The impact of socio-cultural factors on the transformation of house layout: a case of public housing - Zebdeh-Farkouh, in Jordan

Figures & data

Table 1. Transformation forms.

Categories of Transformation		Prototype A	Prototype B	Prototype C	General Observations
1. Covering balconies	a. One balcony	23 %	28 %	19 %
	b. Both balconies	51 %	27 %	20 %
2. Addition of a private entrance		16 %	16 %	22 %
3. Enlargement of the floor area	a. Living room side	5 %	2 %	8 %
	b. Kitchen side	3 %	0 %	5 %
4. Enlargement of balconies/ terraces.		20 %	16 %	25 %

Figure 1. (a) Internal plans of housing units, (b) Zebdeh-Farkouh public housing master plan, (c) Different forms of layout transformations.

Figure 2. Housing units transformation.

Figure 3. Transformations typology.

Table 2. Dependent and independent variables.

1- Internal layout (dependent variable)
Factor	Operational Definition	Items
Functional aspects (ILF)	This variable depicts the house’s spaces and the activities that take place within them, as well as the extent to which these activities match the functions of the spaces.	Guest hosted in the guests’ room. Family members gather in the living room. Family members like to cat food in dining spaces. Family members sleep in bedrooms. Each member like to have his own bedroom. The balcony is used for outdoor seating. Boys in my family have their own bedrooms. Girls in my family have their own bedrooms. The home has a service zone (laundry room, storage, etc.)
User’s satisfaction (ILS)	It was addressed by the appropriateness of internal layout for its occupants in terms of sufficient spaces, security, privacy, space usage patterns, satisfaction with values and beliefs, and satisfying with climatic conditions.	Suitability of home-style with occupant lifestyle Suitability of home spaces with values and beliefs. Suitability of home with climatic circumstances. Preference to have additional spaces in home. The level of sound isolation between rooms. Satisfaction with: The number and size of rooms. The spatial arrangement of spaces. Entrance and main hall design. Terraces/balconies design and size Arrangement of transitional zones and corridors.
2- Socio-cultural factors (independent variables)
Factor	Operational Definition	Items
Social role (SR)	This variable was assessed by the frequency of interaction and engagement with social activities.	Participation in neighborhood events. Joining neighborhood associations. Family members’ participation in neighborhood occasions. Participation in solving issues related to the neighborhood.
Social network (SN)	This variable was evaluated based on the strength of social relationships with neighbors and social structure.	Knowing all neighbor’s names. Personal relationships with neighbors. Asking neighbors for a favor. Family kids play with neighborhoods kids
Hospitality (HO):	It was assessed by the need for generous reception and entertainment zone.	Sharing same hospitality values as neighborhood residents Having a special space to host guests. liking to host neighbors in the guest room. Hosting relatives and close friends in semi-public areas such as the living room.
Gender segregation (GS):	This variable was evaluated by identifying the level of segregation between males and females. More individualism means more segregation.	Sharing the same Gender segregation values as neighbors Being conservative and support gender segregation values. Liking to have different guest rooms for males and females. Preference to have separated bedrooms for girls and boys. Preference of female members to have a special rest place Preference of male members to have a special place to rest.
Safety (SF):	This variable was assessed by the condition of feeling being protected from any cause of danger or risk for different family members.	Family children play safely outside of the home. The boundaries of the neighborhood are safe. No experience with any type of crime. Neighbors tackled anti-social behavior and vandalism action in the neighborhood.
Privacy (PR):	This variable was measured by the amount of avoiding visual contact between different zones. It can also be tested through the openness\ closeness of the floor plan.	Privacy consideration in home through dividing it into a public zone for guests\ semi-public for living\ private for bedrooms. Each member of the family has his/ her own private spaces. Preference to have special entrances for guests. Privacy consideration in the guest room. Privacy consideration in the living room. Privacy consideration in the kitchen. Privacy consideration in private zones (bedrooms).

Table 3. Regression analysis for the impact of socio-cultural factors.

1. Functional Aspect of Internal Layout
Variables	Standardized Coefficient β (Beta)	R square	Sig.
Social Role (SR)	0.411	0.169	0.000
Social Network (SN)	0.503	0.253	0.000
Hospitality (HO)	0.451	0.203	0.000
Gender Segregation (GS)	0.634	0.402	0.000
Safety (SF)	0.445	0.198	0.000
Privacy (PR)	0.629	0.396	0.000
2. Users’ Satisfaction of Internal Layout
Variables	Standardized Coefficient β (Beta)	R square	Sig.
Social Role (SR)	0.394	0.155	0.000
Social Network (SN)	0.537	0.289	0.000
Hospitality (HO)	0.371	0.138	0.000
Gender Segregation (GS)	0.491	0.241	0.000
Safety (SF)	0.452	0.204	0.000
Privacy (PR)	0.473	0.224	0.000

Table 4. Result analysis based on units’ prototype.

Independent Variables	Unit prototype	Mean	Test of Homogeneity of Variances (Sig.)	ANOVA (Sig.)
Social Role (SR)	A B C Total	3.9329 4.0200 3.7929 3.9059	0.619	0.054
Social Network (SN)	A B C Total	3.8171 3.7150 3.8429 3.8007	0.630	0.164
Hospitality (HO)	A B C Total	3.9726 3.8950 3.9607 3.9493	0.526	0.652
Gender Segregation (GS)	A B C Total	4.2317 4.1267 3.9881 4.1213	0.561	0.009
Safety (SF)	A B C Total	3.6707 3.6500 3.8071 3.7129	0.270	0.056
Privacy (PR)	A B C Total	4.0412 4.0800 4.0429 4.0514	0.325	0.904
Dependent Variables	Unit prototype	Mean	Test of Homogeneity of Variances (Sig.)	ANOVA (Sig.)
Functional Aspect (ILF)	A B C Total	4.1387 4.1425 4.1929 4.1584	0.822	0.749
User’s Satisfaction (ILS)	A B C Total	3.8201 3.8900 3.7482 3.8125	0.618	0.247

Table 5. Stepwise model summary.

Hypothesis 1: Relationship between Socio-Cultural factors and Functional Aspect of Internal Layout
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	F Change	Sig. F Change
1	0.654^a	0.427	0.424	149.171	0.000
2	0.731^b	0.535	0.530	45.900	0.000
3	0.766^c	0.586	0.580	24.818	0.000
4	0.775^d	0.600	0.592	6.735	0.010
5	0.781^e	0.610	0.600	4.748	0.031
a. Predictors: (Constant), GS b. Predictors: (Constant), GS, PR c. Predictors: (Constant), GS, PR, SN d. Predictors: (Constant), GS, PR, SN, HO e. Predictors: (Constant), GS, PR, SN, HO, SF f. Dependent Variable: IL
Hypothesis 2: Relationship between Socio-Cultural factors and Users’ Satisfaction of Internal Layout
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	F Change	Sig. F Change
1	0.540^a	0.292	0.288	82.291	0.000
2	0.608^b	0.370	0.363	24.688	0.000
3	0.631^c	0.399	0.390	9.519	0.002
4	0.649^d	0.421	0.409	7.611	0.006
5	0.659^e	0.434	0.420	4.550	0.034
a. Predictors: (Constant), SN b. Predictors: (Constant), SN, PR c. Predictors: (Constant), SN, PR, SF d. Predictors: (Constant), SN, PR, SF, GS e. Predictors: (Constant), SN, PR, SF, GS, SR f. Dependent Variable: SU