Fases de la implantación

‘Residential environment’ is a term that encompasses home, housing, neighbourhood and community (Tognoli, 1987). It includes places such as homes, streets, and parks , and their users from children, to the elderly, both women and men, whose basic needs are fulfilled by living in the environment (Niezabitowski, 1987, Gifford et al., 2011). Places differ in scale and one may feel emotionally attached to the relatively small scale of one’s room, one’s apartment, or one’s building, up to one’s neighbourhood, district, city and country (Lewicka, 2010). Since the 1970s, the concept of place has become a useful theoretical lens for researchers into housing attempting to analyse people’s interactions with their physical environment such as their homes and neighbourhoods (Moore, 2000; Easthope, 2004) as it goes beyond from its physicality. Homes are not dwellings/houses it encompasses social relations, experiences, and memories.

Heidegger (1971) considers the relationship between place and the concept of ‘dwelling’, Bachelard (1964) calls home as a haven and individual’s corner of the world and many geographers and phenomenologists in the 1970s (Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1977, 1980; Seamon, 1979; Buttimer, 1980 cited in Moore, 2000) connect home to the concept of place to explain human bonds to their homes, emphasising this connection to explain home as an entity beyond its locality and physical structure (Altman & Gauvain, 1981; Gurney, 1990; Benjamin & Stea, 1995; Lawrence, 1995; Rapoport, 1995; Somerville, 1997; Chapman & Hockey, 1999 cited in Moore, 2000).

Phenomenology makes home the primary and central point from which the rest of the world is experienced and defined (Case, 1996 cited in Moore, 2000, p.209)

Since the 1990s, home as a place has been studied more than ever, extending beyond its physical structure to focus on its social, cultural and emotive characteristics (Sixsmith, 1986; Giuliani & Feldman, 1993; Moore, 2000; Easthope, 2004). Place theory assists many scholars to explain an individual’s and a community’s psychological needs and their well-being in relation to their homes and neighbourhood (Easthope, 2004). Individuals’

social networks within a community as well as their housing preferences can be studied in depth when home [neighbourhood] is seen as places (Easthope, 2004).

In the literature on place theory can be found compilations of lists of meanings that people use to speak of their home. The first comprehensive list belongs to Hayward (1975) who includes home as a physical structure;

home as territory; home as locus in space; home as self and self-identity, and home as a social and cultural unit (Moore, 2000). Tognoli (1987) also lists and links the concept of home to centrality; continuity; privacy; self-expression, personal identity, and social relationships. Further, Despres (1991) develops ten general meanings or ‘interpretations’ of home based on four categories which are the territorial interpretation, the psychological interpretation, the socio-psychological interpretation, phenomenological and developmental interpretation (Despres ,1991).

The ten general meanings are:

1) home as security and control,

2) home as reflection of ones’ ideas and values, 3) home as acting upon and modifying one’s dwelling;

4) home as permanence and continuity;

5) home as relationships with family and friends;

6) home as centre of activities;

7) home as a refuge from the outside world, 8) home as an indicator of personal status, 9) home as material structure and

10) home as a place to own.

In terms of the four categories, territorial interpretation suggests that there is a boundary which marks a place owned by a person or a group (Altman, 1975), and outcomes of territorial satisfaction are security and control (Porteous, 1976; Sebba & Curchman, 1986). The psychological interpretation views home as a symbol of one’s ideas and values, as an expression of self (Appleyard, 1979a, 1979b; Werner et al., 1988) and as a place of refuge when it fulfils its role of providing privacy (Finighan, 1980).

The socio-psychological interpretation refers to the materials and physical character of a home, the interior such as decorations, and exterior such as landscaping, aspects which interpret the owner’s lifestyle, culture, family status and, personality (Appleyard, 1979a, 1979b; Rapoport, 1981; Duncan et al.,1985). Phenomenological and developmental interpretations theorise dwelling as a natural environment transformed into a home in the context of everyday life (Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1977; Dovey, 1985; Korosec-Serfaty, 1985).

The following table (Figure 3.4) was prepared by the author to link the meanings of home to the different interpretation categories along with relevant theorists. It shows that categories are interrelated and for instance

‘home as a refuge’ can be studied under two interpretation categories, psychological and phenomenological.

Contexts Territorial author also added the relevant literature to each category)

Furthermore, Moore (2000) set three categories for meanings of home:

1) cultural, linguistic and historical context;

2) philosophical and phenomenological context;

3) and psychological context.

