freedom.  (1974)  designed  o v e r outcomes. in itself  satisfy  concern  concerning the a b i l i t y  primarily  1966?).  For  can  Kelvin,  c o n t a c t and  be  perceived  to  long  of privacy t o choose  privacy  in  1948).  as  a  seccjridaxj c c n t r o l  establish  and  does  need, b u t f a c i l i t a t e s t h e Johnson  i s behaviour a  and  describes  i t i s a means t o an e n d ,  argues that the  selection  behavioural  ccntrol.  strategy  from  an outcome.  a l l acts of privacy  particularly  and  can r e s u l t i n  and Werk,  among v a r i o u s o p t i o n s i n o r d e r t o a t t a i n  to induce s t r e s s ,  others,  (Mowrier  any f u n d a m e n t a l  He a l s o s u g g e s t s t h a t  control  Power o v e r  b e h a v i o u r seems t o r e d u c e  outcomes and a t t a i n m e n t o f o t h e r n e e d s . fundamental  to  Both i n the  over  defintionss  Consequently  by o t h e r s .  i f privacy  s t r e s s f u l responses t o s i t u a t i o n s  behaviour,  not  of  individual  ( r a t h e r than as n o n - i n t e r a c t i o n )  run, personal c o n t r o l  Johnson's  of  i t deprives social  of action  of i n t e r a c t i o n  terms  vulnerable  (Bichter,  negative state;  low l e v e l  in  control  less  c o n s e q u e n t l y - t h e freedom as  from  one  maladaptive i s  privacy  makes  stress.  isolation  views  have a p o t e n t i a l  during the s e l e c t i o n o f the r i g h t  Chapter  1:  Privacy  strategy,  as  12  the  i n d i v i d u a l may  be The  outcomes  of  equal  importance.  adequacy  of  one's  state  outcome, and right  a l l general  behaviour are  outcome o f  an  of  and  with  options  and  about  the  i n pursuing  an  uncertainty  privacy  behaviour  incompatibilities i n selection  likely  event  presented  of  to produce s t r e s s . the  right  of  Certainty  behavioural  the  cf  the  strategy  has  minimal p o t e n t i a l f o r s t r e s s .  It of  i s very  privacy  current  i s ideal.  between  a  privacy  as  one's n e e d s a r e  seems t o be  privacy  arises  improve privacy  the and  out and  situation.  a need can  requiring  a  new  the  only set  an  various  The  satisfied,  incongruence  needs t h a t  states  d e g r e e of  be  assessed of  the  most s a t i s f a c t o r y .  of  the  state  have  might  not  f i t between as  scon  strategies  as  arises  1974).  Functions  All territorial limit  long  a s s e s s whether o n e ' s c u r r e n t  Hore complex f o r m s o f  situation  {Johnson,  1.2  cf  to  s t a t e s * of privacy  satisfied.  state new  with  various  neccessarily the  As  condition of  Dissatisfaction  t o be  difficult  of  Privacy  definitions claim  a c c e s s by  of  around  others.  In  privacy  suggest  the  with  an  self  a  boundary;  o w n e r s h i p and  individualistic  society  right (like  a to the  Chapter  North in  1: P r i v a c y  American  a society  situations meaning  society),  notions of privacy  The  1971).  Privacy man's  acquires  more i m p o r t a n c e t h a n  inteqrated.  In  the  and b o u n d a r i e s t a k e on a  Nevertheless  differences  mechanisms u t i l i z e d  in  the self  which i s more s o c i a l l y  (Simmel,  cultures.  13  privacy  latter  different  exists  ina l l  l i e i n i t s m a n i f e s t a t i o n s and t h e  t o a c h i e v e i t (Altman,1975).  as i t i s p e r c e i v e d today i s a very  development.  In  North  America  modern  the  concept  individual i s  b r o u g h t up t o c h e r i s h  individuality  by  h i s own room when he i s young t o t h e l a t e r  the  desire  stage of planning emphasis  for  h i s own  on one's r o l e  life.  and f r e e d o m , a s  Other  as a part  and  behaviour patterns of t h e i r  this  influence  attraction  (and  which i t s a t i s f i e s t h e i r argue that on  the  group.  development  exchange Personality  reflectinq  members.  information  i s viewed  extent  exerted,  opinions to  depends  intimacy  1951) .  o f an  which  on  the  as  of  Separation  Psychologists  individual  with the other  by some  an i n d i v i d u a l b e i n g , p h y s i c a l l y  1971).  (Westin, 1970).  The  (Festinger,  of personality  1973).  more  on i t s members, and on t h e e x t e n t t o  needs  differential  ( A l t m a n and T a y l o r , of  of  place  on t h e a t t i t u d e s ,  change); v i s  the qroup e x e r t s  societies  of t h e group  S o c i a l g r o u p s have an i n f l u e n c e  exemplified  a  members o f t h e  series  cf  accessibility  layers  to ethers  allows the self-awareness  and p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  Major d e v e l o p m e n t a l t h e o r i s t s  depends  argue t h a t  (Simmel,  t h e development  Chapter  1: P r i v a c y  of  the s e l f  the  social  i s t h e process  that  acquires  There  uniquely  life.  of separation  and p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t  Privacy groups.  14  is  of the i n d i v i d u a l from  (Laufer  e t a l , 1974).  i t s meaning f r o m t h e e x i s t e n c e  no  group, with  the exception  c o n t r i b u t e s t o every aspect  of  example o f i n v o l u n t a r y residential  associations..  environment,  meaning, as t h e c h o i c e varying  degrees  community.  The f a m i l y  the  context  associations  associations  contact  more  interaction  with  inteqration  between  personality  others into  does  the  net  social  development,  but  i t i s the p o s s i b i l i t y  The  possibility  r e t r e a t makes t h e i n d i v i u a l  of  to achieve  t h e q r o u p upon h i s r e t u r n  r e t r e a t preserves termination  Privacy individual society  more  create t h e new  a  means  distinctiveness  (Simmel,  this  to i t . , Besides  1971).  interactions  of  without  being  feeling.  more e f f e c t i v e the p o s s i b i l i t y  arise,  (Schwartz,  avoiding  of retreat  positive  t h e g r o u p when c o n f l i c t s  of negative  i s  Repeated  i n d i v i d u a l s may c a u s e p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n s and  helps  the  the  neccessarily  group.*  i n t e r a c t i o n that  of  of  will  within  from  within  i s an  acquire  of the individual's dwelling involuntary  individual's  7  Frequent engender  of  voluntary  In  social  of the family  the  Membership t o most g r o u p s i s v o l u n t a r y .  of  by a l l o w i n g 1968).  conflicts  between  o s t r a c i z e d f o r i t by  P e o p l e need t o d i s c l o s e t h e m s e l v e s  for  Cha pter 1: P r i v a c y  15  t h e i r own good, but they a l s o r e q u i r e p r i v a t e places i f they are t o maintain In  these  psychological, physical  or  from s o c i e t y . no  and  conforming  It in  1971).  there  is  The i n d i v i d u a l  provide  relief  from  f o r development of i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s  allows  the  standards  with  (Pennock, 1971). stem  (Jourard,  f o r p r i v a c y appears t o  opportunity  with others.  actions  well-being.  Where t h e r e i s no p r i v a c y  individuality  c o n t r o l foundation tension  spiritual  places the i n d i v i d u a l can be as he l i k e s without f e a r  of s a n c t i o n s little  and  performance  of  activities  not  the s o c i a l groups we p e r t a i n to  I t i s e q u a l l y important that the i n d i v i d u a l ' s  from  a concern embedded i n s o c i e t y ' 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 p e r s o n a l i t y of individual  is  essential  to  the  i n d i v i d u a l ' s d e f i n i t i o n of h i m s e l f how s o c i e t y d e f i n e s him (Simmel,  The  built  environment  association patterns 1968), 1967,  in  eventually  society.  becomes  will  assist  can  modify qroup i n t e r a c t i o n and 1950;  Whyte,  1956;  I n d i r e c t l y t h e manipulation or  hinder  a i d i n g or o b s t r u c t i n g i n t e r a c t i o n . isolate  an  individual  from  of  1971).  (Festinger,  1968; Cooper, 1975).  The  part  but i t i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y that i t determines them  environment  to  order  Holler, (Gans, of  the  p e r s o n a l i t y development by  &ny environment others  that  tries  may induce s t r e s s t h a t  would l e a d t o d i s t i n g u i s h e d p e r s o n a l i t y changes  Altman d e f i n e s three f u n c t i o n s o f p r i v a c y .  (Schorr,  1963).  P r i v a c y has an  Chapter  1:  Privacy  i n t erp.gr son a 1  16  function:  knowledge  limitations allows clearer an  interface  between  the  important  functions  and  assessment  the  of  defintion  the s e l f  one's  of the s e l f .  and o t h e r s .  of interpersonal  of behaviour  presence o f others.'!  gives  Definitions  o f o u r s e l v e s and o u r f e e l i n g s  comparison  with  Altman*s f u n c t i o n s  is  establishment  a  "  . . .  of  is  a  function, (Bates, finds  last  only but  definition  self-identity.  of  1964; S c h w a r t z ,  relationships  as  relationships.  take  meaning  most the  the  latter  subject  and  object.  Besides  self  This  expressed  aside  by  the  allows evaluate  the  above  helps  of current  description  only  to privacy  manifested  in  and While  determine  future  situations involves  i n relation-to the  self,  as  self-evaluation,  functions  t h e form  life  1970).  and the  second  "off-stage"  his social  (Westin,  p e r s o n a l autonomy  is  and  and  Here t h e i n d i v i d u a l goes  described  Westin(1970) a t t r i b u t e s  by  important of  Self-observation  release  by a s s e s s m e n t  others,  than  1968), l a y s  emotional  f o r the  a r e out o f t h e presence o f o t h e r s . "  statement  self-evaluation.  self-evaluation  playing  the  when t h e y  broader  an  release.  The  1 0  f o r future  plans  when n o t i n  space  t h e i n d i v i d u a l or group t o see, d e s c r i b e  themselves u s u a l l y This  experiences  provides  roles,  breathing  to  and  i t serves  9  strategy  individual  others.  It  i n r e l a t i o n to others,  It  evaluate  capabilites  of  emotional  cf relaxation  s o c i a l r c l e s - and l i m i t e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n  either  from  to share  Chapter  1:  Privacy  confidences  17  and i n t i m a c i e s  communication  Proshansky  characteristics  of  helps  each the  abilities, and  . . .  the  is a  mutual  are  as l o n g  agreement  as i t i s  to  respect  as  others.  they  Privacy  argue  that  also  has  privacy  change w i t h t i m e .  In t h e i r  They s u g g e s t  demands  biography-history  a need  concept  to exert  and  increase  control  behaviour"  of privacy.  t h e C Q n & y g l dimension  that  over  . . .  (p. 3 6 0 ) ,  Control  positions  which  demand  others  unit.  The a b i l i t y (Schwartz,  i s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n ,  privacy. allowed  different  i s a sign of ranking  Individuals  invasion  self,  is a critical  objects, element i n with  I n s t i t u t i o n s tend to to  status,  class  l e v e l s of c o n t r o l t o invade the 1968).  over  privacy  The l o w e r t h e  the l e s s h i s c o n t r o l over h i s  i n higher  of the p r i v a c y  are  of privacy,  t e n d s t o g e t more c o m p l e x  i n size of the s o c i a l  a  needs,  the future e f f e c t s of manipulation o f information  individual own  authors  I t i s a " c o n t r o l " over information i n  e x p e r i e n c e s and i n f o r m a t i o n . of  seven  d i m e n s i o n and  other  generate h i e r a r c h i e s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s leading and  categorize  self-ego  reiterate  public.  e x p e r i e n c e s and d e s i r e s a s w e l l a s s o c i e t y ' s  information the  privacy  dimension  considered. "  (1973)  In t h e i r  they  aloneness.  expectations  dimensign  and t h e most  Holfe  process of i n t e r a c t i n g with  life-cycle •  or t o s e t boundaries f o r  t h e development o f the s e l f >  and t h a t  other's  and  privacy.  interactional-dimension  volitional  others  between t h e most i n t i m a t e  Laufer,  withdrawal  with  ranks of the o r g a n i z a t i o n  of their  dependents, but the  18  Chapter  1:  reverse  i s not t h e case.  An negative  Privacy  increase  the  size  or p o s i t i v e p r i v a c y  organization. luxury  in  This  of  controls,  society  has  the  group  a m p l i f i e s the  d e p e n d i n g on r a n k i n  always  considered  and i t s a t t a i n m e n t a mark c f s t a t u s ,  both  the  privacy a  socially  and  physically.  Laufer  et  al  f e c c l p g i c a1-c u l t u r a 1 dimension)  by  also  nature,  people  to  (ritual  privacy  dimension).  perform  summary, p r i v a c y  consideration  of of  privacy  provide  individual and  these  provides  actions a  character.  buffer  restore self-esteem  from  I t can  permittinq  rehersal  al,  The c o n t r o l , t h a t  helps  diqnity  t o protect  areas  self-assessnent, actions  1968).  protect  and n u r t u r e ,  the  Moreover  pressures  (Altman,  o f p u b l i c s i t u a t i o n s beforehand  and  and  cn t h e  the  self  m i s t a k e s which would be damaqinq o r  to the i n d i v i d u a l o r the qroup  self-respect,  i n non-public  between s o c i a l  humiliatinq  1973).  also  future  (Schwartz,  and h i s r e s p o n s e t o them.  b e h a v i o u r s and may  a pause f o r for  settings  (task-o r i enta t l o n  Society  certain rituals  alternatives  consequences can  some p h y s i c a l  evoke and s u s t a i n  are private i n  expect  In  that  d i m e n s i o n ) and some t a s k s  their  experiences that  suggest  i t  allows  authenticity  appears  1976),  (Laufer e t  essential  (Pennock,  o r t o e n h a n c e and e x t e n d  by  1971). the  to It self  Chapter  1:  {Laufer or  19  Privacy  e t a l , 1973).  experiences i n  public  life  by  and  the  enabling  the  enactment  Mechanisms o f  define  (Marshall,  detract  privacy  from  Privacy environment  can or  SllJrilisciosure thoughts 1972).  and The  behaviours 1975).  specific the  ether  as  No  the  Taylor,  be  are  and  for these  mechanism a c t s a  1973;  1976)  Altman,  by  information  about  take the  to  self,  to  by  One  exposure  of  oneself of  state  of  either  the  can one's  about  their  interests,  work,  than  Social distancing  that  verbal  or  people tend  a t t i t u d e s and about  (Marshall,  lijit beliefs,  (Marshall,  opinions,  1970;  non-verbal  h e a d / e y e m o t i o n s o r hand g e s t u r e s ) discovered  exclude and  derived  i t .  form  and  itself,  manipulating  in  tie  intended  sometimes  achievment o f  limiting  more i n f o r m a t i o n  body.  one  position  jourard(1966)  and  preparation  access t o the  include  controlled  mechanisms may (such  degree of  1972).  one's by  goods  or r e h e r s a l o f  mechanisms t h a t  sometimes  or a i d  (Altman and  physical  of  others.  over  i t s l i m i t s to  others all  control  consumption  Privacy  Humans u t i l i z e maintain  enables the  secret,  b e h a v i o u r s , away from  1.3  It also  to  (Altman, disclose  tastes  money, p e r s o n a l i t y o r 1970;  West i n ,  1970)  and their  creates  Chapter  norms  20  1: P r i v a c y  and  rituals  by which p e o p l e c a n communicate.  t a k e t h e form o f f a m i l y certain  rituals  access  to  develop  t o keep a b a l a n c e o f  public  domains.  as s o c i e t i e s Westin an  rooms.  (1972)  me  a l o n e " as r e f l e c t e d curtains  gain  may  their  between vary  own  private  physical  and so o n .  meaning  i n f l u e n c e d by 1965).  and the  cultural  • mechanisms.-  A m e r i c a n s t e n d t o have doors  barriers  such  open,  of "leave as  closed  P s y c h o l o g i c a l b a r r i e r s c a n be  effectiveness individual's  Anonymity i s s u g g e s t e d  way  of achieving privacy.  a  crowd.  Urban  of  mental  previous by M a r s h a l l  tend  to  1.3.1  (Bott,  Environmental  human  pertinent  spatial  (Pullen, possible  of being l o s t  their  be  in  continuous  privacy  than  1957).  Mechanisms  Environmental most  state. will  (1970) a s a  experience  a n o n y m i t y , b u t a r e more c a p a b l e o f r e t a i n i n g rural families  images  experience  This i s the f e e l i n g  families  and  with the c u l t u r e ,  recognize the u n i v e r s a l i t y  by  rituals  up t o m a i n t a i n p r i v a c y i n a c o n s c i o u s or u n c o n s c i o u s  The  the  or  bathroom  t o w a r d s s e p a r a t i o n by l e a v i n g  Altman and L e t t  set  interaction  f o r i n s t a n c e , notes t h a t  but  drawn  the  sight  Goffman (1963) e x p l a i n s how  develop  informal attitude  doors,  use  P r i v a c y mechanisms  tend t o  (1970),  to  This  mechanisms to t h i s  experience  Various environmental  work. is  devices  a r e t h e most o b v i o u s Canter  (1975)  essentially may  be  and  perhaps  suggests  that  a quest f o r p r i v a c y .  utilized:  clothes  and  1:  Chapter  adornment  (Altman,  A l t m a n and 1969)  1975),  L e t t , 1972),  and  1973).  21  Privacy  a mechanism  barriers  physical distancing  territoriality  Time, a l t h o u g h  physical  (flarshall,  not  (Scarth,  (Hall,  1970;  1964;  1966;  Scmraer,  Altman and  Taylor,  a t a n g i b l e e l e m e n t may  a l s o serve  as  been u n d e r t a k e n r e g a r d i n g  the  ( P u l l e n , 1965).,  Phy sic.a 1 D i s t a n c i n g  A  fair  role of  Personal  resulting an  from the  area  with  Personal  space  an  a  4  to  in  a  between  piece of  itself  with  and  18  the  distance  It refers  the  person's  (Sommer, 1969:  territory,  and  usually  on  proxemics d e s c r i b e d An  inches,  a  zone  personal  or b u b b l e t h a t  ethers")  ("a  intimacy  ranging  an  from  zone, f o r d i s t a n c e s  ranging greater  four  ranges  distance organism 18  inches  psychological distance  beyond  a n x i o u s a b o u t b e c a u s e o f a need  others")  26).  region.  intimacy.  to  phrase,  i n t o proxemics.  come.V  p r o t e c t i v e sphere  organism f e e l s  contact  fioblic  small  feet, a social  which t h e  not  between  invoked  boundary s u r r o u n d i n g  portable  degrees of  interaction  freguently  research  geographical  varying  _.v.  maintains  a  i n t r u d e r may  from a c t u a l body c o n t a c t .  is  H a l l ' s much g u o t e d s t u d y  zones with  ("  regulating  invisible  is  to a f i x e d  E.T.  space  increased  body i n t o which t h e  applies  o f work h a s  physical distancing in  species.  "to  amount  from than  4 f e e t to 12  feet.  12  feet  Hall  to and  be a  (1966)  Chapter  1:  22  Privacy  emphasizes  that  communication different  distance  that  by i t s e l f  i s made p o s s i b l e a t  theoretical  frameworks  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 done on e a c h t o a l l o w  The  use  individual factors), (e.g., the  of  space  been  but not  (e.g.,  age,  relations  1 2  seems  to  believe  distance  witnessed  that  situation  setting,  willingness  may  they have  has  arise better  1 1  cultural  Studies  There  for close  control  trend.  and  also  with a place  because  been  and s i t u a t i o n a l d e t e r m i n a n t s  interaction  experience  not  be d e t e r m i n e d by  personality,  by t h e i n d i v i d u a l .  previous  display greater  of  Many  proposed  enough  f o r m a l i t y , s t r a n g e n e s s , and l o c a t i o n ) . that  as the  distances.  t h e emergence o f one p a r t i c u l a r  interpersonal  idea  This  these have  other,  personal  factors  familiarity  to  i s not as important  depends on t h e is  will  contact  they over  feel their  support  reason  cause  people  with that  to  others. i n such a  contacts  with  Sometimes i t i s h a r d t o d i s t i n g u i s h between p e r s o n a l  space  others,  Territoriality  and  territoriality,  end,  the  defence  space i s c l o s e use other  of  places  e s p e c i a l l y when b o t h of  privacy  to the s e l f , and  are being  (Sommer,  territoriality  objects  1969).  used While  usually  i n the e n v i r o n m e n t .  p h y s i c a l e l e m e n t s c a n become • p e r s o n a l *  as  for  one  personal  involves  the  O b j e c t s and  1 3  a  result  of  Chapter  their any  1: P r i v a c y  uniqueness,  one p e r s o n .  else  23  usually  (Altman  t h e i r c o n s t a n t use o r c u l t u r a l attachment  Sharing these physical entails  and T a y l o r ,  Like  other  behaviour.  a special relationship  mechanisms,  territoriality  mechanisms  successful  these  other alternative  in controlling  with that  ,i s  time,  seriousness of t e r r i t o r i a l  to  the  method  as  i t to  upon, t h e i n t e n s i t y  (Altman,  brought  A  from  invasion  the  are  into action  variations  more  how  mechanisms  i s not r e l a t e d  All territorial  or  whole  host  to defend  less  will  of  the  v i o l a t i o n s do  mechanisms  same  (verbal,  t o t h e most a g g r e s s i v e  be r e f l e c t e d and  and  t o i n the  the t e r r i t o r y .  obvious  so  of t e r r i t o r y that i s  encroachment,  t h e most h a r m l e s s  the t e r r i t o r y invaded  that  flexible  on  o r complimentary  the type  of  f o r response.  1975).  non-verbal, etc.) are  a  depending  have t h e same meaning n o r a r e t h e y r e s p o n d e d  way  person.  interaction.,.  mechanism a v a i l a b l e  of  over  The  encroached  not  somebody  I t c a n be a d j u s t e d and r e a d j u s t e d t o c o m p l i m e n t and other  much  with  1973).  supplement  are  elements  to  in  The  the  permanent  importance  demarcations as  well  as  i n defensive aggressions.  Altman (1975)  defines  Permanent  territories  individuals  or  groups,  three are  on  a  types  controlled relatively  cf  territories.  exclusively permanent  by basis.  Chapter  1: P r i v a c y  Secondary  24  territories  some c o n t r o l , same d e g r e e  are  ownership  as p r i m a r y  and  of  partial  temporary  users  .control.  rights"  will  regulate  can  be  but  any  Given  to  of t h e i r  s h o u l d have a c l e a r  territories  almost  not  has the  Such a s i t u a t i o n c r e a t e s  one  has  a free  nature  definition  " . . .  inadequate  h e a v i l y on v e r b a l and  have  a  access  and  physical  means,  n o n - v e r b a l mechanisms t o  t h e body o f knowledqe i s discerned.  function  demarcations,  roles,  where.  (Jourard,  elements  signs are u t i l i z e d (Schwartz,  social and  very  groups.  By  providing  visible  Empirical  1 5  1968)  1966).  such  as  to protect and  how  limited,  Other  certain  b e h a v i o u r s seem t o have a  o f rooms f o r i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y  others  physical  Territorial  for  clarifying  i s d o i n g what and  importance frcm  powers  individual  interaction.  stabilizing  who  zones  Public  and  an  to the u n c e r t a i n t y  (p. 118).  rely  Although trends  due  Secondary  quality  occupancy  regulatory  territoriality.  a potential for conflict (Hewman, 1972).  p l a c e s o v e r which  setting  r e s e a r c h has  cues  clear as t o  noted  the  members f o r w i t h d r a w a l  studies  describe  how  windows, d r a p e s , d o o r s , f e n c e s and people  from  unwanted  inadequate separation  intrusion  c a n make p r i v a c y  difficult.  Chermayeff six  domains  ranging  from  or  and  Alexander  (1963) p r o p o s e  hierarchies  urban—public  of at  the  public/private one  end  of  the  existence  of  interaction, scale  to  Chapter  1:  Privacy  25  individual—private individual be  preserved.  control  a n o t h e r , and  other.  special  Therefore  need  from one  They  and  each  insulation  domain i s o f  for locks  domain  stress  q u a l i t i e s of  separation,  between e a c h  They emphasize t h e  that  domain and  extreme  barriers  the must  degree  of  importance.  f r o m one  space  to  to.another.  Summary  In  this  presented. freedom  to  chapter,  Becent  and  than  over  as  The  the  utilization  modifying  physical  physical  explains  privacy  in  terms  of  between  the  self  and  can  be  Various  usually  environment of  physical  distancing  opportunities  of  interaction  achieve t h i s c o n t r o l ,  direct  overview  withdrawal.  mechanisms.  barriers,  an  literature  control  others, rather used  the  i n t e g r i t y and  a c c e s s and  1.4  at  for  and  social  privacy  has  mechanisms  i n combination modifies factors,  with  privacy such  as  territoriality, interaction  been  ether  either  by  physical or  by  Chapter  1:  Privacy  26  Footnotes  p.  *John Locke, The Second 129, 1924, q u o t e d i n K o n v i t z 2  W. Marshall  James, The (1970) .  3  To t h e s e one (1970).  Milgram *H.  p r i n c i p l e s ; of Psychology. can  add  Osmond, " F u n c t i o n Mental Hospitals. (1975).  Ward", Altman  Treatise of C i v i l (1966): 275.  Bates as 8  (1964),  1890,  Kira  Government, quoted  ( 1 9 6 6 ) , and  the basis of a (1957): 23-30,  in S.  psychiatric quoted in  " . . . ( p r i v a c y c o n s i s t s of) . . . those behaviours which enhance and maintain, those controls over outcomes indirectly, by controllinq interactions with others." ( J o h n s o n , 1974: 9 0 ) . s  S u c h a s r e s e r v e , anonymity, about t h e s e s t a t e s of p r i v a c y 6  said  s e c l u s i o n and s o o n . i n C h a p t e r 2.  More i s  These a s s o c i a t i o n s are involuntary up to a point. A person will attempt to move into 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). I n ,most c a s e s t h e 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 v e r s u s c o n d o m i n i u m ) , b u t p r o b a b l y n o t o v e r t h e immediate n e i g h b o u r s . 7  "One study showed that 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 a s s u m i n g t h a t c l u s t e r i n g (of the housing units) increases sociability; they did 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 e n m i t y " (Dean, 1976). This names s u c h ( K i r a , 1966; 9  i s Hestin's self-evaluation. Others g i v e i t ether as reflection, interpretation, and meditation C h e r m a y e f f and A l e x a n d e r , 1963; J o u r a r d , 1966).  Social comparison theory proposed T h e o r y o f S o c i a l C o m p a r i s o n P r o c e s s " Human 117-140, q u o t e d i n A l t m a n (197 5) . 1 < J  s e e Altman frameworks,  t l  these  (1975), Chapter  by L. F e s t i n g e r , "A Relations, 7(1954):  4 for a fuller  description  of  R e l a t i o n s h i p s between p e o p l e a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h closer interpersonal distances, or s m a l l e r p e r s o n a l space 2ones. C o n v e r s e l y , people l o c a t e d at close (but net overly close) d i s t a n c e s a r e v i e w e d as h a v i n q 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). 1  Chapter  1: P r i v a c y  27  P r i v a c y r e g u l a t i o n mechanisms have a p o w e r f u l meaning i n Western C u l t u r e . Primary territories are important boundary regulation processes a n d i l l u s t r a t e t h e c l o s e l i n k a g e between privacy regulation, territory mechnanisms and self-identity." (filtman, 1975: 1 1 4 ) . 1 3  **See a l s o Lyman and S c o t t (1967) who d e f i n e 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 , t e r r i t o r i e s and body t e r r i t o r i e s .  four types of interactional  J o u r a r d (1971) also speaks of " . . . 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 society f o r people t o 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 t h e s o c i e t y a f f o r d s . " (p. 65) 1 S  28  o f  • CONCEPTUAL FRAHEWOBK  The to  the  purpose sphere  theoretical  their  study  d e s i g n , and e m p i r i c a l l y (1970),  start  from  a common  on t h e d e f i n i t i o n  t e s t the Marshall  e t a l (1970, theoretical  o f p r i v a c y as a  C o n c e p t u a l , , Framework  into  work  (1970),  although  the morality of intrusion,  nature  his  i sbuilt  of p r i v a c y  interaction.  Westin's  In  i s t o apply a concept  (1974, 1975, 1976) and A l t m a n  A l l three authors  c o n t r o l over  2.1  of residential  Altman  1973).  basis,  study  framework o f t h r e e a u t h o r s : W e s t i n  (1970, 1 9 7 2 ) , 1971,  of this  AND HYPOTHESES  of  the s t a t e  privacy.  Westin  primarily  devotes  dissects  the f i r s t  and  conscious  states,  chapter  privacy into  of Solitude, the individual  material  an i n v e s t i g a t i o n  four  tc the states.  deems h i m s e l f a l o n e , i n  although  u n c o n s c i o u s l y he  Chapter  2:  Hypotheses  29  might be o b s e r v e d , o r might be i n beings.  In  this  comiRunication. can  state  This  be a c h i e v e d  The  that  and  two  or  feeling  o f being  people.  The  thought point states,  a  close,  more  small  lost  being  entails  against  can  " . . .  in  Marshall  achieved  variables relating statistical  that  the  of a small  social  s e c l u s i o n so  frank  relationship  Anonymity  of  a  the  unit  i s the  multitude  i n action,  group last  of  t o the  o f westin*s  with  Again t h i s  state  intimacy,  are  involves far  more  two s t a t e s .  1972)  derived  t o various  s i x components o f p r i v a c y .  and t h e i r  preferences  Preference  factorial  -  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  about t h e i r  made up t h e P r i v a c y  hand,  i s t h e r e f o r e two.  by c o n f o r m i n g  Reserve,  involved c o l l e g e students  interviewed  others  h i srespective social  and t o g e t h e r  (1970,  from  and  that  on t h e o t h e r  state  spite  unwanted i n t r u s i o n " (p. 3 2 ) .  common t h a n t h e e t h e r  indicated  be  camouflaged.  the i n d i v i d u a l ,  study  relaxed  ether  and o b j e c t o f  to exercise corporate  i n a crowd  state  group this  with  s t a t e o f privacy  i n d i v i d u a l s " (p. 2 2 ) .  and b e h a v i o u r w i t h of  i s the subject  a c t i n g as p a r t  i s allowed  i t may a c h i e v e  between  Her  of a  number t h a t c a n e x p e r i e n c e  claims  union  by any i n d i v i d u a l . ; I n t i m a c y  individual i s " . . .  that  only  the self  i s t h e most c o m p l e t e  involves the separation minimum  spiritual  Scale,  parents,  f o r privacy. consisting  who  The of  a  questions s e t of  f a c t o r s conducive to privacy.  r o t a t i o n t h a t was a p p l i e d  t h e i t e m s on t h i s  s c a l e loaded  to  the  were  The  results  on s i x s u b s c a l e s , ;  Chapter  all  2:  Hypotheses  o f which a p p e a r e d  30  both  on  the  adult  and  on  the  student  was  largely  samples.  The  first  subscale,  concerned  with  intimate  friends or family)"  on  f o r units greater  the Sot-Neighbouring  the  tendency  warning,  by  choosing . . .  cut  either  a  o f sound  or  dealt  than  preference  " . . .  for  Solitude  also  with  to  neighbour  reflected  and  others.  t o t h e a n o n y m i t y o f urban  to  disclose  subscales  were  (Solitude  and  (Intimacy)  and  much  ( M a r s h a l l , 1972) d e a l t about  generally Seclusion), disclosure  oneself  to  characterized size  and  Anonymity  t o Westin's  of  'lost  with  placing i t to  a d e s i r e t o be a l o n e ,  effect,  not  with  dealt  traffic"  i n content  s u b s c a l e , Beserve  i n without  o f t h e home,  o t h e r hand, was s i m i l a r  last  loading  disliking  drop  S e c l u s i o n items  o t h e r s n e a r b y , o r f a r away from  b u t was a d a p t e d  with  down o f norms f o r v i s i t i n g , o r  neighbours.  of  (e.g.,  non-involvement  and a u d i t o r y s e c l u s i o n  and s i g h t  one  o f the items  neighbours  by t h e l a y i n g  the " r i g h t "  " . . .  the contents  subscale  friends  with  visual  alone. with  of  and  neighbours",  "  items  Intimacy.  be  either on  the  i n a crowd*  living.  The  with  a preference  others.  Marshall»s  by  unit  physical seeking  (Not-Neighbouring,  barriers privacy  Anonymity  and  Beserve).  The and  s i m i l a r i t i e s between W e s t i n ' s t h e o r e t i c a l  Marshall's empirical findings are obvious.  They  definitions seem  t o be  Chapter  the  2:  Hypotheses  only  two  •privacy* studies  into (as  distinction, M  who  31  have  more  dissected  the  abstract  operational definitions.  in  housing  and  usually  evaluations) ask  general  relation  to  measure  the  environmental amount  variables  of p r i v a c y  make  questions  one t o c o n s i d e r  this  of the type  Marshall these  that  i n the past  of  Other e m p i r i c a l  rarely  do~you-have-enough privacy-in-your-home?"  1972) i s p e r h a p s t h e o n l y  concept  (1970,  s i x subscales i n  were  intended  and p r e s e n t  to  physical  environments o f her respondents.  While M a r s h a l l ' s some  references  sunbathe without by  the c h a r a c t e r  environmental  to privacy i n outdoor spaces being  seen),  of p r i v a c y  than t h e s t a t e , o r t h e type specific  place.  This  operational definitions investigate specific  2.2  (visual,  that  were  Westin  ability  to and  to  categorized rather  was p e r f o r m e d  experience  out i n a s p e c i f i c  contained  1  odour e t c . )  undertakes  o f p r i v a c y by  p r i v a t e outdoor  noise,  of a c t i v i t y  research  carried  (e.g.,  the d e f i n i t i o n s  the a t t i t u d e s towards t h i s  activities  house—the  questionnaire  in  utilize Marshall  a  the to  i n r e l a t i o n to  location  in  the  space.  The.Hypotheses  The control  definition  over access  o f p r i v a c y supported to the s e l f .  