How Children Describe Their House: Present vs Ideal

After online publication, subscribers (personal/institutional) to this journal will haveaccess to the complete article via the DOI using the URL:

If you would like to know when your article has been published online, take advantageof our free alert service. For registration and further information, go to:http://www.springerlink.com.

Due to the electronic nature of the procedure, the manuscript and the original figureswill only be returned to you on special request. When you return your corrections,please inform us, if you would like to have these documents returned.

Dear Author

Here are the proofs of your article.

• You can submit your corrections online, via e-mail or by fax.

• For online submission please insert your corrections in the online correction form.

Always indicate the line number to which the correction refers.

• You can also insert your corrections in the proof PDF and email the annotated PDF.

• For fax submission, please ensure that your corrections are clearly legible. Use a fine

black pen and write the correction in the margin, not too close to the edge of the page.

• Remember to note the journal title, article number, and your name when sending your

response via e-mail or fax.

• Check the metadata sheet to make sure that the header information, especially author

names and the corresponding affiliations are correctly shown.

• Check the questions that may have arisen during copy editing and insert your

answers/corrections.

• Check that the text is complete and that all figures, tables and their legends are included.

Also check the accuracy of special characters, equations, and electronic supplementary

material if applicable. If necessary refer to the Edited manuscript.

• The publication of inaccurate data such as dosages and units can have serious

consequences. Please take particular care that all such details are correct.

• Please do not make changes that involve only matters of style. We have generally

introduced forms that follow the journal’s style.

• Substantial changes in content, e.g., new results, corrected values, title and authorship are

not allowed without the approval of the responsible editor. In such a case, please contact

the Editorial Office and return his/her consent together with the proof.

• If we do not receive your corrections within 48 hours, we will send you a reminder.

• Your article will be published Online First approximately one week after receipt of your

corrected proofs. This is the official first publication citable with the DOI. Further

changes are, therefore, not possible.

• The printed version will follow in a forthcoming issue.

Please note

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12187-013-9179-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12187-013-9179-5

AUTHOR'S PROOF

Metadata of the article that will be visualized in OnlineFirst

1 Article Title How Children Describe Their Houses: Present v s. Ideal

2 Article Sub- Title

3 Article Copyright -Year

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013(This will be the copyright line in the final PDF)

4 Journal Name Child Indicators Research

5

Corresponding

Author

Family Name Gür

6 Particle

7 Given Name Şengül Öymen

8 Suffix

9 Organization Beykent University

10 Division

11 Address Istanbul, Turkey

12 e-mail [email protected]

13

Schedule

Received

14 Revised

15 Accepted 14 January 2013

16 Abstract This study examines house use, appreciation and terminologyamong children from pre-school to high school age. Data arecollected via a questionnaire and interviews formatted forpre-school age children. Age, sex, house type, family type andmother’s role are treated as variables. The results reveal that age isa significant factor underlying fundamental differences amongchildren: their perception and appreciation of the house go throughstages. When children are young (6 and under), their approach tothe house is visual and sensual, later (ages 7–14) it becomes moreobjective and materialistic, and after 15 or so it transforms,emerging in more subjective and emotional perceptions andinterpretations. In terms of house use boys and girls differsignificantly as well. These findings bear strong relevance tohousing design: Implications in that regard are extensivelyelaborated in the study. The research also concentrates on thevocabulary adopted by children in discussing houses, units ofhouses, neighborhoods and the environment. The terminologygathered via this research turns it into a set of principles to beconsidered in housing design; it paves the way for collaboratingwith children and makes possible their participation in designinghousing and its immediate environment. Furthermore, it provides

AUTHOR'S PROOF

valuable information for sociologists, psychologists and childpsychiatrists.

