Dwellers and Designers: similarities and differences in meanings

Transcription

1 Workshop 18 - Residential Environments and People Dwellers and Designers: similarities and differences in meanings Henny Coolen h.c.c.h.coolen@tudelft.nl Janine Meesters j.meesters@tudelft.nl Paper presented at the ENHR conference "Housing in an expanding Europe: theory, policy, participation and implementation" Ljubljana, Slovenia 2-5 July 2006

2 Dwellers and Designers: similarities and differences in meanings Paper to be presented at the ENHR International Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia, July Henny Coolen Janine Meesters OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies Delft University of Technology Jaffalaan BX Delft The Netherlands h.c.c.h.coolen@tudelft.nl Telephone: Telefax: Abstract In the design and planning of special dwelling projects attention is often paid not only to physical features of these projects but instrumental and latent aspects, such as experiences and values, are also emphasized. One may wonder whether these facets that are intended by the planners and designers, are also recognized and experienced by the occupiers of these new residential environments. In this paper we investigate the similarities and differences in meanings between dwellers and designers for one project in the Netherlands with an uncommon architectural and residential design: Haverleij. Our approach to investigating these similarities and differences is based on a conceptual and methodological framework that is being used by us for studying the meaning of dwellings and residential environments. In this framework a distinction is made between physical features of dwellings and residential environments and the manifest and latent functions of these features. In order to be able to compare the intentions of the planners and designers, which were well documented, with those of the dwellers we performed focus groups and semi-structured interviews with dwellers in Haverleij. In the paper the conceptual and methodological framework for studying the meaning of dwellings and residential environments is presented, and the project Haverleij is described together with the intended meanings of the planners and designers. Subsequently, these meanings are compared with those of the dwellers that resulted from the focus groups and semi-structured interviews. 2

3 1. Introduction In the literature on environment-behavior relations the prevailing opinion seems to be that the meanings that designers and planners attach to dwellings and residential environments are at odds with the meanings of the users of those dwellings and environments. According to Rapoport (1990) it is one of the hallmarks of man-environment research that designers and users are very different in their reactions to environments, their preferences, and so on. Michelson (1968) claims that through their education architects have developed different values from the public. Research has consistently shown that architects differ from users in what they prefer in architecture (Leff and Deutsch, 1973; Purcell, 1986; Nasar, 1989). Groat (1982) for instance compared architects and accountants responses to Modern and Post-Modern buildings, and found that the two groups used different criteria for evaluating the buildings. The accountants, unlike the architects, did not distinguish between the two styles; and the buildings most liked by the accountants were among the least liked by the architects. Nasar (1989) compared laypersons and architects ratings of six styles of homes in terms of desirability, and the friendliness and status of assumed residents. The architects also tried to guess how the public would respond. Differences in meaning emerged among the laypersons in relation to socio-demographic characteristics, and the architects responded differently from and misgauged the public responses. On the basis of wide-ranging discussions with developers about the basis for their design decisions Michelson (1977) concludes that although most developers stressed that satisfied customers were crucial for their continued business, they nonetheless evinced in their actions little concern for the every day behavior of people who would live in the housing they designed. In this paper we investigate the similarities and differences in meanings between dwellers and designers for one project in the Netherlands with an uncommon architectural and residential design: Haverleij. Our approach to investigating these similarities and differences is based on a conceptual and methodological framework that is being used by us for studying the meaning of dwellings and residential environments. In this framework a distinction is made between physical features of dwellings and residential environments and the manifest and latent functions of these features. In order to be able to compare the intentions of the planners and designers, which were well documented, with those of the dwellers we performed focus groups and semi-structured interviews with dwellers in Haverleij. In the paper the conceptual and methodological framework for studying the meaning of dwellings and residential environments is presented, and the project Haverleij is described together with the intended meanings of the planners and designers. Subsequently, these meanings are compared with those of the dwellers that resulted from the focus groups and semi-structured interviews. 2. Theoretical framework Our theoretical framework considers the meaning of dwellings and residential environments from an ecological perspective (Coolen, 2006). An ecological approach focuses on the individual s relations with meaningful features of the environment; it emphasizes the intentionality of individual actions. The reciprocity of the environment and the individual is a central feature of an ecological approach: The fact is worth remembering because it is often neglected that the words animal and environment make an inseparable pair. Each term implies the other. No animal could exist without an environment surrounding it. Equally, although not so obvious, an environment implies an animal (or at least an organism) to be surrounded. (Gibson, 1986, p. 8, italics in original). The ecological perspective on the meaning of 3

