Kişisel Mekân Teorisi

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 22, 57 - 69, 31.12.2020

Çevirmen: Merve Feyza Ergan

https://doi.org/10.16950/iujad.826715

Cited By: 1

Öz

In landscape architecture schools, design and implementation practice plays an important role in the education of students. The theory is in an intricate communication with disciplines that focus on people, understand how they interact with their environment and how they are affected by their environment. Theories help improve the ability to see and interpret works of landscape architecture. This is an invaluable skill for anyone as a student, designer, landscape architect, and member of the design community, which is also an intellectual community. Personal space theory, also known as proxemics, is the study of how people use the physical space that surrounds their bodies. The Personal Space Theory section of the book Creating Great Places: Evidence-based Urban Design for Health and Wellbeing, written by Debra Flanders Cushing, Evonne Miller, which reveals the quality and quantity of the theory and theory that are essential for design and practice, has been translated, and its introduction to the literature was thought to be useful.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Personal Space Theory, Proxemics, Urban Design

Kaynakça

• Barefoot, J., Hoople, H. & McClay, D. (1972). Avoidance of an Act which Would Violate Personal Space. Psychonomic Science 28(4): 205–206.
• Cushing, D. F., & Miller, E. (2019). Creating Great Places. New York: Routledge.
• Easterbrook, M. J. & Vignoles, V. L (2014). When Friendship Formation Goes Down the Toilet: Design Features of Shared Accommodation Influence Interpersonal Bonds and Well-being, British Journal of Social Psychology 54(1): 125–139.
• Festinger, L., Schachter, S. & Back, K. (1950). Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. Oxford: Harper.
• Gehry, F. (2004). Reflections on Designing and Architectural Practice. In R. J. Boyland & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as Designing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 19–35.
• Gessaroli, E., Santelli, E., di Pellegrino, G. & Frassinetti, F. (2013). Personal Space Regulation in Childhood Autism Spectrum Disorders. PLoS ONE 8(9): e74959.
• Graziano, M. (2018). The Spaces Between Us: A Story of Neuroscience, Evolution,and Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hall, E. (1959).The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday
• Hall, E. (1963). A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior. American Anthropologist 65(5): 1003–1026.
• Hall, E. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday.
• Harth, A. (2007). Open Space and Gender: Gender-Sensitive Open-Space Planning. German Journal of Urban Studies 46(1). Retrieved from www.difu.de/publikationen/open-space-and-gendergender-sensitive-open-space.html
• Hediger, H. (1950). Wild Animals in Captivity. London: Butterworths Scientific Publications.
• Herrington, S. (2017). Landscape Theory in Design. New York: Routledge.
• Jorgensen, A. & Licka, L. (2012). Anti-planning, Anti-design? Exploring Alternative Ways of Making Future Urban Landscapes. In A.
• Jorgensen & R. Keenan (Eds.), Urban Wildscapes. New York: Routledge, 221–236.
• Lawson, B. (2001). The Language of Space. New York: Routledge.
• Middlemist, R. Knowles, E. & Matter, C. F. (1976). Personal Space Invasions in the Lavatory: Suggestive Evidence for Arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33(5): 541–546.
• Nussbaumer, L. (2013). Human Factors in the Built Environment. London: Fairchild Books.
• Ozdemir, A. (2008). Shopping Malls: Measuring Interpersonal Distance under Changing Conditions and across Cultures. Field Methods 20: 226–248.
• Sommer, R. (1969). Personal Space; the Behavioral Basis of Design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
• Sorokowska, A. et al. (2017). Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A Global Comparison.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 48(4): 577–592.
• URL-1, (2020). https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teori, (accessed in: 09.10.2020), (In Turkish).