See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236144214

A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing

Article  in  Landscape and Urban Planning · November 2006

DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.07.008

CITATIONS READS
81 3,935

1 author:

Shu-Chun Lucy Huang

Shih Hsin University
18 PUBLICATIONS   197 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

sustainability, environmental behavior View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shu-Chun Lucy Huang on 08 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 193–204

A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing

Shu-Chun Lucy Huang ∗
Department of Tourism, Shih-Hsin University, #1, Lane 17, Mu-Cha Rd., Sec. 1, Taipei 116, Taiwan, ROC

Received 24 November 2004; received in revised form 21 July 2005; accepted 22 July 2005
Available online 10 October 2005

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between the courtyard design of high-rise housing complexes and the residents’ social
interaction in Taipei, Taiwan. Behavioral observation is applied to three housing projects, reflecting three levels of real estate
value. The observation lasts for 21 days for each project. The total number of observations are 32,476 including 15,532 males
and 16,955 females. Only 5074 people, 15.63% of the total observed residents, have social interaction with others. The findings
reflect the phenomenon of social withdrawal among the residents. In addition, the research findings indicate that both space
types and design elements have an effect on residents’ social interaction. Among the five space types, significantly more social
interactions are found in circulation spaces, and significantly fewer social interactions are observed in seating and vague spaces.
Regarding the percentages of social interaction, scenic and activity spaces rank first and second, respectively, and are considerably
higher than the other space types. Among the 10 design elements, route and node rank the first and the second, respectively, and
out-weighed the other design elements in terms of the quantity of social interaction. As to the percentages of social interaction,
visual focus, plant, play area, and open space rank first to fourth, and are relatively higher than the other six elements.
© 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Keywords: High-rise complex; Outdoor space; Social interaction; Space type; Design element

1. Introduction density and vertical stretch (Lee, 1978), especially in

In Taiwan, the fast economic and population growth
in the past 30 years has resulted in rapid urbanization all
over the country. Due to spatial and financial considera-
tions, housing development has been transformed from
low to medium density and horizontal spread to high
∗ Present address: #1, 7F., Alley 6, Lane 82, Fu-Sing Rd., Taipei
116, Taiwan, ROC. Tel.: +886 2 2236 8225x3381;
fax: +886 2 2236 7745.
E-mail address: huangsch@cc.shu.edu.tw.
the cities. Up to 1991, 59.9% of the Taiwanese popula-
tion resided in large metropolitan areas, 14.9% of the
population lived in small metropolitan areas, and only
25.3% of the population resided in non-metropolitan
areas (Tseng, 1994). The average housing price had
inflated 5.38 times and the average capita income only
increased 2.42 times from 1969 to 1988 (Hu, 1989).
Taipei, the capital and largest city in Taiwan, has the
highest living standard and population density in the
country. The average value of price–income ratio is
4.88 in the country, but the price–income ratio of