by t h i s  work i s cne o f  Thoughts, b e l i e f s ,  behaviours,  Chapter  and  2:  even  Privacy  Hypotheses  32  physical entities  can  primarily  a control  entails  on t h e s e a s p e c t s o f t h e s e l f . same  circumstances  be  more c o n t r o l with  with  one d o e s n o t .  that  whom h e / s h e i s about with  a group,  is  psychologically) and  Taylor  a  than s t r a n g e r s .  or  elimination  would  case  is  taken  into  Two  studies  T a y l o r and Wheeler  compatible  Taylor,  the  of  physical  1973: 1 1 5 ) . that  confidence with  The  by A l t m a n and  interpersonal  makes  (and Altman  assessment  level  by  (possibly positive  1969) i n d i c a t e s  Haythorn that  would  (1967)  " . . .  involve  boundaries"  residential  people  placement  2  socially  increasing  relationships  Hence i n t h e these  (Sommer,  identity  together.  next  an  than  that  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  i n c r e a s e d mutual  situational  environments  that  (1971) s u g g e s t  interpersonal  expect  of  Work on p r o x e m i c s  3  person  Altman,  in  the  of  be h i g h .  make a c a s e f o r a c o s t / b e n e f i t to  the  l i k e s someone w i t h  contact w i l l  suggest  under  rather  o r f e e l s a sense  to  before proceeding  intimate  relationship). such  I f a person  to interact,  self.  of information  with  compatible u n i t s are closer  (1973),  the i n d i v i d u a l more  p e o p l e one g e t s a l o n g  evidence  of  over d i v u l g i n g i n f o r m a t i o n  over d i s c l o s u r e  receptivity to social  There  manifestation  One would e x p e c t t h a t ,  would be e x e r c i s e d those  a  a  and  growing gradual  (Altman and  environment  one  be t a k e n i n t o g r e a t e r  compatibility.*  of  i t difficult  residents  in  high  to avoid intrusion  by  density physical  Chapter  2:  removal  of the source or the o b j e c t  Hypotheses  means have t o be in  33  utilized  t h e manner d e s c r i b e d  et  al,  creates such  mentioned a social  as  t o reduce  in section  above,  territoriality,  In  o f t h e above a r g u m e n t s ,  It  relating  activities  may  that  then  i t  Other  social  by  Altman  compatibility  Subseguent  barriers sharing  of  occur.  was  possible  to  generate  to f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g ,  c o n t r o l o v e r i n t e r a c t i o n , and  b. t h e  manner i n w h i c h  hypothesized  studies  allows physical  a. the  was  intrusion.  The  t o be removed.  objects  hypotheses  1.3.  eventually  spaces,  view  the  the e f f e c t o f the i n t r u s i o n ,  suggest  bond which  and  of  this  c o n t r o l was  achieved.  that:  "Given a territorial demarcation of a private 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 w i t h p r i v a c y w i l l depend on t h e s o c i a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y between t h e n e i g h b o u r s , and on how well they feel t h e y f i t i n the community and neighbourhood. Moreover, an increase i n i n c o n g r u e n c e between the neighbours will be expressed through a greater emphasis on physical barriers and less on d i s c l o s u r e , and v i c e - v e r s a . "  There used  to  are  assist  conventionalized censure.  Which  function  of  and  two in  basic the  achievement  exclusion technique  the behaviour  the i n t r u d e r *  t y p e s of s o c i a l of  techniques, is  used  involved,  psycholoqical  is  s t r a t e g i e s which privacy.  and  are  These  are  more commonly  self  presumably  the p h y s i c a l  characteristics  a  complex  p r o p s a t hand  { B o s s l e y , 1S76).  Chapter  The  2:  hypothesis suggests  intrusion and  Hypotheses  incompatible  over  activities  and  physical  compatible s o c i a l units  than  control  territory neighbour  barriers  physical  over  activities  i s e x p r e s s e d by intrusion i s  (or u l t i m a t e l y  by  barriers and  Taylor,  Secondary  hypotheses  socio-economic  house and these w i l l  liberal  limited  which  were a l s o  status,  present crowding  might  age,  sex,  be expounded on t h r o u g h o u t  of  socially effected,  performance  by  the  use  as  lack  Chapters  of  of  behaviour  stress.  in  relation  amount o f s p a c e the  of  In t h i s case  restrained  generated  conditions  not  (input),  induce  avoid  behaviours For  moving o u t ) .  would r e s u l t i n u n w i l f u l 1973),  is  would  of  barriers.  b a r r i e r s a r e a d e f e n c e mechanism  physical  the  rather  units,  dominance  (Altman  that  (and b e i n g i n v a d e d upon) by r e s t r i c t i o n  activities  physical  34  i n the  respondents, 4 and  5.  to  but  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 s t u d y . The f i r s t , t h e P r i v a c y P r e f e r e n c e Scale, consisted of an 86-item scale intended to measure privacy through agreement about s t a t e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g p r i v a c y in a variety of situations. An E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e a s s e s s e d t h e amount c f p r i v a c y , b o t h p o t e n t i a l and realized, i n the individual'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 e n v i r o n m e n t , a s w e l l a s the number o f p e o p l e l i v e d w i t h , p r i v a c y within the house, perception of noise, odour, perceived crowding, perceived p r i v a c y i n t h e home, p e r c e i v e d p r i v a c y from n e i g h b o u r s and job density. ft L e g a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e a s s e s s e d 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 " . I f i n t e r a c t i o n with a f r i e n d i s e x p e c t e d , closeness is desirable whereas i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h 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 close or too far is 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, t h e g r e a t e r t h e d i s t a n c e t h e b e t t e r . Research suggests that p e o p l e a r e s e n s i t i v e t o one a n o t h e r ' s p e r s o n a l s p a c e z o n e s and seek t o a v o 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 t h e s e boundaries. When i n t r u s i o n o c c u r s t h e r e a r e a t t e m p t s t o be a p o l o g e t i c . 2  This is not always the case. Goffman d i s c o v e r e d t h a t people have a tendency to divulge certain intimacies to s t r a n g e r s who t h e y p r o b a b l y w i l l n e v e r meet a g a i n . 3  . . . 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 p r o b i n g . " See Altman and T a y l o r (1973), I n t r o d u c t i o n . They h y p o t h e s i z e t h a t : a. i n t e r p e r s o n a l e x c h a n g e i n c r e a s e s f r o m 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 t h e y make more o f t h e m s e l v e s known t o o t h e r s ; b. t h e advancement o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p depends c n t h e amount of rewards/costs which are assessed at each stage of the relationship. 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 a s s e s s the outcomes o f 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 s o m e t h i n g c o m p l e t e l y (Monty P y t h o n ' s F l y i n g C i r c u s )  Simultaneously framework examined. clearer,  with  f o r t h i s study, fts  the  i t was  the  development  many methods o f  aims  possible  of  the  to  cf  a  gathering  study  weigh  different"  the  form was deemed a s t h e most  3.1  Development  3.1.1  Privacy  advantages  for  were became and  Ultimately  appropriate.  o f t h e T h e o r e t i c a l Components  Components  From W e s t i n ' s 1972)  data  progressively  d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f e a c h s u r v e y method more a c c u r a t e l y . a questionnaire  conceptual  emprically  use i n t h i s  (1970) derived  study.  theoretical  and  states of privacy,  These p r i v a c y  Marshall's  (1970,  f o u r were a d o p t e d  components  were  Seclusion,  Chapter  3:  Methodology  Anonymity, had  Not  N e i g h b o u r i n g , - and  been e l i m i n a t e d  that  given the  probability  that  this  from  state required i.e.  about  the  these s t a t e s  rest  of  occur.  were amended state  by  i n f o r m a t i o n about  was  In  felt little  addition,  questionnaire.  state  concerned  by  w i t h group  concerned  to  context o n l y with  The  Anonymity  conspicuousness as a  household,  households.  with i n t e r r u p t i o n s  was  to f i t the  neighbours.  much t h e r e s p o n d e n t s  concerned was  It  Reserve  of t h e f o u r s t a t e s a r e not d i s s i m i l a r  the o b s e r v a t i o n  the  and  t h e r e was  t o i m p l e m e n t i n the  Thus t h e S e c l u s i o n  how  Solitude  pre-tests.  would even  the d e f i n i t i o n s  study.  isolation  o f t h e two  too d i f f i c u l t  but  Intimacy.  c o n d i t i o n s o f the sample,  implications  Marshall's, of  at each  living  t h e y were f o u n d  The  37  felt  The  they  stood  Not-Neighbouring  the neighbours seclusion  from  and t h e  out state  from was  Intimacy  o b s e r v a t i o n by  the  neighbours.  3.1.2  Compatibility  To of and  Components  t e s t the l i k e / d i s l i k e  compatibility  d e s c r i p t o r s were d e v e l o p e d , one one  to describe  The Lansing,  the  neighbourhood Marans  and  m e a s u r e s , two  to describe  the  sets  neighbourhood  neighbours.  descriptors Zehner  are based  (1970).  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 ,  The  on  the  work  descriptors deal  maintenance,  of with  pleasantness,  Chapter  3:  Methodology  crowdedness, live. II,  and  the  38  adequacy of the  Both s c a l e s are  as q u e s t i o n s  The w h i c h an  latter  perceived  The  define  to  Appendix  respectively.  based  on  was  a study  and  done by  made t o f i n d The  friendliness,  helpfulness,  a place  in their entirety in  •neighbours'.  (1951) i n  d e s c r i p t o r s by descriptors  noisiness,  c l a s s , of the  Mann  which  identify  similarity  of  neighbours.  .Activities  set of  11  outdoor a c t i v i t y  measure v a r i a t i o n s o f categories  were  CMHC(1974)  but  expectations. varied  B2  was  measures o f  interests,  A  and  e m p i r i c a l attempt  individuals  3.1.3  B1  reproduced  neighbourhood as  widely  privacy  derived were The  with  from  to  activities (and  were d e v e l o p e d  activity.  the  amended,  i n nature,  categories  work f i t  These  to  activity  by  Chapin{1974)  and  local  conditions  and  described consequently  w i t h i n each in  category  their  privacy  requirements).  These questionnaire desired extent of  and of  three  elements  (see  Appendix  achieved  preferences  privacy  in  satisfaction  with  were put  privacy  II). was  for privacy,  the privacy  i n the  A l t m a n * s (1975) incorporated to assess  projects. i s only  together  the  According  ideal  when t h e  form of model  of  to discover current to  his  desired  a  the  state model, level  Chapter  3: M e t h o d o l o g y  equates  with t h e a c h i e v e d l e v e l .  39  I t f o l l o w s t h e r e f o r e , that the  s e p a r a t i o n between t h e two r e s p o n s e s dissatisfaction,  a n d moreover a l l o w s one t o i n f e r  dissatisfaction on  the scale  3.2  {whether p o s i t i v e  or negative)  the natcre of  by  the  location  stages  i ni t s  a t which i t o c c u r s .  The S u r v e y  The  questionnaire  development.  Initially  Cosmos V i l l a g e , a later  guestionnaire  of  households  housing  management  of  letter  each  (reproduced  household  The author,  selected,  project as  the survey.  Host  on f o u r h o u s e h o l d s  was  considered randomly  selected  Appendix  informed I)  was  was  collected roughly  by  of the respondents  1  from  a two  3.3.1.  The  o f the study  and a  circulated  to  each  started.  one i n t e r v i e w e r , t h e  20% o f  41SS o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s  De  and a t  satisfactory,  described i n Section was  from  Heights  v a r i o u s walks o f l i f e .  was  a sample c o m p r i s i n g project.  two  b e f o r e t h e i n t e r v i e w s were  information  from  each  projects,  at  co-op a t Champlain  from  When t h e  120  tested  i t was t e s t e d  a neighbouring  multifamily  from  was  s t a g e on s i x people  sample  in  would g i v e a measure c f t h e  the  chosen  households  participated  were n o t a t home a f t e r a  Chapter  second  3: M e t h o d o l o g y  and s o m e t i m e s a t h i r d  blatantly  3.2.1  check,  the  by p r o b e s  understood  one  and  a  they  lasted  The section  of  to  o r o t h e r means, t h a t being asked  fashion. half  between  be  hours  some  the respondents  o f them, and t h a t  t o twenty  five  a  set  described  of of  response,  above,  duration  were  not  described.  For  those  respondent  was a s k e d  be p e r f o r m e d .  expected  with  various  activities  their replies  first t c the  the  four  activities over  t h e method o f cn  on w h i c h t h e s e t o f 11  outdoor  The r e s p o n d e n t s  that  were  told  a l l of the a c t i v i t i e s did  cot  apply,  to give h i s preference i f the a c t i v i t y  A probe  the  answer  t o perform  activities  The  an  c a t e g o r i e s were d i s p l a y e d .  they  from  On t h e a v e r a g e  and t o s i m p l i f y  indicated  f o r the purpose,  for  o f the  were a s k e d ,  the respondents  designed  adequately  88 q u e s t i o n s , r e l a t e d satisfaction  Owing t o t h e r e p e t i t i o n that  a l e r t to  they answered  in  minutes.  the  minutes.  of  privacy  of  consistently  The i n t e r v i e w s v a r i e d  forty five  questions  activity  existed  had  and a c h i e v e d l e v e l s  outdoors.  to  s i x households  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 .  preferred  that  interviewer  consisted  states  differences  what was  the r i g h t  board  but o n l y abcut  The.Questionnaire  guestions,  four  call,  refused t o cooperate.  As o n l y s u b t l e  in  40  q u e s t i o n was a s k e d  each had  t o d i s c o v e r why t h e  C h a p t e r 3:  Methodology  activities  were not  A in  performed.  description  turn  against  sections,  related  of  the  top  for  answers.  The  what e a c h l o c a t i o n on from  Seclusion  one  state  five  The  brightly  coloured  markers  on  relating  to the  the  the  state  scale  Intimacy  state,  state,  seclusion  state  the  other  two  marked  interviewer's  The on  a  the  the  bottcm  for  Likert-Scale  This  other,  indicating description  except f o r  which,both used the  were  markers  asked  each a c t i v i t y ,  to  the  (cf. of  form)  similar  four  Appendix  c a r d s , one was of  to  the same  (upturned, slide  with each  different  the  question  The  questions  the  displayed  in  simplified  accordinq  to  the  of  Anonymity  II).  marker on  states  state,  for  each  but  reponse sheet,  second  two  board,  Not-Neiqhbourinq  placement  m a r k e r s were p l a c e d  In  sets  (in abridqed  respondent. was  on  had  states.  privacy:  worded  the  a set of  and  against  privacy  to  displayed  Scale  the  meant.,  given  thumb t a c k s )  Four q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d  were  points  was  on  bottom o f t h e  Intimacy s t a t e ,  respondent  the  five  The  were  a n s w e r s and  positions  at the  privacy  and  scale.  and  activities,  preference  to a d e s c r i p t i o n  changed  types of  a five-point Likert-scale.  the  achievement  41  interviewer front the  cf  and the  Likert-Scale  sheet  on  the  column numbers  the  in.  part  of  the  questionnaire,  (Part  E  in  Chapter  3:  Appendix  Methodology  II)  g u e s t i o n s B1 the  the and  respondents  B2  markers.  and  The  section  respondent  was  to indicate  responses  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s h e e t by this  asked  transcribed  research  separation deqrees  v e r y few  by  the  of the respondents  had  outdoors, but d i d t a l k  very  much  privacy.  design developed  between t h e p r e f e r r e d  of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n .  work as seme r e s p o n d e n t s becajyse  they  constraint they  forcing  had  to  and  were w i l l i n g  the achieved  more  with the neighbours.  s h o r t term) on  of t h i s  If achieved  the  measures  the  condition  as  might  to a c c e p t a  to a  of The  new  always  compromise The  dollar  situation,  t h e immediate  residential  exercise  the i n d i v i d u a l .  not  living  a s s e s s i n g t o what e x t e n t t h i s s i t u a t i o n and  study  what they, p r e f e r r e d .  them t o a d a p t share  in this  I n some c a s e s t h i s  c o u l d not a f f o r d  was  environment  scope  the  Problems,Encountered  The  long  last  on  g r i e v a n c e s which were not c o v e r e d  privacy  other aspects of  The  using  the  about  of  answers  an open ended q u e s t i o n i n t e n d e d t o a l i o *  anything  where  cards for  in  As i t t u r n e d o u t  3.2.2  two  question  questionnaire.  about  with  their  were  the i n t e r v i e w e r .  t o v o i c e any  t o add  were s u p p l i e d  t h e n becomes  induces stress  This  was  one (both  outside  the  thesis.  preferred  r e s p o n s e s can  responses also  can  be somewhat i d e a l i s t i c ,  give incorrect  results  about  the what  Chapter  3: M e t h o d o l o g y  they are t r y i n g is  43  to discover.  a f u n c t i o n o f one's p a s t  physical (Kasl,  and  1S74).  economic Their  major  questionnaire  condition,  as  in  making  sure  questions correctly.  at  that  althouqh t h i s  study  A,  the  question.  present  mental,  as t h e a s p i r a t i o n s took  into  administering  the  the  respondents  Each r e s p o n d e n t was  abcut  most  difficult  Of t h e  proved  four  was  told  "privacy"  s p a c e s , t h e y s h o u l d c o n c e n t r a t e on e a c h  s t a t e o f p r i v a c y b e i n g asked about. Part  in that  the  p r i v a t e outdoor  well  encountered  interpreted the start  the  t o compromise.  problem  was  experience,2  'achieved* c o n d i t i o n  a s s e s s m e n t o f what t h e y have a l s o  account t h e i r a t t i t u d e  The  The p e r c e i v e d  in  specific  questions  in  t o be t h e H o t - N e i g h b o u r i n g  The q u e s t i o n r a n :  "Row would you r a t e your like or dislike a t beinq i n t e r r u p t e d by t h e n e i q h b o u r who s t a r t s c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h you while you were performinq any o f t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d on t h e b o a r d , s o t h a t you had t o i n t e r r u p t them to . a t t e n d t o h i s need. I want t o knew y o u r p r e f e r r e d l e v e l and y o u r p r e s e n t l e v e l s o f l i k e o r d i s l i k e . "  While  i t was  guestion, the the  fairly  t o qive a preference l e v e l  to this  most r e s p o n d e n t s were c o n f u s e d when t h e y t r i e d  to qive  achieved l e v e l  easy  response.  T h e r e s p o n s e had t o be drawn  from  r e s p o n d e n t s 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  b. by  the l e v e l  that  of discomfort (dislike)  t h e r e s p o n d e n t s had i n t h e i r  While t h i s  made  t h e y s u f f e r ; and  i t  somewhat  or  cemfort  (like)  p r e s e n t s e t up.  easier,  some  respondents  still  C h a p t e r 3:  remained  Methodology  perplexed.  The the  next  guestion  degree of s e c l u s i o n  state). first  The  (and  between  group o f  intimates  privacy  by  there  was  for  Seclusion  this  primarily) desired  (i.e.,  oneself  the  (i.e.,  that  this  acted  correctly.  Overall  of the  a  understood  a  It  was and  as  The  In of  In  and  a to  cases reason  whether  was  the  with  most  second  the the  opposed  determine  s e c t i o n was  Intimacy  privacy  state).  procedure,  was  the  twofold.  achieved  to  concerned  measure  responses.  check,  first  questionnaire.,  i t  seclusion  the  the  was  and  Intimacy s t a t e ) ,  the  as  state  guestion  privacy  a d i f f e r e n c e between two  r e s p o n d e n t had  part  which l e d t o some d i f f i c u l t y (on t h e  purpose  instance  difference  was  44  the  answering  most d i f f i c u l t  also  the  longer  part  completed,  the  information  to  administer.  When analysed  the  using  survey  SPSS  was  (a s t a t i s t i c a l  a n a l y s i s programme f o r  was social  scientists),  3.3  The  Sample  The  sample  housing  projects.  f o r the The  s t u d y was  two  projects  selected  from two  were s e l e c t e d  multifamily  from  the  area  Chapter  3:  known as C h a m p l a i n the  City  of  accordance E and  Heights, situated  Vancouver.  with the  F of the  report  income and  natural  age  of  "  and  1974).  3.3.1  Projects  number  two  of  Other  visited,  this  A s e t of c r i t e r i a within  a. T y p e , o f  the  with were  As  they  family  housinq  area.  family being  The  selected.  or s i n q l e bedroom  The  a f t e r an  community  to guide  constitutes  erected,  i t  was  by  projects  u n i t s o f f t h e qround  projects. of  the  were  majority  felt  that  outdoor  have a few  a  been  following:  Only the  private  cf  had  housing the  of  ( C i t y of  the s e l e c t i o n  with family  a  the C h a n p l a i n  outside  were t h e  of  service  inspection  around  and  for  preservation  the widest v a r i e t y of  housing  range  requirements."  City  projects  chosen  f o r areas  accommodation  and  in  implementation  i n housing,  criteria  accompanied  report  f o r a broad  p r e s e n t a r e more a c u t e .  units  developed  and  projects  a r e a s i n the  Only  households  problems  plan  mix,  were s e l e c t e d  were d e v e l o p e d  this  being  housing  liveability  area o f f e r e d  housing:  examined.  family household  multifamily  Heights area.  projects  The  pedestrial traffic  projects  but  is  r e c r e a t i o n a l open s p a c e s  Vancouver,  The  , . .  lifestyles,  needs, v e h i c u l a r  area,  (1974).  groups,  features,  The  The  i n the south-east corner of  proposals s e t f o r t h i n the  region  emphasize  variety  45  Hethodology  of the  projects spaces  apartments  which were e x c l u d e d  C h a p t e r 3:  Methodology  from the  46  population.  Site.Planning:  A  variety  p r i v a t e o u t d o o r s p a c e s and was  hypothesized  provide  reduce  the  decrease »  1951; need  comparable  neccessary. variables  It  d  e  «  *  of  Type„of T e n u r e ;  1956),  felt  have  market  i s rather  primarily added  projects  of  giving  projects  stand  residents M a l l , as  more  well  as  the  centres.  There  is  privacy  preferences  increase  the  were  cr  deened  introduction the  of  validity  more and  the  prolific,  research.  at  inguiry  This  same had  area the the  environment,  results.  Although  both  visual  contact,  the  same s h o p p i n g  evidence  the  residential  mutual  bus  but  possible variations i n  of the  same  preferable.  scanty.  meaningful  exist  was  were s e l e c t e d f r o m  outside  share the  the  or  Respondents  housing  diminishing  respondent's perceptions thus  contact  increase  levels  i s very  f o r convenience of  effect  social  would  decreased  into  two  and  neighbours*  that  housing  The  It  study.  Private  p r i v a t e housing  both  desirable.  of^the,respondents;  was  of  configurations  d e p e n d i n g on  Research i n t o p u b l i c  Area:  this  between t h e  the  was  planning  socio-economic  would  conclusiveness  site  for privacy  Socio-economic s t a t u s with  layouts  f o r neighbouring  whyte,  in contact  configurations  site  since  opportunities  (Festinger,  c  that  of  facilities  routes to  and  suggest  subcultural  at  Champlain  recreational that d i f f e r e n t level  {Kuper,  3:  Chapter  1966; f.  B o s s l e y , 1976)  Size:  the  study  sufficient limited two  .  P r o j e c t s t o be  make  The  .7  Methodology  selected  meaningful  number o f  were t o but  interviews  be l a r g e enough  small  to  be  enough  to  to a l l o w  c a r r i e d out  within  a a  time.  p r o j e c t s which f i t t e d  Kanata Housing C o o p e r a t i v e ,  a l l of  and  the  Southview  above  criteria  were  u n i t s , of  which  Gardens.  Kanata_Hgusing_Cooperative  This  p r o j e c t i s made up  8 a r e one-bedroomed w i t h from and  the 20  sample.  in  f o r the  four  1.5 3  children. contrived  52  150  were  eliminated  2-bedrcom, 70  it.  spaces,  spaces within  areas of  The  (see s i t e  u n i t s the  plan.  3-bedroom,  half  of  the  project  F i g 3. 1)*  which  set  are  provided open,  and  area  for  cf play  c l u s t e r s are  is  Each c l u s t e r  Each u n i t i s  A l l f o u r c l u s t e r s have some f o r m The  This  around  include  of  These  o f communal p a r k i n g .  parking  uncovered.  acre.  access.  s i n g l e bedrcomed  clusters  s u r r o u n d s some f o r m with  rest,  a total  4-bedroom u n i t s . ,  Except out  The  deck  of  blacktopped  with  vegetation.  i s a medium d e n s i t y project's There are  present no  project  with  15  s e t t i n g provides  b u i l d i n g s or  units  to  ample open  d e v e l o p m e n t s on  the  the space three  3:  Chapter  major abuts  49  Methodology  sides.  On  the Champlain  the  fourth  High  School.  (north east)  Most o f t h e o c c u p a n t s took project the  was  present  Members  c o o p e r a t i v e l y designed  co-op,  the  co-op  the r e s t ,  who  were  involved  t h e co-op.  on  the  whether  manipulating  the  side  of  the  of  of  the  solid)  in  elected  the  decisions.  f o r the task, to  original  members  the present  of  design  as l e s s  the never  question  was i n v o l v e d a t t h e d e s i g n  living  size  and  o f the l i v i n g 3.3),  and  i s provided room  are s i x feet providing  fence can e i t h e r  been  was m e a n i n g l e s s ,  s i d e o f t h e house  These f e n c e s option  vary  3.2  Each u n i t  The  stage i n  than  f i v e of  involved.  i n front  3.1,  other  1975.  Hence t h e i n t e r v i e w e r ' s p r o b e  h i s own u n i t ,  units  area  (Plates  in  - i n t h e s e n s e t h a t seme o f  i n shaping  respondent  them were d i r e c t l y  fenced  had  b u t many o f  made i t i n t o  The  residence  r e s i d e n t s had a s a y i n p h y s i c a l p l a n n i n g  from  represent  up  corner, the project  same  material  as those  already  A l l u n i t s have a  room, w i t h i n t h e i r  a l l are provided  ( P l a t e s 3.4,  3.5).  with  timber  two s o l i d  (the 'back')* high.  the t h i r d  be 4 f e e t  layout.  with  or 6 feet  a y a r d on  fences,  cn t h e  between a d j a c e n t  units.  The r e s i d e n t i s l e f t fence  territory  with  a t h i s cwn e x p e n s e .  high, as long  the This  a s i t i s made  ( i . e . wood) and t h e same d e s i g n ( i . e . provided.  About h a l f  of the u n i t s  lack  Chapter  this  3:  third  fence.  The  fences  afford  the  their  between  the  backs of  some p r o t e c t i o n from t h e  t h i s helps, had  50  Methodology  but  none o f  misfortune  to  the  Henceforth  this  neighbour's  pets  and  pets..  encountered  experience)  owners' t e r r i t o r y ,  u n i t s were p r o v i d e d  very  {as  confined few  project shall  be  Admittedly  the  interviewer  themselves  were on  a  to  within  leash.  r e f e r r e d to as  KANATA.  Sc,utj?yiew„Gardens  Southview  Gardens  development" - a  density  Kanata, standing units. the  r e s t , 77  4-bedroom the  are  units.  p e o p l e on  The three  the  bracket.  of  at  28  The  20  blacktopped  as  project  project  u n i t s per  for  2-bedroom,  long  25  acre.  There are  dividend for  the  this  than  at  of  140  sample.  Of  a total  and  10  does not  are deter  list.  in linear  cul-de-sacs  but  higher  from the  3-bedrccm,  are  unit i s rented,  waiting  d o v e t a i l the  housing  is slightly  a p a r t m e n t s were e l i m i n a t e d  Each  a "limited  5  the  houses are planned  cul-de-sacs  described  rent-assisted  l o w e r / m i d d l e income  The  is  {see  c a r p o r t s and  rows, on  site the  plan,  either  side  F i g 3.2).  main e n t r a n c e s  of  These at  the  Chapter  front  3:  Methodology  of the  houses.  Parking (Plate 3.6). next.  6  The  delimited timber  places  divide  A solid  wall  living  on  52  the c u l - d e - s a c s i n t o t r a f f i c separates  (Plates  with  3.9,  6  the  (plate  carport  extends  over  is  by  project  directions  from  very  strict  discipline.  the  interior  an  of  run  almost 8  outdoor  vertically  the  space, slatted  A gate allows access t o a of  the  the  units.  whole  width  A  7  patio  of the  their  appears  including  The,  unit  who,  acting  under  subject  dwelling  project  allowed  to  keeps modify  to the a p p r o v a l cf the  d i s p l a y s t h e same  external  t h e windows.  shall  be r e f e r r e d  t o as  SOUTHVIEfl.  Respondents  Of t h e f i f t y female.  manager  r e s i d e n t s are  units,  d r a p e r i e s on  Henceforth t h i s  a  defunct tenants* association,  The  management, as l o n g as e a c h  Kanata  from  3.8).  The  3.3.2  foot  3.10)  g r a v e l pathway, s e p a r a t i n g t h e b a c k s over  carport  room on t h e back opens on an  a l l three sides  fences  each  lanes  There  c a s e s , 18 r e s p o n d e n t s  was  a higher proportion  (11 c a s e s ) t h a n i n S o u t h v i e w  were male and  31  were  o f male r e s p o n d e n t s i n  (7 c a s e s ) .  Each  time  the  Chapter  3:  Methodology  interviewer outdoors  specifically  The  identical  average  persons).  The  identical  (Table  12  3.3)  was  Southview=36.4  majority $12,500.  units  number average  (1 c h i l d )  below  The  for  the  person  who  cf  people  summarizes t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n  households.  aged  asked  uses  the  most.  T a b l e 3.1 the  53  of  i n both p r o j e c t s people  number  of  (Table 3.2).  h i g h e r i n Kanata  income  (755.) o f t h e In Southview  was  households  a  per  higher  about  remarkably (mean=2.95  unit  was  also  percentage  Conseguently by  y e a r s , Kanata=46.2  household  children  but i n S o u t h v i e w  years  average  per  had a  within  10  were  the averace years  age  (means:  years).  a l s o higher i n Kanata, had an a g g r e g a t e  o n l y 235? were i n t h i s  where  income  bracket.  the  above  Chapter  3: M e t h o d o l o g y  54  T a b l e 3.1  persons Kanata  Table  o f People  Within  1  2  3  4  5  3,6  42.9  28,6  14.3  7.1  (%) 4.5  27. 3  45.5  13.6  9.1  (%)  Southview  Distribution Households  3.2  Age  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Children i n Households  0-12  12-18  >19  years  Kanata  39.3  14.2  46.5  % (28)  Southview  68.2  4.5  27.3  % (22)  [(  ) N=number o f Table  3.3  respondents] 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  {(  ) N=number o f r e s p o n d e n t s ]  % (22)  7 3.6  Chapter 3:  Methodology  Plate  3.2  Kanata:  55  Unit arrangements without carports  Chapter 3: Methodology  P l a t e 3.4  56  Kanata:  Backyard arrangement  Plate  3.6  Southview:  Cluster  arrangement  Chapter  3:  Methodology  Plate  3.8  Southview: Main a c c e s s , c a r p o r t patio arrangeaent—2 storeys  58  and  Chapter  3:  Methodology  Plate  3.10  S o u t h v i e w : P a t h between  backyards  Chapter  3:  Methodology  60  Footnotes  * T h i s was primarily for the sake of convenience, as attempts to find a suitable housing project close t c the U n i v e r s i t y campus, o r w i l l i n g r e s p o n d e n t s off campus, failed. It 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 t h e t r i a l H's d i d n o t r e a l l y m a t t e r a t t h i s s t a g e . The survey i n s t r u m e n t s were b e i n g t e s t e d f o r t h e i r a d e g u a c y r a t h e r t h a n f o r the r e s u l t s they gave. A l t h o u g h some p e o p l e volunteered the information, 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 r e s p o n d e n t s b r o u g h t i t up a s a factor which b o r e an i n f l u e n c e on what t h e y p r e f e r r e d . 2  Included in v i s i t o r ' s parking. 3  the The the  these  are  the  resident's  as  well  as  the  •To a v o i d c o n f u s i o n , t h e ' f r o n t * i s d e f i n e d a s t h e s i d e o f house with the main i n g r e s s , i . e . , on t h e c a r p o r t s i d e . o p p o s i t e f a c e , on t h e l i v i n g room s i d e , s h a l l be considered '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  sin a limited d i v i d e n d d e v e l o p m e n t , CMHC p r o v i d e s 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. t h e d e v e l o p m e n t be d e s i g n e d f o r f a m i l y a c c o m o d a t i o n ; b. t h e Government c o n t r o l s t h e r e n t , l i m i t i n g t h e d i v i d e n d s t o t h e owner; and c. the owner c a n n o t t a k e 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 c a s e s a t t h e v e h i c u l a r entrances, due to the solid walls separating the carports. A bicycle circuit is i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r o j e c t , t o t a l l y e n c l o s e d and b l a c k t o p p e d . T h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h i s was u t i l i z e d by t h e h o u s e h o l d i s doubtful (cf. Q u e s t i o n B5), s i n c e t h e main a c c e s s d o o r was on the other s i d e . Anybody u s i n g t h i s as an e n t r a n c e would h a v e t o traverse the garden and b r i n g d i r t i n t o t h e l i v i n g room. So p r e s u m a b l y i t was a u s e f u l and g u i c k way o u t f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . 7  *No p e t s ( v i z . dogs o r c a t s ) a r e a l l o w e d in the house, and t h r e e l o c a t i o n s are a s s i g n e d f o r the c h i l d r e n ' s play areas. The management, a t t h e r e g u e s t o f t h e T e n a n t s ' Association has set a 9:00pm c u r f e w on t h e y o u n g s t e r s , 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 confining the insubordinate c h i l d r e n t o t h e o u t d o o r s p a c e s w i t h i n t h e i r homes.  61  • EESlAfiCH  FINDINGS  "The need f o r man t o e x t e n d t e r r i t o r i a l i t y r i g h t s f r o m h i s home o n t o a p i e c e o f g r o u n d o r s e c t i o n o u t d o o r s seems t o be a strong and immutable one." [ C o o p e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) : 18]  The five  space  the  They  discusses  chapter the  are  presented  respondents*  neighbours,  the  in  attitudes  private  p e r c e p t i o n of privacy  open  (or l a c k  of  activity  categories.  The  further  response  variations  within  of  last the  projects.  The  Neighbourhood  The  respondents  five-point  semantic  descriptors Mahrans and frcm both  the  and t h e i r  with respect to a s e t  individual  in this  represent  neighbourhood,  i n the u n i t s ,  section  4.1  described  sections.  towards  it)  results  differential  defining Zehner,  were a s k e d t o r a t e t h e i r a t t i t u d e s  qualities  1970).  scale,  with  respect  o f t h e neighbourhood  T a b l e 4.1  compares  projects f o r a l l six qualities.  the  1  to  on a six  (Lansing, responses  3.6  14.3 9. 1  46.4 . 50.0  32.1 27.3  21. 4  21. 4  46. 4  B11 NOISY 4.5 3. 6 B12 UNATTRACTIVE  3.6  3. 6 B14 UNPLEASANT -  B15 OVERCROWDED  —  B16 POOR PLACE TO L I V E  J_t *_J  9. 1  % Southview  QUIET (22) '  7. 1  % K a n a t a (28)  3 1. 8  54. 5  13.6  % S o u t h v i e w (22)  7.1  21.4  46.4 . 31. 8  21.4 — 60.2  % K a n a t a (28)  7. 1 . -  29. 6  18. 2  63.6  18.2  % K a n a t a (28) . % S o u t h v i e w (22)  21. 4  21. 4  % K a n a t a (28)  36.4  18.2  % S o u t h v i e w (22)  4. 5  18. 2  28. 6 . 22.7  3. 6  21.4  35.7  % Kanata  (28)  GOOD PLACE TO L I V E  50.0  31. 8  % S o u t h v i e w (22)  2 1. 4  46. 4  25. 0  % K a n a t a (28)  r\ m  "  4.1  32. 1  Attitudes  8  1  '  r% 8  + r> 1  8  ,  *N 2  _ %  ,  -  PLEASANT  NOT CROWDED  18. 2  _ J I_J 11 1  Table  % S o u t h v i e w (22)  50.0  21. 4  (negative  WELL KEPT UP  10.7  7. 1  7. 1  ATTRACTIVE  -  7. 1 *_#  % K a n a t a (28)  :  B13 POORLY KEPT UP  n  3.6  .  Southview  Towards t h e Neighbourhood  ______  (22)  p  o  s  i  t  i  v  e  )  Chapter  The  4: R e s u l t s  term  'neighbourhood*  was d e f i n e d  t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t s as  " . . . . the region f e e l you b e l o n g . "  around  In  respondents*  most  cases,  neighbourhood This  63  was  the  restricted  was u n d e r s t a n d a b l e  other  developments.  to  developments,  project  whose  including  •neighbourhood*  the t e r r i t o r y  It external  density  Kanata) S o u t h v i e w more  recent  physical  which  respondent  place.  from by a l l  housing their  definition would  of have  project.  i n spite of  i t s higher  p e r a c r e a s compared t o 15 upa i n  (Stokols,  This  supports  1976; Baum and D a v i s , 1976;  distinguishes  and t r a f f i c  between  density  a s an e x p e r i e n t i a l  with t h e time  the front  a  source  o f t h e d a y . " One  was u s u a l l y  a s t h i s i s where most o f t h e o u t d o o r  as  state.  a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be t h e main  i tvaries  commented t h a t  public  project  i s p e r c e i v e d as l e s s crowded.  n o i s e , and " . . ,..  t h e back,  units  measurement, and c r o w d i n g  Children of  (20  a  A broader  of their  the table that  literature  C h o i e t a l , 1976)  2  *less-than-worthy*  i s e v i d e n t from  they r e s i d e d i n .  r e s i d e n t s became n o t o r i o u s f o r  w i t h t h e RCMP.  to include this  the  as i t was f a r removed  continual a f f i l i a t i o n s  had  of  however, was s u r r o u n d e d  types of r e s i d e n t i a l  beyond  perception  the project  f o r Kanata, Southview  (FP. 1 8 ) ,  y o u r home t o w h i c h you  more n o i s y activities  than took  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  Very qualities  4.2  few  64  other  of the  Neighbours  The  respondents their  were f o r t h c o m i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e  neighbourhood..  The  towards  comments  were a l s o  neiqhbours.  gueried By  about  their  neighbours,  the  attitudes interviewer  intended " . . . families T a b l e 4.2 for  both  the p o s i t i v e  less  •indifferent qualities a middle  1  awareness condition  except of the  noise. road  quality  respondents  d i d not  d e s c r i b e them. "It qet  conditions  projects,  respective  to  a  dozen  for this  question  projects.  same f o r b o t h  display  the h a l f  compares t h e f r e g u e n c y o f r e s p o n s e  While the  the immediate n e i g h b o u r s , l i v i n g n e a r e s t t o you."  the respondents  of 3  neiqhbours.  responses  and  the  know t h e i r  i s amazinq t o know y o u r  quality  i n Southview They  than  are  in  between  other,  but  neiqhbours  respondent  one  echoed  t h a t you c a n l i v e neiqhbours."  in  almost seem t o  reported Kanata,  I n most c a s e s t h e s e r e s p o n s e s condition  One  f o r each  of  many o t h e r s , and  the  cases, the  w e l l enouqh t o be  next door  a l l  indicated  extreme many  on  more  not  able  B21  B22  B23  B24  UNFRIENDLY  PRYING  DISSIMILAR INTERESTS  7.1  B26  B1  32. 1  % Kanata  (28)  54. 4  22. 7  22.7  % Southview  7. 1  28.6  42.9  % Kanata  13.6  7. 1  14. 3  64.3  3.6  4.5  9.1  7 2. 7  13.6  3.6  14.3  35.7  46. 4  % Kanata  9.1  31.3  31.8  27. 3  % Southview  10.7  75.0  10.7  3.6  % Kanata  4.5  86.4  9. 1  -  % Southview  3.6  7. 1  28. 6  42.9  17.9  % Kanata  4.5  9. 1  18. 2  54. 5  13.6  55 S o u t h v i e w  10.7  78.6  17.9  % Kanata  9.1  81.8  OVERALL ASSESSMENT (negative  Table  4.2  Attitudes  -  10.7  % Southview  % Kanata %  9. 1  %  (22)  MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS  SIMILAR INTERESTS  (28) (22)  HELPFUL  (28) (22)  HIGHER  CLASS  (28) (22)  QUIET  (28)  Southview  Towards t h e N e i q h b o u r s  (22)  (28)  Southview  FRIENDLY  (22)  (28)  7 2.7  UNHELPFUL  NOISY  50. 0  9.1  B25 LOWER CLASS  S  14.3  17. 9  (22)  p  O S  itive)  Chapter  In  4:  Kanata  Besults  66  the s i t u a t i o n  fi s u b s t a n t i a l distinction especially friends  was  slightly  number  of  respondents,  between  friendship  i n Southview,  indicated  from  o u t s i d e the  better.  and that  expressed  neighbouring. they  preferred  a  Many, to  have  projects.  "I prefer f r i e n d s from o u t s i d e t h e immediate a r e a . N e i g h b o u r s h e r e have m u t u a l r e s p e c t , b u t I do not have any friends at a l l within the project . a l t h o u g h I am on s e v e r a l c o m m i t t e e s , i t i s t h r o u g h a sense of obligation rather than a spirit of cooperation." (Kanata) "Personal f r i e n d s a r e a l l from o u t s i d e t h e No v i s i t i n g i s done w i t h i n t h e p r o j e c t . " (Southview) The  residents  interactive Southview. least  once  engaged case, There  Kanata  behaviours In Kanata, a  in this  might  with  scheduling,  activity  so t h a t  frequently  to  than  their  was  restricted  many  sought  increasing  this  were away from  creating  and  for  t o a few  found  at  neighbours  at  residents  In t h e  latter  times a  month.  inactivity.  the p r o j e c t  incompatibilites met;  in  those  of Southview's  w i t h t h e same f r e q u e n c y .  neighbours never  to s o c i a l i z e  more  neighbours  various explanations  o f t h e day,  with  the  week, w h i l e o n l y 31.8%  L a n s i n g e t a l (1970) awareness  involved  talked  that the respondents  major p a r t  like  be  were  75.\%  acquaintanceship  c o u l d be  not  of  project.  It  f o r the in  time  or t h e r e s p o n d e n t s d i d  retreat.  a  density,  decrease  in  neighbouring  although i n t e r a c t i o n s  are  Chapter  less  4: R e s u l t s  reduced  by  neighbours. projects  One one  67  density  The  variation  i s not s u f f i c i e n t  would  location  would  respondents T a b l e 4.3  lived  knowledge  the  density  to think  impinge  on  about between  the l e n g t h  the  two  of stay  in  of acguaintanceship  f o r a longer period  o f the length  of  cf  the  of  time.  in  each  between  the  stay  project.  Table  Kanata  Southview  4.3  Length  Statistical freguency  2-5  > 5  28.6  57. 1  14.3  -  %  (28)  45.5  50.0  -  %  (22)  4.5  analysis  years  respondents]  uncovered  of communication  the  Respondents  1-2  stay of the respondents. improve  of Stay o f  0-1  f { ) N=nuiaber o f  no  correlation  with the neighbours The  satisfaction  with  residence  neighbours.  correlation  between t h e p e r i o d s i n r e s i d e n c e o f t h e  like  or d i s l i k e  to  the  in  analysis  their  failed  duration  and t h e l e n g t h  statistical  and  one's  factor.  a higher p e r c e n t i l e  project  indication  that  the degree  In Southview  i n their  g i v e s an  in  is  t o make t h i s an i m p o r t a n t  be i n c l i n e d  with other r e s i d e n t s .  sample  than  o f the  demonstrate  neighbourhood.,  any  did  of not  Further  significant respondents  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  It  was  neighbours  hypothesized  might  environment scale.  generate  with  a  weak  aggregate  correlation  with  satisfaction  al,  a  which  with neighbours  This  have  as a p r e d i c t o r  associated  similar  established  as  with  the  aggregate  of s a t i s f a c t i o n  very  strongly  although  between  already  was  be  attitude  confirms  P e r c e p t i o n of the neighbours  to  the  and  the neighbourhood. found  on  s=0.03)*  neighbours  the  residential  significant  neighboorhood. 1970)  towards  the  rating  (K-tau=0.189, the  feeling  with  higher showed  with  the  (Lansing et  a positive  satisfaction  analysis  satisfaction  satisfaction  that  consequent  Statistical  somewhat  works  68  with  compatible  neighbourhood  satisfaction.  This  logic  satisfaction  with  neighbourhood. upkeep,  neighbourhood  between  t h e n e i g h b o u r s and r e l a t i o n s h i p was  as a p l a c e t o  was  of also  similar  and  the  with  aggregate  qualities  of  the  attractiveness,  assessment  of  the  3  association  (K-tau=0.17,  f e e l i n g s towards  existed  the  on  between  specific  expected  and  live.  a significant  association  p l e a s a n t n e s s was  a  to associations  pleasantness,  assessment  On  extended  attractiveness  significant and  ft  and  There  was  the neighbours.  between n e i g h b o u r s  neighbourhood  s=0.07) No  like/dislike  as a p l a c e t o l i v e ,  but  associated.  line  of  thinking  i t  was  presumed  that  Chapter  4; R e s u l t s  neighbour  69  satisfaction  crowding,  but o v e r a l l  might  mitigate n e g a t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s of  t h e r e was none.  the  household  This  i s a l s o s u p p o r t e d by t h e l a c k  between the  d i d not i n f l u e n c e  another v a r i a b l e ,  number  of  characteristics associated  people  the  Older  age  with  was p o s t u l a t e d  t h e respondents*  revealed the  of  of  neighbourhood,  or crowdedness.  the  of  reguired the  No  as  (and  There  do  influencing i n  conseguently  significant  the  correlation  satisfaction  attractiveness, was no  tc  correlation  was with  upkeep, between  and t h e amount o f o u t d o o r assessment  space of  as a place t c l i v e .  association existed  neighbourhood.  <K-tau=C.28,  have s o m e t h i n g  and a g g r e g a t e  household  the  seems t o have been  o r p e r c e i v e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , o r t h e  neighbourhood  No the  the  a l l  6  neighbourhood  pleasantness  s p a c e and  t o p e r c e i v e the neighbourhood  acguaintances 7  in  correlation  Of  p r e f e r e n c e s and a t t i t u d e s ,  socializing).  people  outdoor  respondents  income might  between t h i s v a r i a b l e  income  statistical  household.  the  people.  that  p a r t i c u l a r c h o i c e of t h e i r freguency  the  people tended  l e s s crowded t h a n y o u n g e r  It  of  adequacy o f p r i v a t e  in  of  the p e r c e p t i o n o f crowdedness.  of the respondents, crowding  with  s=0.03).  The number  w i t h any o f t h e o t h e r g u a l i t i e s o f  Chapter  4.3  4: R e s u l t s  Private  70  Outdoors  Bach r e s p o n d e n t  was  asked  he/she c o n s i d e r e d p r i v a t e .  to define  Q u e s t i o n B4  which  outdoor  spaces  inquired:  B4  "Which open s p a c e s a r o u n d t h e house would you expect others o u t s i d e the family 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  pre-test  definition •back* B5  had  shown t h a t some c o n f u s i o n c o u l d  o f what r e s p o n d e n t s  o f t h e house.  So  q u e s t i o n B5 was  the  *frcnt*  inserted  to  i n the cr  the  inquire:  "Which a c c e s s t o t h e house do you use most, t h e f r o n t or the back? Is that t h e one t h r o u g h which t h e ( i n t e r v i e w e r ) came i n ? "  This supplied  further  opening  was  used  openings  on  interpreted  i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e e x t e n t t o which  as  both s i d e s .  an 8  according  exit/inqress, The  replies  16% defined  o f the respondents in this  influenced front•,  by  what t h e  had  t o q u e s t i o n B4 have t c  be  Southview  had  different  space than Kanata d i d . ,  shared the d e f i n i t i o n  'front*  as  considered t h i s  side  be  I n making t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  some  were  named  •the  monograph, w h i l e 22%  back o f t h e house.  as  either  a l l buildings  to the p r o j e c t .  p r o v i s i o n s f o r p r i v a t e outdoor  the  considered  arise  architect  of  had c o n s i d e r e d and  to  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  71  " . . . when i t was d e s i g n e d , t h i s be t h e f r o n t . "  Others  associated  entrances to single carports  are  an  entrance  family  on  detached  usually located  of  which  more  location main  to  of the kitchen  entrance  family  as  private,  private.  houses  but a  third  considered  provided  neccessarily  what  the  those  through  Southview).  more  private.  to  4.1  and 4.2) which  units  faced  the dining  and  than  at  onto  but  the  of looking  as  this  9  higher i s not  families, play out  areas, of  the  room window,  18$ o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s c o n s i d e r e d  a d e g u a c y , and t h o s e  only  back  a  Some  t h e p a t i o on t o p o f t h e c a r p o r t  In f a c t  in  Southview.  carport.  wanted.  the  a t the back.  front  seclusion,  respondents  whose  lacked Only  close  side,  located  factor  concerns the  (Figs.  both  f a v o u r a b l y on t h e p o s s i b i l i t y  Kanata  as  Kanata,  t h e r e was a f e n c e d a r e a n e a r t h e  especially  t h e c a r one  another  o f t h e house,  i s usually  houses  t h e m a j o r i t y (57%) c o n s i d e r e d t h e b a c k y a r d  have  kitchen,  than  a t the f r o n t  would  commented  house.  alley  these  and from  T h i s was a much h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n  In K a n a t a fence  the  to  with  In  a s an a c c e s s on t h e k i t c h e n  detached  In Kanata,  carport  houses.  but s e p a r a t e d by a h a l l w a y  Seme p e r c e i v e d t h i s single  Southview  the  a t t h e back,  makes a e n t r a n c e t o t h e 'back' applies  was i n t e n d e d  (provided i n this  space  v e r y few commented on i t s e x i s t e n c e o r i t s  who d i d had mixed  feelings.  The  patio  was  P i g . 4.1  K a n a t a : T y p i c a l House p l a n s  feadroom living room  badroom »•»•« g'-J-  ll'3'i W-V ll-IO". f"*'  14.  fl  kilchtn  T"H  1  I!  bedroom 9-O'X I 4  carport  ^  FLOOR  badroom 10-0•« u  6*  10*0* l0»6'  9  nn*t  Blorag*]  SCCOND  •;,.o»t«oo'^  & FLOOR  jo;* * ioiti* 1  (FIRST FLOOR  •ECONO  FLOOR  .IRRT  TYPICAL 2 BEDRM. TOWNHOUSE  TYPICAL 3 BEDRM. TOWNHOUSE  FLOOR  e.CONO  FLOOR  TYPICAL 4 BEDRM. TOWNHOUSE  Chapter  4:  Results  perceived fact  as  that  less  i t was  neighbours* discovered people  74  private  on  the  windows  than the  second  floor,  (Plates  3.7  similar attitudes,  tended  to  prefer  more p r i v a t e .  the  of  the  was  contributing  rest  the  of  house  the  solely  outside  cf  on  ground the  i t s use,  The  play  patio.  than the  Adequacy  A enough than  open  38%  number  more  They  suggested  that  side  in  i t  of  the  (Fig.  relation  difficult, 4.2).  but  This  very  a sundeck,  and  checking i n  few  house  therefore  tc as  the  i t  was  makes  i t  respondents  always  referred  t h e i r responses.  were under t w e l v e ,  was  a  and  more l i k e l y  Many  reguired place  for  Space  (52%) the  responded  they  where  1 0  space around  because  perhaps  as  project  Outdoor  substantial  expected.  either cr  of  the  balconies.  findings  to  adults,  except  backyard  the  (1975)  income h o u s i n g ,  t h i s space  access  the  in this  supervision.  4.3.1  of  f l o o r space while  children  from  Zeisel  most a c t i v e  master bedroom to  of  use.  made  the  secluded  backyards t c  the  in spite  3.8).  low  Later  on  location  accessible  commented  patio  i t s low  Moreover  situated  to  to  for  enclosed  as  and  and  but  were p e r c e i v e d location  backyard,  could  house. that  not  importantly,  replied that This  they  properly other  had  they  did  not  have  percentage  was  lower  the  maintain factors  right  amount,  a larger dictated  area, a  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  75  compromise,  " . . . what we  i t i s a l w a y s b e t t e r t o have more, but f o r a r e p a y i n g , I guess i t i s a l r i g h t . "  Sanoff  and  Sawney  with the d w e l l i n g the  neighbourhood.  might be the  was  (K-tau=0.42, generate  s=0.0017).  encountered  Increased  related  to  an  neighbourhood.  neighbourhood  between  with  associations  satisfaction  The  satisfaction  neighbourhood outdoor  (K-tau=0.24,  perceptions  of  space  perceived  upkeep  s=0.016)  s=0.042).  No  were  and  adeguacy  in  to  have space.  an e f f e c t  of was  the on  be the  weakly  perceived  s=0.021)  association  people  outdoor  to  (R-tau=0.28,  would have e x p e c t e d  private  to  neighbourhood  quietness  s p a c e , a l t h o u g h one  adequacy o f the  tended  w i t h t h e o u t d o o r s seemed t o  crowdedness  household  c f the  s=0.0006)  and  outdoor  the  of  satisfaction  space  (K~tau=0.4,  (K-tau=0.28,  attractiveness,  also  association  adequacy o f p r i v a t e o u t d o o r space  related  there  neighbourhood.  increasingly  significantly  pleasantness  and  with  elements  a very s i g n i f i c a n t  between adequacy o f o u t d o o r  noise.  but  space  that  w i t h some  and  Inadequate  dissatisfactions  Very s i g n i f i c a n t  space,  t h e r e was  outdoor  satisfaction  with a higher s a t i s f a c t i o n  presumed, t h e r e f o r e ,  outdoor  Overall  private  that a higher  between s a t i s f a c t i o n  private  neighbourhood. between  associated I t was  a relation  house,  (1S72) f o u n d  was of  and found  private  number  of  the perceived  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  Age,  income,  the p r i v a t e outdoor  4.4  The  ana s e x had n o t h i n g t o do w i t h how s p a c e was.  of  no  question  specifically  use o f t h e o u t d o o r  spaces,  t h e comments made b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , the  intensity  of  engagement  cateqory.  I t seems t h a t  descendinq  order o f i n t e n s i t y .  Activities  performed  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  these  in were  inquired from  i t was p o s s i b l e  any  one p a r t i c u l a r  performed  as  by o n e s e l f  with f a m i l y  about  the  t h e r e s p o n s e s and  Best and R e l a x a t i o n Hobbies and C r a f t s Home M a i n t e n a n c e and R e p a i r , Storage Games P e t Care (not a p p l i c a b l e i n Southview)  Activities^performed 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  adeguate  Activities  Although intensity  76  or intimate friends  Rest and R e l a x a t i o n 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 Home M a i n t e n a n c e and R e p a i r Housework/Household Business Games Formal Social Activities Child Oriented A c t i v i t i e s Storage P e t Care (not a p p l i c a b l e i n Southview)  to  infer  activity  follows,  in  Chapter  4:  Results  Shankland 1975)  give  a  performed  in  from  public  top  of  their  order  somewhat  shorter  respondents  were  provided  keep i n mind  covers a l l possible  is  T a b l e 4.4,  the  Cooper  activities  either  were  T h e i r respondents,  taken  In had  the  that the l i s t  by  at  sample  their  own  w i t h communal l a u n d r y  activities  {1967,  that  list.  performed  immediately that  the under  laundry  facilities.  of a c t i v i t i e s i n  o u t d o o r s , and the  this  consequently  respondents.  apparent  This  respondents  did  could not  be  responses  state  demanding  inconspicuous, Mot-Neighbouring  - 4.7,  extreme  state, with  to  mean  1  and  condition  either  and  for  11=50,  state,  state,  cases,  responses  This  a third  (62%)  feeling  a s many who  on  with a small  contrasts  which were m o s t l y  majority  almost  most  seclusion,  seclusion.  the  about  the  responses.  were f o r p r e f e r r e d  on t h e I n t i m a c y  the Anonymity  4.3  c a r e o r , as i n t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e  For a l l the a c t i v i t i e s ,  minority  Figs.  interpreted  t h e y gave m i d d l e - o f - t h e - r o a d  Seclusion  from  t h e h i g h e s t amount were ' i n d i f f e r e n t  responses.  On  (1972) and  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, S p a c e s  It  the  to  sample p r o j e c t s .  a r e not a l l n e c c e s s a r i l y  4.4.1  BoHLG  developments, placed c l o t h e s d r y i n g  here, the or  (1967),  different  should a l s o  study  al  housing  machines, One  et  their  scrutiny  77  with  indifferent.  preferred  tc  be  indifferent.  On  the  tc  be  preferred  not  78  t  Pest • Pelpxntlon  in °o  -. Hobbies • C r a f t s  I  [Seaes  UJtj  ^£  •  \V  Inforanl Social Activities Formal S o c i a l Activities Pet  Y-  Cars  Household  Child  i  y  i  (S ) ( A) (Nil) (I )  Condition 1  Condition 5  Extremely Extremely Extremely Extremely  Extremely Extremely Extremely Extremely  Secluded Conscicuous Like Secluded  Activities-  Housework  Home  Maintenance  / >  Jii/  Seclusion Anonymity •ot Neighbouring Intimacy  Business  Storege  Unsecluded Inconsoicuous Dislike Unsecluded  Pest + Relaxation  \  \ X  Hobbies • C r a f t s  _  Genes  Q3A3  /  SI  ••  / I  y  Tnfonal Social Activities Formal S o c i a l Activities  a  Pet  A •/  \w • -  Care  Household  Child  Business  Activities  -  Housework /  -—  >  s  '-  i  3  Pig.  4.3  $*  8  A c h i e v e d P r i v a c y bir A c t i v i t y C o n d i t i o n s 1 and 5  z  *>/ ••. /  4X  Homo  Maintenance  Storage  o  79  Rest * Relaxation •«JP Bobbies * Crafta  SQ >r-  Oases  CONC  ACH!  1.1—  •  Inforaal Social Activities  —-  Jbraal Social Activltlas  •i  "—  Pat Care  ^^^^  Household Business Child ActlTitles  /  /  Housework  Rons Maintenance  Storafe  Seclusion (S ) Inonynlty ( A) Hot Neighbouring Intimacy (I )  Oneecluded Iaeonsoieuou3 Dislike Unseduded  Secluded Conspicuous like Secluded  \\  CM  Si  Rest • Relaxation  \  Robbies * Crafts  Games  —-x  m  Znfonaal Social Activities Pbreal Social Activities Pet Care  i  Ttousehold Business  Child A c t i v i t i e s  {\  *  Houseworif  \  Hone Maintenance  Storego  8  3 Fig. <*.<.  A c h i e v e d P r i v a c y by C o n d i t i o n s 2 and U  o  Activity  8o  Condition 3 Seclusion Anonymity  (S ) ( A)  tot neighbouring (mi) Intimacy CI )  Pig. 4.5  Indifferent Indifferent  Indifferent Indifferent  A c h i e v e d and P r e f e r r e d Condition 3  Privacy  by A c t i v i t y  Seclusion iaonymity l o t Neighbouring Intimacy  (S ) ( A) (NN) (I)  Condition 2  Condition 4  Secluded Coascicuoos Like Secluded  Unsecluded InconsDicuous Dislike Unsecluded  CM  D UJ~»  £g  / X  -  UJ—  uio  UJZ C O  S e s i • °elar*tlon  S /  Hobbies • C r a f t s  Ga»es  Ir.forn^l Soclel Activities  1 /* j -/ . ! . ' 1 • rs  Feraal S s c i a l Activities  • •  Pet Care .  Household Business  1  / i  Child Activities  Foueewo T'K  Kose Maintenance  V  ;N.  Storage  s  o  #•1  Fig  4.6  1  Preferred Privacy by A c t i v i t y . Conditions 2 and 4  o  82  Pest • R e l a x a t i o n  in  Cl C-O  Hobbies • C r a f t s  Genes  PREI CON  / #  ' i  Inforoal Social Activities Fbraal S o c i a l Activities  ^..^—  P e t Care  \  >--  ('  ">  Household B u s i n e s s  NS\  Child Activities J  Housework  •  Rone Maintenance  Storage  Seclusion Anonymity Hot Neighbouring Intimacy  (S ) ( A) (NN) ( I)  Condition 1  Condition 5  Extremely Secluded E x t r e a e l y Conspicuous Extremely L i k e Extremely Secluded  Extremely Unsecladed Extremely Inconspicuous Extremely C i s l i k e Extremely Unsecladed  i/ J  1  o 11 IT*  Pe3t • R e l a x a t i o n  Hobbies • C r a f t s  / LUZ  \  \ j Games  w  co  Inforoal Social Activities Formal S o c i a l Activities P e t Care  1  Household B u s i n e s s  V  \\  Child  Activities  Houcemrk  \  K  i — \ Home Maintenance  i  s Fig.  s 4.7  o  P r e f e r r e d P r i v a c y by C o n d i t i o n s 1 and 5  b  Activity  Storage o  SECLUSION  INTIMACY  10.7  89.3  t K a n a t a (28)  18.2  81.8  %  Secluded  ' ANONYMITY C o n s p i c u o u s  NOT NEIGHBOURING  (22)  14.3  82.1  3.6  13. 6  68. 2  13.6  %  -  35. 7  60.7  % K a n a t a (28)  4. 5  27. 3  63.6  %  -  46. 4  50.0  % K a n a t a (28)  4. 5  50. 0  40.9  -  Like  Table  4.4  Preferred  Unsecluded  % K a n a t a (28)  Secluded 4. 5  Southview  4.5  Privacy  Southview  Southview  (22)  (22)  Unsecluded  Inconspicuous  Dislike %  Southview  (22)  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  interrupted T a b l e 4.4 state,  84  (46%) also  did  not  care  demonstrates  responses  did  whether  that,  not  vary  they  except  were  for  considerably  or not.  the  from  Intimacy p r o j e c t to  project.  Only  a  few  activities  •indifferent .  These  1  were  states).  Informal S o c i a l  state,  and  (Seclusion state  4.4.2  and  state).  an  (Intimacy  ( a l l four  state,  Anonymity  Hobbies  state),  Housework  (Seclusion  Child Oriented A c t i v i t i e s  and S t o r a g e  i n Private  Outdoor  the majority of  4.5  and  Crafts  Spaces  the  inclination  d e s c r i b e s the for  Although respondents one  respondents*  replies  t o most a c t i v i t i e s ,  activity  frequency  each  state  were  more  than  of  and  in  i n each their  of  the  project. attitudes  a n o t h e r . R e s t and R e l a x a t i o n a q a i n  c a t e q o r y which  about.»  were  Residents  distribution  privacy  specific  emerges as an a c t i v i t y  activities  Relaxation  than  state),  'indifferent*  level  2  other  states.  Table  towards  responses  1 1  On t h i s l e v e l ,  achieved  and  Anonymity  Achieved Privacy  on a l l f o u r  Rest  Not-Neighbouring  state  indicated  peak  Activities  and I n t i m a c y s t a t e ) ,  (Intimacy  had  p e o p l e were v e r y  predominantly  on t h e N o t - N e i g h b o u r i n g  state.  indifferent  specific tc a l l  SECLUSION  INTIMACY  3. 6  53. 6  32. 1  7. 1  %  K a n a t a (28)  4.5  45.5  36.4  4.5  %  Southview  7. 1  64.3  21 .4  7.4  %  K a n a t a (28)  13.6  31.8  45.5  9.1  %  Southview  7. 1  32. 1  39.3  %  K a n a t a (28)  18.2  50.0  27.3  %  Southview  7. 1  42. 9  35.7 i  %  K a n a t a (28)  9.1  50.0  %  Southview  Secluded  Secluded  ANONYMITY C o n s p i c u o u s  N  0  T  NEIGHBOURING  Like  3.6  (22)  Unsecluded  Unsecluded (22)  Inconspicuous  10.7  27.3  (22)  Dislike (22) CO VJl  Table  4.5  Achieved  Privacy  Chapter  4:  In  Results  86  addition,  4.5  Table  larger  number o f r e s p o n d e n t s  being  seen  when  p r o j e c t s they interesting  doing  were a s  demonstrates t h a t i n Southview  than  a t K a n a t a were c o n c e r n e d  activities  unconcerned  observation  with  when  considering  that  This  an  many r e s p o n d e n t s  at  backyard.  in  more i n c o n s p i c u o u s , b u t  tended  higher d i s l i k e This  was  interruptions  responses.  the  echoed  in  during  their  respondents expressed  their  a  activities.  preferences  for  less  in  this  4.4).  (Table  measures  methodology,  it  interrupted  Similarly,  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  out  feel  at being  desire  4.4.3  to  both  is  1 3  K a n a t a d i d n o t have a f e n c e d Kanata  about  i n t i m a t e s , but i n alone.  a  from  did While  the  of not  forsee  different  closer  scrutiny  is  responses  •indifferent*  The  tables  desired.  were  level  categories  on  with  reader  in  These  dissatisfaction  activity  and  state  the achieved  dissatisfaction  predominance o f s l i g h t  Business,  and  number o f m i s s i n g c a s e s .  t o the  'satisfied'  f o r each  non-applicable  and  Crafts,  c o n d i t i o n responses  III,  indicate  i f the  activities.  the  highest  numerical  Repair,  Household  all  at both  to  all  a r e Home M a i n t e n a n c e and  Hobbies  due  i s therefore  Appendix  tables  worked  responses,  t o compare t h e r e s u l t s o f e a c h a c t i v i t y ,  referred  the  developed  the extent of the  dissatisfactions  preferred level  is difficult  example  dissatisfaction  of  which  levels.  have It  can  For  peak be  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  concluded  that  that  respondents  that  particular  The  87  satisfaction  a r o s e , i n many c a s e s , f r o m  were i n d i f f e r e n t  about  the  privacy  the f a c t  state  for  activity.  Not-Neighbouring  state  was t h e 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 , was  {i.e.  from one e x t r e m e t o t h e o t h e r o p p o s i t e extreme c o n d i t i o n ) the  similarity  Seclusion  state  in  the order of c o n d i t i o n  only.  There  for  no  and on one a c t i v i t y  and  the i n t i m a c y s t a t e .  r e s p o n d e n t s t e n d e d t o be d i s s a t i s f i e d than t h e S e c l u s i o n s t a t e ,  The negative larger  tables  oriented  and C r a f t s  and  Household  e v i d e n t from  also  state)  t h r o u g h a need  state  T a b l e 4.6.  shew some demand f o r  by t h e n e g a t i v e c o d e s . state  were.  The where Child  Business, Informal S o c i a l i z i n g  were a c t i v i t y  comments,  Not-Neighbouring either  indicated  more on t h e I n t i m a c y  t o be more c o n s p i c u o u s t h a n t h e y  Activites,  their  III  In general  c a n be f o u n d on t h e N o t - N e i g h b o u r i n g  people p r e f e r r e d  From  Appendix  dissatisfactions, number  Hobbies  in  as i s a l s o  responses  categories  with such  responses.  respondents  i n these s i t u a t i o n s  were w i l l i n g  to  f o r a rest,  tolerate  and  (on t h e  interruptions  o r t o show o f f , o r t o e d u c a t e  share experiences.  Through  statistical  manipulation,  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 Table  4.6  i t  was  possible  index f o r each s t a t e ,  to  shown i n  Perfectly Satisfied  SECLUSION  INTIMACY  ANONYMITY  NOT NEIGHBOURING  0  1  2  3  4  .39.3  14.3  40.9  22.7  **'5  10.7  60.7  17.9  10.7  %  13.6  36.4  45.5  44.5  % Southview  25.0  50.0  25.0  % Kanata  13. 6  63. 6  22.7  %  Southview  42.9  53.6  3.6  %  Kanata (28)  31.8  54.5  13.6  %  Southview  4.6  31.8  dissatisfied  28.6  Table  3.6  Extremely  -  Dissatisfaction  % K a n a t a (28) % Southview  Indices  (22)  K a n a t a (28) (22)  (28) (22)  (22)  Chapter  4:  In 1.  Results  summary, t h i s t a b l e  There  are  amount o f accrued both 2.  3.  no  points  to the  following:  extreme d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s .  'perfectly satisfied'  from  the  the  level  and  but  are  a  fair  t h e s e may  have  'indifferent'  the  preferred  i s h i g h e r i n K a n a t a on  Not-Neighbouring  There  responses,  huge number o f  achieved  Satisfaction the  89  the  responses  on  level. anonymity  state  and  state.  Overall,  respondents tended  to  Intimacy  s t a t e than S e c l u s i o n  Intimacy  state  is  more  dissatisfaction  on  the  be  more  state.  with  D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on  extreme  in  Seclusion  dissatisfied  Southview,  state  the  while  i s more e x t r e n e  in  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  very s i g n i f i c a n t l y  Only be  dissatisfaction  significantly  neighbours was  with  attitudes  All  the  the  only  state  associations  was  satisfaction  with a  disprove  hypotheses.  the  on  the  Seclusion  with  was  other  hand, t h e  not  were  most  neighbourhood  particular state. They i n d i c a t e  to the  Not-Neighbouring associated  where d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n  significantly a  found  towards  significantly  neighbourhood, the  s t a t e was  attitudes  were p o s i t i v e , i . e .  