Exploring the Impact of Territoriality in Housing on the Motivation of Sustainable Behavior based on Spatial Value Theory (Case Study: Residential Complexes of Shiraz)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• Marziyeh Shahroudi Kolour ¹
• Khosro Movahed ²
• Hojjatollah Rashid Kolvir ³
• Malihe Taghipour ⁴

¹ Ph.D. Candidate in Architecture, Department of Architecture, Khalkhal Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khalkhal, Iran

² Associate Professor of Architecture, The University of the District of Columbia, Department of Architecture and Urban Sustainability, Washington DC, USA, Corresponding Author

³ Associate Professor of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Mohaghegh Ardabili University, Ardabil, Iran

⁴ Associate Professor of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jgusd.2022.73672.1136

Abstract

Human behavior plays a significant role in the formation and continue of various environmental problems. The proposed models for modifying the behavioral patterns put emphasis on motivation, which seems to be the primary reason for making sustainable decisions. Taking into consideration the significance of housing in sustainable development, the modern patterns of living in complexes, and the emphasis designers put on privacy in spaces, this study aimed to explore the impacts of territoriality in housing on strengthening behavioral motivations in achieving sustainability. Accordingly, at first, the patterns of arranging the interior space of houses were analyzed in terms of structure. Then, using 384 questionnaires, the research hypothesis was tested. The observations showed that the current housing has central and axial models. The spatial value of the public, semi-public and private territories in each of the models has different structural features. While in the central models, public spaces have higher integrity, visibility, permeability, and usability, but axial patterns have more spatial separations and private areas have more usability. Variance test also confirmed the difference in territorial behavior between the residents of the above-mentioned patterns. Confirming a positive relationship between spatial arrangement, territoriality, and the motivation of sustainable behaviors, the results showed that centripetal designing and empowering spatial stimuli for the use of public spaces would predict 28% of sustainable behaviors. Behavioral aims regarding the sustainability predicts 29% of motivation, but having 28% predictability, territoriality and spatial arrangement are important and controllable factors.

Keywords

• Housing
• Sustainable Behavior
• Territoriality
• Spatial Value
• Motivation

References

1. بمانیان، م.، دهقان، ن.، زارع، ز.، و یگانه، م. (1400). تبیین رابطه خوانایی فضا با میزان رفتار قلمروپایی شهروندان در پارک‎های شهری. هویت شهر، 15(48)، 20-5.
2. عینی‌‌فر، ع.، آقالطیفی، آ.، و حیاتی، ز. (1399). سیر تحول قلمروهای ثانویه در مسکن (مورد پژوهی مسکن معاصر دزفول. صفه، 30(4)، 48-27.
3. معتضدیان، ف.، و مطلبی، ق. (1393). قلمروپایی در سکونت‌‌گاه‌‌های دانشجویی (مطالعه موردی: خوابگاه فاطمیه کوی دانشگاه تهران). هویت شهر، 8(17)، 64-55.

 

4. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec, 50(2), 179–211.
5. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
6. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: privacy, personal space, territory, and crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
7. Altman, I., & Chemers, M. (1980). Culture and environment, Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole Pub.
8. Bamberg, S., Rees, J., & Seebauer, S. (2015). Collective climate action: Determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 155-165.
9. Bottero, M., Bravi, M., Dell’Anna, F., & Marmolejo-Duarte, C. (2020). Energy efficiency choices and residential sector: observable behaviors and valuation models. In Values and Functions for Future Cities (pp. 167-179). Springer, Cham.
10. Brown, B. B. (1987). Territoriality. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 505-531). New York: John Wiley.
11. Chakraborty, A., Singh, M. P., & Roy, M. (2017). A study of goal frames shaping pro-environmental behavior in university students. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(7), 1291–1310.
12. Corral-Verdugo, V., Mireles-Acosta, J. F., Tapia-Fonllem, C., & Fraijo-Sing, B. (2011). Happiness as correlate of sustainable behavior: A study of pro-ecological, frugal, equitable and altruistic actions that promote subjective wellbeing. Human Ecology Review, 18(2), 95-104.
13. Cummings, N. (2012). Fostering sustainable behavior through design: a study of the social, psychological, and physical influences of the built environment. University of Massachusetts Amherst.
14. Du, X., Bokel, R., & van den Dobbelsteen, A. (2019). Spatial configuration, building microclimate and thermal comfort: A modern house case. Energy and Buildings, 193, 185-200.
15. Eon, C., Morrison, G. M., & Byrne, J. (2018). The influence of design and everyday practices on individual heating and cooling behavior in residential homes. Energy Efficiency, 11(2), 273-293.
16. Figueroa-García, E. C., García-Machado, J. J., & Pérez-Bustamante Yábar, D. C. (2018). Modeling the social factors that determine sustainable consumption behavior in the community of Madrid. Sustainability, 10(8), 2811.
17. Gang, L., Fisk, W. J., Dibartolomeo, D., Price, P., Faulkner, D., Sullivan, D., Federspiel, C., and Lahiff, M. (2002). Worker Productivity and Ventilation Rate in a Call Center: Analyses of Time-Series Data for a Group of Workers. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
18. Gifford, R. (1987). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
19. Hameed, I., & Khan, K. (2020). An extension of the goal-framing theory to predict consumer’s sustainable behavior for home appliances. Energy Efficiency, 13(7), 1441-1455.
20. Han, H. (2015). Travelers' pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tourism Management, 47, 164-177.
21. Heerwagen, J. (2000). Green buildings, organizational success and occupant productivity. Building Research & Information, 28(5-6), 353-367.
22. Heschong, L., & Mahone, D. (2003). Windows and offices: A study of office worker performance and the indoor environment. California Energy Commission, 1-5.
23. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Kalafatis, S. P., Pollard, M., East, R., & Tsogas, M. H. (1999). Green marketing and Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior: a cross‐market examination. Journal of consumer marketing. 16(5), 441-460.
25. Kaya, N., & Weber, M. J. (2003). Territorial behavior in residence halls: A cross-cultural study. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 400-414.
26. Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of behavioral sciences in environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
27. Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social issues, 63(1), 117-137.
28. Lynch, K. (1964). The image of the city. MIT press.
29. Ostwald, M. J. (2011). The mathematics of spatial configuration: Revisiting, revising and critiquing justified plan graph theory. Nexus Network Journal, 13(2), 445-470.
30. Paul, J., Modi, A., & Patel, J. (2016). Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. Journal of retailing and consumer services, 29, 123-134.
31. Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., & Bengtsson, M. (2018). Consumer motivations for sustainable consumption: The interaction of gain, normative and hedonic motivations on electric vehicle adoption. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1272-1283.
32. Seppanen, O., Fisk, W. J., & Lei, Q. H. (2006). Effect of temperature on task performance in office environment. Washington, D.C: United States. Department of Energy.
33. Staddon, S. C., Cycil, C., Goulden, M., Leygue, C., & Spence, A. (2016). Intervening to change behavior and save energy in the workplace: A systematic review of available evidence. Energy Research & Social Science, 17, 30-51.
34. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda.Journal of environmental psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
35. Tölkes, C., & Butzmann, E. (2018). Motivating pro-sustainable behavior: The potential of green events—A case-study from the Munich Streetlife Festival. Sustainability, 10(10), 3731.
36. Wang, Z., Zhang, B., Yin, J., & Zhang, X. (2011). Willingness and behavior towards e-waste recycling for residents in Beijing city, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(9-10), 977-984.