0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.07.008
194 S.-C.L. Huang / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 193–204
Taipei has reached up to 8.28 (Tseng, 1994). In other
words, a high percentage of citizens could not afford
to buy averaged priced housing. Taipei’s high land
value has caused most people to choose either apart-
ments or high-rise complexes (Chen, 1997). As a result,
most Taipei residents have to live in high density and
crowded environments. The problems of high density
housing have been an issue of concern to many social
psychologists and environmental designers. Such liv-
ing environments tend to be detrimental to the social
relationship within the community (Zito, 1974; Tog-
noli, 1987; Keane, 1991). Researchers have found that
the negative effects of residential crowding are partly
due to the collapse in individuals’ social support sys-
tems (Evans et al., 1989; Lepore et al., 1991; Evans and
Lepore, 1993). The findings of Lin (1988) indicate that
Taipei residents of high-rise housing are not interested
in keeping close relationship with their neighbors. In
addition, the residents even think the opportunity for
social contact is not necessary. The above results have
shown that the degree of alienation has become serious
among Taipei residents.
Based on the research results of Wang and Chien
(1999), 51.67% of the residents of high-rise complexes
are not satisfied with their living environments in the
metropolitan areas of Taiwan. Among the nine unsat-
isfactory factors, ‘the lack of open space’ is ranked
as the first item. In addition, 50.3% of the residents
believe that outdoor space is as important as indoor
space. In Taiwan, the formation of courtyards for high-
rise housing is due to a promotional tactic of housing
developers. The government incentive policy issued
in 1984 permitted more floor area to be built for the
creation of open spaces and intensified its popular-
ity among the builders. Since then, high-rise housing
complexes with courtyards have been constructed as
a necessity and are in high demand. However, good
outdoor spaces should not just be visually pleasing,
they should facilitate the social functioning of the
community.
2. Outdoor spaces of high-rise housing
The public spaces of high-rise complexes are essen-
tial places that enable residents to establish social
interaction and recognition (Gärling and Golledge,
1989). In other words, they can become interactional
spaces (Canter, 1977; Bonnes and Secchiaroli, 1995)
and “social arenas” (Carr et al., 1992). Residential
outdoor spaces are an extension of living space and
part of the home (Dillman and Dillman, 1987). In
fact, the most valued urban open spaces are not those
that are significant or large, and away from home but
those that are familiar and close (Burgess et al., 1988).
Most people use open spaces that are close to home
(Harrison, 1983). Open spaces in neighborhoods play
an important role in establishing residents’ sense of
neighboring (Fleming et al., 1985). Basically, outdoor
spaces of high-rise clustered housing are limited to
use by the residents. From this viewpoint, they are
private to the residents. Looking within each housing
project, these spaces can be used by all the residents
and are public to them. Therefore, they are semi-public
spaces and can become activity nodes that provide the
greatest opportunity for access and exposure (Archea,
1977). In addition, they are buffer zones between the
outside world and the housing communities. They
possess the quality of defensible space (Newman,
1973).
3. Space layouts, design elements, and social
activities in outdoor spaces
Three types of activity in outdoor public spaces have
been identified by Gehl (1987). They are necessary
activity, optional activity, and social activity. Accord-
ingly, each type of activity requires certain physical
settings to facilitate their occurrence in the spaces, and
the physical environments needed for different types
of activity are significantly different from each other.
Among them, social activity mainly refers to the inter-
action that people engage in (Unger and Wandersman,
1985), such as playing with others, greeting others, and
talking to others. Even passive contacts, such as eye
contact and nodding, watching events, and listening
to others, are considered as social activities. The com-
mon areas between the houses have been found to be an
important feature that affords social activities in neigh-
borhoods (Cooper Marcus and Sarkissian, 1986). The
existence of activity nodes in public space provides the
greatest opportunity for access and exposure (Archea,
1977), and can increase the residents’ informal social
interaction (Bechtel, 1977; Francis, 1987). Effective
activity nodes have a central location and easy access,
 S.-C.L. Huang / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 193–204
few visual boundaries to the potential users, and are on
main routes. Therefore, well-planned outdoor spaces
of high-rise complexes can become effective activity
nodes (Bechtel, 1977) that facilitate residents’ daily
informal contacts. The design of outdoor spaces for
high-rise complexes is important not only for legal and
environmental considerations but also from the per-
spective of social concern. Successful public spaces
of high-rise housing can provide opportunities for res-
idents to have substantial contact and the sense of
neighboring can then be fostered. Furthermore, good
public spaces can improve the quality of living in urban,
high-density environments.
Besides space layout, some physical features have
been identified as efficient design elements in outdoor
spaces for encouraging social contacts. The provi-
sion of common access enables users to have more
opportunities for informal contacts (Fleming et al.,
1985) and stimulates social activities to occur (Howell
et al., 1976). The existence of street furniture also
encourages peoples’ use of public space including
social interaction (Gehl, 1986; Carr et al., 1992).
Among public space attributes, seating structure is
found to be the most significant in fostering social func-
tion (Gehl, 1987). In addition, appropriately arranged
seats assist users’ conversation and supports infor-
mal communication (Campbell and Campbell, 1988).
Open spaces and play areas in the public spaces of
urban communities help the residents’ social contacts
(Cooper Marcus and Sarkissian, 1986; Coley et al.,
1997). The provision of greenery in residential com-
munities increases the opportunity for social activ-
ity and enhances the social bonding among the resi-
dents (Coley et al., 1997; DePooter, 1997; Skjaeveland
and Gärling, 1997; Kuo et al., 1998; Kweon et al.,
1998). The existence of interesting objects or events,
such as sculptures and performances in public spaces
can elicit interaction among strangers (Whyte, 1980).
Water features with complex and unique forms are
more likely to encourage the observers’ social interac-
tion (Huang, 1998). The above research findings have
shown that the existence of certain landscape elements
in public outdoor spaces facilitates peoples’ informal
contact and then supports social interaction. There-
fore, the manipulation of the elements in the detail
design of outdoor spaces of high-rise housing becomes
important in the creation of socially favorable living
environments.
195
4. Objectives
The purpose of this research is to examine the rela-
tionship between the outdoor space design of high-rise
housing complexes and the residents’ social interac-
tion. The types of outdoor space and the elements of
the space types of high-rise housing complexes are
closely examined to understand their effects on res-
idents’ social interaction. The findings of the study
should provide insights for environmental designers
regarding the design of outdoor spaces of high density
housing projects to enhance social behavior among the
residents.
5. Methods
In this study, on-site observation was applied to
three high-rise housing projects located in Taipei, Tai-
wan. The three housing projects represent different
real estate values, and their residents include different
socio-economic groups.
5.1. Study sites
The three projects studied were DaAn Housing,
NienJen Housing, HsinYi Housing. DaAn Housing is
a public housing project. It was funded by the Tai-
wan government in order to provide affordable hous-
ing for the retired military, and completed in 1981.
The project has 1380 dwelling units. The area of
each unit ranges from 79.3 to 112.4 m2 . About half of
the dwelling units was reserved for military retirees
and sold at a heavily subsidized price. The other
half was sold to the general public at a less expen-
sive price than the private housing projects in the
vicinity. The layout of the buildings is in diamond-
shape form, and there is a centrally located court-
yard. The buildings are 7-, 13-, and 18-floors high.
The total area of the project site is 39,100 m2 , and
the total area of the courtyard is 7000 m2 (Fig. 1).
NienJen Housing was funded by the private sector
and was built in 1992. The project has 129 dwelling
units. The total area of the units ranges from 138.8
to 185.1 m2 . The layout of the buildings is u-shaped
and the courtyard is centrally situated. All the build-
ings are 16-floors. The total area of the project site
is 5917 m2 , and the total area of the courtyard is
196 S.-C.L. Huang / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 193–204