n e i g h b o u r s and  states  l  the  which  towards the  Seclusion  t o w a r d s the  one  On  four  with each o t h e r . *  associated  (s=0.0189).  state  cn  associated  all  associated.  more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e generated  an  increasing  These a s s o c i a t i o n s that  there  i s no  partly simple  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  pattern  i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p  and  neighbouring  neighbourhood  The  90  attitudes,  second  of  part  privacy  neighbourhood. preferences community. (no  privacy  and  incongruence the  results  predetermined  association  was  but  also  i t  seem  for  with  freguency  interaction  the  for  less  conspicuousness  number o f p e o p l e i n t h e h o u s e h o l d s — t h e people  preferred  Justification obvious.  This  to feel  for  with t h e o v e r a l l  assessment  No a c h i e v e d s t a t e  prying  state)  towards  the  length  of  time  stay  of  in  neighbour  seem t o be m i t i g a t e d neighbours.  by  Similarly  were a s s o c i a t e d  with the  g r e a t e r t h e number,  the  conspicuous.  kind  of achieved s e c l u s i o n  was t h e o n l y c o n d i t i o n  s t a t e and t h e I n t i m a c y  attitudes  the  privacy  c f the f i t i n the  limitation  state)  with  that  or the  t o be immutable w i t h  (Not-Neighbouring  of  seems  irrespective  discovered  preferences  particular  with t h e neighbours  interruptions  less  and  seems t o t e u n t r u e .  between p r e f e r e n c e s f o r a  These a t t i t u d e s a l s o  preferences  privacy  dissatisfactions  of the hypotheses  From  are  residence),  with  attitudes.  No a s s o c i a t i o n s were f o u n d state  between d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n  (both  cn  the  which was s i g n i f i c a n t l y  i s not  Seclusion associated  of the neighbourhood.  of privacy  was a s s o c i a t e d  with  overall  neighbours, but neighbours described  seemed t o d e c r e a s e t h e amount o f  achieved  intimacy  as and  Chapter  4:  increase  4.5  Results  the  sample,  lack  in  f o c u s on  attempt t o the  to  o f an  Privacy  be  interrupted  further  the the  i n the  by  the  Sample  o v e r a l l pattern  of  social the  association  investigation  The  s a l i e n t features  that  has  presented  i n the the  ensuing  twc  of  boundary.  into  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  conditions  been  neighbours.  Projects  individual projects.  b r i n g out  various  self/other  to  Variations  suggested  responses will  dislike  Response  The  91  privacy discussion  projects might  in  privacy.  as  the  control  Where t h i s boundary i s s e t  over  will  depend  factors—personal,  interpersonal  and  {Altman,  1975),  d e v e l o p m e n t and  upbringing  past  Laufer,  personality  1974), p e r s o n a l i t y  residential  socio-economic status most d i r e c t l y  relevant  t o the  (Marshall,  1963-a) t h e  last  on  (Wolfe  1963  1970-b) variable i s  architect/designer.  the  situational  characteristics (Willis,  experience (Willis,  an  contribute  various  and  whole  b), and the  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  92  1.5. 1 S g c i g - e c o n c m i c  Background  Income  Hichelson  (1970)  determining f a c t o r education,  and  the respondent. four  in  It  function were  In  both our samples,  the average  Southview. job  income i n e a c h  One  position.  the  study  contrast and  by  status.  disclosing  and  income  families.  o t h e r a s p e c t s of t h e i r  income was  social excercise  t h e r e were was  status  does  this  control.  not  of  a l l the  in  than those i n  allow  a  better with  state,  suggesting,  lower  income f a m i l i e s , i n  preferred  is  no  to the  usually  fundamental  them  many  as  in  interruptions,  personal control  is a  Kanata  t c be a s s o c i a t e d  activities  For then  variations  p r o b a b l y more a  respondents  found  that  their  life  with  with income, but  ( T a b l e 3.3)  C o n t r o l over i n p u t / o u t p u t i n t e r a c t i o n s lower  say,  than the l i f e s t y l e  This  The  t o h i g h e r income f a m i l i e s ,  disliked  that  project.  (1963)  a  were.  Hot-Neighbouring  Willis  of  than,  assume t h e s e p e o p l e would be i n  In Kanata  a p r e f e r e n c e f o r the  less  dissatisfactions  ten years older  could  is  housing  were n o t a s s o c i a t e d  o f age t h a n s o c i a l  on  with  a l r e a d y been p o i n t e d out  the average  income  both are l e s s i n f l u e n t i a l  preferences f o r privacy  has  that  satisfaction  states of privacy  specific  in  suggests  neighbours. stronger  in  over  housing  need.  Their  opportunities  to  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  93  Aae  Dissatisfaction tended  to  decrease  association inclined that  Marshall study  the  with  between  Seclusion  age.  Only  preferences  t o be more c o n s p i c u o u s .  age  privacy  on  was  a  more  t h a n i n c o m e , as c i d e r (1970-c) a l s o  This  about  oneself)  neighbours.  However, o t h e r r e s e a r c h ( O n i b o k u n ,  privacy  (Willis,  result  achievements the  of  1963-c).  and  for  suggest  of a t t i t u d e s  the  but i n her  Reserve  1976),  comments  expressed  attributable  (lack  of  with  the  concluded  accomplishments  cycle rather  made  in this  to  the  by  per  or the  study  are  respondent's  are a r e f l e c t i o n  t h a n age  on  more o u t g o i n g .  Non-Involvement  attitudes  These  p o s i t i o n i n the l i f e  to opt  Frcm  confidence  in life.  would  i n determining housing s a t i s f a c t i o n ,  r e s p o n d e n t s , i t seems t h a t the  were  with age,  disclosure  i s not a f a c t o r  Older people  t o be  were i n c l i n e d  age  an  determinant  an a s s o c i a t i o n  projects  displayed  finding  people  that  older  age.  people tended  found  i n both  Kanata  and  important  state  of  se.  Class  By  Michelson's  respondents  in  the  respondents  i n both  same  as t h e i r  class  (1970)  definition,  working  to  low  p r o j e c t s agreed neighbours  f o u n d however i n t h e K a n a t a  both  middle  housed  c l a s s range.  that they  ( T a b l e 4.2).  project.  projects  belonged  to  Disagreements  In Kanata  respondents  Most the were who  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  perceived  their  demonstrated  94  neighbours  a  preference  performing t h e i r  preference  ether  people  greater  certain  This  rather  than  as  the  evaluations  are  assessment  garden  to  i n the f o l l o w i n g  enjoy  people  than  i s  for  a  function  Shared  t h e neighbourhood  a  positive  demographic,  ethnic  or socio-economic  1970).  a  of  but  perceptions  of  only the  qualities.  1 6  feeling  in  Southview  gualties In  of  spite  and t h e  neighbourhood  with the neighbours  greater  of  attitudes  v e r b a l communication  neighbours,  similarity  and  (Gans,1967).  ( L a n s i n g , Marans and Z e h n e r ,  engender  attempt  kids"  neighbourhood  concerning  responsible  rather  Increased to  in  i n t e r e s t s and a t t i t u d e s  community  features  my  tc instruct  an  i s illustrated  cycle.  Interests  Compatibility  well  when  The d e s i r e t o be c o n s p i c u o u s may  1 5  ways,  "I love working on e n j o y i n g my g a r d e n . " (Kanata)  as  higher class  ccnspicuousness  " P e o p l e s h o u l d watch o t h e r s t e a c h i n g (Kanata)  similar  a  c o n s p i c u o u s n e s s maybe a d e s i r e  demonstrate equal status. comments.  Similarity.of  to  of the respondents' stage i n the l i f e  for  in  belonging  for  activities.  a g a i n be t h e r e s u l t The  as  friendliness were  there  helpfulness of  this,  and  seemed  from  the  increased interest  Southview  still  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  seemed  to  lack  knew e a c h  95  sufficient  other's  neighbouring t o enable neighbours  qualities.  1 7  F r i e n d l i n e s s d i d not a f f e c t either  project  affect  the  on  preferred  tolerated.  Higher  associated  of p r i v a c y  state.  1 8  o f the f o u r  level  of  states,  while  to dislike  interests.  but  perceptions of neighbours  of i n t e r e s t s  with s i m i l a r performing interruptions  of  interruptions  that  interests their from  of  to be  were  interruptions.  the  the  achieved  Not-Neighbouring  seemed  to  activities neighbours  in  would  as f r i e n d l i e r  dislike  s t a t e and  privacy  i t d i d seem  seemed t o a f f e c t  on t h e a n o n y m i t y  People  conspicuous tended  the e v a l u a t i o n  with a p r e f e r e n c e f o r l e s s  Dissimilarity level  any  to  feel  less  outdoors  with  and  dissimilar  1 9  Noise  Noise privacy,  is  one  of  the  especially  in  multifamily  recipient  (by  activities  one  been  found  excess)  and  can perform)  most  common  the actor (Bossley,  to c o n t r i b u t e towards  sources  of l a c k  housing—both {by  limiting  1976) .  neighbourhood  to  of the  t h e number o f  Noise  has  also  dissatisfaction  ( L a n s i n g e t a l , 1970).  In n e i t h e r  p r o j e c t d i d n e i g h b o u r ' s n o i s e have  any  impact  C h a p t e r 4:  on  Results  tbe achieved  both p r o j e c t s at  the  96  level (Table  density  o f any p r i v a c y 4.2)  of  perceive  these  state.  Host r e s p o n d e n t s i n  t h e neighbours as g u i e t , but  projects,  i t  may  be p o s s i b l e  individuals  do n o t r e a l l y  care  whether  or  not  neighbours  (Lansing  al,  1970).  In  both  et  r e s p o n d e n t s were more aware  of  house, r a t h e r  C r i t i c i s m s of this  freguent  than o u t s i d e .  i n Southview t h a n a t K a n a t a .  Neighbourhood in  the  noise  on  of privacy.  a l l four  a l l associations  Southview. the  states  found  concomitantly,  2 1  achieved  felt  they  lived  to  in  i n a noisy  states,  element ncise.  dissatisfaction  more s u r p r i s i n g i s  Kanata,  neighbourhood  l e v e l o f the privacy  the  n a t u r e were more  than neighbour  What i s even found  many  inside  important  to contribute  were  the  2 0  respondent's a t t i t u d e s to privacy was  hear  projects  noise  seems t o be a more  Neighbourhood n o i s e  that  neighbours  they  that  noise but  and  none  in  d i d not a f f e c t  respondents  neighbourhood p r e f e r r e d  who  t o be more  inconspicuous.  These  associations  cause-and-effect.  The  should  not  association  guiet  is  difficult  to e x p l a i n .  neighbours u s u a l l y  seclusion. considering  This that  i s  the  also an  felt  with  as  s t a t e and  observation,  and  R e s p o n d e n t s who were n e x t t o satisfied  important  activity  construed  between S e c l u s i o n  I n t i m a c y s t a t e , an e x p e r i e n c e c o n c e r n e d noise,  be  engaged  point in  with to most  t h e amount remember is  rest  of when and  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  relaxation, Another  which  subconscious  observed.  might  feeling  that  the  and  respondents  of awareness,  i.e.  quiet.  possibility  Consequently  that  the r e s p o n d e n t  noise generated  In e f f e c t ,  assessment  have f e l t  on t h e  decreased with n o i s i n e s s of the neighbours.  p r e f e r e n c e f o r i n c o n s p i c u o u s n e s s with i n c r e a s e d  be  slightly  Anonymity  There  a  fence  t h e r e s p o n d e n t s might would  2 2  construed  o f somebody cn t h e o t h e r s i d e o f t h e  the  conspicuous.  r e q u i r e s both s e c l u s i o n be  i n the sense  therefore  more  usually  exlanation  'observation*  and  97  was  state  also  a  noise.  Prying  Next  to  responses—in mere  aware  Kanata  noise,  this  both p r o j e c t s of  than  the  in  extent  Southview.  association  with  (K-tau=0.31,  s=0.061),  intrusion. the the  In  Intimacy  But  that  stemming  their  Prying  with  The  from  also  Respondents i n  bracket  and were l e s s  discussion  Southview interested  Hence t h e y  was  in  Kanata  a  visual  to confirm  stronger  o b v i o u s answer f o r the  earlier  were  with nature  offered  is  socio-economic  the  lower  income  i n making t h e i r  family  affairs  would  not  in  c a n be cn  were  positive  tended  were  only explanation that an  a  seclusion prying  most  intrusions in  engendered  associations  i s no  respondents  neighbours  suggesting that  There  status.  known t o o t h e r s .  of  But  here the a s s o c i a t i o n s  state.  of t h e s e r e s u l t s .  seems t o have e l i c i t e d  ( T a b l e 4.2),  dissatisfaction  Southview,  same t h i n g .  quality  be  keen  on  exposing  Chapter  4:  family  Besults  98  activities  to  the  uncontrolled  scrutiny  of  the  neighbours.  4.6  Summary  In t h e r e s u l t s an  immediately  distinguish There  p r e s e n t e d h e r e , t h e r e d o e s n o t seem  obvious  between  social  and  of  associations,  physical  i s , however, an e m p h a s i s on c e r t a i n  1. R e s p o n d e n t s  i n Kanata  characteristics 2. T h e r e  rate  in  state)  than  for  Consequently  and  solo  b u t n o t on  the I n t i m a c y  to privacy Noise  important 6. F u r t h e r  from  characteristics  statistical  there i s a high  with  seclusion  (the  Intimacy  The  neiqhbours  on t h e S e c l u s i o n  state  seem t o be  more  related  neiqhbours.  neighbours  contributor  and  state.  a t t i t u d e s than  both  neighbours*  quo.  activities.  only to d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n  neighbourhood  privacy.  privacy  intimates  conributed  4. The  preferred  more d i s s a t i s f i e d  with f a m i l y  which  trends.  with the s t a t u s  t e n d e d t o be  activities  of  be  Southview. for  outdoors.  of s a t i s f a c t i o n  3. R e s p o n d e n t s for  than those  privacy  states  a r e more aware o f t h e i r  i s a high i n d i f f e r e n c e  achieved  5.  pattern  to  and  neighbourhood  to d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n  with  i s the  most  privacy.  a n a l y s i s i n t o the response  variations  Chapter  4:  Results  between  99  the  associations  two  sample  were f o u n d  projects  i n Kanata  than  revealed in  far  Southview.  more  Chapter  4:  Results  100  Footnotes  *Each r e s p o n s e , f o r e a c h q u a l i t y , was g i v e n a s c o r e from 1 to 5 ( 1 = e x t r e m e l y n e g a t i v e , 5 = e x t r e m e l y p o s i t i v e ) and added up. The r e s u l t s were t h e n r e c o d e d and r e a d j u s t e d t o g i v e the total s c o r e a t t h e bottom o f t h e 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) o r t h e n e i g h b o u r s ( T a b l e 4.2). 2  made by  Interview with the manager some o f the r e s p o n d e n t s .  of  S o u t h v i e w , and  comments  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 a s s i g n e d t h e 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 o f t h e four privacy states; quality r e f e r s t o any one o f t h e 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 c a t e g o r y r e f e r s t o any one o f t h e activity categories 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 t h e p r e f e r r e d l e v e l o r t h e a c h i e v e d l e v e l , and conditon refers to any one of the a t t i t u d e s on t h e L i k e r t S c a l e o r S e m a n t i c Differential scale. 3  • K e n d a l l ' s Tau i s a n o n - p a r a m e t r i c measurement between ordinal level v a r i a b l e s , b a s e d cn t h e r a n k o r d e r i n g o f the variables. A s s o c i a t i o n s were deemed insignificant beyond 0.0 8 level. This hypothesis r e s p o n d e n t s e q u a t e d the lived in. s  the  *0lder people neiqhbours.  two two the  was based on t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t the neighbourhood with the projects they  seemed  to  be  bothered  less  by  prying  from  S e p a r a t e a n a l y s i s showed o t h e r w i s e . I n Kanata t h e r e was a significant relationship (K-tau=0.3, s=0.01) between i n c c m e a n d f r e q u e n c y o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n between n e i g h b o u r s . Shere the higher income residents socialized more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n lower income residents. No significant relationship was d i s c o v e r e d i n Southview. 7  The interviewer a l w a y s made an e n t r a n c e 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 . This was t h e o n l y a c c e s s t o t h e house w i t h a l o c k which c o u l d be o p e r a t e d from t h e outside. This always meant the entrance by the c a r p o r t , o r f o r K a n a t a , on the s i d e o f t h e p a r k i n g l o t . 8  only  'Only 1% o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t i n K a n a t a c o n s i d e r e d as p r i v a t e , compared w i t h 14SI i n S o u t h v i e w .  the  front  Chapter  4:  Results  101  *°As i t s t a n d s i n S o u t h v i e w t h i s patio in the author's view i s awkward space. In t h e M e d i t e r r a n e a n f o r e x a m p l e , t h e same k i n d o f s p a c e i s used f o r laundry purposes, neighbouring and socializing activities, but primarily i t f u n c t i o n s as a f r o n t s e a t t o t h e show o f l i f e e n a c t e d on t h e s t r e e t . This i s hardly the case i n Southview. The weather does n o t a l l o w t h i s . S e c o n d l y t h e p e o p l e do n o t i n t e r a c t as much outdoors. Onder these circumstances, the streets then become merely c o m m u n i c a t i o n a r t e r i e s and conveyors of traffic. Indeed in Southview they seem to have been d e s i g n e d w i t h o n l y t h a t i n mind. A l l three c u l - d e - s a c s , prevent their use by outsiders with no business i n t h e p r o j e c t , t h u s c u t t i n g down on f u r t h e r activities. The management has confined children's play a c t i v i t i e s t o s p e c i f i c a r e a s , away from t h e s t r e e t s . Admittedly s u c h p r o c e d u r e s may f o r c e strangers into the project to be easily identified ( J a c o b s , 1961; Newman, 1972), b u t t h e a u t h o r q u e s t i o n s t h e e x t e n t t o which r e s i d e n t s c a n i d e n t i f y e a c h o t h e r , as there seems to be little c o n t a c t between t h e n e i g h b o u r s anyway. One r e s p o n d e n t c o u l d n o t distinguish between privacy from neighbours and p r i v a c y from s t r a n g e r s . He s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e two were one and t h e same.each Cul-de-sac houses a r e s i d e n t manager who presumably is in a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to i d e n t i f y residents i n a particular cluster. T h i s does n o t e x c l u d e t h e fact that other c o n d i t i o n s could have been g i v e n n e a r - t o - p e a k r e s p o n s e s , and v i c e - v e r s a . The r e a d e r i s t h e r e f o r e r e f e r r e d t o t h e freguency distribution diagrams f o r each a c t i v i t y i n Appendix I I I . 1 4  **The other activities with a predominanace o t h e r than • i n d i f f e r e n t ' were Games (on t h e S e c l u s i o n s t a t e and Intimacy state). Formal Social, Child and S t o r a g e a c t i v i t i e s (on t h e A n o n y m i t y s t a t e and I n t i m a c y s t a t e ) . Housework (on t h e S e c l u s i o n state and Intimacy state), and I n f o r m a l S o c i a l and P e t C a r e a c t i v i t i e s (on t h e I n t i m a c y s t a t e ) . W h e t h e r t h e a c h i e v e d s e c l u s i o n i s good o r bad, c a n only be measured i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' 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 privacy. 1 3  **The a s s o c i a t i o n s Seclusion state s=0.013 Anonymity s t a t e s=0.0G09 Not-Neighbouring s=0.001 Seclusion state s=0.0000 Seclusion state  by  were as  follows:  Not-Neighbouring  by I n t i m a c y state  state  by I n t i m a c y  by A n o n y m i t y by I n t i m a c y  state  state state  K-tau=0.29, K-tau=0.37,  state  K-tau=0.37, K-tau=0.54, K-tau=0.'*8,  Chapter  4: R e s u l t s  s=0.0002 Anonymity s t a t e s=0.0059.  102  by N o t - N e i g h b o u r i n g  state  K-tau=0.37,  A v e r y 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 p e r c e p t i o n o f neighbour's c l a s s (K-tau=0.36, s=0. 0 0 8 2 ) . 1 S  and  *It i s important t o keep i n mind t h a t t h e q u a l i t i e s o f 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 c a s e s were t h o s e J g e r c e i v e d t o be s o r a t h e r t h a n e x p e r i e n c e d . T h i s t e n d s t o i d e a l i z e t h e s i t u a t i o n so that even neighbours who are not considered friendly were p e r c e i v e d a s so " . . . i f t h e need arises" The associations were more significant in Kanata (s=0.027) than i n Southview (s=0.053). l  See T a b l e 4.2. qualities except noise Southview. 4 7  The are  frequency of more specific  **The a s s o c i a t i o n s were a s Anonymity s t a t e s=0.034; Not-Neiqhbourinq s t a t e s=0.063 Both a r e t o be f o u n d i n K a n a t a .  follows.  response on i n Kanata  a l l than  With K-tau=0.31, K-tau=0.27,  The associations should be read together with the overall asessment of the neiqhbours* responses, already d e s c r i b e d i n T a b l e 4.2. One should keep in mind the larqe number o f i n d i f f e r e n t and n o n - c o m m i t t a l r e s p o n s e s . 1 9  O T h i s was c o n s t r u e d f r o m t h e r e p l i e s t o q u e s t i o n B12. In q e n e r a l comments a b o u t o v e r a l l privacy were very favourable. Criticisms about internal privacy were more frequent i n Southview than Kanata. In t h e latter project, co-op members p r o v i d e d b e t t e r i n s u l a t i o n t h a n CHHC minimum r e q u i r e m e n t s . 2  The associations fellows. Hith: 2 1  dissatisfaction s=0.0093 Dissatisfaction s=0.02 Dissatisfaction s=0.0162 Dissatisfaction s=0.086  with  Seclusion Intimacy Anonymity  neiqhbourhood state  as  K -tau= 0.33,  state  K -tau= 0.40, state  T h e incompatibilites of seclusion was p r o b a b l y t h e r e a s o n why t h e p a t i o was a l s o S e c t i o n 4.3. 2 2  were  K - t au= 0.43,  state  Not-Neiqhbourinq  noise  K--tau= 0.27,  and n o i s e i n S o u t h v i e w n o t used a s much. See  103  5  -DISCUSSION  By  now  understanding spaces,  is  another  possible  privacy,  privacy  states  set viz.,  cf  and  results the  results  projects—tenure. tenure.  arise  the  Physical  arrive  simple  some  private  deeper outdoor  of  association  characteristics  of  neighbours  i t i s being submitted are  there  pointing are  It i s also a  in  at  pattern  that  fact that  from  to  particularly  i s evident,  Kanata than a t southview.  these  of  how  neighbourhood  direction, in  of  is  i s p e r c e i v e d . •, Whereas no  involving and  it  basic  factors  in  f a r more being  that  there  the  same  associations  submitted  difference  f u r t h e r enhance  that  between the  the  effect  Chapter  5:  Discussion  5.1  Social  5.1.1  Effect  O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e Sample  o f Tenure  fl walk t h r o u g h is  more a c t i v i t y  indicated  104  are  on  Interaction  the p r o j e c t s  i n Kanata more  had  acquainted  is  possible  the r e v e r s e e f f e c t .  both that  It  projects  will  guickly  than Southview.  a l l o w s them t o be more s p e c i f i c privacy.  Projects  with  Kanata  their  about  that  verify  their  that  there  residents,  neighbours. attitudes  This  towards  e x c e s s n e i g h b o u r i n g , might  have  S i n c e t h e same number o f i n t e r v i e w s  were c a r r i e d  out  the l a c k o f i n t e r a c t i o n s  as  in  i n the evenings, i t i s u n l i k e l y  i n Southview  i s the r e s u l t  of  time  scheduling.  Gans support  (1967), L a n s i n g e t a l  the i n f l u e n c e o f homogeneity  neighbourhoods. class,  Gans  e d u c a t i o n and  elements was  of  (1961) p o i n t s ethnicity,  homogeneity.  As  i s e n h a n c e d by  co-operative  housing  another  as  this  can  in creating to stage the  (1975), a l l  more  cohesive  i n the l i f e  four  to the f i r s t  most  two  f a c t o r , the f a c t  cycle,  important 3,  Kanata  factors.  This  that  Kanata  and  failure  is a  project.  C o - o p e r a t i v e h o u s i n g i s a waj understand  Cooper  i s e v i d e n t from C h a p t e r  more homogenous w i t h r e s p e c t  feature  (1970), and  lead  of  to d i f f i c u l t i e s .  life, 1  Consequently,  to  people  Chapter  5:  Discussion  entering  into a  members  buy  This  gives  In have  105  co-op  are  s h a r e s and  Southview,  the  same  different.  in  terms  of  goal—their  commitment  to t h e i r  demonstrated  from  Levine(1972). projects.  frequency results  'condition*  as  of  by  to  tenure  comments  Southview  a similar lack study a t St. an  other  affects  higher does n o t  residents  are  are t o l d  what  that  the  projects  the use  Francis in  Cooper,  These  3  It is  c o n t r o l over of  Square—a  neighbouring  examined.  residence.  perceptions  by  o f commitment i n  increase  allows better  on  the  less  defunct.  those of t h e Kanata  b o u n d a r y r e l a t i o n s , and study  found  their  therefore  i s r e f l e c t e d i n a study  Moreover t h e i r  compared  respondents  I t ' s not s u r p r i s i n g  complex—indicated  parallel  type  She  their  attain)  a l l p r o j e c t - r e l a t e d decisions-^-they  Southview's  same  The  2  association i s virtually  co-op housing  is  not  probably  management i n S o u t h v i e w  o f c u r t a i n s t h e y must have.  rental  to  as  excluded  and  hope  project,  there.  are  younger Southview (or  do  that  requirements  There  communication  Tenants*  suggesting  house.  the  project.  residents  own  encourage  this  housing  to a t t a i n  Concomitantly  Co-op  owners i n t h e  i s a b s e n t , and  the average,  i n which  suitability.  making.  responsabilities,  ultimate  turnover.  for  become p a r t  screening  B e i n g , on  have more t i m e  Day  thus  them a s a y i n d e c i s i o n  aspirations  kind  screened  possible  interpersonal privacy.  o f communal f a c i l i t e s  as  The Vice  Chapter  5:  Discussion  breakers*.  In  another  rooms, community  people.  function  w e l l , but  same s t u d y  {Beck,  Rowan,  Teasdale,  parking  l o t s were a r e a s  e g u i p m e n t and  commonly met as  106  proposes  Similar the  was  laundry where  one  did  not  sometimes mentioned.  The  facilities  laundry  1975)  in  Southview  that,  "Specific activities are reguired to initiate contacts because of the common interests communicated, but once contact i n i t i a t e d and t h e ' i c e * b r o k e n i n v o l v e m e n t i n common p u r s u i t s are no longer necessary t o pursue communication."  This  is  precisely  co-op h e l d  what seemed  monthly  meeting.  The  meetings  author  women's sewing c l u b . residents  were  landscaping. members  as  a  the  Boy's  unimportant  all  should  be  (Willis,  of set,  also  where by be  dissatisfactions a  high  from  scouts,  human  rate  of  as  period  an  annual  men's d a r t s of to  f o r example,  the  general  club  and  interview  hikes  for  i n t e r a c t i o n has  the  junior  within  formation^  a the  f u r t h e r improve  were a l s o o r g a n i z e d o f community  The  the  privacy  been f o u n d  to  be  1963-c) .  the  for contact  interpersonal  v i r t u e of  were c a u s i n g boundary  more knowledge a b o u t  emphasized with  well  i n a plantathon  these o p p o r t u n i t i e s  definition should  the  Onder s u c h c o n d i t i o n s  withdrawal  happening i n Kanata.  informed of a  During  engaged  as  Other a c t i v i t i e s ,  of  clusters.  was  t o be  privacy  however, i s not  indifference  cn  that  great. the  the Hot  a  better  {Altman, the  actors.  Jejsth only  s t a t e s , but  1975)  was  of  It the  there  none c f  the  5:  Chapter  Discussion  107  associations discussed were v e r y  5.1.2  highly  E f f e c t of  Each  level and  overall cf  the  a  displays  high  achieved  level The  level  satisfaction.  high  with p r i v a c y boundary, Physical  up not  level  of  of  lack  different  although  of  of the  way  of  some  achieving  i n t e r a c t i o n i n K a n a t a , and e m p h a s i s on  the  s t a t e s does not the  its  suggest  a  preferred detract  extent  of  fences,  the  only  of  low  level  frcm  the  appreciation  of s o c i a l  through  i n t e r f a c e by that  one  type  statistical  many.  Privacy,  interaction,  varies  engaged  which t o of  the  achieve  privacy  in.  The  link  a  or the  postulate, was  privacy.•  each to  Despite  project  i s averaging  need o f  emphasized,  this  i s better  of  strategies.  taken.  support  i f i t i s i n d e e d t o be the  social  not  within  a n a l y s i s , one  with  establishment  were e i t h e r n o t  associations to  organization  overall satisfaction  the  a v a i l a b l e f o r more s e c l u s i o n  a social mean  not  maintenance  b a r r i e r s , e.g.,  type  activity  i n t e r a c t i o n and  at Kanata, but  options  Typical of  a  It just states  absence of s t a t i s t i c a l the  strong,  problems.  The  the  very  T e n u r e on. S o c i a l . ; O r g a n i z a t i o n  i n Southview. the  f a r , are  significant.  project  privacy—at  so  setting  This  does  than-another. the  a personal  behaviour control  individual  a more g e n e r a l  and  of the  community  Chapter  5:  Discussion  interaction both  the  s h o u l d be group  (see C h a p t e r Kanata this  is  kind  light  underscored.  and  1).  108  the  That  of environment  of the c u r r e n t  seemed  wonders i n f a c t Table  4.4  i s an  One privacy  etc.,  must a l s o  people  However, d e s p i t e their  by  one  is  what  the  project the  suggest  outdoors,  more s e c l u s i o n .  be  laid  limitation  on s o c i a l  indeed Privacy with  in  in  the  privacy  way.  respondents for  to those at  at One  wanted.  seclesion,  Kanata.  5  t h i s study i s dealing  than  outdoors.  they are perceived  their  privacy  did  responses,  t h e y a r e , and  with  not as  that  the  neighbours,  in certain  on  activities.  6  hinder  indicated some  more  physical  In  outdoors.  i n d o o r s i s more i m p o r t a n t .  s t r a t e g i e s than  i n engagement  level,  manager  in this  preferences  i n s i s t a n c e that  that  The  at  i s to conclude anything, i t i s that  do n o t c a r e how  f e e l s more c o m p a t i b l e  will  the  are comparable  If  privacy  projects,  withdrawal.  keep i n mind t h a t  their  activities  previously,  one  with such  run  that  the  realization,  i n s i d e the house i s more s a c r o s a n t  cases  prefer  important  by  to  indicates,  outdoors.  privacy most  keen  that  development  i s possible at t h i s  disenchantment  whether t h i s  conspicuoushess  respect  privacy  d o e s n o t have t o be a c h i e v e d Southview  i s b e n e f i c i a l to  individual's psychological  I t i s in this  better.  Interaction  would When  emphasis  separation,  Chapter  5.2  5:  Discussion  109  Physical  Factors  Impinging  on P r i v a c y  Physical  v a r i a t i o n s i n the project  interactions  (or l a c k o f them).  site  may be s u s t a i n i n g s o c i a l  and of  layout layout  Coupled  seem t o be r e i n f o r c i n g with  more  homogeneity,  interaction.  The l o c a t i o n  of t h e p r i v a t e outdoor spaces,  communal f a c i l i t e s  5.2.1 S i t e  further contribute  as w e l l t h e to this  provision  factor.  Layout  The  site  opportunities  layout  in  f o r contact.  Kanata  may  be  generating  more  To g u o t e C o o p e r e t a l (1972),  "When t h e arrangement o f d w e l l i n g s w i t h 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 regular and respective contacts between small subgroups of neighbours takes place, there will be a greater l i k e l i h o o d o f 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  discussed on  by s e v e r a l  the nature  proximity  layout  the  physical  actors  social  amount  of  separation and  (see  housing proximity  b e h a v i o u r has been  seem t o be  o f the i n f l u e n c e ,  S p a t i a l proximity  the  in  authors, but there  propinquity  associated.  populations  that  with  populations,  site  and e x t e n t  show  correlated  between  of  studies  social and  Chapter  2).  i s probably  on p h y s i c a l  interaction  that  friendship  i s a function  disagreement  is  i n homogenous  formation  are  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p In  heterecgenous  n o t enough t o overcome  Chapter  social take  5:  Discussion  class harriers, place  layout  (Kasl,  may s u p p o r t  contacts  may  satisfaction  In same  more  certain attitudinal  Being  cpportunites account  the s i t e  for  on  for the  layouts of the  around t h r e e  interaction.  greater  two  are  i n four clusters,  layouts  least  t o l a c k o f p r i v a c y i n terms o f n o i s e  houses  (Lansing  f a c t , there  et  I t i s being  e x i s t s a difference i n the layout  projects  which  project.  There i s evidence  create  Both  more  resulted  in  greater  to suggest  opportunities  are  o u t d o o r s p a c e s as  a l , 1970).?  for  apparently  single  submitted o f t h e two  neighbour contact that  while  do n o t d i s t i n g u i s h  and  o f f e r a s much p r i v a c y i n t h e i r  layouts.  the  (see C h a p t e r 3 ) .  