The categories indicate that understandings and meanings of the concept of home transcend the material characteristics of domestic space (Lawrence, 1995; see also Altman & Gauvain, 1981 cited in Moore, 2000). Home is a concept too complex to be defined explicitly (Benjamin, 1995) as it is ambiguous (Lawrence, 1995) and confusing (Rapoport, 1995 cited in Moore,

2000). In attempting to define home, Benjamin (1995m p.158 cited in Moore, 2000) separates the physical character of a home from its socio-cultural context, the phenomenological and psychological meaning of home:

The home is that spatially localised, temporally defined, significant and autonomous physical frame and conceptual system for the ordering, transformation and interpretation of the physical and abstract aspects of domestic daily life … (Benjamin, 1995, p. 158)

While home as a place refers to physical characteristics, its socio-cultural context carries its meaning. The meaning of home in history and literature encompasses country or birthplace and land as well as symbolic meanings such as happiness; belonging; death, the end of life's journey (Moore, 2000).

Since the early 19^th century its poetic meanings took in the concept’s psychological and phenomenological dimensions of considering home as a domestic hearth, as can be seen in Jane Austen’s novel Emma of 1815:

‘There is nothing like staying at home for real comfort’ (cited in Moore, 2000 p.209). According to Tognoli (1987, p658), home is ‘a pivotal point around which human activity revolves’, Lewicka (2011) expounds its meaning as ownership and as symbolizing family life and happiness, the most preferred place on individuals’ evaluative maps (Foland & Lewicka, 2007).

Home includes concepts such as privacy, refuge, security and comfort, a retreat from the outside world (Relph, 1976; Semon, 1979; Tognoli, 1987;

Case, 1996; Cooper Marcus, 2006). As such it is a symbol of self-identification and personalization where individual choice is embraced and expressed (Norberg-Schulz, 1971, 1980; Dovey, 1978 cited in Tognoli, 1987). It therefore provides a sense of identity; it contains a landscape of memories (Rowles, 1983, p. 114; Rowles and Watkins, 2003 cited in Wahl and Oswald, 2010, p.115), a continuity connecting people with their past (Bachelard, 1969; Dovey, 1978, and Tuan, 1977 cited in Tognoli, 1987). It is a symbol of unity, order, ritual and sacredness (Bachelard, 1969; Sommer, 1972, and Dovey, 1978 cited in Tognoli, 1987). From this broad array of

definitions, we can see that it has a sociocultural context (Rapoport, 1968 cited in Sebba & Churchman, 1986, Rapoport, 1980), as well as psychological meaning (Cooper, 1974 cited in Sebba & Churchman, 1986).

Home is a physical, and cognitive concept, it is a symbol of departure and return (Tognoli, 1987), it is the central place of human existence (Bachelard, 1969; Dovey, 1978; Jung, 1963; Marc, 1977; Norberg-Schulz,1971;

Relph,1976; Tuan, 1977), a socio-spatial entity (Saunders & Williams, 1988 cited in Easthope, 2004), a psycho-social entity (Giuliani, 1991; Poteous, 1976 cited in Easthope, 2004), a whole with many layers of meaning (Rybczynski,1986), an emotive space (Giuliani, 1991; Gurney, 2000 cited in Easthope, 2004) carrying symbolic and metaphorical meanings such as:

happiness; belonging (Moore, 2000) and the product of social and political construction (Massey, 1992; Somerville, 1997 cited in Moore, 2000). It is indeed a multidimensional entity that is inseparable from the cultural core of the individual (Tognoli, 1987).

Furthermore, home and dwelling become a product, process, function, place, behaviour setting, territory, privacy, and a multidimensional entity evolving around culture imperatives (Rapaport, 1980 cited in Tognoli, 1987, p.664).

Culture in Rapaport’s (1980) work refers to cognitive and symbolic meanings or life-style. It means inhabitants are perceived as having control over their setting when they achieve congruence between life style and their home and neighbourhood (Tognoli, 1987)⁷. Studying home as a person-environment system and a multidimensional entity extends the investigation beyond its physical features and brings other concepts such as neighbourhood and community into the research. Lewicka, (2011) also indicates that the scale of home varies, it may be very narrow, or it may reach into neighbourhood. With this in mind, the following section discusses neighbourhood.

7 Achieving harmony, or congruence in a residential setting is crucial in the perception of an individual. For instance, through the concept of the perceived homogeneity of neighbourhoods, it is assumed that stress and conflicts are reduced and predictability is increased, leading to a coherent character (Tognoli, 1987).