Fig. 1. Four views of the outdoor space of DaAn Housing.

1225 m2 (Fig. 2). HsinYi Housing was privately funded and the courtyard is centrally located. The buildings
and finished in 1990. The project has 91 units. The are 15-floors. The total area of the project site is
area of each unit varies from 122.3 to 237.96 m2 . 3765 m2 , and the total area of the courtyard is 800 m2
The layout of the housing project is also u-shaped, (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2. Four views of the outdoor space of NienJen Housing.

 S.-C.L. Huang / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 193–204
Fig. 3. Four views of the outdoor space of HsinYi Housing.
5.2. Procedure
Observational sheets and the site plans of the three
projects were utilized to record the observations at the
three high-rise housing projects. The context of obser-
vations included the number of users, users’ gender,
users’ age range (elderly, middle-aged, young adult,
and children), movement flow, location of activity, and
type of activity (social or non-social). In this study,
social activities were referred to as the observable
behavioral interaction among the residents, including
nodding, talking, waving, and friendly physical con-
tact. The length of observation was 21 days for each
housing project, including week days and weekends.
In each day, five periods of time, ranging from 7:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m., were scheduled for observation. Both
quantity of social interaction and frequency of social
interaction were recorded. The quantity of social inter-
action results mainly from the advantage of the size
of space type/element. As the size of outdoor spaces
increases, more people can be accommodated and the
opportunities for encounter are also increased. The pos-
sibility for interaction may hence rise. The percentage
of social interaction is the ratio of the number of inter-
action to the number of observations. It represents the
197
relative frequency of social interaction occurring in
the space type/element. Therefore, it reflects the lay-
out characters of certain outdoor spaces in inducing
interaction.
Before the observation started, a thorough inven-
tory of the outdoor spaces of the three housing projects
was conducted. Five spatial categories based on their
major environmental characters were identified. They
were labeled as ‘seating space’, ‘scenic space’, ‘cir-
culation space’, ‘activity space’, and ‘vague space’.
In seating spaces, seating facilities were the dominant
element. Scenic spaces contained landscape elements
with visual significance. In circulation spaces, pedes-
trian routes and the recessed areas on routes were
the main elements. Activity spaces had more spacious
open areas and recreational facilities. Vague spaces
contained the areas that were not categorized into the
above four space types. Within the five space types,
10 design elements were nested. Concave seating and
convex seating were included in seating spaces. Visual
focuses (water features and sculptures) and plants
(trees, shrubs, and flowers) belonged to scenic spaces.
Nodes (recesses) and routes (primary paths and sec-
ondary paths) were included in circulation spaces. Play
areas (playgrounds) and open areas (plazas and lawn)
198 S.-C.L. Huang / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 193–204