4 dwellings/residential environments as presented in this paper rests on five basic ideas (cf. Blumer, 1969; Heft, 2001): 1. The relation between the human being and the environment is best characterized as a mutual and reciprocal relation. At a functional level of analysis, human being and environment make an inseparable pair; each implies the other. Social and psychological processes are relational processes. There is a dynamic relation between the human being and its environment. A human being intentionally selects or adjusts to present features of the environment, and in many instances people alter the environment to better fit with their aims. 2. The meaning of objects resides in these functional relations between features of the environment and the needs and intentions of human beings. It is in these relations that meanings are discovered, and where they are created. 3. The meanings that objects have for human beings are central in their own right. To ignore or bypass the meaning of objects towards which people act is seen as a serious neglect of the role of meaning in the formation of action. 4. Meaning is seen as arising in the process of social interaction between people. The meaning of an object for a person grows out of the ways in which other persons act toward the person with regard to the object. Their actions operate to define the object for the person. Thus, meanings are seen as social and cultural products, as creations that are formed in and through the defining activities of people as they interact. 5. This does not mean that the use of meaning by a person is but an application of the meaning so derived. The use of meaning by a person in his actions involves an interpretative process, in which the actor selects, checks, suspends, regroups and transforms meanings in the light of the situation in which he is placed and the direction of his action. Accordingly, interpretation should not be regarded as a mere automatic application of established meanings but as a formative process in which meanings are used as instruments for the guidance and formation of action. 2.1 Meaning of the environment An individual s operating environment consists of objects, the things toward which the individual is oriented, they form the focal points around which the individual s activities become organized. An object is anything that can be referred to or designated; objects may be material or immaterial, real or imaginary, in the outer world or inside the body, have the character of an enduring substance or be a passing event. From the perspective of a human being the environment may be classified in at least five categories: other human beings, other animals, physical objects, social objects, and abstract objects. If the individual notes or is aware of any one of these things, it is an object for that individual. Objects constitute the world or operating environment of the human being (Blumer, 1969). Taken together, they constitute the individual s world of existence, that is, the things the individual deals with in life activity. Objects have value for human beings in terms of the possibilities they offer for actions and intentions; that is, an object may have certain features in relation to a goal of the individual. The concept of affordances (Gibson, 1986) most basically highlights this congruence between structural features of the environment and the intentions and goals of individuals. Affordances are relations between features of objects and abilities of human beings (Chemero, 2003); they are attributable to the intrinsic features that objects possess by virtue of their make-up, and are specified in relation to a particular individual. For example, a firm, obstacle free ground surface affords walking on, a chair affords sitting on, a door to a 4

5 room affords opening and passage. Environmental features are experienced as having a functional meaning for the individual. The features of the environment are only one facet of a dynamic individualenvironment relation; the other facet is intentional actions of individuals, and this aspect of the individual-environment relation becomes most apparent in the selection, the discovery, and the creation of meaningful environmental features (Heft, 2001). Individuals selectively engage particular objects in their surround; individuals typically make choices from among the range of potential features in a setting to support some activity. However, individuals do not have unconstrained choice. Factors outside of their control may limit the range of socially and/or culturally sanctioned choices. So there is self-selection of affordances but often within constraints. Intentionality is also apparent in the processes through which individuals learn about and discover the features of objects and the affordances in their surroundings. This is not a random process; which objects are selected in the first place is delimited by the perceived congruence between an object s features and the individual s functional capabilities and intentions. This reciprocity gives rise to exploration and discovery within constraints. Finding novel uses for familiar objects is a particular satisfying way for new affordances to be discovered. Actions involving the learning about environmental features are frequently guided by others. Throughout life, most apparently during childhood, individuals are explicitly taught, often in very subtle ways, to recognize and utilize the functional features of objects. Individuals also learn about the meanings of objects by observing the actions of others. Finally, affordances are sometimes created when the range of possibilities available in the environment are insufficient to meet certain goals. The environment is comprised of meaningful features that were created by an individual or a group of individuals at some time. This omnipresent fact about the world is one manifestation of the fundamental reciprocity of individuals and environment. Individuals do not merely take the world as they find it, the environment is continually being modified. Many of these activities are efforts to create new affordances in order to address specific individual and socio-cultural needs. An ecological perspective proposes that the meanings of objects reside in the relations between features of the environment and human beings. It is in these relations that meanings are discovered, and where they are created. In this functional sense every object has a meaning that distinguishes it from other objects. This meaning constitutes the nature of the object for the individual for whom the object exists. One confronts an object, sees it, refers to it, talks about it, or acts toward it in terms of the meaning it has for one. No objects exist for a person except in terms of the meaning it has for the person. Meaning is not something that is inherent in an object; it is not an intrinsic part or attribute of the object. The meaning of an object exists in a relation between the object and the individual for whom it is an object; its meaning exists in how the individual designates the object, and in this sense an object may have different meaning for different human beings. 2.2 Meaning of dwellings A dwelling is defined as the sub-system of settings, embedded in the larger system of settings called the environment, that forms the primary anchor for an individual (Rapoport, 1990a) and provides such primary functions as concealment and shelter. Defining a dwelling as a subsystem of the environment makes it possible to understand its specific functions, such as a place of retreat, not only in terms of its occupiers but also in the context of the other subsystems in the environment. Only a subset of all human activities takes place in a dwelling. This subset of activities may be different for different individuals and the subsystem of settings that makes up the dwelling may also vary. An a priori assumption about what a 5