17 Keywordsseparated by ' - '

Children - House - Appreciation - Expectations - Vocabulary

18 Foot noteinformation

AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

123

4How Children Describe Their Houses: Present vs. Ideal

5Şengül Öymen Gür

6Accepted: 14 January 20137# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

8

9Abstract Q1This study examines house use, appreciation and terminology among10children from pre-school to high school age. Data are collected via a questionnaire11and interviews formatted for pre-school age children. Age, sex, house type, family12type and mother’s role are treated as variables. The results reveal that age is a13significant factor underlying fundamental differences among children: their percep-14tion and appreciation of the house go through stages. When children are young (6 and15under), their approach to the house is visual and sensual, later (ages 7–14) it becomes16more objective and materialistic, and after 15 or so it transforms, emerging in more17subjective and emotional perceptions and interpretations. In terms of house use boys18and girls differ significantly as well. These findings bear strong relevance to housing19design: Implications in that regard are extensively elaborated in the study. The20research also concentrates on the vocabulary adopted by children in discussing21houses, units of houses, neighborhoods and the environment. The terminology22gathered via this research turns it into a set of principles to be considered in housing23design; it paves the way for collaborating with children and makes possible their24participation in designing housing and its immediate environment. Furthermore, it25provides valuable information for sociologists, psychologists and child psychiatrists.

26Keywords Children . House . Appreciation . Expectations . Vocabulary27

281 Introduction Q2

29The rising concern for long-neglected, underprivileged segments of society such as30the elderly, children and the culturally “other” has stimulated research in urban and

Child Ind ResDOI 10.1007/s12187-013-9179-5

Ş. Ö. Gür (*)Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkeye-mail: [email protected]

Ş. Ö. Güre-mail: [email protected]

JrnlID 12187_ArtID 9179_Proof# 1 - 17/01/2013

AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

31architectural design disciplines since the 1960s. Thanks to discourses on man–32environment interactions provided by other disciplines, designers are better equipped33in this respect today. However, the literature concerning children has remained34meager. Therefore, the research embodied in this study pioneers a virgin topic:35children’s interactions with the house; the terminology adopted by them in defining36their houses; their idealizations of the house, the sort of things they wish to change37with regard to the house, and so on.38The house has been an arena of challenges and disputes since it began to be designed39for anonymous users. The life patterns assumed and facilitated by developers are often40far removed from those that unfolded in traditional detached houses in which cultural41values were sustained as a natural rule. Complications and constraints involved in social42mass housing and house patterns led to strident complaints from users starting in the43early seventies, prompting extensive research concerning housing. Nevertheless, such44research largely ignored children. The goal of the present study is to develop a deeper45understanding of children to aid both parents and architects in facilitating the participa-46tion or at least consideration of children in the house design process.

472 Dealing with Children

48Research on children’s interactions with spaces has focused on their perception,49cognition and behavior. Despite the fact that sociologists and psychologists have50provided architects with serious knowledge of the perception, cognition and behavior51of humankind in general (i.e. Barker 1968; Ittelson 1973) and of children in particular52(Piaget and Inhelder 1948; Barker et al. 1955; Mussen et al. 1963; Erikson 1963,531980; Parr 1969; Burchett 1971; Andrews 1973; Berg and Medrich 1980; Bunting54and Cousins 1985; Moore 1986, etc.); and despite the fact that affordable housing55requires intelligent research concerning user preferences and demands as these affect56the design process (Gür 1983; Drake 1984; Lawrence 1985; Wilk 1990), children’s57reactions to home environments and their participation in design decisions have58remained under-investigated in architectural research ( Q3Gür 1993a, b).59The house is an important instrument both as a commodity and as an expression of60self (Cooper 1974a). As Rapoport (1969, 1990) and many of his followers (e.g.61Oswald 1987) have shown, traditional house design reflects the meanings various62cultures attribute to the house. Cultural differences in partitioning of space mirror63those cultures’ cosmic views, beliefs, values, social norms and practices related to64privacy, territoriality, individualization, and so on (Kent 1984, Q41990a, b, =Q51991; Gür652000). Even the names of rooms connote unwritten norms for conventional uses of66these spaces (Giuliani 1987, 1991; Q6Giuliani et al. 1993; Gür 1997, 2000). The house67is so vital in human life that even its rooms (Bonnes et al. 1987) and furnishings68(Amaturo et al 1987) are participants of study.69Among the studies and discussions of houses that have burgeoned in many countries,70some have pointed to important organizational differences such as “segregating vs.71integrating” houses (Kent 1990b, 1991; Schnieder 1995; Gür 2000). Such variety makes72it compulsory for architects and decision-makers to cultivate a deep understanding of73culture-based housing preferences of users in general (Gür 1988, 1997, 2000) and of74young people in particular (Pennartz and Elsinga 1990; Gür and Zorlu 2002).