belonged to activity spaces. Undefined areas and border
areas were included in vague spaces.
6. Research results
The results of observation at the three housing
projects are shown in Table 1. The total number of
observed residents was 32,476, including 15,532 male
and 16,955 female and representing 47.84 and 52.16%
of the total observed residents, respectively. Among
them, 9330 people (28.74%) were elderly; 10,413 peo-
ple (32.07%) were middle-aged; 5480 people (16.88%)
were young adults; 7248 people (22.32%) were chil-
dren. The number of residents who had social inter-
action was 5074, only 15.63% of the total observed
residents. Among them, 2414 people (47.58%) were
male and 2660 (52.42%) people were female. Looking
at each individual project, at HsinYi Housing, 7732
residents were observed, representing 23.81% of the
total observed residents. The number of residents with
social interaction was 1391, which was 17.99% of the
observed residents at this housing project. At NienJen
Housing, 9587 residents were observed, 29.53% of the

Table 1
The results of observation at three housing projects
Observation Housing project

HsinYi Housing NienJen Housing DaAn Housing Total

(high-priced) (medium- priced) (low-priced)
Total observed residents 7732 9587 15148 32467
% Of total observation 23.81 29.53 46.66 100.0
Male 3863 4681 6988 15532
% Of total observation 24.87 30.14 44.99 100.0
% Within project 49.96 48.83 53.87 47.84
Female 3869 4906 8160 16935
% Of total observation 22.85 28.97 48.18 100.0
% Within project 50.04 51.17 53.87 52.16
Elderly residents 2230 2820 4276 9326
% Of total observation 23.91 30.24 45.85 100.0
% Within project 28.84 29.41 28.23 28.72
Middle-aged residents 1982 2598 5833 10413
% Of total observation 19.03 24.95 56.02 100.0
% Within project 25.63 27.10 38.51 32.07
Young adults 1810 2314 1356 5480
% Of total observation 33.03 42.23 24.74 100.0
% Within project 23.41 24.14 8.95 16.88
Children 1710 1855 3683 7248
% Of total observation 23.59 25.59 50.82 100.0
% Within project 22.12 19.35 24.31 22.33
# Of social interaction 1391 1384 2299 5074
% Of total observation 27.41 27.28 45.31 100.0
Male 707 666 1041 2414
% Of total observation 29.29 27.59 43.12 100.0
% Within project 50.83 48.12 45.28 47.58
Female 684 718 1258 2660
% Of total observation 25.71 26.99 47.30 100.0
% Within project 49.17 51.88 54.72 52.42
% Of social interaction 17.99 14.43 15.18 15.63
 S.-C.L. Huang / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 193–204 199

Table 2
The results of observation based on space type
Space type Observation

# Of observed residents # Of social interaction % Of social interaction

(% of total observation) (rank) (rank)
Seating space 622 (1.92%) 101 (4) 16.24 (3)
Scenic space 3512 (10.82%) 938 (2) 26.71 (1)
Circulation space 24645 (75.91%) 3231 (1) 13.11 (5)
Activity space 3134 (9.65%) 730 (3) 23.29 (2)
Vague space 554 (1.71%) 74 (5) 13.36 (4)

total observed residents. Only 1384 residents, 14.43%
of the observed residents at this housing project, had
social contacts with others. At DaAn Housing, 15,148
residents were observed, 46.66% of the total observed
residents. A total of 2299 residents, 15.18% of the
observed residents at this project, had social contacts
with others.
The results of observation at the five different spaces
are shown in Table 2. Within circulation space, 24,645
people were observed, comprising a dominant percent-
age (75.91%) of the total observation. The quantity of
social interaction in descending order was circulation
space (3231), scenic space (938), activity space (730),
seating space (101), and vague space (74). The per-
centage of social interaction in descending order was
scenic space (26.71%), activity space (23.29%), seating
space (16.24%), vague space (13.36%), and circulation
space (13.11%). The findings indicated that the quan-
tity of social interaction was much greater in circulation
space than in the other four spaces. However, the per-
centage of social interaction was greater for scenic and
activity spaces.
A further examination of the results of observa-
tion based on design element is shown in Table 3.
Among the 10 design elements, a prominent percent-
age (56.31%) of residents were observed on routes. The
quantity of social interaction for the 10 elements in
descending order was route (2,363), node (868), plant
(670), play area (444), open area (286), visual focus
(268), concave seating (91), undefined area (66), con-
vex seating (10), and border area (8). The percentage of
social interaction in descending order was visual focus
(29.84%), plant (25.63%), play area (24.65%), open
area (21.46%), concave seating (16.95%), undefined
area (16.88), node (13.64%), route (12.92%), convex
seating (11.76%), and border area (4.91%). The find-
ings revealed that much more social interaction was
found at route and node than at the other eight design