6 dwelling is, therefore, can not be made. It could include aspects of the neighborhood such as shops, a school, a church, or a park. Most previous research into the meaning of a dwelling has taken a holistic view of a dwelling (Rapoport, 1995; Moore, 2000). However, the approach in this paper deviates from this practice and focuses on features, separate settings, of dwellings. There are several reasons for studying the meaning of dwellings from the perspective of dwelling features. First, there is the heterogeneity of the category of dwelling. There are many different types of dwellings that differ mainly in their features. Single family dwellings differ not only in many features from apartments but also among themselves, for instance some have a garden while others do not have one. Secondly, people perceive dwellings not only holistically but also in terms of their features, clearly demonstrated in research into the reasons for moving, where many people include dwelling features as a reason (Rossi, 1955). Thirdly, the holistic view of a dwelling and the feature view of it are just two different ways of considering the same object, they are just two sides of the same coin. Finally, a dwelling has many potential uses and people are looking for multi-functional dwellings that can have many different meanings, which are, in the first place, afforded through the features of dwellings. So, the meanings dwellings have for people lie in the functional relations between the features of dwellings on the one hand and the goals and intentions of people on the other. The relations between a dwelling feature and its meaning is called a meaning structure. This conception of the meaning of dwellings is related to Rapoport s work on the meaning of the built environment (Rapoport, 1988, 1990b). According to Rapoport (1988) meaning links environments and people by providing much of the rationale for the ways in which environments are shaped and used. He also argues that the common distinction between function and meaning is misguided, that meaning is not only part of function, but is often the most important function of the built environment. Rapoport (1988) distinguishes three levels of meaning in the built environment. High-level meanings are related to cosmologies, world views, philosophical systems, etc.; middle-level meanings such as identity, privacy, status, wealth, power, etc. which are also called latent functions; lower-level, everyday meanings, for example accessibility, seating arrangements, movement, etc. which are also called manifest functions. According to Rapoport everyday meanings have mostly been neglected in research on the meaning of the built environment, although they are essential for understanding the built environment. People s activities and built environments are primarily linked by lower-level meanings, although middle-level meanings also tend to be important. It is believed that especially lower and middle level meanings are related to specific features of dwellings (Rapoport, 1988). This is not to deny that a dwelling, considered as a whole, may also have meanings. Our conjecture, though, is that these will be occasionally middle and mostly higher level meanings. 2.2 Conceptual framework The conception of meaning that has been elaborated in the previous sections results in a conceptual framework for studying the meaning of dwelling features from an ecological perspective. This framework is depicted in figure 1 together with an example. The approach that is taken here deviates from the conventional practice of exploring the meaning of dwellings holistically. Instead, the holistic view of a dwelling is deconstructed, looking specifically at features of a dwelling. Based on the notion of affordances, the relations between dwelling occupiers and dwelling features are investigated in terms of what the occupiers do, or want to do, in the dwelling. In order to do so, one needs to look at the dwelling in terms of different features and different functions. 6

7 Figure 1 Conceptual framework for studying the meaning of dwelling features Framework Example Latent functions Privacy, Social contacts Manifest functions Space, Activities Dwelling features Number of rooms In this approach, an investigation of meanings starts with a specific dwelling feature. The relations between a dwelling feature and its functions for an individual, which are the meanings attached to that specific feature by the individual, may be identified by means of individual or group interviewing. For instance, an occupier may attach to the dwelling feature number of rooms such functions (meanings) as space, activities, privacy, and social contacts. These meanings express the intentions and aims the person has in mind. In other words, people s intentions and goals are reflected in their evaluation of the features of a dwelling, which they believe may facilitate or hinder the achievement of their goals (Coolen and Hoekstra, 2001). 3. Research design The data that are used to compare the meanings that designers had attached to dwelling projects with the meanings of the occupiers of those projects were collected on two locations with an uncommon architectural and urban design: Haverleij near the city of Den Bosch and Sveaparken near the town of Schiedam, both in the Netherlands. Due to space limitations the focus in this paper is on Haverleij. The research project consisted of four phases. In the first phase documentation and literature about Haverleij was gathered and studied. Subsequently, interviews were conducted with a real estate agent and a civil servant to fill several information gaps. These phases gave us a good overview of the intentions and meanings of the designers and planners. In the third phase two focus groups were held on location with occupiers of the dwellings. The purpose of these group discussions was to get a quick overview of what the occupiers considered to be the most important features and meanings of Haverleij. Subsequently, in the fourth and final phase semi-structured interviews were conducted with local dwellers of Haverleij. For phases 3 and 4 all inhabitants of three castles (Velderwoude, Zwaenenstede, and Wuyvenhaerd) in Haverleij (188) who lived there for at least one year were sent an introductory letter asking them to participate in the group discussions, or in the interviews, or in both. In Haverleij 14% (27) were prepared to participate, of which 12 took part in two focus groups which were held at the golf club in Haverleij. Semi-structured interviews, in which the laddering format was followed (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988), were conducted with 19 occupiers, most of which were held at the interviewee s home. The interviews were recorded and the meaning structures were also constructed on paper. 7