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

75Architecture–behavior research has varied in the types of physical environments it76treats. Open spaces such as sidewalks, playgrounds and neighborhood parks (Jacobs771961), neighborhoods (Berg and Daniel 1980), streets ( Q7Gür et al. 1980a, b), neigh-78borhood playgrounds (Moore 1976, 1986), landscapes (Moore and Young 1978),79way-finding behavior (Cornell and Hay 1984), remembrance of landscapes (Cooper-80Marcus 1978), and even such concepts as ecological awareness (Cohen and Horm-81Wingerd 1993), have been among the favored topics.82Schools and schoolyards have been the children-related buildings most favored for83treatment among scholars (Sebba and Churchman 1986; Manning 1967; Lehman and84Durlak 1974; Cohen and Trostle 1990; Q8Moore and Lackney 1994; Pearce 1995).85Other popular sites have been classrooms (Stebbins 1973; Nash 1981; Pearce 1995),86hospitals (Rivlin and Wolfe 1972), institutions (Tars 1972; Tars and Appleby 1973;87Mallenby 1974), care settings (Moos and Lemke 1980; Okada 1984) and housing88developments (i.e. Q9Cooper 1974a, b; Coates and Bussard 1974). Also studied have89been images of buildings, neighborhoods and towns (Bishop 1974), housing style90preferences (Nasar 1989; Devlin 1994) and so on.91The methods employed in these studies have been both direct and indirect. Indirect92methods characterized the observations developed by Barker et al. (1955), Wright93(1967) and Barker (1968) as did physical tracing techniques, which were only94secondarily used. Several scholars have observed children in various environments95and described their behavior (i.e. Opie and Opie 1969; Q10Hayward et al. 1974; Moore961976, 1986; Gür et al. 1980a, b; Gür et al 1989; Berg and Daniel 1980; Berg and97Medrich 1980; Coates and Bussard 1974; Cooper 1974a; Frost and Strickland 1985;98Gaster 1991, and Susa and Benedict 1994).99Direct techniques consist mainly of questionnaires and interviews (i.e. Andrews1001973; Bishop 1974; Bunting and Cousins 1985; Burchett 1971; Chipeniuk 1995;101Cohen and Horm-Wingerd 1993; Cohen and Trostle 1990; Herman et al 1986;102Horvatt 1974; McKechnie 1974, 1977; Mitchell and Lunneborg 1968; Nash 1981).103Autobiographies (i.e. Lukashok and Lynch 1956; Helphend 1978; Sebba 1991) and104image mapping are other direct techniques frequently employed (i.e. Q11Sanoff 1973;105Stea and Blaut 1973; Gür et al 1989).106With regard to direct methods, appropriate communication media and language are107crucially important in dealing with children. Such is the case because language and108cognition are deeply interrelated ( Q12Foucault 1994; Eco 1980; Jencks 1980). Words and109terms are value-laden and culturally biased. Only when scholars devise and adopt110proper dialogue for communicating with children can they derive meaningful inter-111pretations related to housing design. The present research aims at discerning the112terminology children employ in discussing their houses while investigating their use113of and appreciation for houses.

1143 Research

115The research described in what follows addresses the issue of the child’s use of the116house in order to derive a fuller understanding of children’s house-related choices and117to build an efficient vocabulary for deployment in future design activities. The118questions to be addressed include which rooms children study and play in as

How Children Describe Their Houses: Present vs. Ideal


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

119contingent upon gender and age; which spaces they like best and why; what things120they wish to change about their houses and why, and others. In the meantime, the121words and terms children prefer to use in expressing themselves with regard to their122houses are examined and the vocabulary and terminology they employ are diligently123analyzed and disclosed. The findings are statistically tested to discern whether such124variables as gender, age, house type, household type and mother’s social role affect125children’s preferences and terminology.126This study attested in general that Turkish children have a rich vocabulary for127describing their houses (names of open spaces; names of rooms and furniture;128components of the house such as doors, windows, thresholds, stairs, chimneys, etc.;129materials and colors of walls and floor; even the texture of house materials and130furniture). This terminology attests to the children’s attachment to their houses and131families, in general, and the significance of the house in a child’s life, in particular.132The hypotheses of the study were several:

1331. Children’s use of house space may not be that expected from them or dictated to134them under the design.1352. Preferences for spaces for various uses may change with such variables as sex136and age, and may be contingent on children having friends around.1373. The terminology adopted by children may change with such variables as age, sex,138house type, family structure and mother’s social role.

