Interpreting Vernacular Settlements Using the Spatial Behavior Concept

Abstract

Villages are traditional settlements accommodating the different cultural infrastructures of the society, and those are where traditional culture can best be observed. The authentic settlement patterns that vary depending on culture are an important input. Houses and their immediate surroundings are the places that most reflect the lifestyle, culture and social understanding of the people who use them and are shaped by their spatial behavior. The social structure of the society can be read by examining the morphology of the settlements through their varying spatial behavior. The hierarchical structure of the space emerges as a result of the spatial behavior types that regulate the relationships of people and their environment, with the phenomena of privacy and territoriality reflected in the physical space. Therefore, syntactic and morphological studies were conducted in five rural settlements composed of different cultural communities in Düzce, with the aim of showing how spatial behavior leads to the morphology of the settlements. Privacy and territoriality were examined in terms of spatial behavior, and GIS and space syntax methods were used to examine the morphological and syntactic properties of the settlements. In conclusion, spatial behaviors were seen as effective in the morphology of the settlements, and the physical structure of the space in all settlement contexts was affected by the social context. According to the five samples, the most important expression of territoriality in traditional settlements is the structure of the street layout. This layout in villages leads to the spatial hierarchy that creates a sense of place. 

Keywords

• Privacy,Spatial behavior,Space syntax,Settlement morphology,Territorial behavior

References

1. Gökçe, D. and Chen, F., “Does typological Process Help to Build a Sense of Place?” Urban Morphology, 20 (1): 66–69, (2016).
2. [2] Rapoport, A., Human Aspects of Urban Form, Oxford, Pergamon Press, (1977).
3. [3] Rapoport, A., Human Behaviour and Environment, Volume 4, Environment and Culture, Plenum Press, New York, (1980), pp. 9-39.
4. [4] Rapoport, A., The Meaning of The Built Environment, A Non-verbal Communication Approach, The University of Arizona Press, Arizona, (1990), pp. 101-122.
5. [5] Rapoport, A., House Form and Culture, Prentice -Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1969).
6. [6] Lefebvre, H., The Production of Space, Blackwell, Cambridge, USA, (1991).
7. [7] Hillier, B., Space Is the Machine, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1996).
8. [8] Gökçe, D. and Chen, F., “A Methodological Framework for Defining Typological Process: The Transformation of the Residential Environment in Ankara, Turkey”, Journal of Urban Design, 24(3): 469-493, (2019).

9. [9] Hillier, B. and Hanson, J., The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1984).
10. [10] Gökçe, D. and Chen, F., “Sense of Place in the Changing Process of House Form: Case Studies from Ankara, Turkey”, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(4): 772-796, (2018).
11. [11] Gündoğdu, M., “Mekan Dizimi Analiz Yöntemi ve Araştirma Konulari”, Art-Sanat Dergisi, 2: 252-274, (2014).
12. [12] Altman, I. and Chemers, M., “Territorial Behavior”, in: Altman, I., Stokols, D. and Wrightsman, L.S. (eds.), Culture and Environment, Cole Publishing Company, California, (1984), pp. 120-152.
13. [13] Brower, S N., “Territory in Urban Settings”, in: Altman, I., Rapoport, A., Wohlwill, J. F. (eds.), Human Behavior and Environment, Springer, New York and Plenum Press, London, (1980), pp. 179-207.
14. [14] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/boundary
15. [15] Göregenli, M., Çevre Psikolojisi - İnsan Mekan İlişkileri, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, Istanbul, (2010).
16. [16] Ünlü, A., Çevresel Tasarımda İlk Kavramlar, İ.T.U Mimarlık Fakültesi Baskı Atölyesi, Istanbul, (1998), pp. 28-30.
17. [17] Lang, J., “Privacy, Territoriality, and Personal Space-Proxemic Theory”, in: Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of The Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, (1987), pp 135-165.
18. [18] Çil, E., “Bir Kent Okuma Aracı Olarak Mekan Dizim Analizinin Kuramsal ve Yöntemsel Tartışması”, Megaron, YTÜ Mim. Fak. E-Dergisi, 1(4): 218-233, (2006).
19. [19] Yerlikaya, T.E., “Akçakoca Yöresi”, unpublished thesis, Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi Fen ve Edebiyat Fakültesi, Lefkoşa, (2011).
20. [20] Özsoy, N., “Çerkez ve Abazaların Düzce’de İskânı ve Kurulan Yeni Yerleşimler”, II. Uluslararası Düzce’de Tarih, Kültür ve Sanat Sempozyumu, 11-12 Aralık 2015, Düzce Belediyesi, İstanbul, 372-389, (2016).