8 4. Case Haverleij Haverleij is a dwelling project some ten kilometres north of Den Bosch. About 1000 dwellings, both single family houses and apartments, are being developed in an area of 225 hectares. The dwellings, all of which fall in the higher price categories, are situated in nine castles each containing houses and one fortress containing some 450 houses. Both the architecture and the planning are special. The architects and planners were inspired by the notions of French medieval castles and Britisch mansions. The main idea of the project is urban living in a green landscape, it is a plan in which living in an urban area is combined with the spaciousness of rural life. To achieve this only 10% of the area will be built on, with the remaining space being used for a golf course, parks, woods and open fields. Figure 2 Three castles in Haverelij: Zwaenenstede, Velderwoude and Wuyvenhaerd Source: 8

9 The castles are stand-alone in the open field, at least two hundred meters from each other, and contain compact, high-density housing units. The municipality is responsible for the maintenance of the woods and fields. The architects and planners intended to create a design in which the idea of dwelling in an urban area is combined with the experience of space in rural life. Each castle has its own access road, and an inner court that borders the front doors of the dwellings. This area is semi-private, only to be used by the inhabitants and their visitors. The houses are located in the outer walls of the castles, so that they overlook the surrounding landscape. These dwellings do not have a garden but they do have a balcony. The houses in the fortress form an exception to this. The fortress is much bigger than the castles; it contains approximately 450 dwelling units. Therefore it is more like a small castle village. Inside the outer wall there are also dwellings that form an inner ring. These dwellings are more traditional in the sense that they have a little garden and are located in a street. In order to guarantee diversity the castles are designed by different architects. In short, the most distinguishing features of the castles are: one access road, an inner court which forms a semi-public space, all dwellings are located in the outer walls and are facing the surrounding landscape, each castle has its own architectural style, the castles are standing alone in the open field and contain high-density dwelling units. 5. Meanings of planners and designers The meanings that planners and designers attached to Haverleij have been determined by studying relevant documents and websites about the project, and by conducting interviews with a real estate agent and a municipality employee. Since many aspects of Haverleij have already been sketched in the case description of the project in one of the previous sections, the meanings of planners and designers are simply listed here: 1. estate-like natural environment; 2. space; 3. inner courtyard as a meeting place; 4. one access road to facilitate social control; 5. high density building related to exclusive dwelling and nature; 6. diversity of castles and dwellings; 7. view over the surrounding landscape from the dwellings; 8. absence of amenities, except for an elementary school and a day care centre; 9. presence of a golf club; 10. car parking out of view and not in front of the dwellings. 6. Results from focus groups The group discussions focused on a few central themes: The resident s image of Haverleij; The reason(s) why people chose to live in Haverleij Scores participants gave to specific features of Haverleij Aspects for improvement in Haverleij. The participants were asked to characterize their image of Haverleij in three keywords. Several facets were mentioned more than once: open, nature, quietness, comfort, rural, freedom, space. According to the participants Haverleij provides a quiet residential environment surrounded by a lot of green space. It gives the participants a sense of freedom 9