139The research was conducted between October 2008 and February 2009 in Trabzon140(an Eastern city along the Black Sea coast in Turkey). It consisted of administering a141questionnaire to a randomized cluster sample of 316 students, 40 from kindergarten142(ages 5–6), 92 from elementary school (ages 7–11), 100 from middle school (ages14312–14) and 84 from high school (ages 15–17). Six research assistants were respon-144sible for the interviews and the administration of the questionnaire.145At the pilot stage of the experiment, a group of primary school children was asked to146share an important memory from their lives. The purpose was to scan the terms they147used in describing the physical environment–house as the setting of the memory. Sebba148and Churchman (1986) have asked this question of younger children to assess the149importance of the physical environment in their lives and therefore in their memories.150However, the Turkish students were quite confused and timid when faced with this151question. Therefore, a more specific inquiry in the actual application of the questionnaire152replaced that question: “Please explain either a good or a bad event that took place in153your house.” As a corollary, a well-defined questionnaire format and a set of more154straightforward questions were selected for the actual survey (see Appendix). Due to the155difficulties involved in communicating with kindergarten children during the interviews,156this phase was the most time-consuming. Each interview lasted for about 2.5 h. The157dispositions of the participants are displayed below (Table 1).

1584 Some Notes on the Context of the Research

159Obviously, the house, the family and the children are completely entangled, so that160the situation is conditional by the case; thus, the houses of the participants and their161family structures should be clarified before proceeding with the article.

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

1624.1 Houses

163The houses referred to in this study consist of the main types of habitats presently164available in Turkey, sporadically distributed in mid-size towns. Houses inhabited by165the participants fall into one of the categories below:166Individual Houses:

1671. Traditional detached houses were once those single-family houses surrounded by168gardens on all sides. Now, due to modern planning laws and regulations, the169gardens have been opened up to building. Modern master plans have been170imposed upon the historical palimpsest. Most such houses are no longer de-171tached. Since they are too big for modern families, they have been haphazardly172split by the owners to be leased in some neighborhoods. Nevertheless, most such173houses are still used by single families. They are made of timber and adobe filling174in the location of this research.1752. Modern detached houses are those built in the suburbs or outskirts of the city.176They are typically called “villas”. However, unlike Italian Renaissance villas,177they are rather small, built on a 60–80 m2 ground floor and consisting of two178stories with or without an attic.1793. The third type of individual family house in Turkey is squatter housing. Before180each governmental election, these houses, once built on public property, are

t1:1 TableQ19 1 Subject profiles

t1:2 Variables Frequency (%)

t1:3 Gender Female 163 48.0

t1:4 Male 153 51.1

t1:5 Age 5–6 years of age 40 12.5

t1:6 7–14 years of age 192 60.2

t1:7 15–17 years of age 84 26.3

t1:8 Mother’s occupation Housewife 224 70.2

t1:9 Working woman 92 28.8

t1:10 Father’s occupation Worker 33 10.3

t1:11 State personnel 136 42.6

t1:12 Businessman 138 43.3

t1:13 Family type Married couple with an only child 30 9.4

t1:14 Married couple with 2 or more children 234 73.4

t1:15 Married couple with children+the elderly (5+) 50 15.7

t1:16 House type Apartment flat 273 86.6

t1:17 Detached single family house 43 13.4

t1:18 School type Private kindergarten 10 3.1

t1:19 State kindergarten 30 9.4

t1:20 Private primary & middle school 23 7.2

t1:21 State primary & middle school 120 37.6

t1:22 State high school 133 41.7



AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

181subject to general amnesty. Therefore, they are now simply sub-standard houses,182which ironically offer better opportunities than some urban apartments.

183Apartments:

1841. Few apartment houses in Trabzon are designed on modern principles. They185consist of about four storeys, are severed by passive green, have no elevators186and accommodate two families on each floor. The neighborhood has street187furniture, parks and playgrounds.1882. After the 1980s, apartments in the city began to rise to 8–12 floors, house 2–4189families on each floor and feature elevators and central heating systems.

