Understanding the Physical-Spatial Characteristics of Behavior Settings in Low-Income Housing (CaseStudy: Panjtan Neighborhood in Mashhad)

Background and Objectives: Following the rapid growth of urbanization, providing housing for low-income groups is considered one of the most important issues. Most of the projects that have been implemented for this group so far are not at an acceptable level in terms of quality. In affordable residential environments, given the limitations related to the size of residential units, the success of designers depends on prioritizing the needs of users instead of making decisions based on individual preferences. On the other hand, the layout of each space can affect the behavior of its residents. Therefore, paying attention to the system of activities and behavior settings in the housing of low-income groups, especially by considering cultural differences, becomes more necessary. According to previous studies, the factors affecting the organization of behavior settings are divided into two categories: physical-spatial and cultural, with culture influencing the physical-spatial factor. On the other hand, the organization of behavior settings is carried out by identifying the components of the two factors mentioned, first, the components of the physical-spatial environment including spatial layout and fixed and semi-fixed elements, and second, the cultural components including lifestyle, activity system, time of space use and symbolism. The present study aims to identify the physical-spatial characteristics of behavior settings and the relationship between settings in low-income housing, by examining the daily activities of individuals. In this regard, an interconnected network of physical-spatial characteristics of behavior settings based on current patterns of behavior and common activities in low-income housing was presented to better understand the designers in this housing.
Materials and Methods: Panjtan neighborhood in Mashhad Municipality Region 4 was selected due to its location at level 4 (out of 5 classified levels of socio-economic status of residents), 10 houses were studied according to their characteristics such as housing type (apartment with shared living space), ownership, land area of ​​80-120 square meters with a maximum width of 7 meters, and at least 20 years of residence. Data collection was carried out through two methods: environmental data collection (in the form of maps, sketches, photos, and videos) and unstructured (in-depth) interviews. Since human activities are organized in time (day, night, weekdays, weekends, etc.), a study of behavior settings was conducted on normal and special week days (weekend and special religious holidays). The components extracted from the seventh house interview were a repetition of the previous components and no new factor was obtained. However, 3 more interviews were conducted to fully and definitively achieve theoretical saturation. In this study, interviews were conducted multiple times with each participant at different times and events over one year to gain a proper understanding of the categories resulting from the data analysis. Data analysis was conducted through the content analysis technique. MAXQDA 2022 software was used to code and categorize the data collected from the interviews. Data coding was carried out in three stages, including open, axial, and selective coding. In the open coding stage, each of the interview statements was placed in a group according to the concept. Then, in the axial coding, common semantic units in the propositions were extracted, and in the selective coding, the main concepts of the semantic units were determined and presented in the form of the main category, which is the physical-spatial characteristic of the behavior setting.
Results and Conclusion: In line with the first objective of the study, to identify the physical-spatial characteristics of behavior settings in low-income housing, seven behavior setting groups were identified. Living room (19.7%), reception (19%), yard and roof (18.3%), kitchen (16.5%), home-based work space (11.2%), bedroom (10.4%), and front door area (4.9%), the seven behavior setting groups are identified in order of their importance according to their abundance. The findings show that the living space, with a wide range of behavior settings, including the position of family members (especially the father) to religious ceremonies, is the main center of activities in the house and plays an important role in family interactions and should have the possibility of connecting with the yard or semi-open space. Reception (integrated with living space), as a symbol of the homeowner's dignity, provides the opportunity to create activities such as family gatherings. Maintaining visual privacy in the kitchen space and being spacious are the most important features of this space. Given the living conditions of this group, a space for home-based work that has a proper connection with the living space (especially the kitchen) is one of the most important issues.
Studies have shown that behavior settings take on different characteristics due to the type of activity at different times. Therefore, the factor of being time-dependent in bases directly affects their structure. In the studied group, two basic activities, family gatherings and holding religious ceremonies on a weekly, monthly, or special occasions basis, significantly affect the physical-spatial characteristics and how bases are organized. Providing sufficient walls to lean against and arranging spaces to reduce traffic are among the design solutions that will help in the best possible formation of the two mentioned activities. Open and semi-open spaces, if there are the necessary facilities to create comfort, can be converted into living and working spaces in the warm seasons, and living space settings can be transferred to these spaces. The presence of a roofed Balcony (even with a light roof and vegetation) and its connection with the kitchen and cooking space, where the mother can also interact with others while doing work, will lead to the creation of a suitable and usable environment.
The results of the research indicate that a small change in the structure of a behavior setting can have a significant impact on the way of life and activities of residents. This work is often done in a simple but intelligent way by residents in their daily lives. Therefore, in environmental design, simple solutions can be achieved by understanding the needs and expectations of residents rather than providing complex solutions. The present study, by examining behavior settings in a group of residents over a year, provides a practical image of behavior settings to guide designers toward the right direction in design. Such work should be done in real-life environments and researchers should have direct, intimate, and long-term contact with individuals. This issue creates a limitation in generalizing the research results to other residential environments (with different conditions and populations).