10 and space. In the words of one participant: Haverleij offers a quiet living environment as counterpart of the busy work environment. The nice thing about Haverleij is its diversity and its special aura, the space and being able to just go out for a bit at night. Most of the participants chose consciously to live in Haverleij. The architecture of the dwellings and the castles, the quietness of the environment, and the special and unique aura of the project were mentioned as the deciding factors. The combination of space, comfortable dwellings and a natural environment is also highly valued. None of the participants wanted to live in a more normal residential environment. Remarkably, the high building density of the dwellings in the castles is hardly considered as a problem. On the contrary, it makes the surrounding landscape more visible. The participants were also asked to give several specific aspects of Haverleij a report mark on a scale of Table 1 shows the results. Table 1 Average report marks for several special features of Haverleij Feature Average report mark Range of report marks Dwellings in remarkable colors and shapes No private gardens Inner court yard Dwellings in wall of castles viewing the surrounding landscape Strict building regulations One access road Parking out of view, not near the dwelling Absence of amenities Although all the features got on average a pass mark, six of the eight features got an unsatisfactory mark from at least one of the participants. The only exceptions are the features no private gardens and view from the dwelling. Moreover, the range of the report marks of several features is quite wide. The only feature that gets a really good report mark, 8.6, is the view from the dwelling. The features dwellings in remarkable colors and shapes, no private gardens, and one access road get on average a satisfactory mark, while the others features just get on average pass marks. The participants of the focus groups were also asked to mention at most three aspects that they would like to change if Haverleij was to be designed all over again and they would be involved in the design process from the beginning. Among the aspects that were mentioned three stand out. The first one is the almost complete lack of playgrounds and playing facilities for children. This child-unfriendly aspect of the project is due to the fact that families with children were not considered to be one of the target segments of the project. The second aspect that was frequently mentioned is the laying-out and maintenance of the surrounding landscape. Since it is not clear who is responsible for this, the municipality or the project developer, participants find it difficult to do something about it. Finally, the absence of amenities was also frequently mentioned. Although all residents knew from the beginning that 10

11 Haverleij would have little or no amenities, the participants indicate that it would nevertheless be nice to have some, like for instance a restaurant, in the neighbourhood. 7. Results from interviews Of the inhabitants of the three castles that were selected for this research project 19 were interviewed at their home. The semi-structured interviews were recorded and the meaning structures were also constructed on paper by the interviewer and interviewee together. The interview started with the question Could you mention some aspects of dwelling in Haverleij that are important to you?. The interviewer was instructed to probe for more aspects after the initial answer. Subsequently, the interviewee was asked to select from two sets of cards - one containing dwelling features and the other residential environment features - those features which they considered important when thinking about dwelling in Haverleij. The two sets contained a total of 22 features, see table 2. If more than five features were selected from one or both sets, the interviewee had to rank the features in order of importance. During the interview only the meanings of the five most important features of each set were determined, because the interview would otherwise last too long. Table 2 shows the percentage of respondents who selected each feature. The table shows that many features were selected by more than 50% of the interviewees. Both housing features, for instance dwelling type, number of rooms, and size of living room, as well as residential environment features, such as view, surrounding landscape, and inner courtyard, share this popularity, which indicates that for the interviewees both offer affordances. Table 2 also shows that two features, color scheme and one access road, that the planners/designers considered as important were not so important for the interviewees. Table 2 Percentage of interviewees that selected each feature (n=19) View 100% Surrounding landscape 95% Inner courtyard 80% Dwelling type 79% Number of rooms 74% Size of living room 74% Architecture 74% Dwelling quality 74% Building density 68% (No) Garden 63% Balcony 53% Being reachable 53% Composition of the inhabitants 53% Storeroom 47% Golf course 47% Size of balcony 42% Parking for friends 42% Elementary school 32% One access road 26% Amenities 26% Building regulations 21% Color scheme 21% 11

12 Table 3 Most frequently mentioned meanings over all features Number of interviewees that mentioned meaning at least once Enjoying life 18 Space 16 Social contact 15 (Multi)functionality 15 Spaciousness 14 Nature 13 Privacy 13 Quietness 13 Being outside 12 Distinguished 12 Compactness/bounded 11 Comfort 11 Freedom 11 Diversity 11 The raw data generated by the laddering interviews, both on paper and file, are the verbalizations of the respondents. First, a content analysis was carried out on these free responses. This resulted in a set of categories for all respondents. Subsequently, the meaning structures of each respondent were coded according to the set of categories. In this process, several choices about the interpretation of the various elements of the meaning structures had to be made. To reach as much intersubjectivity as possible, at least two researchers were involved in the construction of the categories from the interviews. The categories each researcher had constructed were compared with each other and possible differences were discussed until agreement was reached. Table 3 shows the most frequently mentioned meanings over all features; only the meanings that were mentioned by at least half of the interviewees are represented. The most important meanings in decreasing order of popularity are enjoying life, space, social contact, (multi)functionality, spaciousness, nature, privacy, quietness, being outside, distinguished, compactness/bounded, comfort, freedom, and diversity. Many of these meanings are latent functions with the exception of (multi)functionality and being outside. In our analysis so far we have only looked at features and separate meanings. However, one may also take the structural relations between features and meanings explicitly into account, and by doing so one can construct two types of representations with meaning structures. One type represents only individual meaning structures, the other type contains the relationships between the meaning structures of all respondents and is called a meaning network. Figure 3 shows several examples of individual meaning structures. The individual meaning structures, which are relational data, form the basis for the construction of a meaning network. Since some structural aspects of meaning networks are discussed in this paper, some terminology about networks is outlined next (cf. Wasserman and Faust, 1994). A meaning network is constructed from the individual meaning structures by means of a so-called adjacency matrix. An adjacency matrix is a matrix that represents the relationships between the meaning categories from the meaning structures. The rows and the columns of the matrix are formed by the meanings, and the cells of the adjacency matrix show the number of direct links between the meanings in the individual meaning structures. The connections between the meaning categories can be represented graphically in a valued digraph - a network representation - in which the meanings are represented as nodes n i and the directed links between them as arcs l k. Associated with each arc is a value v k that indicates the number of times that the link between the two nodes connected by the arc has been observed. 12