between c u l - d e - s a c s susceptible  These  neighbourhood  projects  cul-de-sacs  the implications of s i t e court  may  expressed.  K a n a t a was p l a n n e d  was d e s i g n e d  changes  more homogenous, t h e Kanata  t h e Kanata r e s p o n d e n t s  principle.  Southview Studies  1974).  also  effect  in  although  court  neighbouring  and c a n family that i n sample i n one  developments  than  other  site  arrangements.  Gans  (1967) and C o o p e r  classes  of people,  forward  to the front yard,  to  find  of  living  so  on.  (1975)  neighbouring  suggest  starts  as t h e s t a y  comfort i n each other  for  varying  i n t h e b a c k y a r d and moves gets  by s h a r i n g  i n a new p l a c e , f i x i n g  that  longer.  opinions,  f u r n i t u r e , Richard  People  try  insecurities Nixon,*  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  and  r o l e s , and  Chapter  5:  Discussion  111  f r i e n d s h i p s become deeper, encounters  move  start  I t i s more l i k e l y  without  any  need  or cause.  to  the  t h a t the neighbouring p a t t e r n s both i n Kanata and skip  the  first  r i g h t away. not  allow  stage,  or  interaction,  No  A  and  however, Southview  are c a r r i e d out i n the f r o n t the  space  back  do  c o n v e r s a t i o n s were observed  between people on d i f f e r e n t house l e v e l s . chatting  in  The s i x f o o t fences between u n i t s at much  front,  People  9  were observed  i n the f r o n t , but r a r e l y at the back.  physical  design t h a t i n c r e a s e s day to day c o n t a c t does  not n e c c e s s a r i l y i n c r e a s e might be t r u e (Goard,  friendliness—in  1975;  Dean, 1976).  fact  the  contrary  Kanata's c o n f i g u r a t i o n  augments c o n t a c t .  A l l u n i t s have a f u l l  onto  I t i s t h e r e f o r e much e a s i e r f o r neighbours  the  front.  length  be aware of each o t h e r ' s comings and goings. openings  whatsoever  this  access and  the c a r p o r t {Plate 3,7). the  access c o r r i d o r . f r o n t yard in one  wall  was  separated  Southview  open,  view  taken  would  Some u n i t s i n  {Plates 3.2  tenant,  i n t e r a c t i o n with t h i s  Southview,  the  a  to no  Additionally  solid  wall.  In  f u r t h e r out, between the main Even i f the f r o n t door  Kanata  and 3.3).  but  by  opening  was  be r e s t r i c t e d by the width c f the  Southview, where the entrance other  In  were provided at t h i s l e v e l .  o n l y Kanata's c a r p o r t s were  left  window  also  a  common  A s i m i l a r arrangement e x i s t e d access c o r r i d o r was  respondents  neighbour.  shared  shared  with  d i d not h i n t at much  Chapter  5:  Discussion  Front  112  yard a c t i v i t y  greater  provision  carport  {Fig 3.2).  clusters,  i n Kanata  f o r communal  in  further  enhanced by  parking, f o r the u n i t s  Here t h e p l a y  whereas  was  a r e a s were l o c a t e d  Southview  they  were  the  without a  within  located  the  between  clusters.  Both  l a y o u t s had  backyards. opposite In  In  short  Southview  because  none  of  through  possibilities. bus  the other c l u s t e r s ,  In Southview,  r o u t e , which  study complained no  third  moderately they  used  believed  p e o p l e walk by a  fence  about  fence  used  was by  the  cn  the  adults.  to the road. tended  to  In take  thus i n c r e a s i n g c o n t a c t  unlikely h i s own  in either  the degree  of  lead  that  off  anyone  the would  cluster.  pedestrian  from  (Cooper,  meant t h a t t h e y  projects  looking  1967).  Even  under  when t h e r e  i n units adjacent to  paths d i d not f e e l  would p r e f e r t h e v i e w ,  or c h a t  the  of enclosure.  {in Kanata), respondents  people refrained  seme r e s p o n d e n t s  of  between  Overlooking  None o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s  was  rarely  a l l three c l u s t e r s  made i t h i g h l y  ran  arrangement  r o u t e s , b u t one  walk t o h i s house o t h e r t h a n t h r o u g h  5.2.2  the  which  t h e p a t h s went t h r o u g h  p a t h s were more d i r e c t cuts  same  system  s i d e o f t h e main a c c e s s i t was  addition,  Kanata,  a pedestrian  uncomfortable,  inside.  as  Undoubtedly  o t h e r s t o be a b l e t c see I n most c a s e s  could extend  their  the  activities  lack into  5:  Chapter  Discussion  common t e r r i t o r y , surrounding built for  green.  seclusion  noise  preventing  1967;  fences  not who  an  out  access  1967,  important  concern  buildings.  to create e x c e s s i v e  animals  that  intended by  and  children,  residents  of  what t h e y  when, r a t h e r t h a n  overlooked,  but  of space  ignored  were  projects  give a  i f I  am  of  expressed  i t d i d not  " T h e r e i s a c e r t a i n amount o f o v e r l o o k i n g , fihen you move t o a row house you have t o g i v e up a certain measure o f s e c l u s i o n which one would have i n a h a l f acre l o t . " (Kanata) not  or  doing,  p h y s i c a l proximity  i n general  by  overlooking  Whether i t was  people,  et  reguire  pressures.  " P e r s o n a l l y I do (Southview)  wind  (Shankland  (1963-b)  Some r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e  being  not  exemplified  study  privacy.  the type and  respondents  t o improve u t i l i z a t i o n  Willis's  element of  was  p u b l i c housing  indicate  backyard  i n , how,  about  1972)  In  cf the  the  burglars.  v a r i o u s s t u d i e s on  overlooking.  or  by  one  that enclosure  p r o t e c t i o n , keeping  depended more on  people  suggests  that only  as  easy  Cooper,  looks  fact  'practicalities'  around t h e i r  reducing was  The  but  admittedly al,  most b a c k y a r d s e x t e n d e d n a t u r a l l y i n t o  a s i x f o o t fence  protection, and  as  113  watched."  "Little worry about activities. Sometimes inhibiting. When we moved in at first, people looked i n a l o t because neighbours wanted to know each o t h e r . " (Kanata) " F o r us no p r o b l e m b e c a u s e e v e r y o n e i s away a l l t h e time. Maximum amount o f p r i v a c y f o r a town h o u s e . "  seem  Chapter  5;  Discussion  (Southview)  although highly in  s e c l u s i o n on t h e S e c l u s i o n  preferred  ( T a b l e 4.4)  Southview f e l t  they  family  activities  state.  The i n t e n s i t y  the  Seclusion  had  and  This  seclusion  needs  less  were  was  i s not t o say that in  relation  more c o n s p i c u o u s , i n s p i t e  in  seems,  These  Southview  therefore,  respondents especially  for lack  results  actually  enough  and  business. neighbours (or  by  not  the  engaging  reasons  state,  of non-applicable  supplied  by  smaller  two  points.  perceived lack overlooked  First  was  The  scarse.  reported  as  must  be  aware  i n o t h e r ways, s a y by t h e amount o f n o i s e cooking odours  i f they are M a l t e s e ) .  respondents experience i n s e c u r i t y activities  and c o n s e q u e n t l y  when  units. be o t h e r  possibility  Fences minding  the  not apply,  t h e r e may  of seclusion.  respondents  family  also  I t i s not  K a n a t a had  the  their  as T a b l e s  o f space, as i n f a c t  Hence  their  both  may  were  i s that  for  same  activities  neighbours  likely  for  in  being  their  level  these respondents  t h e number  in  on t h e I n t i m a c y  o f the higher fences. that  be  i s a higher percentage than a t Kanata. that  suggest  reasons f o r t h i s of  to find  engaging  the p r o j e c t s s a t i s f i e d  a t t h e same t i m e  therefore,  the  tc  the respondents  while  to the S e c l u s i o n  felt  It  indicate.  seemed  preferred  approximately  and 4.6  responses  seclusion  more d i s s a t i s f i e d  4.5  surprising,  projects,  o f r e s p o n s e s on t h e  state  projects.  i n both  state  were h i g h their  own  of  their  they  make  Shat  seems  displaying  indulge i n withdrawal.  Chapter  5:  Such an  experience  outdoors,  Discussion  seems  to  be  curtailing  kind  of  c l a s s of people.  reaction  Willis  i s not  activities  (1963-b),  uncommon f o r t h i s  speaking  p e r c e p t i o n c f p r i v a c y between t h e  reports  their  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 .  This  the  115  that the middle  kind cf  of the d i f f e r e n c e i n  middle  and  working  class,  class,  " a r e a f r a i d o f b e i n g 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 pattern. They seem more c o n s c i o u s o f o t h e r p e o p l e and t h e y b e a r i n mind o t h e r p e o p l e ' s f e e l i n g s " On  t h e o t h e r hand, t h e w o r k i n g  class,  " t e n d t o f e e l l e s s as b e i n g judged personally and are more a f r a i d of nosey p a r k e r s . They a r e a f r a i d o f p e o p l e p a s s i n g on d e t a i l s of their possessions and of what people t h i n k o f the c o n d i t i o n o f t h e home . . . Home i s p e r s o n a l and . . . they should n o t l o o k i n as t h i s i s i n t r u d i n g on p r i v a c y . * ' ;  The type  amount o f s e c l u s i o n of  already  5.2.3  activity. been  p r e f e r r e d and  The  achieved  varied  with  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  mentioned.  Crowding  Altman mechanisms  (1975) d e f i n e s c r o w d i n g to retain  interaction, studies  when t h e f o r m e r  have  interpersonal  a balance  indicated boundary  of  privacy  between t h e d e s i r e d and  achieved  i s less that  balance,  as  a  than  attempts takes  failure  the to the  latter.  Various  reestablish form  of  the  either  C h a p t e r 5:  Discussion  withdrawal,  aggression  verbal  and  paraverbal,  while  the  majority  projects  is  or o t h e r  t o any tend  adopted  of  the  The  aqqressive  to support  but  one  negative  i n a mixture  of  quality  i s no  idea  that  no  between  density,  a  Density  can  {Katz,  as e x t e r n a l  little  other  measured  important.  of  external  d e n s i t i e s but  persons  per  may  earlier.  1  dwellinq),  at Kanata  have q i v e n  to the  has  shown  noise  on  and  those  who  mechanism  with  others.  to  been  each  be  has  basic a c t i v i t i e s  Southview  had  as  there  away  from  becomes different (2.95  were  larqer  same number o f bedrooms) and  d i f f e r e n t crowding  own is  density  units  and  its  privacy  study  an  mentioned.  overcrowded  same a v e r a g e i n t e r n a l However,  did  Rather  Internal density  in this  the  measurement  internal  projects  (for the  rise  responses  this  reported  1  Research densities  the  1973).  carry  family,  sample  ways and  When p e o p l e a r e  to  the  Both  Evans,  density.  opportunity  members  than those  in various  1964;  perceive  considered  already  as  guantity.  specific  physical  a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r c r o w d i n q , has  is  one  crowdinq,  usually  crucial  that  well  means t o r e d u c e i n t e r a c t i o n .  the  e x p e r i e n t i a l s t a t e , and  implications  d i d not  evidence  as  and  maybe e m p h a s i z e d when combined  difference  be  behaviours,  respondents  as o v e r c r o w d e d , t h e r e  resorted results  116  arise  (Lansing  from  that  the  associations  e t a l , 1970).  The  preferences  for greater  subject  for  privacy  of noise  has  lower and  less  already  C h a p t e r 5:  been  Discussion  discussed.  impact  In  both  sample  state.  increased  In  Kanata  with i n c r e a s i n g  same  state,  t h o s e who  (K-tau=0.39,  a  tendency  necessarily  be  interacting  The  a not  also  one  and  by  seem t o i n d i c a t e for interaction  can  be  crowding that  at  This  there  Kanata,  might not  conspicuous  by  of  people  in  the  household  a demand to  respondents  f o r more s e c l u s i o n  not  seeited t o  cf privacy  on t h e S e c l u s i o n  be more i n c o n s p i c u o u s * in  Southview  demanded  less  people i n the household  within  the  where,  on  seclusion  with  As the u n i t s  is  the  usually  s t a t e and  that  affecting  were s m a l l e r  other  increasing  the  were hand,  number o f  state).  t o the conclusion  household  in  Similar associations  (cn t h e I n t i m a c y  These r e s u l t s l e a d  interaction.  also  i n K a n a t a , more p e o p l e i n t h e h o u s e h o l d  discovered  stimulus  state  t o o much.  Thus  desire  this  as l e s s secluded  the p r e f e r e n c e s but not the assessment  generated  the  crowded.  would  case,  on  In S o u t h v i e w , on  f o r the reverse experience.  the  number  project.  on  between t h e Anonymity s t a t e  s=0.026)  made an  projects,  was p e r c e i v e d  might be an e x c e s s o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s causing  both  dissatisfaction  the p r o j e c t  association  in  crowding  crowding perception.  the project  perceived  The  affect  projects,  on t h e f e e l i n g o f s e c l u s i o n  Seclusion  the  117  the i n t e n s i t y of external  visual  i n K a n a t a , one would  be  C h a p t e r 5:  inclined  Discussion  to  eliminating 1976).  think  that  the d e s i r e In  1 3  118  Southview, t h e c o n t r a r y  argued that  enclosed  stimulus  per d w e l l i n g  This  contradicts  i n both  earlier  for  The e a r l i e r  plausable,  since  s t a t e was v e r y for can  with  the f a m i l y .  preferences  high  for  seclusion  f o r both p r o j e c t s  be  seen  environment  as  another  i s creating  causing  a desire f o r a reverse  number  of  associated  In  that with  any  satisfaction  Kanata  and  in  the  case,  more  from  visual that i n  interaction,  argument seems more on  the  Seclusion  were i n d i c a t i o n s  {Table 4.4).  chain. for  curtailing  This  The p h y s i c a l stimulus  from  i t i n Southview,  response a s s o c i a t e d  with  the  household, which i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g ,  perceptions  perceived  the  excessively  experience.  p r o j e c t was t h i s  people  considering  in  opportunities  the  neither  in  more  within  In  house  link  be  argument  and t h e r e  w i t h d r a w a l on t h e N o t - N e i g h b o u r i n g s t a t e  Moreover,  p r o j e c t s , i t can  tolerate  withdrawing  thus  (Mehrabian,  would be t r u e .  to  an  higher  stimuli  S o u t h v i e w , p e o p l e were a c t u a l l y activities  be  i n Southview, the backyards could  and t h e p e o p l e were w i l l i n g  interaction.  would  f o r more e x t r a n e o u s  a s s u m i n g t h e same d e n s i t y be  the  of  crowding  were  also  adeguacy o f the p r i v a t e outdoor  crowding  with the p r o j e c t s .  d i d not increase  not space.  or decrease the  Chapter  5.2.4  5:  Discussion  Open_Space  The factor have  adequacy o f o u t d o o r s p a c e s  i n neighbourhood too  adequacy  little of  important.  space  outdoor The  satisfaction  satisfaction  for family  only i f r e s i d e n t s  available. ,  space  more  In  high  f o r family  space  available  with t h e neighbourhood  amount  performed that  of  outdoor  outdoors  with  w i t h t h e open s p a c e s  they  privacy  (Zeisel  not  activities.  have  However more p e o p l e  outdoor  activities  them p e r c e i v e i t as l a r g e r  Kanata,  associated state,  in  higher  to  not  kind  only  does  of a c t i v i t i e s  Winter, with  1969) , b u t satisfaction  1976).  i n both  projects  support  Kanata,  beyond  of  the  with the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n  with  i s the  that  and  than i t r e a l l y  adequacy  Not-Neiqhbourinq  increase  the  in  felt  that  their  outdoor  spite  of the  s p a c e s , p e r c e i v e d i t as adeguate. , perhaps t h e  opportunity t o extend  In  space  areas, becomes  the  and G r i f f i n ,  enough  density  they  activities  i s associated  e q u a l number o f r e s p o n d e n t s  did  smaller  limit  ( S m i t h , Down, L y n c h  satisfaction  An  space  feel  i sa  ( L a n s i n g e t a l , 1970).  Moreover t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t o s u g g e s t the  activities  the  state  perceived  their  territory  was.  private indices  outdoor on  the  and I n t i m a c y s t a t e . inadequacy  made  of  open  space  was  Seclusion  A l l tended to space.  In  C h a p t e r 5:  Discussion  120  Southview a s i m i l a r a s s o c i a t i o n the  Anonymity s t a t e  separation  fee  between the  limit  i n t e r a c t i o n on  state  and  the  same d i r e c t i o n o c c u r e d  the  a solution.  units.  This  It  would  increase  Not-Neighbouring s t a t e .  Intimacy state  would not  increase  would The  neccessarily  perhaps  Seclusion  be  affected.  Some r e s p o n d e n t s 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 a r e a s  stating  on  small  the  problem. in  desire to  proportion As  terms o f  degree  idealistic  It the  full  survive  one they  10-acre l o t i f they c o u l d .  interviews,  this attitude  but  would  in  asking  constraint,  prefer  this  proved t o  with  replies  a  be  a  given  for preferences without the  In  what t h e y  option,  seem  by  had no  setting  to  express  desires.  is  doubtful  implications in  t h i s nature 1).  a  r e s p o n d e n t s were s a t i s f i e d  Thus of  live  the  housing,  limitations. some  of  the  on  only.  L a r g e r open s p a c e s may the  i n the  Other  i t .  There s p a c e s , but  of  t h i s a t t i t u d e and  I t i s true  i s not  that  b e n e f i c i a l to  also  is  whether  humans a d a p t , b u t personal  practical constraints  would assume t h a t could  whether i n f a c t t h e s e r e s p o n d e n t s r e a l i z e  growth  would a l s o  i f they could  a f f o r d to  be own  they  would  seclusion (see  of  Chapter  inhibiting,  but  a ten-acre  lot  a f f o r d t o h i r e somebody t o m a i n t a i n i t .  no  doubt t h a t  a d e n s e r and  there  i s need f o r p r i v a t e  more compact l i v i n g  condition  outdoor (in  the  Chapter  5:  Discussion  range  of  100-150  public  open s p a c e  Unfortunately, American.  so  121  persons  per  acre)  f o r other purposes, far,  this  would l i b e r a t e  agricultural  a l o t of  c r otherwise.  i s anathema t o the a v e r a g e  North  Chapter  5:  Discussion  122  Footnotes  I n t h e p r e c e d i n g s t u d y {Gatt and I w a t a , 1976), t h e ffajor c o m p l a i n t a r o s e f r o m a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what c o - o p h o u s i n g i s a l l about. R e s p o n d e n t s f e l t t h e y had t o o many r e s r i c t i o n s , and wanted t o be a b l e t o s e l l t h e u n i t s t h e y l i v e d i n . l  «One would assume t h a t t h e number o f t i m e s one t a l k s w i t h 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. Surprisingly enough in neither project, the f r e q u e n c y o f t a l k was n o t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e i t h e r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with privacy , 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 that in Kanata, increased talk was either the result of a c q u a i n t a n c e s h i p s t r u c k somewhere e l s e , o r was t r i v i a l t o 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 association existed. Lack o f o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s l e f t n e i g h b o u r s w i t h o n l y t h i s way t o g e t t o know e a c h o t h e r . ^another co-op study i n t h e Champlain H e i g h t s area (Gatt and Iwata, 1976) revealed s i m i l a r i n t e n s i t i e s of frequency of communication with the n e i g h b o u r s . , The i m p r e s s i o n g i v e n by t h e manager a t S o u t h v i e w was that 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 e x t e n t t h i s i s t r u e i s hot certain. Maybe newcomers to the project are •instructed* in this lifestyle.some Respondents comented on the strictness with which the project 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 t h e r e s i d e n t s ,  -always had an image o f how bad i t c a n g e t w i t h o u t 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 o u t some t i m e o r o t h e r and were w i l l i n g t o a d a p t t o the inconvenience for a short'while; - p r e s u m a b l y some were getting used to living to t o w n h o u s e s anyway. •The statistical procedure used, u t i l i z i n g a r a n k - c r d e r measurment, may n o t be t o t a l l y s u i t e d t o t h e h i g h 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 h i g h number o f m i s s i n g c a s e s on the dissatisfaction indices may alsc 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 . sit has a l r e a d y been p o i n t e d o u t t h a t i n f a c t respondents i n S o u t h v i e w p e r c e i v e d t h e p r o j e c t n o t s e c l u d e d enough f o r solo activities. Now i f t h e p a t i o i s n o t n o r m a l l y u t i l i z e d one c a n c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f a m i l y and solo a c t i v i t i e s share the same visual privacy. So the problem does not stand with f a m i l y  Chapter  5:  Discussion  123  intrusion,. The r e s p o n d e n t may have been i n s e c u r e and a f r a i d t o display his lifestyle in a relaxed manner. This is understandable, since the respondent i s young, insecure and p r o b a b l y has l i t t l e r e s i d e n t i a l e x p e r i e n c e o f t h i s n a t u r e . *Besponses  to Question  B12.  ^Various r e s p o n d e n t s commented on t h e a d e g u a c y o f p r i v a t e o u t d o o r s as " . .,. . Sometimes more t h a n i n a d e t a c h e d h o u s e . " B o t h s t u d i e s took American samples. If they Canadian they would t a l k a b o u t t h e S a s k a t c h e w a n r o g h t h e mole on Bene L a v e s q u e ' s l e f t n o s t r i l . 8  'The  unopenable  windows i n K a n a t a  would  had been r i d e r s or  not a l l o w such  an  event. '•OKanata, the project with the h i g h e r average l o w e r d e n s i t y was p e r c e i v e d more c r o w d e d .  age,  and  ^ M a r s h a l l ' s r e s u l t s i n t h i s respect tend to follow the ones i n Southview. Her argument was an b a s e d c n a d a p t a t i o n l e v e l theory. R e s p o n d e n t who were s u b j e c t e d t c low levels of privacy i n the home (i.e., high number o f persons i n the h o u s e h o l d ) would t e n d t o i n d u l g e i n a c t i v i t i e s with lack of p r i v a c y r a t h e r t h a n more.  124  11  •CONCLUSIONS AND  This utilization also  research  not only  of private  enabled  privacy  RECOMMENBATIGNS  data  provided  information  regarding  outdoor spaces i n multifamily  concerning  housing but  o t h e r a r e a s somewhat r e l a t e d t o  t o be c o l l e c t e d .  6.1  Conclusions  a.  PRIVACY I S A PERSONAL CONTROL OVER INTERACTION. I T INVOLVES TBE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BOUNDARY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE SOCIAL GROUPS TO CONTROL THE INPUT AND OUTPUT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE S E L F . AS SUCH, I T VARIES FROM PERSON TO PERSON, GROUP TO GROUP AND CIRCUMSTANCE TO CIRCUMSTANCE.  Privacy state  the  and  (Seclusion  has  been d i s s e c t e d  Not-Neighbouring state  and I n t i m a c y  into social  state), state).  and  states  {Anonymity  physical  states  Chapter  6:  Conclusions  Dissatisfaction increase  with  others.  an  125  with  any one o f t h e s e s t a t e s was f o u n d  increase  in dissatisfaction  Each s t a t e , h o w e v e r , was e x p r e s s e d  to  with any o f the  independently  of the  others. There i s s t a t i s t i c a l depends  on  the  neighbourhood. support  the  under  of what  physical  b.  contention Similarly  association conditions  strategies  sample  f i tof  hypothesis the  that  little  which social  allows  privacy  within the  evidence  i t i s a s s o c i a t e d with  t h e r e i s no s i m p l e  to retain  that  individual  i s  to  neighbour  and c l e a r l y  evident  one t o d i s c e r n when and  strategies  are  utilized  over  privacy.  p r i v a c y c a n be a c h i e v e d  projects  dissatisfaction  a  set.  demonstrated  i m p r o v e s knowledge  withdrawal.  levels  of  The  privacy  of interaction.  about  social  groups,  and  b e t t e r understanding  o f where t h e i n t r u s i o n t h r e s h o l d  Consequently  i s less  there  barriers  and  more on s o c i a l  rise  the  opposite  to  without  low  a t two o p p o s i t e l e v e l s  interaction  allows is  the  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 I S SET. THIS EARBIER MAY BE ESTABLISHED TO ALLOW EITHER A HIGH DEGREE OF INTERACTION OR NONE AT A L L .  Effective  High  perceived  for  On t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e  compatibility. pattern  support  strategies.  effect.  reliance  on  physical  Lew i n t e r a c t i o n  Increased  communication  gives i s  C h a p t e r 6:  Conclusions  beneficial.  It  126  engenders  more  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 , feelings be  debilitating.  interaction.  can  Co-operatives,  friendliness, create  T h e y may  generate  unless of a f a i r l y  or  similarly  a greater  stable  better  TOO much c o m m u n i c a t i o n c a n organized  p r 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  community i n , and s a t i s f a c t i o n  projects,  of  which i n t u r n c a n  about one*s n e i g h b o u r h o o d .  communities  to,  feelings  sense  of  frequent  commitment  with t h e development. nature,  will  Rental  not achieve  as  much.  c. ,  PRIVACY BASED ON WITHDRAWAL, HINDERS THE NOHBER OF A C T I V I T I E S THAT ARE PERFORMED OUTDOORS.  Families i n the early more  susceptible  to  lack  stages of the l i f e of  f a m i l i e s or intimates, i n s p i t e  seclusion o f higher  cycle  on visual  tend  activities barriers.  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 L I T T L E TO DO WITH DISPOSTIONS TOWARD PRIVACY IN THIS SPACE.  e.  PRIVACY IN PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACES I S 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 I T HELPS OR HINDERS INTERACTION.  to  be with  Chapter  6:  The  Conclusions  p h y s i c a l environment can  interaction. provided  6.2  The  a.  127  Under s u c h  f o r reasons  c r e a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r more  circumstances,  other  than  physical  p r o t e c t i o n from  barriers  are  intrusion.  Recommendations  Unit  PROVIDE A HIGHLY SECLUDED OUTDOOR SPACE, FOR ONE PERSON, AHAY FROM NEIGHBOUR AND INTERRUPTIONS, OBSERVATIONS AND NOISE.  Need: The  activity  category  reguirements  was  high  preference  state  and  the  which e l i c i t e d  very  Rest-and-Relaxation. for  visual  Intimacy  s t a t e and  definite  Here  seclusion  USE BY FAMILY  privacy  there  on  was  a  the S e c l u s i o n  a tremendous d i s l i k e  for  interruptions. Although  t h e r e was  seclusion, condition especially  a  a remarkably  for  having  the  listed  Seclusion  specific  low  high  i n connection  Rest-and-Relaxation). as  very  preference  preference  with s o l o  f o r the  activities  Hobbies-and-Crafts The  states. with  Intimates  extreme  'secluded* was  found,  (and  following a c t i v i t i e s  privacy reguirements,  for Activities  for  were  noted  in relation  to  Chapter  6:  Conclusions  128  Informal s o c i a l functions 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  Interruptions 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: S m a l l b a l c o n i e s o r p a t i o s i m m e d i a t e l y bedrooms, noise  secluded  (eg.,  to family  b.  from  traffic).  outdoor  observation  with t h e neighbourhood.  specified  activity, tenant  p r i v a t e outdoor  The facilities,  TO  space  one's  neighbourhood  is i n  especially  SUSTAIN  improves  Gardening  paticipation  addition  THE  satisfaction  was a v e r y p o p u l a r  when  the  housing  form rules  i n t h e upkeep o f t h e v i s i b l e  space.  absence  of  increased  h e a v i e r work.  to  space.  of p r i v a t e outdoor  of outdoor  and  Any s u c h p r o v i s i o n  PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPEN SPACE FOLLOWING COMMON A C T I V I T I E S : HOBBIES AND CRAFTS INFORMAL SOCIAL A C T I V I T I E S HOME MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR HOUSEWORK  Need: Adeguacy  attached  a  basement  utilization  Sufficient  or  communal  working  o f t h e outdoor space f o r  h a r d s u r f a c e s s h o u l d be p r o v i d e d  Chapter  6:  Conclusions  129  accordingly. ,  Private  outdoor spaces should  form o f weather p r o t e c t i o n . covering allowed  or  construction  to build  Children  their  tend  occur.  eye  and p l a y  may  involve  or a t l e a s t  with a  the users  some  partial should  be  own.  to play  activities contact  This  be p r o v i d e d  Small  on t h e same l e v e l  where  family  c h i l d r e n have t c be under  direct  i n t h e same l o c a t i o n where t h e parent"  works. Form: I n K a n a t a 700 s g . f t . and  375 s g . f t .  considered Southview considered factors are  C.  a t t h e back) f o r a t h r e e  sufficient 575  sg. f t .  for  (e.g  enclosure,  t h e house.  internal  the  same  distribution  house  layout  kind  the  of  i s  there.  of space,  •FRONT*  back  of  In only  Other  and so on)  OF THE HODSE.  the  the f r o n t i s considered  This  front  feature.  CLEAR LABEL TO 'BACK' AND  whereas  the  bedroom house i s  enough by H5% o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n  Need: P e o p l e a p p e a r t o a s s o c i a t e privacy,  at  by 85% o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t h e r e .  also contributing to t h i s  PROVIDE  of  (325 s g . f t .  house  the p u b l i c  recommendation  affects  with side the  o f t h e h o u s e , and t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e  entrance i c r e l a t i o n  to  the  carport,  kitchen  and  the  Chapter  6:  f o r m a l rooms. and  An e n t r a n c e  on t h e same s i d e a s t h e c a r p o r t  /or kitchen i s traditionally  close is  130  Conclusions  friends  allowed  associated  t o support  by  messy a c t i v i t i e s  { e x e m p l i f i e d by c a r  tends  for social  The f r o n t  Open s p a c e s  f o r ' p r i v a t e ' consumption  but  use  o f t h e f a m i l y o r i t s members, and g e n e r a l l y  washing).  such  with  t o be used  here  display.  do n o t work  a r e t r e a t e d as s e m i - p u b l i c s p a c e s ,  as  irrespective  of t h e degree o f s e c l u s i o n . Form: S e p a r a t e  Provide  enclosed  space  f o r s t o r a g e o f maintenance eguipment, e t c . ,  o r hide  away  from  spaces Allow  d.  main e n t r a n c e  'public'  from  eyes.  on t h e ' p r i v a t e ' personalization  the carport.  side  Provide  a l l 'private'  of  house  of the front  the  open  (the back).  o f t h e house.  RELIANCE ON PHYSICAL BARRIERS IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD EXHIBITS HIGH LEVEL OF INTERACTION BETWEEN THE RESIDENTS.  Need: P r y i n g  and  overlooking  increase the d i s l i k e feelings is by  of  achieved high  found.  diminish  f o r neighbour  being observed  by w i t h d r a w a l ,  level  When i t happened  rather than Little  i t was  to  the  stages of the residence.  Form: P r o v i d e  options  in  the  interruptions.  The  when i t i s a c h i e v e d wilful  usually  adjustment initial  project  s e c l u s i o n and  a r e most s e r i o u s when p r i v a c y  interaction.  the  achieved  the  and hence was o n l y  provision of physical  p r y i n g was result  of  present i n  barriers.  Chapter  6:  Conclusions  including  €.  option  EMPHASIS OPPOSED TO  Need: T h e r e  131  of t a k i n g  down t h e f e n c e s .  SHOULD BE LAID ON INDOOB PBIVACY PRIVACY IN PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACES.  were a l a r g e  responses.  number o f i n d i f f e r e n t  Dissatisfactions  were  or  very  AS  non-committal  slight  on  most  activities. Furthermore,  an  open  c o m p l a i n t s about The  treatment  outdoors to  be  Low  f.  guestion  of privacy  of the i n t e r f a c e  can  be  stimulus load visual  ought  extracted  within  the  within  of the  house.  of outdoors i s  generate needs f o r  c o n t a c t w i t h what g o e s on of further  the  outdoors.  t h e h o u s e may  t o be t h e s u b j e c t  more  between t h e i n d o o r s and  i m p o r t a n t , i f the f e e l i n g  designed with the p r i v a c y  greater Form: T h i s  lack  ended  outside. investigation.  PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PHYSICAL F L E X I B I L I T Y , TO ALLOW FOR THE VARYING NEEDS OF PERSONAL CONTROL OVER INTERACTION.  Need: B a c k y a r d s house.  a r e t h e most b e h a v i o u r a l l y Some  seclusion  respondents  and  r e s p o n d e n t s had their  units  more agreed  hinted  diverse spaces at  i n the  a  need  for  interruptions  than  they  had.  to take the  common  fence  less Two  between  down.  Form: O p t i o n s t o b u i l d be commended. .  f e n c e s s u c h as was  found  at K a n a t a  is  to  Chapter  6:  Conclusions  132  P e r m e a b l e f e n c e s between well,  particularly  earlier,  was  demarcation visual  Site  g.  In  could  level  this  possibly  as  of i n t e r a c t i o n , explained  condition  territoriality  work  is  of  more  interaction,  important  than  seclusion.  Layout  PROVIDE VISUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC OB SPACE IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE THE HOUSE.  Need: I n t e r a c t i o n s desirable Form: Windows  h.  i f the  high. of  units  between t h e  f o r many onto  units  and  activities  outside are  reasons.  