Table 3
The results of observation based on design element
Design element Observations

# Of observed residents # Of social interaction % Of social interaction

(% of total observation) (rank) (rank)
Concave seating 537 (1.65) 91 (7) 16.95 (5)
Convex seating 85 (0.26) 10 (9) 11.76 (9)
Visual focus 898 (2.76) 268 (6) 29.84 (1)
Plant 2614 (8.05 670 (3) 25.63 (2)
Node 6362 (19.60) 868 (2) 13.64 (7)
Route 18283 (56.31) 2363 (1) 12.92 (8)
Play area 1801 (5.55) 444 (4) 24.65 (3)
Open area 1333 (4.11) 286 (5) 21.46 (4)
Undefined area 391 (1.20) 66 (8) 16.88 (6)
Border area 163 (0.50) 8 (10) 4.91 (10)
200 S.-C.L. Huang / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 193–204

Table 4
The differences of the quantity of social interaction within five space types
Space type (I) Space type (J) Mean difference (I–J) Standard deviation Significance (p-value)
Seating space Scenic space −13.286 4.103 0.001**
Circulation space −75.325 4.588 0.000***
Activity space −15.778 4.588 0.001**
Vague space −0.159 4.588 0.972
Scenic space Seating space 13.286 4.103 0.001**
Circulation space −62.040 4.588 0.000***
Activity space −2.492 4.588 0.587
Vague space 13.127 4.588 0.005**
Circulation space Seating space 75.325 4.588 0.000***
Scenic space 62.040 4.588 0.000***
Activity space 59.548 5.025 0.000***
Vague space 75.167 5.025 0.000***
Activity space Seating space 15.778 4.588 0.001**
Scenic space 2.492 4.588 0.587
Circulation space −59.548 5.025 0.000***
Vague space 15.619 5.025 0.002**
Vague space Seating space 0.159 4.588 0.972
Scenic space −13.127 4.588 0.005**
Circulation space −75.167 5.025 0.000***
Activity space −15.619 5.025 0.002**
** p < 0.01.
*** p < 0.001.

elements. However, the percentages of social interac-
tion were higher for visual focus, plant, play area, and
open area than the rest of the design elements.
Analysis of variance was then used to examine if
any discrepancy existed among the five space types
regarding the quantity of social interaction. The results
indicated a significant difference existed (F = 81.71,
p = 0.000). Post hoc analysis was then used to exam-
ine the differences among the five spaces (Table 4). The
findings showed that the quantity of social interaction in
seating space was significantly less than in scenic space
(p = 0.001), circulation space (p = 0.000), and activity
space (p = 0.001). The quantity of social interaction in
scenic space was significantly greater than in seating
space (p = 0.001) and vague space (p = 0.005), and less
than in circulation space (p = 0.000). The quantity of
social interaction in circulation space was significantly
greater than in the other four space types (p = 0.000).
The quantity of social interaction in activity space was
significantly greater than in seating space (p = 0.001)
and vague space (p = 0.002), and less than in circula-
tion space (p = 0.000). The quantity of social interaction
in vague space was significantly less than in scenic
space (p = 0.005), circulation space (p = 0.000), and
activity space (p = 0.002). The findings suggested that
among the five space types, significantly more social
interactions were found in circulation space, and sig-
nificantly fewer social interactions were observed in
seating space and vague space.
To examine the difference between the design ele-
ments of each space type regarding the quantity of
social interaction, t-tests were used. The results indi-
cated that in seating space, significantly more social
interactions were observed at concave seating than
at convex seating (t = 2.260, p = 0.029) (Table 5). In
scenic space, the quantity of social interaction was not
significantly different between visual focus and plant
(t = −1.566, p = 0.122). In circulation space, signifi-
cantly fewer social interactions were found on nodes
than on routes (t = −5.571, p = 0.000). In activity space,
significantly more social interactions were observed
at play areas than at open areas (t = 3.212, p = 0.002).
In vague space, significantly more social interactions
were observed in undefined areas than in border areas
 S.-C.L. Huang / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 193–204 201