13 Figure 3 Examples of individual meaning structures of feature View enjoying life freedom enjoying life privacy quietness spaciousness spaciousness quietness balcony nature view view view Table 4 shows the adjacency matrix of the feature view. The value in cell (i,j) of the table represents the number of observed arcs directed from the meaning in row i to the meaning in column j. The graphical display of the relations in table 4 is called a meaning network, and the meaning network for the feature view is depicted in figure 4. The thicker the link between two meanings in this figure, the stronger the relation between those meanings. Table 4 Adjacency matrix of feature view View Tradition Spaciousness Enjoying life Nature Quietness Privacy Social contact 1-8. Lively - 9. Space Freedom Inner courtyard Being outside Balcony Defects - 13

14 Figure 4 Meaning network of feature View A meaning structure of a dwelling feature is a representation of the meanings of this feature as perceived and conceived by an individual. As such it might be highly idiosyncratic representing mainly personal meanings. It may also be less idiosyncratic in the sense that it contains meanings that are shared by other people. Because a dwelling is considered to be, at least partly, a cultural artefact (Rapoport, 1969, 1990b), one might expect that meaning structures of dwelling features contain both idiosyncratic and shared meanings. One way of investigating whether some meanings are more shared than others is by studying the prominence of meanings in a meaning network such as the one in figure 4. Although this figure seems to indicate that some meanings are more prominent than others, we have to be careful with our conclusions since this may be the result of the way the graphical display is constructed. Therefore, a numerical measure is used to study prominence in networks (Wasserman and Faust, 1994). A disadvantage of many of these prominence measures is that they are only based on the direct links of a node, which may result in the same prominence for more central and more peripheral nodes. What we want is a prominence measure that combines the number of direct links to n i with the prominence of the nodes that are directly linked to n i. Katz (1953) among others developed such a prominence measure. Its computation comes down to an eigenvectoreigenvalue decomposition of a normalized version of the adjacency matrix (Katz, 1953; Wasserman and Faust, 1994). The appropriate eigenvector contains the rank prominence measures. In interpreting these measures one has to keep in mind that it is only the rank order of the measures that is relevant and not the absolute value of these measures. This prominence 14

15 measure is used in the remainder of the paper to evaluate the prominence of the meanings (nodes) in the meaning networks of the various features. Only meanings with an above average prominence will be reported. To illustrate, table 5 shows the rank prominence measures of the meanings of the feature view, whose network was presented in figure 4. The rank order of the most prominent meanings of the feature view is enjoying life, quietness, nature, space, privacy, spaciousness, and freedom. These meanings are the ones one might have intuitively expected except maybe for privacy. According to the interviewees the feature view in Haverleij affords among others privacy. Table 5 Rank prominence of the meanings of the feature View (average prominence 0.77) Enjoying life Quietness Nature Space Privacy Spaciousness Freedom In the remainder of this section the rank prominence of the most important features is described. In table 6 one notices that the feature surrounding landscape affords in order of prominence enjoying life, nature, quietness, freedom, spaciousness, recreation, and being outside; all are meanings one might have expected. Table 6 Rank prominence of the meanings of the feature Surrounding landscape (average prominence 0.53) Enjoying life Nature Quietness Freedom Spaciousness Recreation Being outside Table 7 shows the rank prominence of the meanings of the feature inner courtyard. The order of prominence is playground, safety, social contact, human need, enjoying life, quietness, functionality, boundedness, lack of freedom, social control. Striking affordances of the inner courtyard are playground, boundedness and lack of freedom. Especially, playground as the most prominent meaning is interesting, since Haverleij has hardly any playground facilities at all! Table 7 Rank prominence of the meanings of the feature Inner courtyard (average prominence 0.43) Safety Social contact Human need Enjoying life Playground Quietness Functionality Bounded Lack of freedom Social control The rank prominence measures of the feature dwelling type are represented in table 8. The rank order of prominence is: enjoying life, comfort, privacy, no maintenance, space, (multi)functionality, separating functions, freedom, health, social contact, and spaciousness. The feature dwelling type clearly affords not only latent functions, such as enjoying life, privacy, and freedom, but also instrumental functions such as no maintenance, (multi)functionality, and separating functions. Interestingly, according to our interviewees the dwelling type also affords health. 15