the f r o n t  p o r c h , and  the o u t s i d e from  t h e back.  frequent use  also serve t h i s  can  SEMI-PUELIC  visual  Covered  accessibility  porches,  balconies  to in  purpose.  CLUSTER HOUSING AROUND SHARED F A C I L I T I E S , SUCH AS COMMUNAL PARKING LOTS, CHILD PLAY AREAS, ADULT RECREATION AND NODES OF A C T I V I T I E S .  Need: I f i n v o l u n t a r y  social  c o n t a c t s are reduced  neiqhbours, i t i s equally forms are Form: The  of  social  not f o r c e d above  important  into  situations  f recommendation  p r o j e c t , and  design  p a r t i c i p a t i o n , as long as the  pathways which t a k e r e s i d e n t s the  to  amonq  facilities  they  cannot  (h) ]. through  such  immediate for  ether  residents  g e t out c f .  Properly different  laid  out  parts  of  as communal l a u n d r i e s  may  Chapter  6:  be  Conclusions  beneficial  popular  j.  133  in this  respect.  Court  l a y o u t s work b e t t e r i n e n g e n d e r i n g  other  form o f  neighbour's  noise.  amount o f  C h i l d r e n and  of d i s t u r b a n c e s .  Separate  neighbourhood the  should within  than  any  to  traffic Noise  FRCM  privacy  are the  was  than  twe  most  found  to  affect  one  front  and  back  mentioned  sources  s i d e of  the  and  concentreate  house  preferably  Research  relevant conclusion for this  degree of p r i v a c y i n p r i v a t e outdoor  experience—it  be d i r e c t e d the  study  between noise  n o i s e on  most i m p o r t a n t  t h a t a high critical  be  front.  Further  The  net  perceived seclusion. ,  Form: P r o v i d e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n earlier.  contact  A8AY  AREAS  n o i s e i s more d e t r i m e n t a l  common s o u r c e s the  may  layout.  LOCATE HIGHLY SECLUDED NEIGHBOURHOOD NOISE SOURCES.  6.3  latter  f o r i t s inconvenience.  Need: N e i g h b o u r h o o d  this  The  not  Within  be e x t e n d e d  knowledge  the l i m i t s  i n the  spaces  i s not  a need. , S t u d i e s a b o u t  towards f u r t h e r i n g  dwelling. can  is  section i s  s e t by  f o l l o w i n g ways:  about this  a  privacy privacy  statement,  Chapter 6;  Conclusions  a. S i m i l a r  research  willing  to  Finances  could t a c k l e the t r a d e - o f f s r e s i d e n t s  make,  seem  134  when  to  be  faced the  with  most  certain  common.  methods e x i s t f o r t h i s purpose {e.g., this and  nature should  study by  projects of  games)..  elements  Studies  themselves  units  i.e.,  privacy.  performed,  in  the  In  ratings  T h i s study only shows but  does  not  give  of  this  of how any  of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of other combinations of  the  involved.  concept of p r i v a c y w i t h i n the f a m i l y should  further.  This research  secluded  areas  members.  The  for  the  of  be  explored  small  highly  i n d i v i d u a l , away from other family  area  family  is  also  beneficial.  s o c i a l organization 'well  p o i n t s t o the need  p r o v i s i o n of a communal  understood to be  other  research  i n c l u d e o v e r a l l p r i v a c y w i t h i n the home,  achieved  existing  indication  c. I f  Various  not be l i m i t e d to p r i v a t e outdoor spaces.  assessment  b. The  constraints.  the only c o n s t r a i n t s on these a t t i t u d e s were those set  the  the  should  are  organized*  within the  p r o j e c t i s i m p o r t a n t , then  projects,  not  n e c e s s a r i l y co-ops,  ought t o show s i m i l a r t r e n d s . d. T h i s  study shows t h a t p r i v a c y can  high i n t e r a c t i o n and  at  indicate  i s better  which  one  a  low  e x i s t a t two  levels^-at a  interaction—but {e.g,  which one  does  not  induces l e s s  stress) . e. A  s i m i l a r study should  p h y s i c a l form of the  be undertaken with v a r i a t i o n s i n the  p r o j e c t , such as,  6:  Chapter  -site  l a y o u t , with v a r i a t i o n s i n the  example -this  apartments,  If  out  another  dissected method  study  to  t h e r e a r e i n s t a n c e s where to physical barriers.  is  for  undertaken  where then  a q u e s t i o n about  privacy.  less  Studies  a r e a b s e n t , have t o  the extent of the  include  overall  dimension,  housing,  partitions  to d e t e r m i n e  should also  statistical  6.4  where s u c h  third  into operational definitions,  attitudes  the  i s attributed  projects  carried f.  or stacked  study i n d i c a t e s that  importance cf  135  Conclusions  This  a n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p  be  variations, privacy the  is  survey  respondents  1  allows  better  of the  p a r t s to  be  little  whole.  Epilogue  The complex.  c o n c e p t o f p r i v a c y now  ought  to  a  less  136  BIBLIOGRAPHY  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 and P r i v a c y { I n c l u d i n g P e r s o n a l Space, T e r r i t o r i a l i t y  Altman,  and C r o w d i n g )  I. "Privacy: A Conceptual Analysis." In Man Environment Interactions: 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.3-28. E d i t e d by D a n i e l H. Carson. S t r o u d s b e r g , Penn.: Dowden H u t c h i n s o n and Boss Inc., 1974. — E n v i r o n m e n t and S o c i a l B e h a v i o u r : P r i v a c y , Personal Space, T e r r i t o r y , Crowding. Monterey, C a l . : B r o o k s - C o l e P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1975.  —  •  Altman,  "Privacy: A Conceptual Analysis." B e h a v i o r 8 (March 1976): 7-29.  and  I.. and L e t t , E.E. "The E c o l o g y o f I n t e r p e r s o n a l Relationships: Classification System and Conceptual Model." In J . E . M c G r a t h , e d . , 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 Y o r k : H o l t Reinhart and Winston,  I n c T , ~1970, pp.  Altman,  Environment  177-201.  I., and Taylor, D.A. Social Penetration: The • Development o f I n t e r p e r s o n a l Relationships. New York: H o l t , R e i n h a r t and W i n s t o n , I n c . , 1973.  A l t m a n , I . ; T a y l o r , D.A.; and Wheeler, L . " E c o l o g i c a l A s p e c t s o f Group B e h a v i o u r i n Social Isolation." Journal of A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) : 76-100. Anderson, J., and T i n d a l l M. "The C o n c e p t o f t h e Home Range: New Data f o r t h e Study of Territorial Behaviour." In E n v i r o n m e n t a l D e s i g n : R e s e a r c h and P r a c t i c e . P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e EDRA 3/A1 8 C o n f e r e n c e Volume 1, P a p e r 1.1. Edited by W i l l i a m M i t c h e l l . Los A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1972. B a t e s , A. P. "Privacy, ( 1 9 6 4 ) : 429-34. Baum,  a Useful Concept?"  Social  Forces  42  A., and D a v i s , G. E. " S p a t i a l and S o c i a l A s p e c t s o f Crowding Perception." Environment and B e h a v i o u r . 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 . " I n Man-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and  Bibliography  137  applications. Part 2, S e c t i o n 6: P r i v a c y . Pp. E d i t e d by D a n i e l B. C a r s o n . S t r o u d s b e r g , Penn.: H u t c h i n s o n and Ross I n c . , 1974. Bossley, a.I. "Privacy and Crowding: analysis." Man-Environment Systems Calhoun, J . B. Scientific Bott,  a Multidisciplinary 6 ( #1 1 9 7 6 ) : 8-19.  "Population Density and Social A m e r i c a { F e b r u a r y 1962): 139-1  E., F a m i l y and S o c i a l Network. [ g u o t e d i n M a r s h a l l (1970) ]  55-72. Dowden,  London,  Pathology."  Tavistock,  1957.  C h o i , S.C.; M i r j a f a r i , A.; and H e a v e r , H.B. •'The C o n c e p t of Crowding: A Critical Review and Proposal of an Alternative Approach." Environment and Behaviour 8 {September 1976): 345-62. Daniel H. Carson. S t r o u d s b e r g , Penn.: Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n an Ross Inc., 1974. Central  Mortgage and Housing Corporation. "User Study Of P r i v a t e Open S p a c e s in a Courtyard Housing Project." Working Paper #10. Architecture and Planning: P r o f e s s i o n a l S t a n d a r d s and S e r v i c e s G r o u p , A u g u s t 1974.  C h e r m a y e f f , s., and A l e x a n d e r , C. Towards a New Architecture D o u b l e d a y and Co., 1963.  of  Community and Privacy: Humanism. New York:  Dean, L.M.; Pugh, H.M.; and G u n d e r s o n , E.K.E. "Spatial and Perceptaul Components o f C r o w d i n g : E f f e c t s on H e a l t h and Satisfaction." E n v i r o n m e n t and B e h a v i o u r 7{June 1975): 225-36. Edney,  J.J. "Human Territories: Comment Properties." E n v i r o n m e n t and B e h a v i o u r 8 31-47.  Evans,  G.H., and E i c h e l m a n , W. "Preliminary Models of Conceptual Linkages Among Proxemic Variables." E n v i r o n m e n t and B e h a v i o u r 8 (March 1976): 87-116.  E v a n s , G.W., and Howard, R.B. "Personal J S l i e t j t i a 80 (#4 1973) : 334-44. Freedman, J . L . Crowding Freeman and Co., Goffman, E. Press, Greater  Behaviour 1963.  Vancouver  and Behaviour. 1975. in  Regional  Space." San  P u b l i c Spaces.  District.  on Functional (March 1976):  Psychological  Francisco: New  "Privacy  Y o r k : The  in  W.H, Free  Compact  Bibliography  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 . " W a l k e y / O l s e n f o r GVRD Planning Department. March 1976. Hall,  E.T. Inc.,  The H i d d e n 1966.  Dimension.  P r e p a r e d by Vancouver:  New Y o r k : D o u b l e d a y  and Co.  H e d l e y , A. " P r i v a c y a s 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 A n n o t a t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y . National Research C o u n c i l , D i v i s i o n o f B u i l d i n g Research. Ottawa, 1S66. Hoffer,  A. "The I m p o r t a n c e i n t o t h e Community." 1969) : 13-16.  o f P r i v a c y i n B u i l d i n g Human V a l u e s Community P l a n n i n g Review 19 (Summer  I t t l e s o n W.H., P r o s h a n s k y , H.H.; and R i v l i n , l . G . "A s t u d y o f bedroom u s e 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. "Privacy as Personal Control." In M a n - E n y i r o n me n t Interactions: Evaluations and Applications. Part 2, S e c t i o n 6: P r i v a c y , pp. 83-100. Edited by D a n i e l H. Carson. Stroudsberg, Penn.: Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and Ross I n c . , 1974. J o u r a r d , S.M. "Some P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s p e c t s o f P r i v a c y . " l a j s and Contemporary Problems. 31 (#2, S p r i n g 1 9 6 6 ) : 307-318. Jourard. S.M. "The Need f o r P r i v a c y . " I n S.M. Jourard The Transparent Self pp. 64-72. New Y o r k , : Van N o s t r a n d R e i n h c l d Co., 1964. R e v i s e d 1971. Kelvin,  P. "A British 248-61.  Social-Psychological Examination of Journal of Clinical Psychology.  Privacy." 12(1973):  K u p e r , B. "Privacy and P r i v a t e Housing." Building Partnership Graphics Unit. L o n d o n , 1967. Konvitz, M.R. Law and 272-280. Laufer,  Design  " P r i v a c y and t h e Law: A P h i l o s o p h i c a l P r e l u d e . " Contemporary Problems 31(#2 Spring 1966):  R.S.; Proshansky, H.M.; and W o l f e , M. "Some Analytical Dimensions of Privacy." In A r c h i t e c t u r a l Psychology. P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e Lund C o n f e r e n c e . pp. 353-72. S t r o u d s b e r g , Penn.: Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and Ross Inc., 1973.  Bibliography  Lyman,  139  S.M., and Sociological 235-49.  Scott, M.B. Dimension."  " T e r r i t o r i a l i t y : A Neglected Social Problems 15 (1967):  Hargulis, S. T. " P r i v a c y as a B e h a v i o u r a l Phenomenon: Coming o f Age." In Han-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications. Part 2, Section 6: P r i v a c y . , pp. 101-21. Edited by Daniel H. Carson. Stroudsberg, Penn.: Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and Boss I n c . , 1974. Marshall, N. J. " O r i e n t a t i o n s Towards P r i v a c y : E n v i r o n m e n t a l and Personality Components." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation in Psychology. U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkely, 1970. -•  " E n v i r o n m e n t a l Components of Orientations Towards Privacy." P r o c e e d i n g s of the Second Annual E n v i r o n m e n t a l Design Besearch A s s o c i a t i o n Conference. pp. 316-319. Edited by L. Archea and C. Eastman. Pittsburgh: C a r n e g i e M e l l o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. (a) "Privacy and 1 9 7 2 ) : 93-110.  Environment."  Human  Hehrabian, A. Public Places B a s i c Books, 1976.  and  Private  Pennock, J . B., and Atherton Press,  J.  w.  Petty, Pullen, Scarth,  B. A.  H. R.  Chapman, 1971. ,-  C r o w d i n o : a. S e l e c t e d "Privacy".  June  4,  Ecology  Spaces,  Privacy.  New New  1(#2 York: York:  Bibliography. 1965.  D. S t . C l a i r . " P r i v a c y as an A s p e c t o f t h e 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. S c . 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 Z a n z o l a , A. M. "The Relationship Between Density and Crowding. Environment and Behaviour. 9 (March 1977) : 3-14. o  S c h w a r t z , B. "The Social Psychology of Privacy." J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y , 73 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 741-52. S h a n k l a n d , Cox and Threshold." 1307-1312. Simmel,  A. edited  American  Associates. " F r o n t and B a c k : P r o b l e m s o f t h e A r c h i t e c t s ^ J o u r n a l 146{#21, November 1 9 6 7 ) :  "Privacy by J.R.  i s Not an I s o l a t e d Pennock and J.W.  Freedom." Chapman.  In P r i v a c y , New York:  Bibliography  140  Atherton  Press,  1971,  pp.  71-87.  R. H.; Downer, D. B.; Lynch, a. T.; " 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 t h e F a m i l y Dwelling Space. ' Journal of Marriage 31{#3 August 1969): 559-566.  Smith,  1  Scmmer, R. "The E c o l o g y o f Privacy." 36 (#3, 1966): 234-48. Sommer,  R. New  The  and W i n t e r , M. as R e l a t e d to and t h e Family  Library  Personal Space: The B e h a v i o u r a l Jersey: Prentice H a l l Inc., 1969.  Basis  Quarterly of  Design.  Sommer, R., and B e e h e r , F. D. "Territorial Defence and the Good Neighbour.!' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11 (#2, 1 f69) : 85-92. Stokcls, D.; Rail, M.; Pinner, B.; and Schopler,, J. "Physical, Social and Personal Determinants of the Perception of Crowding." Environment and Behaviour 5(March 1973): 87-115. W a l l a c e , A. F. C. " P l a n n e d P r i v a c y : What's I t s I m p o r t a n c e f o r the Neighbourhood?" J o u r n a l o f H o u s i n g 1 3 ( J a n u a r y 1956): 13-14. Westin, Willis,  A.  Privacy  and  Freedom.  M. "What i s P r i v a c y ? " 1963) : 1137-41. (a) "Overlooking" 1181-87. (b)  . (June  "Personal 12, 1963):  "Designing 47-51.  New  Y o r k : Atheneum,  Architects»  Architects' Journal. Relationships." 1231-36. (c)  for Privacy."  1970.  Journal.  (June 5,  Architects'  Ekistiks98(January  (May  29,  1963): Journal. 1964):  W o l f e , M., and L a u f e r , R. "The C o n c e p t o f P r i v a c y i n C h i l d h o o d and Adolescence." In Man-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications. Part 2, Section 6: Privacy. pp., 29- 54. Edited by Daniel H. Carson. Stroudsberg, Penn.: Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and Ross I n c . , 1974.  Bibliography  Mult i f apnily_Housing  141  Studies  Andrews, H., and B r e s l a u e r , H. J. " C o o p e r a t i v e Housing Study: fl P r e l i m i n a r y A n a l y s i s o f A c t i v i t y D i a r y D a t a . " Research P a p e r #77. Centre f o r Urban and Community Studies, U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o , 1975. Beazly,  E. Design and D e t a i l o f t h e Space L o n d o n : A r c h i t e c t u r a l P r e s s , 1960.  Between  Buildings.  Beck, R. J . ; Rowan, R. ; and T e a s d a l e , P. User Generated Programme f o r Low-rise Multiple Dwelliija, Housing. 2 volumes. P r o d u c e d f o r CMHC by C e n t r e de Secherches et d ' I n n o v a t i o n U r b a i n e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f M o n t r e a l , 1975. Becker,  F.D. "The Effect of P h y s i c a l and S o c i a l F a c t o r s on Residents' Sense of Security i n Multifamily Housing Developments." Journal of Architectural Research ( F e b r u a r y 1975): 18-25.  Brolin,  B.C., And Zeisel, J. Research." Architectural 66-71.  "Mass H o u s i n g and Social Forum 129 ( J u l y - A u g u s t 1S68):  Brewer, S. N., and W i l l i a m s o n , P. "Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n as a Function o f t h e Urban H o u s i n g E n v i r o n m e n t . " Environment and B e h a v i o u r 6 (September 1974): 295-345. C o a t e s , G., and S a n o f f , H. " B e h a v i o u r a l Mapping: The Ecology of 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 . " in E n v i r o n m e n t a l d e s i g n : R e s e a r c h and P r a c t i c e . Proceedings of the EDRA 3/AR 8 Conference. P a p e r 13.2. E d i t e d by William 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 Frontyards; Enclosed Porch." J o u r n a l o f H o u s i n g 4 (June 1 9 6 7 ) : 268-73. . Easter H i l l V i l l a g e : Some Social Design. London: The F r e e P r e s s , 1975.  Implications  of ~  Cooper,  C.; Day, N.; And Levine, 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 P a p e r # 160. U n i v e r s i t y o f 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 u s i n g Becomes 'The West C o a s t ' s Pruitt-Igoe'." A u g u s t 1976) : 22-25.  P r o j e c t Nearly AIA Journal,  Bibliography  142  E v a n s , P. " H o u s i n g L a y o u t and D e n s i t y . " working Centre f o r L a n d Use and B u i l t Form S t u d i e s . o f C a m b r i d g e , 1973. F e s t i n g e r , L.; S c h a c t e r , S.; a n d Back, K. I n f o r m a l Groups. Stanford University  Paper #75. University  Social Pressuresi n P r e s s , 1950.  •—-  "Architecture and Social Issues. 7(1951):  Group Membersbup. 152-163.  -•  " A r c h i t e c t u r e and Group Membership." S o c i a l I s s u e s 7 ( 1 9 5 4 ) : 152-63.  "Journal of Journal  of  F r a n c e s c a t o , G.; Weideoann, S.; A n d e r s o n , J . ; And C h e n o w a r t h , B. " P r e d i c t o r s o f R e s i d e n t s * S a t i s f a c t i o n i n High Rise and Low R i s e H o u s i n g . " Journal 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 I w a t a , N. "De-Cosmos V i l l a g e S t u d y . " Unpublished Term P a p e r , S c h o o l o f 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 C o l u m b i a , May, 1976.  Great  Britain: Families  Ministry o f Housing and L o c a l Government. L i v i n g At H i g h D e n s i t i e s : A S t u d y o f E s t a t e s i n Leeds, L i v e r p o o l and L o n d o n . Design Bullettin #21. HMSO, 1970.  Great  Britain: Ministry o f H o u s i n g And L o c a l Government. T h e Jstai® O u t s i d e The D w e l l i n g : R e a c t i o n s c f R e s i d e n t s t o Aspects o f Housing Layout. L o n d o n : 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 for Compact Housing." GVRD Planning Department. Vancouver: ( F e b r u a r y 1975).  Handlin, D. P. "The D e t a c h e d House i n t h e Age o f t h e O b j e c t and Beyond." In Environmental Design: R e s e a r c h and Practice. Proceedings o f t h e EDRA 3/AR 8 C o n f e r e n c e , Volume T, p a p e r 7.2. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m flitchell. Los A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1972. Hinds,  E. R., a n d Hawhinney, D, J . " C h a m p l a i n H e i g h t s . " Unpublished term paper, School of Architecture, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , May 1976.  Hoffman, H. Urban Low-Rise G e r d H a t j e , 1967.  Group H o u s i n g .  J a c o b s , J . The Death a n d L i f e o f G r e a t York : Random House, 1961. Katz,  R.  D.  "Intensity  of  Stuttgart:  American  Development  and  Cities.  Verlag New  Livability in  Bibliography  143  Multifamily Housing 1964) : 59-66.  Projects."  Ekistijcs  98  (January  Katz,  B.D. Design o f t h e Housing S i t e : A C r i t i q u e o f American Practice. I l l i n o i s : U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 1966.  Kuper,  L.,  ed.  living  I n Towns.  Lansing, J.B.; Marans, R.W.; iesidential Environments. M i c h i g a n , 1970. L y n c h , K.  Site  Planning.  London, C r e s s e t and Z e h n e r , Michigan:  P r e s s , 1953.  H.B. Planned U n i v e r s i t y of  M a s s a c h u s e t t s : MIT P r e s s , 1972.  Marans, R.W., and Z e h n e r , H.B. ''Some O b s e r v e d Patterns 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 T r e n d s and C o n c e p t s pp. 62-69. Edited by b y K. Bernhardt. Ann A r b o r , Mich.: U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, 1972. Michelson, f . "The P h y s i c a l Environment as Attraction and Determinant: S o c i a l E f f e c t s i n Housing." Research Eaper #22. C e n t r e f o r Urban and Community S t u d i e s , University o f T o r o n t o , 1969. Murray,  J.A., and P l i e s s , H. "Famly Housing: A Study o f H o r i z o n t a l m u l t i p l e Housing T e c h n i q u e s . " Canada Housing D e s i g n C o u n c i l O t t a w a : 1970.  Newman  0. Defensible Space: Crime P r e v e n t i o n T h r o u g h Urban Design. New Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n Publishing Co., (Collier Books) 1973.  Onibokun, A.G. "Social System Correlates of Residential Satisfaction." E n v i r o n m e n t and B e h a v i o u r 8 (September 1976): 323-44. Patti,  R. "Some Socio-Spatial Aspects Housing. Culloden Court: A Case Dissertation. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  o f Low Income F a m i l y Study." M. Arch. C o l u m b i a , 1972.  Pcllowy, A. M. "The C h i l d i n Urban H o u s i n g : Towards t h e 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 International Conference on Urban Housing, pp 137-141. Edited by Vasily Kouskoulos. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. Puni,  K.P. "An E v a l u a t i o n o f P a t t e r n s : A S t u d y o f a l l o f t h e House P a t t e r n s o f A c a d i a P a r k Clusters." M. Arch. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1972.  Bibliography  144  Have12,  A. Model e s t a t e : P l a n n e d H o u s i n g L o n d o n : Croom H e l l L t d . , 1974. ~  Royal  Institute of B r i t i s h architects. F a m i l y L i f e i n High D e n s i t y Housing, with P a r t i c u l a r Reference t o t h e Design o f Sjgace a b o u t B u i l d i n g s . R.I.E.A., L o n d o n , 1957.  Saile,  D.G.; Eorooah ,R.; and W i l l i a m s , M.G. "Families i n P u b l i c Housing: a Study o f Three L o c a l i t i e s i n R c c k f o r d Illinois. I n P r o c e e d i n g s o f EDRA 3/AR 8 C o n f e r e n c e P a p e r 13.7. Edited by W i l l i a m Mitchell. Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y o f 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 o f O s e r 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 E n v i r o n m e n t . " In Environmental Design: Research and Practice. Proceedings o f the EDBa 3/iS 8 Conference. Paper 13.8. Edited by W i l l i a m M i t c h e l l . Los a n g e l e s : O n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1972.  at Quarry  H i l l , - Leeds.  S a u e r , 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 S u r v e y o f How Six Families Dse S p a c e i n T h e i r E x i s t i n g Homes." I n E n v i r o n m e n t a l d e s i g n : R e s e a r c h and P r a c t i c e . Proceedings of t h e EDRA 3/AR 8 C o n f e r e n c e . P a p e r 13.9. E d i t e d by William 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. Stahl,  F. I . " E f f e c t s o f H o u s i n g P r o j e c t S i z e on E n v i r o n m e n t a l Maintenance Concern and B e h a v i o u r : an Application of Behaviour Setting Theory." In The P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e o f Urban H o u s i n g , pp. 13 3-136. E d i t e d by V a s i l y K o u s k o u l o s . D e t r o i t Mich.: Wayne S t a t e 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 D e v e l o p m e n t : t h e State of the Art. I n The P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C c p f e r n c e on Urban Housing. pp. 167-172. Edited by Vasily Kouskoulos. Detroit Mich.: Wayne State Iniversity, 1972. 1 1  Thompson, B e r w i c k , P r a t t the False Creek (Mimeographed).  and P a r t n e r s . "Design Guidelines f o r Area 6. Proposals." S p r i n g , 1974.  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 o f a New Community: Studlands Park, England." E k i s t i k s (June 1 9 7 5 ) : 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 L a n d Use and t h e B u i l t Form o f 110 H o u s i n g Schemes." A r c h i t e c t s ' J o u r n a l (1 August 1 9 7 5 ) : 265-280.  Urban  Land  Institute.  "The P r o s and C o n s o f C l u s t e r  Housing."  Bibliography  145  A t r a n s c r i p t of a debate conducted by the Community Builders association i n Atalanta, Georgia. flay, 1968. 1  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 of Dwellings." M a n-E n y i r o n me n t Systems 5 {November 1975): 395-405.  Whyte,  W.H. The Organization Schuster, 1956.  -  Wan.  C l u s t e r Development. New a s s o c i a t e d C o r p o r a t i o n , 1964.  New  York:  York:  Simon  Woodhaven  and Press  "Cluster Development." I n 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 Y o r k : D o u b l e d a y and Co. Inc., 1967. Wilner,  D. M.; Walkey, R. P.; Pinkerton, T. L.; and T a y b a c k , Mw "The H o u s i n g E n v i r o n m e n t and Family life." In P e o p l e and B u i l d i n g s , pp. 190-201. E d i t e d by R o b e r t Gutman. New Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s I n c . , 1972.  Yamamoto, T. "The F a m i l y L i f e C y c l e and t h e F a m i l y Needs in a Housing Project." M. arch. Dissertation, University 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. C h a r l e s v i e w H o u s i n g : J| D i a g n o s t i c ' Evaluation. architecture Research Office. Graduate S c h o o l o f D e s i g n , H a r v a r d 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 P h y s i c a l Environment  the  Canter,  B. "The Spatial 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 to 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. (Jr.). Human A c t i v i t y Patterns New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y and Sons, 1974.  Dennis,  N. 8-11.  "Who  Needs N e i g h b o u r s ? "  New  in  the  City.  Society 43(July  25):  ;  Dubos, R. Man 1965.  Adapting.  Connecticut:  Yale  University  Press,  Bibliography  146  "Environmental Determinants o f Human Life." Environmental Influence. E d i t e d by D. C. Glass. York: Rockefeller University Press and R u s s e l l F o u n d a t i o n , 1968.  In New Sage  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 o f t h e American I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s 28 (Hay 1961): 134-140. The  Levittpwners.  New Y o r k , Random  House, 1967.  People and P l a n s : Essays on Urban Problems Solutions. New Y o r k : B a s i c Books I n c . , 1968. Gdard,  I . f l . " S o c i a l Design G u i d e l i n e s . " A Preliminary for Dunhill Development Corporation. August (mimeo)  Gutman,  R. Social  Gutman, E. , Inc.,  "Site P l a n n i n g and S o c i a l Behaviour.'? I s s u e s 22 <#4, 1966): 103-115. e d . P e o p l e and 1972.  Plans.  New  York.  and  Report 1975.  Journal of Basic  Eooks  Kasl,  S. "Effects o f H o u s i n g on P h y s i c a l and M e n t a l H e a l t h . " Man-Enyircnment Systems. 4{#4 1974): 207- 226.  Keller,  S. The Urban N e i g h b o u r h o o d : a S o c i o l p g i c a l New Y o r k : Random House, 1968.  Kira,  A. The Bathroom. E d i t i o n 1976.  New  York:  Viking  H i c h e l s o n , f?. Man and H i s Urban Environment: Approach. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley 1970.  Perspective.  Press.  Revised  A Sociological P u b l i s h i n g Co.,  M i c h e l s o n , W. " E n v i r o n m e n t a l 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 T o r o n t o , 1973. M i l g r a m , S. "The E x p e r i e n c e 1 6 7 ( 1 9 7 0 ) : 1461-1468. Holler,  of Living in Cities." science [ q u o t e d i n A l t m a n (1975)1.  C.B. flrchitectural Environment New Y o r k : H o r i z o n P e s s , 1868.  and Our M e n t a l H e a l t h .  P r o s h a n s k y H.M.; Ittleson, W.H.; and R i v l i n , L.G., eds. Environmental Psychology: Han and H i s P h y s i c a l S e t t i n g . New Y o r k : H o l t , R e i n h a r t , and W i n s t o n I n c . , 1970. R a p c p o r t , A., And K a n t o r , R. "Complexity and a m b i g u i t y i n E n v i r o n m e n t a l D e s i g n . " J o u r n a l o f t h e flmerican I n s t i t u t e  Bibliography  147  o f P l a n n e r s 3 3 { J u l y 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 Journal o f the American 1961): 127-33.  the Physical Environments." I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s 27 {May  S a n d a h l , C. A. " C o n c e p t i o n s o f 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 to the Spatial E n v i r o n m e n t . I n Environmental Design: R e s e a r c h and P r a c t i c e . P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e EDRA 3/AR 8 Conference. Volume 1, Paper 2.3. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m Mitchell. L o s A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1972. S p r o t t , W.J.H. Human Groups. Books, 1958., • • •  Baltimore,  Maryland:  Penguin  Stokols, D., ed. Readings i n Environmental Psychology. Y o r k : MSS I n f o r m a t i o n C o r p . , 1974. Tandy, C.R.V., e d . L a n d s c a p e and Human Life: The L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e Upon Human A c t i v i t i e s . D j a m b a t a n , 1966.  Impact of Amsterdam,  W c h l w i l l , J . F. "The P h y s i c a l E n v i r o n m e n t : A Problem Psychology of Stimulation." Journal of Social 22 {#4, 1966): 29-38. "The Emerging Psychology." American  Investigative  Discipline Psychologist.  New  for a Issues.  of Environmental 2 5 ( 1 9 7 0 ) : 303-312.  Technigues  F e s t i n g e r , L . , and K a t z , D., e d i t o r s . R e s e a r c h Methods i n t h e Behavioural Science. New Y o r k : Dryden P r e s s , 1953. Michelson, H., ed. Behavioural Research Methods in iSZl£6iBS§atal Design. Community Development Series, Volume 8. S t r o u d s b e r g , Penn.: Dowden H u t c h i n s o n and Ross I n c . , 1975. Horoney, M. J. Facts From Figures. Middlesex, P e n g u i n Books L t d . ; P a p e r b a c k e d i t i o n 1975. Mosser,  C A., and Investigation.  Kalton, G. Survey Methods London: Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l  England: in  Social  Bibliography  148  S p i e g e l , M. R. Theory Outline Series.  and P r o b l e m s of S t a t i s t i c s . Hew Y o r k : McGraw H i l l Eock Co.,  Schaums 1961.  Institute for Social 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 o f M i c h i g a n , 1976. W a l k e r , H. M. and L e e , 3rd. E d i t i o n . New 1969. #  J . , Elementary Statistical Methods Y o r k : H o l t R e i n h a r t and W i n s t o n I n c . ,  B i b l i o g r a Phies  Bell,  G. ; R a n d a l l , E . ; and R o e d e r , J.E. Urban Environments and Human Behaviour: An Annotated Bibliography. Pennsylvania: Dowden, H u t c h i n s o n and R o s s I n c . , 1973.  C h a n g , D. S o c i a l and Psychological Aspects of Housing. A Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e . C o u n c i l o f P l a n n i n g 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. H o l l a n d e r , A. P. H^gh Density Environments: Some C u l t u r a l . Physiclogical and Psychological Cosiderations. An Annotated B i b l i o g r a p h y . Council of Planning Librarians 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 t h e P s y c h o l o g y gf t h e Near E n v i r o n m e n t . Council Of P l a n n i n g Librarians Exchange Bibliography #327. 1972. C o u n c i l o f P l a n n i n g 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. , ::  Preiser, W. Environment and S p a t i a l Behavior: A Selected Plkijgggaphy. Council o f P l a n n i n g 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. Social Implications of the Physical Environment with t h e P a r t i c u l a r E m p h a s i s on B o u s i n g and t h e N e i g h b o u r h o o d Characteristics. Council o f P l a n n i n g 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. Social Factors i n A r c h i t e c t u r a l and Urban Design. Bibliography. Council of Planning Librarians Exchange B i b l i o g r a p h y #201, 1971.  150  APPENDIX'II QUESTIONNAIRE  Part A  (Interviewer to f i l l i n this p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e from respondents* choices a t t h e board. Probe f o r reasons f o r a c t i v i t i e s not performed). Sec 0.  STORAGE  (preferred) (achieved)  1. ROME  MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR  2. HOUSEWORK  3.  CHILD  U.  HOUSEHOLD  5. PET  ORIENTED  CARE  ACTIVITIES  BUSINESS  A  NN  Int  . •„ ••• •.••„••••- . .  .  Appendix  I I : Questionnaire  6.  FCEMAL  SOCIAL  7.  INFORMAL  151  ACTIVITIES  SOCIAL  ACTIVITIES  8. GAMES  9. HOBBIES  10.  BEST  AND  AND  CRAFTS  RELAXATION  The f o l l o w i n g g u e s t i o n s 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 r e a d t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t i n t h e o r d e r i t i s p r e s e n t e d here.  SECIDSION  "If you had t o p e r f o r m i n y o u r p r i v a t e open s p a c e any o f t h e s e t s of a c t i v i t i e s described on t h e board, t o what e x t e n t would y o u , a s an i n d i v i d u a l , want t o be s e c l u d e d , t h a t i s h a v i n g isolation from observation by t h e n e i g h b o u r s . I want t o know y o u r preferred and y o u r present achieved levels of seclusion."  