Table 5
t-Tests of difference between the design elements within each space type
Space type Design element Levene’s test for equality t-Test for equality of
of variance mean
F Significance t Significance
Seating space Concave seating Equal variance assumed 4.018 0.049 1.616 0.111
Convex seating Equal variance not assumed 2.260 0.029*
Scenic space Visual focus Equal variance assumed 0.051 0.823 −1.566 0.122
Plant Equal variance not assumed −1.612 0.114
Circulation space Node Equal variance assumed 0.013 0.911 −5.571 0.000***
Route Equal variance not assumed −5.571 0.000***
Activity space Play area Equal variance assumed 6.460 0.013 3.212 0.002**
Open area Equal variance not assumed 3.212 0.002**
Vague space Undefined area Equal variance assumed 28.253 0.000 6.628 0.000***
Border area Equal variance not assumed 6.628 0.000***
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.
*** p < 0.001.

(t = 6.628, p = 0.000). In other words, more social inter-
actions were evoked at concave seating, route, play
area, and undefined area than their counterparts within
each space type.
7. Discussion
The findings indicated that there was little differ-
ence in the percentages of social interaction for HsinYi
Housing, NienJen Housing, and DaAn Housing. Over-
all, the average percentage of social interaction is
15.63%. The low percentage reflects the phenomenon
of social withdrawal among the residents of urban high-
rise housing in Taipei, Taiwan, as reported by Lin
(1988). Among the five space types, scenic and activity
spaces can support more social interaction. In a further
examination of the 10 design elements, visual focus,
plant, play area, and open area can encourage more
social behavior.
Looking at each space type, circulation space
exceeds the rest of the space types regarding the quan-
tity of social interaction. The findings confirm the
notion that the chance for social interaction increases
as the opportunity for physical contact rises (Ebbesen
et al., 1976). However, the percentage of social interac-
tion in circulation space is only 13.11% and ranks the
last among the five spaces. The research results suggest
that weak social ties established through the course of
recurring visual contacts (Granovetter, 1973; Green-
baum, 1982) within circulation space do not promote
social behavior. Although circulation spaces comprise
a great portion of the site, they are not better than the
other space types in enhancing social behavior due to
their transitional character and linear pattern. The find-
ing is supported by the notion of Abu-Ghazzeh (1999)
that it is the layout of space, not the amount of space,
that decides the use of the area. In addition, a higher
percentage of social interaction is observed on nodes
rather than on routes. Compared with routes, nodes
are relatively more spacious, allowing people to stop
temporarily and act without severely interfering move-
ment, and are more suitable for social behavior to take
place.
Among the five spaces, seating space ranks third
in terms of the percentage of social interaction. Based
on the findings, seating spaces are not a great stimulus
in facilitating social interaction. The results seem to be
contradictory to research results in the past (Gehl, 1987;
Carr et al., 1992). It should be noted that in this study
concave seating and convex seating are both included
in seating space as design elements. In a further look
at these two elements, the findings suggest that the
percentage of social interaction is greater at concave
seating than at convex seating. Such results confirm
the importance of seating arrangement as recognized
202 S.-C.L. Huang / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 193–204
by Campbell and Campbell (1988) and Cooper Marcus
et al. (1990). In other words, concave seating reflects
the qualities of ‘socialpetal’ (Osmond, 1957).
In scenic space, the percentage of social interaction
in scenic space ranks first. Therefore, the importance of
scenic space in encouraging social interaction is found
and supported by the findings of Sherrod (1977) and
Nasar (1994) that attractive environments affect behav-
ior and enhance social interaction.
In activity space, the percentage of social interac-
tion in activity space ranks second. The effectiveness
of activity space in facilitating social interaction is
supported. Among the five spaces, activity spaces are
relatively more spacious and playful. As children gen-
erally prefer spending time outdoors (Moore, 1986), the
existence of open areas or recreational equipment in the
outdoor space tend to attract children to play. In addi-
tion, the findings show that significantly more social
interactions are observed at play areas than at open
areas. In other words, as the opportunity for children
to play increases, so do the social interactions among
the children and their supervisors. The same occur-
rence was also found by Cooper Marcus and Sarkissian
(1986).
Among the five spaces, the percentage of social
interaction in vague space ranks fourth indicating the
ineffectiveness of vague space in stimulating social
behavior. The result confirms that Kaplan et al. (1989).