16 Table 8 Rank prominence of the meanings of the feature Dwelling type (average prominence 0.92) Enjoying life Comfort Privacy Space No maintenance (Multi)- functionality Separating functions Freedom Health Social contact Spaciousness Table 9 shows the rank prominence of the meanings of the feature number of rooms. The order of prominence is privacy, separating functions, cleanness, (multi)functionality, every family member own room, and freedom. The feature number of rooms also affords not only latent functions, such as privacy and freedom, but also instrumental functions which are subsumed under the categories separating functions and (multi)functionality. Table 9 Rank prominence of the meanings of the feature Number of rooms (average prominence 0.59) Privacy Separating functions Cleanness (Multi)- functionality Every family member own room Freedom The feature size of living room affords in order of prominence enjoying life, space, spaciousness, freedom, family life, beauty, feeling home, and furnishing, see table 10. Table 10 Rank prominence of the meanings of the feature Size of living room (average prominence 0.61) Enjoying life Space Spaciousness Freedom Family life Beauty Feeling home Furnishing Table 11 presents the prominence of the meanings of the feature architecture. This feature affords in order of prominence aura, uniformity, spaciousness, distinguished, and freedom. Table 11 Rank prominence of the meanings of the feature Architecture (average prominence 0.68) Aura Uniformity Spaciousness Distinguished Freedom The most prominent affordances of the feature dwelling quality are, in order of prominence, enjoying life, comfort, space, amenities, and distinguished, see table 12. The appearance of amenities as an important affordance of dwelling quality, while the only amenities in Haverleij are an elementary school and a day care centre, is revealing. 16

17 Table 12 Rank prominence of the meanings of the feature Dwelling quality (average prominence 0.65) Enjoying life Comfort Space Amenities Distinguished Table 13 shows the prominence measures of the meanings of the feature building density. The rank of the most prominent meanings is space, spaciousness, social contact, enjoying life, no nuisance, bounded, view, safety, quietness, and nature. Interestingly, according to the interviewees the building density provides such seemingly incompatible affordances as space, spaciousness and nature on the one hand, and bounded on the other hand. Table 13 Rank prominence of the meanings of the feature Building density (average prominence 0.34) Space Spaciousness Social contact Enjoying life No nuisance Bounded View Safety Quietness Nature Conclusion The purpose of this paper is to compare the meanings that designers and planners attach to several aspects of a dwelling project with an uncommon architectural and residential design with the meanings of the dwellers of this project. The meanings of the planners and designers have been determined by studying documents of the project and by interviewing a real estate agent and a civil servant. The dweller s meanings were determined by means of focus groups and semi-structured interviews. In the preceding sections the results of these activities have been described. We shall now compare the meanings of the dwellers with those of the designers/planners on the basis of their meanings as listed in section Dweller s meanings such as aura, distinguished, nature, space, comfort, and enjoying life indicate that they share the image of Haverleij as an estate-like natural environment with the designers and planners of the project. 2. Several features of Haverleij clearly afford space and spaciousness for our interviewees as intended by the designers/planners. 3. The inner courtyard received on average a pass mark from our interviewees, and they indicate that it affords social contact as intended. But the most important affordance of the inner courtyard is its use as a playground for which it was not intended and for which there are no facilities available. 4. The function of one access road as a feature that should facilitate social control and safety does not seem to be shared by our interviewees. It is a relatively unimportant feature, only mentioned by 26% of them, which gets an on average satisfactory report mark. Social control and safety are more afforded by the features inner courtyard and building density. 5. The high building density is a relatively important feature for the interviewees, but the more prominent affordances it offers the dwellers space, view, nature - seem to be more related to the surrounding landscape than to the exclusive dwellings. The fact 17