appendix  II:  Questionnaire  ANONYMITY  " I f you had t o p e r f o r m i n your private open space any o f the a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d on t h e b o a r d , 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 w i t h o u t g e t t i n g t h e f e e l i n g o f s t a n d i n g o u t from t h e rest of the households in the immediate neighbourhood. I would l i k e t o know your preferrd feeling f o r anonymity as well as your present achieved s t a t e of anonymity."  NOT-NEIGHBOURING  "How would you r a t e y o u r l i k e o r d i s l i k e a t being interrupted by a n e i g h b o u r who s t a r t s c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h you w h i l e you were performing any o f t h e activities described on t h e b o a r d , s o t h a t you had t o i n t e r r u p t them t o a t t e n d t o h i s need. I want t o know y o u r p r e f e r r e d and y o u r p r e s e n t l e v e l s o f l i k e cr d i s l i k e . "  INTIMACY  " I f you had t o p e r f o r m i n your private open space any of the a c t i v i t i e s described on the board, i n v o l v i n g you w i t h any o t h e r member o r members c f the family, o r r e l a t i v e s o r c l o s e f r i e n d s , t o what extent would you want to be secluded from observation by t h e n e i g h b o u r s . I want t o know y o u r preferred and y o u r present achieved l e v e l s of seclusion."  152  appendix  I I : Questionnaire  153  Part  B  B1.  Mow I am g o i n g t o show y o u some words and p h r a s e s which I would l i k e y o u t o use t o d e s c r i b e y o u r n e i g h b o u r h o o d . By n e i g h b o u r h o o d I mean t h e r e g i o n a r o u n d y o u r house t o which you feel you b e l o n g . These gualities r a n g e f r c m one extreme, s a y e x t r e m e l y n o i s y t o another o p p o s i t e extreme, say e x t r e m e l y g u i e t . The c e n t r e column i s t h e n e i t h e r / n o r o r i n d i f f e r e n t column. The i n - b e t w e e n c o l u m n s i n d i c a t e a position somewhere i n - b e t w e e n . I want you t o i n d i c a t e on t h e c a r d how t h e s e words and p h r a s e s can describe your neighbourhood.  ( 1 (B11)  NOISY  :_  (E12)  UNaTTRaCTIVE  <B13)  POGBLY  :.  5 ) QUIET AT TRACTIVE  KEPT U P HELL  KEPT UP  (B11) U N P L E a S a N T  PLEaSANT  (B15)  OVERCROWDED  NOT CROWDED  (B16)  POOR P t a C E TO LIVE  GOOD PLaCE TO L I V E  appendix I I : Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  B2.  Now I would l i k e t o a s k y o u a few q u e s t i o n s about your immediate neighbours, I mean t h e 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? A g a i n I am g o i n g t o show y o u some words and p h r a s e s , and I want you t o f o l l o w t h e same procedure as i n the p r e v i o u s q u e s t i o n .  ( 1 (B21) (B2 2)  154  UNFRIENDLY  2  3  4  5 )  :  :  FRIENDLY  MINDING THEIR ,OWN BUSINESS :  :  NOSEY  (E23)  SAME INTERESTS AS MINE :  DISSIMILAR INTERESTS * TO MINE  (B24)  HELPFUL  :  (B25)  :  HIGHER CLASS OF PEOPLE ' : :  UNHELPFUL  :  LOWER CLASS OF PEOPLE  :  QUIET  (B26)  NOISY  B3.  How often do y o u t a l k t o any o f t h e s e 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 y o u , j u s t t o c h a t o r d u r i n g a social visit? Would i t b e : 1,  EVERYDAY  2.  SEVERAL  3.  ONCE  4. ___2-3  TIMES A WEEK  A WEEK TIMES A MONTH  5. ___ONCE 6.  A  7.  NEVER  A MONTH  FEW TIMES A YEAR  Appendix  B«.  B5.  I I : Questionnaire  155  Which open spaces a r o u n d t h e house d o you e x p e c t t o be c o n s i d e r e d by o t h e r s o u t s i d e t h e f a m i l y a s p r i v a t e s p a c e s ? Would i t b e :  Which  1.  .FRONT  YARD  2.  SIDE  YARD  3.  BACK  YARD  4.  ALLEY  5.  SIDEWALK/PATH  6.  OTHER  a c c e s s t o t h e h o u s e do y o u use most? 1. _ 2. 3. _  FRONT BACK OTHER  I s t h a t t h e one through 1.  Would i t b e :  which (the i n t e r v i e w e r )  came i n ?  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  B6.  156  How do you f e e l about t h e amount o f outdoor space immediately attached t o y o u r home, which members c f y o u r f a m i l y c a n use f o r t h e i r different activities? Do you f e e l t h a t your space i s : 1.  MORE  THAN  2. ___RIGHT 3.  NEEDED  AMOUNT  TOO  LITTLE  (  B7.  .  How  long 1.  E8.  How  have y o u been 0-1  YEARS  3. _  2-5  YEARS  4.  MORE  What  in this  house?  THAN 5 YEARS  people l i v e  1. ___0-12  B9.  staying  YEARS  2. ___1-2  many  ;__)  2.  _13-18  3.  OVER  i n this  house?  YEARS OLD YEARS OLD 19 YEARS OLD  i s t h e a g g r e g a t e income o f t h e f a m i l y ? 1.  UNDER $5000  2. ___BETHEEN  $5000 AND $9999  3. _  BETWEEN  $10000 AND $12499  .BETWEEN  $12500 AND $14999  4. 5.  OVER  $15000  Appendix  B10.  B11.  B12.  I I :Questionnaire  Respondent*s  157  age (by o b s e r v a t i o n )  _18-34  YEARS  _35-54  YEARS  3.  _55~74  YEARS  4.  OVER  Respondent*s  75  YEARS  Sex  1.  MALE  2.  FEMALE  Can you t e l l me y o u r g e n e r a l f e e l i n g s a b o u t the overall privacy i n this project and i n y o u r house? (Probe: acoustic problems, problems with neighbours, site a r r a n g e m e n t and s i m i l a r ) .  158  APPENDIX I I I ACTIVITY CATEGORY  The  following  RESPONSES  activities  a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e same o r d e r t h e y  were s u b m i t t e d  to the respondents.  Activity  Storage  0:  Description  " 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 t h e open storage of disused furniture; excess building m a t e r i a l s , and o t h e r u n d e r u t i l i z e d h o u s e h o l d w a r e s . "  Results  Fig. for  the  states. responses  A3.0  g i v e s the o v e r a l l  Seclusion,  Anonymity,  The d i a g r a m c l e a r l y in  the achieved l e v e l  condition  responses follow  and I n t i m a c y  predominance  of  f o r three states.  It  the p r o f i l e  responses, although at a reduced  also  compares  the responses  for this  the  distribution  w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e Anonymity  level  Seclusion  of  Not-Neighbouring  illustrates  the ' i n d i f f e r e n t *  also indicates that,  frequency  activity.  state*  of the preferred  intensity.  The  diagram  f o r t h e two s t a t e s o f I n t i m a c y and  Appendix I I I  The  159  qive  an  i n d i c a t i o n of the the  degree o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n e x p e r i e n c e d  by  the  this the  Tables  activity.  A3.01-A3.04  The codes i n d i c a t e  L i k e r t Scale  there The  and t h e a c h i e v e d  is  satisfaction  negative  respondents the  on  the  l e v e l s , and c o n s e g u e n t l y that  particular state  Seclusion  state  less seclusion  Seclusion  indicate  a  Intimacy  state.  state  Not-Neighbouring s t a t e ,  achieved  than  for  indicate  between t h e shows of  that  privacy.  that  was a c h i e v e d .  f o r more s e c l u s i o n .  the While The  have t h e same meaning a s t h o s e on  On t h e Anonymity  preference  the  no s e p a r a t i o n  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  codes the  preferred  indicates  with  c o d e s on t h e  l e v e l s and  on  states.  Code 0 on t h e s e t a b l e s preferred  for  t h e degree of s e p a r a t i o n  between t h e p r e f e r r e d  l e v e l s f o r each o f t h e f o u r  respondents  the negative  codes  more c o n s p i c u o u s n e s s , w h i l e  cn t h e  they i n d i c a t e  state  a  preference  for  liking  c f response  i n the  interruptions.  The  Tables  indifferent/none  show  condition,  being f o r the Seclusion for  the  the Not-Neighbouring  state  very the  high r a t e highest  Standard  and I n t i m a c y s t a t e ,  state.  Deviations  and t h e l o w e s t  Appendix I I I  160  Remarks  P e o p l e seem t o h a v e storing  things,  acute  respondents part the  of  in asked  "  at  as t h e u n i t s  to utilize  but i s  lack  i t f o rthis  i n t h e sense t h a t  reported  a l l mainly  f e n c e was a v a i l a b l e " ) , things  projects,  that  they  space,  restrictions removal  to  be  Some  close  purpose.  off  T h i s made  i ti s enclosed."  did  not  store  f o r reasons of s e c u r i t y  other  alternatives  i n t h e basement"), v i s u a l  of  felt  space  a basement.  ("  {"  both . ; •• .  of the material  indoors the  anything  {" . . .  . . .  I  congestion, seclusion  am o u t s i d e , I do n o t want t o do a n y t h i n g I do n o t lack  act cf  Storage  f o r and were g r a n t e d p e r m i s s i o n t o  private,  cases  outdoors  activity—the  space  . . .  14  i n both  Southview,  the carport  storage  the  with t h e e v e n t — s t o r e d a r t i f a c t s .  was r e p o r t e d a s a p r o b l e m more  confused  and manager  outdoors, has  i n t h e backyard").  want  and  authority  no  store  ("Shen I seen"),  management over  the  161  EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) EXTREMELY DISLIKE (NNj~  IHCONSPICPOnS ( A ) DISLIKE  INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT  ( A) (NN)  CONSPICUOUS LIKE  ( A) (NN)  EXTREMELY CONSPICTOnS EXTREMELY LIKE  EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED  UNSECLUDED  INDIFFERENT  SECLUDED  EXTREMELY SECLUDED  Fig. A 3 . 0 Achieved  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Responses p e r P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Cateqory 0  (JQ_ XNNT  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND SO  162  SOUTHVIEli TABLE A3.01  CATEGORY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION)  CODE  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  STORAGE  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (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  99.  19  38, 0  TOTAL  50  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.548 0.0 2.510 -3.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  31 MISSING CASES  0.226 1. 26 1 0.310 4.000 19  MISSING  100.0  100.0 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  0.294 1.589 7.000  APPENDIX I I I  163  KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW 10  TABLE A3. 02  CATEGORY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION  CODE  ABSOLUTE FREQ  (INTIMACY)  STORAGE  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (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  99.  22  44.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100. 0  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  1. 179 0.0 -1.579 0.0  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  28 MISSING CASES  0.23 6 1.249 0.374 3.000 22  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  0.833 1.560 3.0  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  164  AND SOUTHVIEW  AO  TABLE A3.0 3  CATEGORY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY)  CODE  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  STORAGE  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (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  99.  21  42. 0  TOTAL  50  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.6 55 0.0 -0.079 -2.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWSESS MAXIMUM  29 MISSING CASES  0.218 1. 173 0.310 3.000 21  MISSING  100.0  100.0 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  0.333 1.377 5.000  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  165  AND SOUTHVIEW  NNO  TABLE A3. 04  CATEGORY  LABEL  DISSATISFACTION  CODE  SOME  (NOT-NEIGHBOURING) RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  STO  CUM FREQ (PCT)  -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  99.  21  42. 0  TOTAL  50  100. 0  NO  ANSHEB  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0. 10 3 0.0 19.910 -1.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKE8NESS MAXIMUM  29 MISSING CASES  0.152 0.817 4.021 4.000 21  MISSING  100.0  100.0  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  0.0 0.667 5.000  appendix I I I  activity  166  1:  Home M a i n t e n a n c e and R e p a i r  Description  " f o r example: external maintenance o f t h e house and o t h e r a r e a s w i t h i n y o u r p r i v a t e open s p a c e ; r e m o v a l c f i c e and snow; t a k i n g o u t t h e g a r b a g e ; b u r n i n g t r a s h ; g e n e r a l heavy g a r d e n m a i n t e n a n c e ( e . g . l a n d s c a p i n g , etc.), not included in activity 9 ( H o b b i e s and C r a f t s ) below."  Results  Fig. Seclusion, diagrams  of  distribution  the  predominance  r e s p o n s e , on b o t h  preferred  Tables  the  l e v e l s o f each s t a t e .  in intensity for  and a c h i e v e d  a3.11-A3.14  of  level  the  One c a n a l s o  states  activity  0  the  of d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r four  states.  The  described  (Storage).  A p r e d o m i n a n c e o f t h e 'no evident,  f c r the  responses.  show t h e f r e g u e n c y  degrees o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r  The  'indifferent*  n a t u r e o f t h e c o d e s e x p r e s s e s t h e same meaning a s t h a t for  f o r the  a n o n y m i t y , N o t - N e i g h b o u r i n g and I n t i m a c y s t a t e s .  the s i m i l a r i t i e s  respective  several  shows t h e f r e g u e n c y  illustrate  condition discern  a3.1  i n s p i t e o f the high  dissatisfaction'  condition  number o f i n a p p l i c a b l e  is  responses.  Appendix  The  III  167  lowest  standard  Mot-Neighbouring inapplicable  deviation  state,  which  was  also  obtained  in  the  had t h e h i g h e s t number o f  cases.  Remarks  Only been  4 cases responded  carried  out.  These  that  such  respondents  c o n s i d e r a t e o f t h e n e i g h b o u r s , and  The generated  wide r a n g e  of  a wide r a n g e  activities said  that  have  t h e y were v e r y  d i d n o t want t o d i s t u r b  activities  under  this  never  them.  category  also  of a t t i t u d e s .  " I f e e l e x t r e m e l y c o n s p i c u o u s w h i l e I am installing a c h i m n e y , b u t n o t w h i l e I am r e p a i r i n g a c h a i r . " Interruptions "It  were welcome by  i s about  the o n l y time  " I would n o t r e a l l y interruption." There the  were  very  neighbours,  condition reguested  on  few  hence the  some.  like  I would want them"  them b u t i t would be  respondents the  high  who  f o r s e c u r i t y reasons  good  reported interruptions  response  Not-Neighbouring  a  state.  on  the  indifferent  Some s e c l u s i o n  but,  " . . . not extremely s e c l u d e d because swipes t h i n g s . . . "  by  i f someone  was  168  EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) EXTREMELY DISLIKE (NNT  INCONSPICUOUS (_A ) DISLIKE "^NNT  INDIFFERENT (A ) INDIFFERENT(NN)  CONSPICUOUS LIKE  HOME j MAINTENANCE AND | REPAIR  (A ) (NN)  EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS EXTREMELY L I K E '  EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED  UNSECLUDED  INDIFFERENT  SECLUDED  EXTREMELY SECLUDED  P i g . A3.1 F r e q u e n c y 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  (A ) TSNT  APPENDIX I I I  169  KAN.AT.A AND SOUTHVIEW S1  TABLE A3.11  CATEGORY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) HOME MAINTENA  CODE  -1.  SOME  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  1  2. 0  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (PCT)  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  99.  8  16.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100. o  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.643 0.0 2.097 -1.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  42 MISSING CASES  0. 159 1.032 1. 485 4.000 8  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  0.333 1.064 5.000  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  170  AND SOUTHVIEW  11  TABLE A3.12  CATEGORY  LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) HOME  CODE  SOME  -1.  NO DISSATISFACTION  0. ,  SOME VEBY GREAT  DEAL  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.395 0.0 2.408 -1.000  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FBEQ 2  MAINTENAN  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) 4.7  4.0  CUM FREQ (PCT) 4.7  29  58. 0  67.4  72. 1  1.  7  14. 0  16.3  88.4  2.  3  6. 0  7.0  95.3  3. ,  2  4.0  4.7  100.0  99.  7  14.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100. 0  100.0  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  43 MISSING CASES  0. 134 0.877 1.559 3.000 7  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  0. 172 0.769 4.000  APPENDIX I I I  171  KANATA AND SOUTHVIEH A1  TABLE A3. 13  CATEGCBY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION  CODE  VERY  (ANONYM ITY) HOME milNTENA RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (PCT)  -2.  2  4.0  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  99.  4  8.0  TOTAL  50  100. 0  NO  ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.348 0.0 2.294 -2.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  46 MISSING CASES  0. 133 0.900 0.384 3.000 4  4. 3  MISSING  4.3  100.0  100.o  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  0.200 C. 810 5.000  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND NN1  172  SOUTHVIEH TABLE A3.14  DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NE1GHBOUBING) HOME  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL  RELATIVE FBEQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  ADJUSTED FBEQ (PCT)  CUM FBEQ (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  99.  9  18. 0  TOTAL  50  100. o  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  -0.024 0.0 10.279 -2.000  STD EBB STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  41 MISSING CASES  0. 108 0.689 1.479 3.000 9  MISSING  100.0  100.0  MEDIAN VABIANCE RANGE  -0.030 G.474 5.000  173  Appendix I I I  Activity  2:  Housekeeping  Description  " f o r example: d o i n g t h e l a u n d r y o u t i n your private open space, hanging the laundry t o d r y o u t i n t h e open, o t h e r cleaning chores connected with the house, but c a r r i e d o u t i n y o u r p r i v a t e open s p a c e . "  Results  Fig. Seclusion the  gives  state.  seclusion.  i s less clear.  seclusion Intimacy  The  state.  there i s  state  A3.21-A3.24  the  f o rthe  for  on  these  the  unseclusion peaks  of two  achieved on t h e  coincide  give  the freguency  distribution f o r several states.  The  description  s i g n a g e o f t h e c o d e s have t h e same meaning a s f o r A c t i v i t y  (Storage).  at  condition.  degrees of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r t h e f o u r and  condition  but a c h i e v e d  that  and  predominance  predominance  On t h e Anonymity s t a t e 1  a  f o r the  state,  from t h e diagram  achieved  There i s  distribution  Not-Neighbouring  I t i s evident  on t h e S e c l u s i o n  'indifferent  Tables  freguency  and t h e I n t i m a c y s t a t e s ,  preferred states  the  Anonymity s t a t e ,  Intimacy s t a t e .  Seclusion  the  A3.2  0  Appendix I I I  174  Remarks  Only  one  activities  that  from d o i n g  the  facilities because hang  respondent fall  their  authority  of  laundry,  laundry  outside.  above t h e  6 foot high  anything  else fences.  of  the  laundry  were  the  days  refrained  was  when  from hanging the  •»I hate to see consequently "I f e e l extremely  A number o f  people  had  never  because  allowed  In r e a l i t y  by the  Association, for  allowed most  laundry  any  of  i n the the  laundry  p r o j e c t , or  management  to  management, cn  the  did  not  allow  t h a t would  a l s o been agreed on  weekends, a s  people  own  laundry  entertained.  outside,"  " . . . would rather laundry t h a n i n a communal l a u n d r y . "  facilities in a  stand no  presumably  and  conspicuous."  their  any  that  outside because,  hanging  the  refrained  communal  t h a t matter,  I t had  laundry  did  Most who  were p r o v i d e d  were n o t  Tenants*  or  these  dryers)  they  laundry,  hanging  d i d so e i t h e r  thought  the  t h a t he  under t h i s c a t e g o r y .  (including  they  said  or,  p r i v a t e place  Some  175  EXTREMELY EXTREMELY  F i g . A3.2 Achieved  INCONSPICUOUS DISLIKE "  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and" 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 ) (NNT~  APPENDIX  KANATA  I I I  AND  S2  176  SOOTHVIEW TABLE  A3.21  DISSATISFACTION  (SECLUSION)  RELATIVE FBEQ  ABSOLUTE CATEGOBY  LABEL  SOME NO  DISSATISFACTION  CODE  FREQ  -1. 0. .  H0USE80BK  ADJUSTED FBEQ  CUM FBEQ  (PCT)  (PCT)  (PCT)  4  8.0  9. 1  9.1  23  46.0  52,3  61.4  SOME  •1.  7  14. 0  15. 9  77.3  VEBY  2.  8  16. 0  18.2  95.5  3.  2  4. 0  99.  6  12.0  TOTAL  50  100. 0  GEEAT NO  DEAL  ANS8EB  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID  CASES  0.568 0.0 -0.277 -1.000 44  STD EBB STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM MISSING  0. 1 5 7 1. 0 4 3 0.712 3.00 0 CASES  6  4. 5 MISSING  100.0 100.0  100.0  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  0. 2 8 3 1.088 4.000  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  177  AND SOUTHVIEW  12  TABLE A3.21  CATEGORY LABEL GREAT  DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY)  CODE  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (PCT)  -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  3.  4  8. 0  9.1  97.7  4.  1  2. 0  2. 3  100.0  99.  6  12.0  MISSING  100.0  TOTAL  50  100. 0  100.0  GREAT  DEAL  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  HOUS E80RK  DEAL  NG ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.750 0.0 0.035 -3.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  44 MISSING CASES  0.218 1. 449 -0.021 4.000 6  MEDIAN VABIANCE RANGE  0.441 2.099 7.000  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  178  AND SOUTHVIEW  A2  TABLE A3.23  CATEGORY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY)  CODE  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FBEQ  HOUSEWORK  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  99.  5  10.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100. 0  100. 0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.400 0.0 0.789 -2.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  45 MISSING CASES  0. 186 1.250 0.493 4.000 5  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  0.205 1.564 6.000  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  179  AND SOUTHVIEW  NN2  CATEGORY  TABLE A3.24  LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING)  CODE  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  HOUSEW  CUM FREQ (PCT)  VERY  -2.  1  2.0  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  14.0  MISSING  100.0  100. 0  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  -0.093 0.0 3.234 -2.000  99.  7  TOTAL  50  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  43 MISSING CASES  0.099 0.648 0. 088 2.000 7  2. 3  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  2. 3  -0.065 0.420 4.000  180  Child  Oriented  Activities  Description  " f o r example: p a s s i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n {e.g. child*s play, helping interests, hobbies etc., administering punishment; space."  Batching, l i s t e n i n g ) i n children pursue their reading to children, in your p r i v a t e outdoor  Results  Fig.  A3.3  shows  the  Anonymity, N o t - n e i g h b o u r i n g activity  where  respondents the  were  the a c t i v i t i e s  opposite  state  they  the  felt  whether  described. indifferent interruption  On and  scales.  was  d i d not  This  apply. In  36$  the  diagram  preferred  and  I t i s also  evident that  achieved  preferred  t h e same  the  others of  category.  Not-Neighbouring  almost  an  c f the  the  that  responses while  amount  neighbours.  state,  fact  any very  the  stressed  or  were not,  activities  most p e o p l e  disliked In  on  most  t o be c o n s p i c u o u s  w h i l e p e r f o r m i n g anyone o f t h e  the  from  f o r the  n o t o l d enough o r t o o o l d f o r any  e v i d e n t from  they  conspicuous  of d i s t r i b u t i o n  i n the house.  d e s c r i b e d under t h i s  conditions.,  indifferent  Intimacy  children  either  i s immediately  Intimacy  and  Seclusion state  were w i t h o u t  children  It  the  freguency  kind few  were of had  Appendix I I I  181  experienced  any  'indifferent  Tables various  1  hence  the  high  rate  of  responses.  A3.31-A3.34  degrees  high rate  interruptions,  gives the freguency  of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n .  of ' i n d i f f e r e n t '  distrituticn for  A l lthree states e x h i b i t  a  responses.  Remarks  In  spite  of  the  relatively  s e c l u s i o n on t h e I n t i m a c y be  state,  b e n e f i c i a l i f t h e y were s e e n  Some  high  degree  some r e s p o n d e n t s  of preferred felt  sitting  with the c h i l d  " . . . people ought others' children."  to  involved  activity  reguire  be  more s e c l u s i o n  i n the d e s c r i p t i o n  would  with the c h i l d r e n ,  "I don't think that unattractive thing"  activities  i t  generated  i s an  with  each  than o t h e r s .  The  last  unusual s e n s a t i o n s .  "I am indifferent except for administering punishment . . . I t h i n k i t s h o u l d be administered indoors." "I  want t o s p e a k t o my  The noise  source  of conspicuousness  (screaming, c r y i n g ,  respondents neighbours."  who  kids alone."  were  "  etc.). . . .  was u s u a l l y  T h i s bothered concerened  with  the children's a  few  of  the  d i s t u r b i n g the  182  Appendix I I I  Not taking  many  place,  dislikes  neighbours  and e v e n  interrupt  i f they  the i n t e r r u p t i o n s .  do  while only  this  the  activity i s  minority  (12%)  Some would,  " . . . bring the neighbour i n i f the i n t e r r u p t i o n s occur outside.". Due  t o t h e high  difficult sample.  to  rate of * non-applicable* determine  the  degree  responses  i t becomes  of dissatisfaction  i n the  183  LO  EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) EXTREMELY D I S L I K E (NH)  >  « ^  INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) DISLIKE (NN)  OO  INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT  k  (A ) (NN)  {  CN  \  CONSPICUOUS LIKE  (A) (NN)  EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS EXTREMELY L I K E  3.  CHILE1 ORIEbTTED ACTIV ITIES  LO  EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED  UNSECLUDED  CO  INDIFFERENT  7 /  CN  SECLUDED  """  8  a  *9  o  CM  •  •o  — > • EXTREM ELY SECLUDED  o  ' F i g . A3. 3 F r e q u e n c y 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  (A) (NN)  184  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  AND SOUTHVIEW  S3  TABLE A3.31  CATEGORY LABEL NO  ANSWER  VALID CASES  DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) CHILD  CODE  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FBEQ  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  99.  50  100.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100.0  100.0  0 MISSING CASES  50  ACTIVIT CUM FREQ (PCT) 100.0  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND 13  185  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3. 32  DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) CHILD  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL  BEL ATIV E FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FBEQ  ACTIVITI  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (PCT)  -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  99.  15  30.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100. 0  100.0  SOME  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.657 0.0 -0.599 -1.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  35 MISSING CASES  0.196 1. 162 0.728 3.000 15  M EDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  0.263 1.350 4 . 000  186  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW A3  TABLE A3.33  DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY)  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  CHILD ACTI  ADJUSTED FBEQ (PCT)  CUM FBEQ (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  99.  13  26.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100. 0  100.0  NO  ANSWER  MEAN MODE KUBTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.5 m 0.0 0 . 141 -2.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  37 MISSING CASES  0. 184 1. 121 0.089 3.000 13  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  0.275 1.257 5.000  187  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  AND SOUTHVIEW  NN3  CATEGORY  TABLE A3. 34  LABEL  DISSATISFACTION  CODE  ABSOLUTE FREQ  26. 7  36.7  16  32. 0  53.3  90.0  1.  2  4. 0  6.7  96.7  2.  1  2. 0  3.3  100.0  99.  20  40. 0  TOTAL  50  100.0  SOME  -1.  8  NO DISSATISFACTION  0.  SOME VERY  VALID CASES  -0.333 0.0 0.891 -2.000  CUM FBEQ (PCT)  16.0  3  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  30 MISSING CASES  6. 0  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  10.0  -2.  MEAN MODE KORTOSIS MINIMUM  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  CHILD  10.0  VERY  NO ANSWER  {NOT-NEIGHBOURING)  0. 161 0.884 0.095 2.000 20  MISSING  100.0  100.0 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  -0.250 0.782 4.000  188  Appendix I I I  Activity  4 :  Household  Business  Description  " 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 similar p r o f e s s i o n who show up a t y o u r p r i v a t e y a r d e n t r a n c e ; s h o w i n g r e p a i r m e n 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."  Results  Fig.  A3.4  shows  anonymity s t a t e , state, a  as t h i s  PPiy«  the  It  1  the  the Not-Neighbouring was an a c t i v i t y  e v i d e n t from  S  freguency  'indifferent'  of d i s t r i b u t i o n state  and  Intimacy  were t h e S e c l u s i o n s t a t e d i d n o t  the diagram, that a l l  category,  the  f o r the  with  a distinct  peaks  are  at  predominance o f t h i s  condition.  The the  results indicate  Intimacy  scale,  opportunity arose  worded.  The  backyard. commonly  guestion  that Host  such of  in  was  get past  the  the  fashion  framed  an a c t i v i t y  door.  of  the  guestion  carried  this In  out  activity,  Southview  the anti-peddlar instinctual  on  few i n s t a n c e s was  to give the respondents  would be  actors  show up a t t h e f r o n t  hardly ever  proportion of indifference  perhaps because t h e r e a r e very  when t h i s  understand  a high  to  i n the however,  they  would  sensors  of the  Appendix I I I  189  manager.  Tables various  A3.41-A3.4U  degrees  of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n  i n t e r r u p t i o n s from activity  generated  Not-Neighbouring  give the  the neighbours the  state.  high  freguency f o r the four  distribution states.  d u r i n g the performance  rate  of  missing  cases  for  Lack o f of this i n the  190  LO  EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A) EXTREMELY DISLIKE (NN)  INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) DISLIKE (NN)  CO  !/#  i  \ CM  INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT  ( A) (NN)  CONSPICUOUS LIKE  ( A) (NN)  ^ EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS EXTREMELY LIKE  4.  H0U5EHOli ) Busir ^ESS  LO  /  /  /  /  EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED  /  UNSECLUDED  CO  INDIFFERENT  CNl  SECLUDED  \ v.oc  7.09  F i g . A3.4 Achieved  3  •*  N  \  \  \  EXTREMELY SECLUDED  o  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Responses per P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Cateqory 4  (A) (NN)  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND S4  191  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.41  CATEGOBY LABEL NO ANSWER  VALID CASES  DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION)  CODE  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  HOD SEHOLD  ADJUSTED FBEQ (PCT)  99.  50  100.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100. 0  100.0  0 MISSING  CASES  50  CUM FREQ (PCT) 100.0  APPENDIX I I I  KAN AT A AND 14  192  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.42  CATEGORY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY)  CODE  SOME  ABSOLUTE FREQ  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  HOUSEHOLD  ADJUSTED FBEQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (PCT)  -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  GREAT DEAL  3.  2  4. 0  4.8  99. ,  8  16. 0  50  100. 0  NO ANSWER  TOTAL MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0. 381 0. 0 3. 123 - 1 . 000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  42 MISSING CASES  0. 132 0.854 1.871 3.000 8  MISSING  95.2 100.0 10 0.0  100.0  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  0. 145 0.729 4.000  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  AND  A4  193  SOOTHVIEW TABLE A3.43  CATEGORY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY)  CODE  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  HODSEHOLD  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  3.  1  2. 0  99.  4  8. 0  TOTAL  50  100. 0  GREAT  DEAL  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.391 0.0 0.921 -2.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  46 MISSING CASES  0. 141 0.954 0.727 3.000 4  2.2 MISSING  100.0 100.0  100.0  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  0. 167 •0.910 5.000  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  AND  NN4  194  SOUTHVIEW TAB1E A3. 44  CAT EGOBI LABEL  DISSATISFACTION  CODE  SOME  ABSOLUTE FBEQ  (NOT-NEIGHBOURING)  HOUSEH  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  18.0  23.7  23.7  68.4  92.1  CUM FREQ (PCT)  -1.  9  NO DISSATISFACTION  0.  26  52. 0  SOME  1.  3  6. 0  7. ?  100.0  99.  12  24. 0  MISSING  100.0  TOTAL  50  100. 0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  -0.158 0.0 0.280 -1.