Basically, undefined areas do not have a strong environ-
mental character and normally will not impress their
perceivers. Border areas are excellent for territorial
surveillance, but their peripheral character and spatial
limitations make social interaction difficult. The find-
ings show that the percentage of social interaction in
border areas ranks last among the 10 design elements.
Such a result confirms the belief that the overuse of ter-
ritorial markers promotes social isolation and results in
the breakdown of social relationship (Unger and Wan-
dersman, 1983).
Based on the findings of the study, some princi-
ples are proposed for the design of outdoor interac-
tion spaces for urban high-rise housing. The design
of pedestrian circulation should reflect functional con-
cerns such as accessibility and width, but also con-
sider social possibility. The provision of recesses along
pedestrian routes enables users to stay temporarily on
routes and interact without blocking the movement of
others. In addition, the layout of seating plays a cru-
cial role in affecting users’ social behavior. Generally,
concave seating allows facial contact and encourages
interaction. Convex seating makes facial contacts dif-
ficult and discourages socializing. In designing scenic
spaces, the choice of landscape elements is important.
Plants, water features, and sculptures in the outdoor
spaces add visual interest to harsh urban environments.
They can attract people to stay in the places and stim-
ulate their conversation. In designing activity spaces,
flexibility and playfulness are the major concerns. Spa-
cious open areas such as plazas can accommodate more
users at the same time and facilitate a variety of activi-
ties. In addition, playgrounds containing recreational
facilities, especially those attractive to children, are
more likely to make their custodians interact. Finally,
the integration of space types and design elements can
intensify the outcomes in supporting social behavior.
For instance, concave seating areas next to plants, close
to activity spaces, and with water features or art works
within visual distance can provide the users of the seat-
ing facility with shade, events, and aesthetic quality,
and greatly help to evoke interaction.
Further research is warranted. Due to the limit of
observation method, the demographic data could not
be obtained in detail. The use of questionnaire sur-
veys or interviews should be able to find out more
about the social behavior among residents with dif-
ferent socio-economic backgrounds. In addition, some
observational results can be further explored, such as
the differences in observation patterns between week-
days and weekends and between different periods of
time of day, and the differences of user groups regard-
ing specific space and certain time of day.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to the committee boards of
DaAn Housing, NienJen Housing, and HsinYi Housing
for their permission to conduct this research at their
properties. The author also thanks the reviewers of the
paper for their valuable comments.
References
Abu-Ghazzeh, T.M., 1999. Housing layout, social interaction, and
the place of contact in Abu-Nuseir, Jordan. J. Environ. Psychol.
19, 41–73.
 S.-C.L. Huang / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 193–204
Archea, J., 1977. The place of architectural factors in behavioral
theories of privacy. J. Soc. Issues 33, 116–138.
Bechtel, R., 1977. Enclosing Behavior. Hutchinson & Ross, Strouds-
burg, PA.
Bonnes, M., Secchiaroli, G., 1995. Environmental Psychology—A
Psychosocial Introduction. Sage, London.
Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M., Limb, M., 1988. People, parks and the
urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for open
areas in the city. Urban Stud. 23 (August), 455–473.
Campbell, D.E., Campbell, T.A., 1988. A new look at informal
communication—the role of the physical environment. Environ.
Behav. 20 (2), 211–226.
Canter, D., 1977. The Psychology of Place. Architectural Press, Lon-
don.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G., Stone, M., 1992. Public Space.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chen, Y.-J., 1997. An analysis of expected housing demand elasticity
in Taiwan area. J. City Plann. 24 (2), 193–209.
Coley, R.L., Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 1997. Where does commu-
nity grow? The social context created by nature in urban public
housing. Environ. Behav. 29 (4), 468–494.
Cooper Marcus, C., Francis, C., Russell, R., 1990. Urban plazas. In:
Cooper Marcus, C., Francis, C. (Eds.), People Places—Design
Guidelines for Urban Open Space. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, pp. 9–64.
Cooper Marcus, C., Sarkissian, W., 1986. Housing As If People Mat-
tered. University of California Press, Berkeley.
DePooter, S., 1997. Nature and Neighbors: Green Spaces
and Social Interactions in the Inner City. Master Thesis.
Landscape Architecture, The University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign.
Dillman, J., Dillman, D., 1987. Private outside space as a factor in