18 that the feature dwellings in the wall of castles viewing the surrounding landscape got the highest report mark in the focus groups also points in this direction. 6. The diversity of the castles and dwellings is an important aspect of Haverleij not only for the designers/planners but also for the interviewees. This is expressed by such meanings as aura, distinguished and diversity, and by the fact that in the focus groups the feature dwellings in remarkable colors and shapes got a satisfactory average report mark. 7. The view over the surrounding landscape from the dwellings is clearly the most important feature of Haverleij for the interviewees. It affords many important functions such as enjoying life, privacy, freedom, quietness, space, nature, and recreation. 8. The absence of amenities is not unequivocally appreciated by the interviewees. In the focus groups this feature got just a pass mark, and the participants indicated that this was an aspect that they would like to change if Haverleij was to be designed all over again. Moreover, for our interviewees amenities is a prominent affordance of dwelling quality. 9. The golf course which the planners and designers consider as an asset of Haverleij, is a relatively unimportant feature for the interviewees. 10. Car parking out of view and not in front of the dwellings does not seem to be much of an issue for our interviewees, although this feature of Haverleij got a relatively low report mark. Overall we may conclude that many of the features of Haverleij have similar meanings for the dwellers we interviewed and the designers and planners of the project. But there are also some interesting differences in meanings. Foremost is the affordance playground, which was not intended and not facilitated by the planners and designers simply because families with children were not considered to be one of the target segments of the project. Playing facilities for children were considered to be an important deficiency of the project by the participants of the focus groups, while the playground appeared in the interviews as the most prominent meaning of the feature inner courtyard. Also, the access road as a facilitator of social control and safety is not perceived as such by our interviewees. Social control and safety seem to be afforded for the interviewees by the inner courtyard and partly by the building density. In hindsight the interviewed dwellers seem to have mixed feelings about the absence of amenities, except for an elementary school/day care centre. Finally, the golf course is not perceived as an asset while the car parking does not seem to be much of an issue for the interviewees. 9. Discussion Our theoretical framework considers the meaning of dwellings and residential environments from an ecological perspective. An ecological approach focuses on the individual s relations with meaningful features of the environment; the reciprocity and mutuality of the environment and the individual is a central feature of such an approach. At a functional level of analysis human being and environment make an inseparable pair. A human being intentionally selects or adjusts to present features of the environment, and in many instances people alter the environment to better fit with their goals. The meaning of objects resides in these functional relations between features of the environment and the needs and intentions of human beings. It is in these relations, which are called affordances, that meanings are discovered and created. 18

19 Considering the design and planning of dwellings and residential environments from this perspective means that these activities should mainly be performed to solve problems of human beings that are going to use these dwellings and environments (cf. Rapoport, 2005), and that this problem solving should be based on research of what dwelling means for these human beings. Our conceptual and methodological framework seems to be suitable for this type of research. As this paper shows dwellers are very well able to relate important goals such as enjoying life, freedom, safety, privacy, nature, space, comfort, health, and feeling home to features of their environment. Our approach also makes it possible to gain insight in how seemingly incompatible meanings such as space and compactness/bounded, see table 3, can be afforded in one and the same dwelling project. Space and spaciousness are afforded by several features, for instance by view, surrounding landscape, dwelling type, and number of rooms, while bounded is afforded by other features such as inner courtyard and building density. So, dwellers do not dislike the high building densities of the castles, on the contrary, because the dwellings in the castles are designed in such a way that from each dwelling one can view the surrounding landscape, and because the castles are located in the surrounding landscape in such a way that they do not stand in each other s way. A final remark concerns the complete absence of private gardens in the castles. A recurring finding in housing market research in the Netherlands is that approximately 85% of the respondents wants a dwelling with a private garden, while 90% of these respondents indicate that they will not move to another dwelling if it does not have a garden. This finding seems to be in sharp contrast with the findings in Haverleij. Not only did the participants of the focus groups give the feature no private garden a relatively high report mark, 7.5, but for the interviewees the feature garden was also relatively unimportant. The explanation for this seemingly inconsistent research finding seems to be that the feature garden affords functions such as nature, recreation, enjoying life, freedom, and being outside (cf. Coolen and Hoekstra, 2001), affordances which in Haverleij are provided by the features view and surrounding landscape. 10. References Blumer, H. (1969), Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and method, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Chemero, A. (2003), An outline of a theory of affordances, Ecological Psychology, 15, pp Coolen, H.C.C.H. (2005), Measurement and analysis of less-structured data in housing research, in: D.U. Vestbro, Y. Hürol and N. Wilkinson (eds), Methodologies in housing research, Urban International Press, Tyne&Wear, pp Coolen, H.C.C.H. (2006), The meaning of dwellings: an ecological perspective (forthcoming). Coolen, H.C.C.H. and Hoekstra, J. (2001), Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16, pp Gibson, J.J. (1986), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Erlbaum, Mahwah. Groat, L. (1982), Meaning in Post-Modern architecture: an examination using the multiple sorting task, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, pp Heft, H. (2001), Ecological psychology in context. James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the legacy of William James s radical empiricism, Erlbaum, Mahwah. Katz, L. (1953), A new status index derived from sociometric analysis, Psychometrika, 18, pp