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  38 MISSING CASES  0.089 0.547 -0.107 1.000 12  100.0  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  -0. 115 0.299 2.000  Appendix I I I  Activity  195  5 :  Pet Care  Description  " f o r example: f e e d i n g , w a s h i n g , grooming and g e n e r a l c a r e o f p e t s , play (which does n o t g e n e r a t e e x c e s s i v e n o i s e ) w i t h p e t s , s t o r a g e o f p e t s i n y o u r p r i v a t e open s p a c e .  Results  Fig. the  A3.5  Seclusion  state  and  cn  s t a t e , t h e Anonymity s t a t e ,  the Intimacy  association Intimacy  state.  the achieved state  level  The c o n s i d e r a b l y  show  a  Not-Neighbouring  indicates  f o r Seclusion  reduced  l e v e l s i s also evident. also  the  The d i a g r a m  between t h e p r e f e r r e d  state.  Seclusion  demonstrates the freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r  the c l o s e state  i n t e n s i t y of response  The Anonymity s t a t e and  similarity  in  profile  f o r the  p r e f e r e n c e and a c h i e v e m e n t l e v e l s , a l t h o u g h t h e l a t t e r  exist  a  show  considerably  reduced  intensity.  and  Both  diagrams  at the  p r e d o m i n a n c e o f r e s p o n s e s on t h e • i n d i f f e r e n t ' c o n d i t i o n .  T a b l e s A3.51~A3.54 various of  the  freguency  distribution for  degrees o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the f o u r  the high r a t e of  dissatisfaction relative  give  on  non-applicable this  distribution of  activity the  conditions, i s not very  degrees  of  states. a  Because  measure  meaningful.  of The  dissatisfaction for  Appendix  III  196  those a c t i v i t i e s  t h a t do n o t  apply.  Remarks  In  most o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s  a c a t o r a dog., animals.  In Kanata  I n Southview  t h i s n a t u r e , hence t h e respondents  thought  that  the high  13  minds, the term  cases  did  management d i d n o t number  of  t o k e e p a dog  " . . .  a l s o commented  i t i s unfair  f o r the  have  any  a l l o w any  missing  implied  cases.  o r c a t . ... .:„.  that  neighbours."  such  pets of Some  or a c a t ,  " . . . i s not fair t o t h e dog l e a v e them i n a c o n f i n e d s p a c e . " A number o f r e s p o n d e n t s  not  »pet»  to  197  LO  EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) EXTREMELY DISLIKE (NN)  INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) DISLIKE , (NN)  CO  —  CN  V  5.  \  INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT  ( A ) (5N)  CONSPICUOUS LIKE  ( A ) (NN)  \  EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS EXTREMELY LIKE  PET CAR[:  LO  EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED  A/1  /li \  •<S-  i  \ \  CO  \  \  INDIFFERENT  /  CN  UNSECLUDED  SECLUDED  / \  EXTREMELY SECLUDED  e  t  F i g . A3.5 Achieved  •  o  F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Responses per P r i v a c y S t a t e ; A c t i v i t y . Category 5  ( A ) (NN)  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  198  AND SOUTHVIEW  S5  TABLE A3.51  CATEGOBY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION)  CODE  PET CARE  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ADJUSTED FBEQ (PCT)  10  20. 0  76. 9  76.9  ABSOLUTE FREQ  CUM FREQ (PCT)  UO DISSATISFACTION  0.  SOME  1. ,  2  4.0  15. 4  92.3  GREAT DEAL  3.  1  2.0  7.7  100.0  37  74.0  MISSING  50  100. 0  100.0  99. ...  NO ANSWER  TOTAL MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.385 0.0 7.470 0.0  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  13 MISSING CASES  0.241 0. 870 2.66 3 3.000 37  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  0. 150 0.756 3.000  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND 15  199  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.52  CATEGOBY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION  CODE  SOME  RELATIVE FBEQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  PET CARE  (INTIMACY)  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (PCT  -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  99.  35  70.0  TOTAL  50  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KDBTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.333 0.0 0.665 -1.000  STD EBB STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  15 MISSING CASES  0.232 0.900 1.257 2.000 35  MISSING  100.0  100.0 MEDIAN VABIANCE RANGE  0.091 C.810 3.000  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND A5  200  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.53  CATEGORY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY)  CODE  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  PET CABE  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  99.  27  54.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100. o  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN HODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.087 0.0 3.954 -2.000  STD EBR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  23 MISSING CASES  0.153 0.733 -0.139 2.000 27  HEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  0. 059 0.538 4.000  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND NN5  201  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.54  CATEGORY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING) PET CA  CODE  BEL ATIV E FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FBEQ  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (PCT)  -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  99.  34  68. 0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  10 0. o  100.0  SOME  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KDBTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.0 0.0 7.500 -1.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  16 MISSING CASES  0.091 0.365 0.0 1.000 34  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  0.0 0. 133 2.000  Appendix I I I  Activity  202  6 :  Formal S o c i a l  Actvities  Description  " f o r example: formal g a t h e r i n g s , s u c h as b r u n c h e s , t e a and d i n n e r parties, and similar activities for specially invited g u e s t s , from t h e i m m e d i a t e n e i g h b o u r h o o d a s w e l l as from o t h e r remote p a r t s of t h e r e g i o n . "  Results  Fig.  A3.6  illustrates  the freguency  distribution  the  achieved  level  and t h e p r e f e r r e d l e v e l ,  this  was an a c t i v i t y  where t h e S e c l u s i o n s t a t e  The  diagrams  *secluded*  the level  the  emphasis  that  c o n d i t i o n at the (preferred level)  •unsecluded* opposite  reflect  f o r three did  not  was  laid  and  the  c o n d i t i o n o f the p r o j e c t s , with s i n i l a r  s t a t e , and N o t - N e i g h b o u r i n g  a l s o showed a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f  state.  states, apply. on  the  existing  e m p h a s i s on  c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e p r e f e r r e d and t h e a c h i e v e d  Anonymity  f o r both  levels for  The  * indifferent *  achieved condition  responses.  Tables  A3.61-A3. 6*1  dissatisfaction  with  dissatisfaction  on  two s t a t e s .  There  demonstrate  various  states  the Intimacy was  a  high  the  overall  degree  of  of  higher  level  of  s t a t e than proportion  on any o f t h e e t h e r of  non-applicable  Appendix I I I  203  responses.  Very  few  the  for  the  reason  condition  on  the  illustrate  the high  i n t e r r u p t i o n s were r e p o r t e d , h e n c e higher  intensity  Not-Neighbouring  on  the  state.  p r o p o r t i o n of response  perhaps  'indifferent  The  tables  f o r the  1  also  'conspicuous'  condition.  Remarks  Only  i n 8 c a s e s , was  because such  events  respondents.  In  undertaking, as respondent  never  the  on  at a l l ,  occured  in  of  cases  size  of the  the  d i d not e n t e r t a i n  whole  explained  formal entertaining  other  " . . . 1 do am h a v i n g one  On  t h e r e no  comments  In  unit  did  formally  varied that  not  to  be  i n t e r r u p t i o n s by  this function  the  neighbours  each  case  nature  of  the neighbours  were aware o f t h e  would be t r e a t e d the c a l l and  on  i t .  t o know t h a t  an One  I  I t was would  clearly  be  carried  reguested,  alone  " I do n o t mind p e o p l e looking i n , but particularly like them staring at me eating dinner."  Few  such  allow  considerable.  left  from  the  because,  g e n e r a l more p r i v a c y was  "I would like entertaining."  lifestyle  refrained  n o t want t h e n e i g h b o u r s (party)."  t o the respondents  outdoors.  they  the  when  I  I do while  am  I  not am  were r e p o r t e d , e s p e c i a l l y i f  nature o f the f u n c t i o n ,  i t s own  cf i t s actor.  m e r i t s , depending The  manager a t  tut i n cn  the  Southview  Appendix I I I  explained  how  lifestyle  204  such  activities  of r e s i d e n t s  erection  for  more  extreme  seclusion  of the the t h i r d  those that  become  of the p r o j e c t ,  upon and d i d n o t r e q u i r e desire  had  could  fence  do n o t have i t w i l l  acceptable  to  the  and hence were n o t gazed  seclusion.  In  Kanata  have been a t t e n u a t e d  but i t i s h i q h l y ever construct i t .  unlikely  this by t h e that  205  LO  EXTREMELY inconspicuous ( A ) EXTREMELY DISLIKE. (NN)  — '  t  \  CN  INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT  ( A ) (NN)  CONSPICUOUS LIKE  ( A) (NN)  \ \ <\\  A (a)  /  oo  ^>/  INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) DISLIKE (NN)  \  \ 6.  \  EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS EXTREMELY LIKE  F O R I *1AL SOCIA L ACIW/ITIES  LO  EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED  '  /  /  /  /  V  UNSECLUDED  •;.\  00  INDIFFERENT  /  CN  /  SECLUDED  EXTREMELY SECLUDED  •  • "ii  •  o  F i g . A3.6 F r e q u e n c y 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 p e r P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Cateqory 6  ( A) (NN)  APPENDIX I I I  KANATfi AND S6  SOOTHVIEW TABLE A3.61  CATEGORY LABEL NO  206  ANSWER  VALID  CASES  DISSATISFACTION  CODE  (SECLUSION)  RELATIVE FBEQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  FOB HAL  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  99.  50  100.0  HISSING  TOTAL  50  100.0  100.0  0 HISSING  CASES  50  CUH FREQ (PCT) 100.0  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND 16  207  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.62  CATEGORY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY)  CODE  RELATIVE FBEQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FR EQ  FORMAL  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  14  28. 0  37. 8  45.9  2. 0  2.7  48.6  NO DISSATISFACTION  0. ,  SOME  1.  1  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  99.  13  26.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100. 0  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  1.243 0.0 -0.490 -3.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  37 MISSING CASES  0.291 1.770 -0.327 4.000 13  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  1.563 134 7.000 3.  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  208  AND SOUTHVIEW  A6  TABLE A3.63  CATEGORY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION  CODE  (ANONYMITY) RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FBEQ  FORMAL ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (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  99. ,  12  24.0  MISSING  50  100.0  100.0  NG ANSWER  TOTAL MEAN MODE KORTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.711 0.0 -0.375 -2.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  38 MISSING CASES  0. 199 1.228 -0.056 3. 000 12  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  0.389 1.509 5.000  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  AND  NN6  209  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.64  CATEGORY LABEL  DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOUSING)  CODE  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  FORMAL  CUM FREQ (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  99.  19  3 8.0  MISSING  100.0  TOTAL  50  100. 0  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  -0.323 0.0 2.586 -4.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  31 MISSING CASES  0.209 1. 166 -0.663 2.000 19  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  -0.250 1.359 6.000  Appendix  III  Activity  7 :  210  Informal S o c i a l  Activities  Description  " f o r example: cookouts and parties f o r family and relatives; c a s u a l and informal entertaining of friends and a c g u a i n t a n c e s i n your p r i v a t e outdoor space."  Results  Fig.  A3.7  gives  Anonymity s t a t e , This  was  apply.  another  Social  Anonymity There  i s a more  state, form  state  Tables  A3.71-A3.74  condition  Intimacy  Seclusion trend  state  ( c f . F i g . A3.6) ] ,  except  condition  on  existed  state  give  and  were the  the  state. d i d not  Activity 6  with  f o r the  predominates. on t h e I n t i m a c y  the  freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r  o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r t h e Anonymity  people  dissatisfied  in  for  l e s s emphasis o r p r e f e r e n c e f o r extreme  condition.  most  the  and  preference f o r seclusion  of t h i s  degrees  were  where t h e • i n d i f f e r e n t intense  distribution  state  show s i m i l a r i t y  Activities  Not-Neighbouring that  activity  with considerably  various  freguency  Not-Neighbouring  The d i a g r a m s  [Formal  the  the Intimacy s t a t e .  either  satisfied  Anonymity s t a t e  on t h e  or  (codes  Not-Neighbouring  state,  the  I t i s evident were  minimally  1, - 1 ) .  state.  A similar  Although  a  Appendix I I I  high  211  proportion  attitude  of a  were s a t i s f i e d  fair  dissatisfaction  amount  on t h e I n t i m a c y s t a t e  were  at  the  s c a l e , the  extremities  of  the  scale.  Remarks  Only but no  one  reason  respondent was  d i d not ever perform  forthcoming.  The  highest  this  percentage  •not-applicable'  a n s w e r s were f o r t h e N o t - N e i g h b o u r i n g  the  rarely  neighbours  occured.  Otherwise  about  activity.,  this  interrupted  whenever  t h e r e s p o n d e n t s had l i t t l e  function,  this  of  s t a t e , as activity  comments t o make  212  LO —  EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) (NN)  ir~**a*— EXTREMELY DISLIKE  v*  INCONSPICUOUS ( A) DISLIKE (NN)  CO  •  CM  \  s  \  /  7  LO  / / /  CO  .  ( A) (NN)  CONSPICUOUS LIKE  ( A) (NN)  EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS EXTREMELY LIKE  INFOf ?MAL SOCI;\L ACTIV ITIES  1 1  INDIFFERENT INDIFFERENT  /  /  EXTREMELY UNSECLUDED  UNSECLUDED  INDIFFERENT  /  —  CVJ  SECLUDED  EXTREMELY SECLUDED  *S  s  • CM  o  F i g . A3.7 F r e g u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and A c h i e v e d Responses per P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Category 7  ( A) (NN)  213  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW S7  TABLE A3.71  CATEGORY LABEL NO  ANSWER  VALID CASES  DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION)  CODE  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  INFORMAL  ADJUSTED FBEQ (PCT)  99J  50  100.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100.0  100.0  0 MISSING  CASES  50  CUM FREQ (PCT) 100.0  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  AND  17  214  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.72  DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY)  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL  ABSOLUTE FBEQ  REL ATI VE FREQ (PCT)  INFORMAL ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (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  99.  4  8.0  TOTAL  50  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.609 0.0 0.675 •4.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  46 MISSING CASES  MISSING  100. 0  0.225 1.527 -0.392 3.000 4  100.0  100.0  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  0.350 2.332 7.000  215  APPENDIX- I I I  KANATA  AND SOUTHVIEW  A7  TABLE A3.73  DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY)  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL  ABSOLUTE FBEQ  RELATIVE FBEQ (PCT)  INFORMAL  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FBEQ (PCT)  -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  3.  1  2. 0  2.2  97.8  4.  1  2.0  2. 2  99.  4  8.0  TOTAL  50  SOME  GBEAT  DEAL  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.543 0.0 2.282 -1.000  STD EBB STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  46 MISSING CASES  MISSING  100. 0  0. 148 1. 005 1,457 4.000 4  100.0 100.0  100. 0  HFDIAN VABIANCE RANGE  0.250 1.009 5.000  216  APPENDIX I I I  KAN ATftAND SOUTHVIEW NN7  TABLE A3. 74  DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING)  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL  ABSOLUTE FREQ  -2.  VERY SOME  • -1. ,  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  INFORMAL CUM FBEQ (PCT)  3  6. 0  7.5  7.5  8  16. 0  20.0  27.5  4 8.0  60.0  87.5  NO DISSATISFACTION  0.  24  SOME  1.  3  6.0  7.5  95.0  VERY  2.  2  4. 0  5.0  100.0  99.  10  20. 0  TOTAL  50  100. 0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  -0.175 0.0 1.244 -2.000  STD ERE STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  40 MISSING CASES  0. 138 0. 874 0.115 2.000 10  MISSING  100.0  100.0  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  - 0 . 125 0.763 4. 000  217  Appendix I I I  Activity  8 :  Games  Description  " 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 activities (such as b a s k e t b a l l r i n g , b a d m i n t o n , e t c . ) and o t h e r l e s s a c t i v e games, s u c h as c a r d s , b i n g o and other table games."  Results  Fig  A3.8  preferred  and  The  graphs  condition diagram peak  achieved  exemplify response  also for  the on  the  preferred state,  T a b l e s A3.81-A3.84 each o f t h e f o u r explained  on  a l l four  predominance  both  levels  states.  distribution  of  of  states the  of  of  the  privacy.  states.  The  response  at  the  levels  of  the  achieved level  of  'indifferent'  a l l four  of  the  Anonymity  towards e i t h e r p o s i t i v e o r negative l e v e l s o f the three  e x p r e s s t h e degree o f  states.  in Activity  and  the preferred  on t h e p r e f e r r e d  as  freguency  l e v e l s over the f o u r  and t h e s h a r p s l o p e s  conditions  on  the  shows t h e i d e n t i c a l s t r e n g t h  Not-Neighbouring state,  represents  The c o d e s e x p r e s s  0 (storage).  states.  dissatisfaction t h e same  meaning  S a t i s f a c t i o n predominates  Appendix  218  III  Remarks  This  was  not a p p l y . , and  27  on  respondents Only only  the  achieved  other  lack  were t h e S e c l u s i o n  level  d i d not engage on  f o u r cases never  interrupt  the  activity  16 c a s e s were n o n - a p p l i c a b l e on  instance  Not-Neighbouring  for  an  engaged of  state,  i n any  neighbours.  this  kind  usually  by  o t h e r s because  they  games. is  neighbours  Some r e s p o n d e n t felt  these  themselves.  of outdoor  the  level  s t a t e because  non-applicability  d u r i n g such a c t i v i t i e s . of space,  the p r e f e r r e d  outdoor a c t i v i t i e s  high as  of  s t a t e almost d i d  on  the  did  not  d i d not  t h e y might  The  play  disturb  219  r/TRiyg,Y  INCONSPICUOUS  SXTRMELY  DISLIKE  INCONSPICUOUS  F i g . A3.8 Achieved  ( A )  F r e g u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Responses p e r P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Category 8  (A ) (Sfflj"  220  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND S8  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.81  DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION)  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL SOME  28.0  60.9  69.6  3  6. 0  13.0  82.6  4  8. 0  17.4  100.0  NO DISSATISFACTION  0.  14  SOME  1.  VEBY  2. ,,  VALID CASES  0.391 0.0 -0.142 -1.000  4. 0  99.  27  54.0  TOTAL  50  100.0  STD EBB STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  23 MISSING CASES  CUM FREQ (PCT) 8.7  2  MEAN MODE KDBTOSIS MINIMUM  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) 8.7  -1.  NO ANSWER  RELATIVE FBEQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FBEQ  GAMES  0. 186 0.891 0.781 2.000 27  MISSING  100.0  100.0 MEDIAN VARI ANCE RANGE  0. 179 0.794 3.000  221  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  AND SOUTHVIEW  18  TABLE A3.82  DISSATISFACTION  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL  (INTIMACY)  GAMES  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FBEQ  CUM FREQ (PCT)  VEBY  -2.  3  6. 0  7.7  7.7  SOME  -1.  4  8.0  10.3  17.9  20  40. 0  51.3  69.2  NO DISSATISFACTION  0. ,  SOME  1.  5  10. 0  12.8  82. 1  VEBY  2. ,  4  8.0  10.3  92.3  3.  2  4.0  5.1  97.4  4.  1  2.0  2.6  100.0  99.  11  22.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100. 0  100.0  GREAT  DEAL  NG ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.333 0.0 0.909 -2.000  STD EBB STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  39 MISSING CASES  0.212 1. 325 0. 703 4.000 1 1  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  0. 125 1.754 6.000  222  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND SOUTHVIEW A8  TABLE A3.83  DISSATISFACTION  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL  ABSOLUTE FREQ  -1.  1  NO DISSATISFACTION  0.  23  SOKE  1.  VERY  SOKE  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.667 0.0 -1.220 -1.000  GAMES  (ANONYMITY) RELATIVE FREQ (PCT) 2. 0  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FBEQ (PCT)  2.4  2.4  46.0  54.8  57. 1  7  14. 0  16.7  i 73.8  2.  11  22. 0  26.2  100.0  99.  8  16.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100. 0  100.0  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  42 MISSING CASES  0. 139 0.902 0.520 2.000 8  MEDIAN V ARIA NCE RANGE  100.0  0. 370 0. 813 3.000  223  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  AND SOUTHVIEW  NN8  CATEGORY  TABLE A3.84  DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING)  CODE  LABEL  ABSOLUTE FREQ  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  GAMES CUM FREQ (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  99.  15  30.0  TOTAL  50  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  -0.086 STD ERR STD DEV o.o 2.283 SKEWNESS -2.000 MAXIMUM 35 MISSING CASES  0. 138 0.818 0.164 2.000 15  MISSING  100.0  100.0 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  -0.063 0.669 4.000  224  Appendix I I I  Activity  H o b b i e s and C r a f t s  9 :  Description  " f o r example: garden care, other t h a n as d e s c r i b e d i n A c t v i t y 1 (Home M a i n t e n a n c e and B e p a i r ) ; handicrafts, which exclude t h e use o f heavy machinery, other l i g h t p u r s u i t s s u c h as d a n c i n g , p a i n t i n g , and o t h e r fine arts."  Besuits  Fig.  A3.9  demonstrates t h e frequency  Seclusion  state,  and  Intimacy s t a t e .  the One  the  t h e Anonymity s t a t e ,  also  discern  r e s p o n s e on a l m o s t a l l f o u r  the  e n v i r o n m e n t on t h e s e c l u s i o n opposite the  condition  of  negative state,  •inconspicuous' condition  distribution states, states.  emphasizing  of  state  f o r the  Another a f f i r m a t i o n t o  on t h e A n o n y m i t y s t a t e  also  scales.  the present  and t h e p r e f e r e n c e  on t h e p r e f e r r e d  A3.91-A3.94 f o r various  guality  t h e same s t a t e .  same e f f e c t c a n be o b s e r v e d  Tables  the Not-Neighbouring  The d i a g r a m s show t h e p r e d o m i n a n c e o f  'indifferent' condition can  o f response f o r the  describe  (peak  at  frequency  of  level).  the  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  the  overall  s a t i s f a c t i o n on a l l t h e f o u r  225  appendix I I I  Remarks  Every  respondent,  this  activity  split  their  a t one t i m e  category.  responses,  Some r e s p o n d e n t s  on t h e  with r e s p e c t t o i n d i v i d u a l singled  or another,  achieved  activities.  felt  and  participated that  they  preferred  Thus g a r d e n i n g  in  had t o levels,  was o f t e n  o u t i n a c a t e g o r y o f i t s own.  I have d i f f e r e n t dancing."  n  attitudes  between g a r d e n i n g  versus  " . . . . i f I l i k e c o m m u n i c a t i n g w i t h o t h e r s , I move outside. I f I want t o be l e f t a l o n e 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 more  seclusion.  and o t h e r a t h l e t i c  activities  usually  demanded  226  EXTREMELY INCONSPICUOUS ( A_) EXTREMELY" DISLIKE (NNJ -  INCONSPICUOUS ( A ) NNT~ DISLIKE INDIFFERENT IN DlFFERENT  (A) CNN)  CONSPICUOUS ( A) (NN)  HOBBIES AND i CRAFTS  F i g . A3.9 Achieved  EXTREMELY CONSPICUOUS (NiO ( A) EXTREMELY LIKE  F r e g u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Responses p e r P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y Category 9  227  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND S9  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.91  DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION)  CODE  CAT EGCEY LABEL  ABSOLUTE FBEQ  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  HOBBIES  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (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  99.  9  18. 0  TOTAL  50  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0. 610 0. 0 - 0 . 107 -2. 000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  41 MISSING CASES  0. 163 1. 046 0.176 3.000 9  MISSING  100.0  100.0 MEDIAN VARIANCE RA NGE  0. 375 1.094 5.000  228  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND 19  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.92  DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY)  CODE  CATEGGBY LABEL  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  HOBBIES  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (PCT)  VERY  -2.  2  4.0  4. 4  4.4  SOME  -1.  2  4.0  4.4  8.9  NO DISSATISFACTION  0.  28  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  99.  5  10. 0  TOTAL  50  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.422 0. 0 0.637 2.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  45 MISSING CASES  56. 0  0. 170 1. 138 0.637 3.000 5  MISSING  100.0  100.0 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  0. 161 1.295 5.000  229  ftp PIN M X I I I  KANATA AND A9  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.93  DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY)  CODE  CATEGOBY LABEL  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  ABSOLUTE FREQ  HOBBIES  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM FREQ (PCT)  -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  7  14.0  15.6  97.8  1  2. 0  2.2  100.0  99.  5  10.0  TOTAL  50  100. o  SOME  VEBY 3. ;  GREAT DEAL NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KDBTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.511 0.0 0.255 -1.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  45 MISSING CASES  0. 133 0.895 C.960 3.000 5  MISSING  100.0  100.0 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  0.259 0.801 3.000  230  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  AND SOUTHVIEW  NN9  CATEGOBY  TABLE A3.94  DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING)  CODE  LABEL  ABSOLUTE FREQ  10.0  13. 5  16.2  27  54.0  73.0  89.2  1.  3  6.0  8. 1  97.3  2.  1  2. 0  2.7  100.0  99.  13  26.0  MISSING  TOTAL  50  100. 0  100.0  1  SOME  -1.  5  NO DISSATISFACTION  0.  SOME VERY  VALID CASES  -0.054 0.0 3.444 -2.000  CUM FREQ (PCT) 2.7  -2.  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) 2.7  VEBY  NO ANSWER  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  HOBBIES  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  37 MISSING CASES  2. 0  0. 109 0.664 0. 058 2.000 13  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  100.0  -0.037 0.441 4.000  231  Relaxation  Description  " f o r example: napping; sunbathing; daydreaming; listening to m u s i c ; r e a d i n g b o o k s ; s t u d y i n g and p a p e r w o r k , a n d / o r m e d i t a t i n g i n your p r i v a t e outdoor s p a c e . "  Results  Fig.  S3.10  distribution  c f the  four states. a. The  a  to  seclusion. spaces c. T h e r e  •dislike  other  a  freguency  the achieved  levels  these diagrams  that,  Seclusion  preference activities,  was  also  similar  a  emphasis  conditions  1  •conspicuous'  on  for  states. feeling  activities.  condition  the  state  and  the  fcr  of the  Intimacy  for  extreme  seclusion  w i t h a peak a t t h e clear  declaration  as  preferred that  the  *inconspicuousness*  and  unsecluded;  Mot-Neighbouring  these  of  in intensity;  high  There  were Was  and  I t i s e v i d e n t from  was  compared  indication  preferred  were i d e n t i c a l  There  was  an  p r e f e r e n c e s f o r the  state b.  gives  The  There of  the was  level  anonymity  and  the  e g u i v o c a l a g r e e m e n t on  respondents  high response  the a c h i e v e d  the r e s u l t  the  on  of the  of high non-involvement  for  while  the  performing  'indifferent  Not-Neighbouring of the  a  1  state  neighbours.  Appendix I I I  232  Tables  A3.101-A3.104  distribution states. evident  f o r v a r i o u s degrees  The on  express  high  the  degree  of  Seclusion  and  is  freguency  of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n dissatisfaction Intimacy  Anonymity  state.  activities,  on t h e S o t - N e i g h b o u r i n g  expounded  It  the  least,  but state,  more for  f o r the four  is  states,  of  especially  as  well  than  in  reasons  as  other  already  upon.  Remarks  Only outdoor be  space.  performed  units. than It  one r e s p o n d e n t  Most  never  The a c t i v i t i e s in  people  any  within  summer t h a n  that  t h i s category could  c f the p r i v a t e outdoor  referred  spaces  t o s u n b a t h i n g and n a p p i n g  any o f t h e o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s  i s inferred  had a c h a n c e t o u s e t h e p r i v a t e  d e s c r i b e d i n these  such a c t i v i t i e s  a r e more e a s i l y  easly  around  the  much  more  categories. prformed  i n winter. ,  "Summer i s c o m i n g . At t h i s p o i n t i n t i m e , I have all t h e s e c l u s i o n I need. I do n o t 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 d e c r e a s e i n summer."  in  233  EXTREMELY INCONSPICOOUS ( A) EXTREMELY DISLIKE (NUf"  10.1 RESTl AND RELAXATION  EXTREMELY CONSPICDOOS EXTREMELY LIKE  EXTREKELY UNSECLUDED  F i g . A3.10 Achieved  F r e g u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e f e r r e d and Responses p e r P r i v a c y S t a t e : A c t i v i t y C a t e g o r y 10  (A ) (NN)  234  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA AND S10  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.101  DISSATISFACTION (SECLUSION) BEST • BELAX  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL  ABSOLUTE FREQ  RELATIVE 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  99.  6  12.0  MISSING  100.0  TOTAL  50  100. G  100.0  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  1.545 0.0 -1.001 0.0  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  44 MISSING CASES  0. 199 1. 320 0. 342 4.000 6  MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  1. 500 1.742 4.000  235  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  AND SOUTHVIEW  110  TABLE A3. 102  DISSATISFACTION (INTIMACY) BEST AND  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL  ABSOLUTE FREQ  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT) 2.0  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT) 2. 1  RELAX CUM FREQ (PCT) 2. 1  -3.  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  99.  3  6. 0  TOTAL  50  GREAT DEAL  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  1.340 0.0 0.664 3.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  47 MISSING CASES  100.0  0. 20 5 1. 403 - 0 . 200 4. 000 3  MISSING  100.0  100.0 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  1.27.3 1. 969 7.000  236  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  AND  A10  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.106  DISSATISFACTION (ANONYMITY)  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL  ABSOLUTE FBEQ  RELATIVE FREQ (PCT)  BEST AND BEL AX  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  CUM 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  99.  2  4.0  MISSING  100.0  TOTAL  50  NO  ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS MINIMUM VALID CASES  0.729 0.0 -0.106 -2.000  STD ERR STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  48 MISSING CASES  100. 0  0. 192 1.333 0.467 4.000 2  100.0  MEDIAN VABIANCE RANGE  0.333 1.776 6.000  237  APPENDIX I I I  KANATA  AND  NN10  SOUTHVIEW TABLE A3.104  DISSATISFACTION (NOT-NEIGHBOURING)  CODE  CATEGORY LABEL  ABSOLUTE FREQ  BEL ATIVE FBEQ (PCT)  ADJUSTED FREQ (PCT)  REST CUM FREQ (PCT)  2.4  2.4  12.0  14.6  17.1  5  10.0  12. 2  29.3  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  99.  9  18.0  TOTAL  50  100.0  GREAT DEAL  -3.  1  VERY  -2.  6  SOKE  -1.  NO DISSATISFACTION  NO ANSWER  MEAN MODE KURTOSIS HINIHUH VALID CASES  •0.244 STD EBB 0.0 STD DEV 1.584 SKEWNESS •3.000 MAXIMUM 41 HISSING CASES  2. 0  0. 191 1. 220 0.408 3.000 9  HISSING  100.0  100.0 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE  -0.146 1.489 6.000  

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