housing acceptability. Hous. Soc. 14 (1), 20–29.
Ebbesen, E.B., Kjos, G.L., Konecni, V.J., 1976. Spatial ecology: its
effects on the choice of friends and enemies. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
12, 505–518.
Evans, G.W., Lepore, S.J., 1993. Household crowding and social
support: a quasi-experimental analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65,
308–316.
Evans, G.W., Palsane, M., Lepore, S.J., Martin, J., 1989. Residential
density and psychological health: the mediating effects of social
support. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 994–999.
Fleming, R., Baum, A., Singer, J.E., 1985. Social support and the
physical environment. In: Cohen, S., Syme, S.L. (Eds.), Social
Support and Health. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 327–
345.
Francis, M., 1987. Urban open area. In: Zube, E., Moore, G. (Eds.),
Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, vol. 1. Plenum,
New York, pp. 71–106.
Gärling, T., Golledge, R.G., 1989. Environmental perception and
cognition. In: Zube, E., Moore, G. (Eds.), Advances in Environ-
ment, Behavior, and Design, vol. 2. Plenum Press, New York, pp.
203–236.
Gehl, J., 1986. “Soft edges” in residential streets. Scand. Hous. Plann.
Res. 3, 89–102.
Gehl, J., 1987. The Life Between Buildings. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
203
Granovetter, M., 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Soc. 78,
1360–1380.
Greenbaum, S.D., 1982. Bridging ties at the neighborhood level. Soc.
Netw. 4, 367–384.
Harrison, C.M., 1983. Countryside recreation and London’s urban
fringe. Transport. Inst. Brit. Geogr. 8, 295–311.
Howell, S., Epp, G., Reizenstein, J.E., Alberight, C., 1976. Shared
Spaces in Housing for the Elderly. MIT Department of Architec-
ture, Boston, MA.
Hu, Z.-F., 1989. A Study of Taipei Residents’ Housing Choices and
Affordability. Master Thesis. Department of Land Economics,
National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Huang, S.-C.L., 1998. A Study of People’s Perception of Water-
scapes in Built Environments. Doctoral dissertation. Department
of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M
University, College Station.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Brown, T., 1989. Environmental preference:
a comparison of four domains of predictors. Environ. Behav. 21
(5), 509–530.
Keane, C., 1991. Socioenvironmental determinants of community
formation. Environ. Behav. 23 (1), 27–46.
Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Coley, R.L., Brunson, L., 1998. Fertile
ground for community: innercity neighborhood common spaces.
Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 26 (6), 823–851.
Kweon, B.-S., Sullivan, W.C., Wiley, A.R., 1998. Green common
spaces and the social integration of inner-city older adults. Env-
iron. Behav. 30 (6), 832–858.
Lee, C.Y., 1978. A Study of the Outdoor Spaces of Cluster Housing
in Taiwan. Master Thesis. Architecture, National Cheng Kung
University, Tainan, Taiwan, ROC.
Lepore, S.J., Evans, G.W., Schneider, M.L., 1991. Dynamic
role of social support in the link between chronic stress
and psychological distress. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 61, 899–
909.
Lin, G.-W., 1988. A Comparison of the Relationships among Resi-
dents Living in Apartments with Escalator and without Escalator.
Master Thesis. Department of Architecture, Chung Yuan Chris-
tian University, Taiwan.
Moore, R.C., 1986. Childhood’s Domain. Croom Helm, London.
Nasar, J.L., 1994. Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative qual-
ities of building exteriors. Environ. Behav. 26 (5), 377–
401.
Newman, O., 1973. Defensible Space. Collier, New York.
Osmond, H., 1957. Functions as the basis of psychiatric ward design.
Ment. Hosp. (Architectural Supplement) 8, 23–29.
Sherrod, D.R., 1977. Environmental attention, affect, and altruism.
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 7, 359–371.
Skjaeveland, O., Gärling, T., 1997. Effects of interactional space on
neighbouring. J. Environ. Psychol. 17, 181–198.
Tognoli, J., 1987. Residential environments. In: Stokols, D., Altman,
I. (Eds.), The Handbook of Environmental Psychology. Wiley,
New York, pp. 655–690.
Tseng, P.-Y., 1994. Primary exploration of housing affordability in
metropolitan area. J. City Plann. 21 (2), 173–190.
Unger, D.G., Wandersman, A., 1983. Neighboring and its role in
block organizations: an exploratory report. Am. J. Commun. Psy-
chol. 11, 291–300.
204 S.-C.L. Huang / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 193–204

Unger, D.G., Wandersman, A., 1985. The importance of neighbors:
the social, cognitive, and affective components of neighboring.
Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 13, 139–169.
Wang, M.S., Chien, H.T., 1999. Environmental behavior analysis of
high-rise building areas in Taiwan. Build. Environ. 34, 85–93.
Whyte, W.H., 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. The
Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.
Zito, J.M., 1974. Anonymity and neighboring in an urban, high-rise
complex. Urban Life Cult. 3 (3), 243–263.

View publication stats