190This study distinguishes between single-family and multi-family living. Since it191disregards social status and economic standing, even squatter housing was considered192as part of the first group. The majority of participants inhabited the flats in the193apartments, associated with modernity (86.6 %).194Traditionally, living spaces in Turkish houses consist of two spaces, one for guests,195called the “guest room”, and the other for the family, called the “sitting room”.196Usually the guest room is the most prestigious in the house in terms of furniture,197decoration and objects. The family room is a comfortable room with Ottoman198couches. Since it is heated all day, some children sleep in this space at night on the199couches. After modernization, the largest room in the house is termed the “salon”,200which both guests and family use for rest and homely recreation. However, some201traditional families still reserve this big room for guests only and use a smaller room202as the family room. In this study, this discrimination is preserved. Units of the house203in this study refer to guest rooms, family rooms, salons, bedrooms, bathrooms, toilets,204kitchens, corridors, entrances, balconies, and so on.

2054.2 Family Structure

206The OECD Family database is categorized under four broad headings. Within each207category, indicators are organized into conceptual groups:

208209The structure of families includes three indicator groups: Families and children;210Fertility indicators; and Marital and partnership status. The labor market posi-211tion of families includes: Families, children and employment status; Employ-212ment conditions for men and women; and Workplace hours and time for caring.213Public policies for families and children records: General tax/benefit support for214families with children; Child-related leave; and Formal care and education for215young children. And the final section on child outcomes focuses upon: Child216health; Child poverty; Education and literacy; and societal participation (Adema217et al. 2009; p.4).218

219The OECD family database defines family structure using three main groups of220data:

221222SF11 Family size and composition: Average household size; families with223children as a percentage of all households; share of families with one child,

1 SF is an abbreviation for Structure of Families.

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

224two children, three or more; share of sole parent families; share of couple225families; and share of the population living in different types of households226227SF2 Children in families: Number of children; share of children living in one-228parent households by gender of parent; share of children living in couple229families; and share of children living in extended families230231SF3 Further information on living arrangements of children: Children without232siblings; children living in re-constituted families; orphans; children living in233institutions; adopted children in foster parent families. (Ibid. p. 20)234

235The Turkish Institute of Statistics (TIS) pragmatically defines a household as236“one person or a group of two or more persons, living together at the same237housing unit or part of the housing unit, who can be relatives or non-relatives238and who contribute to basic needs together.”2 This definition is practical in that239it covers all types of families in terms of numbers ranging from 1 to 10+, but it240does not make the distinctions made by the OECD family database. In this241respect, it needs serious refinement.242On the other hand, in the context of housing design, some indicators mentioned in243the OECD database are either useless or superfluous. For instance, due to traditional244cultural conventions, the “sole parent family” does not exist in the city where the245research was carried out; therefore, it was unnecessary to make such distinctions.246However, extended families do exist in Turkey, first because of the aversion of older247people to institutional living and second, because some young couples start house-248holds with husband’s parents as in Ottoman times.249In addition, when children are over-classified, the functional household definition250required for architecture goes astray.251The disciplinary perspective requires manageable and meaningful distinctions252which might have repercussions in design. For instance, in previous housing253research, the term “attached households” was developed to distinguish house-254holds in which nieces and cousins, schoolmates, an older person, the help and255so on lived together to form those households consisting of childless couples256(Gür 1993a, 2000) because such users’ expectations for houses differ from257those of a childless couple whether young or old. Being a couple tempers the258privacy thresholds in a house.259In this study, since the participants were children, the most practical classification260was to understand whether the child was the only child in the house or whether s/he261had brothers and sisters so as to understand whether the child’s room was shared.262More importantly, the presence of grandparents in the home could have a positive263(enriching) affect on the house terminology employed by children. For these reasons264in the present study the third category was “married couple with the elderly” to avoid265the dispensable discrimination as to whether the family was actually Ottoman or266simply included the elderly. The Turkish Institute of Statistics (TIS) does not make267this distinction in its family database either.

2 http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/yillik/stat_yearbook.pdf; item 22 Income and Living Conditions concentrateson size of households and makes no distinction between various family structures. For this reason,researchers tend to develop meaningful categories themselves as mentioned above.



http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/yillik/stat_yearbook.pdf

AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

268From the standpoint of housing design, this distinction is crucial because whether269there is an elderly person sharing the house with the family or it is a large family with270four or more children makes an important difference in housing design given the271conflict of interests between the young and the old. Both the OECD and the Turkish272Institute of Statistics should bring this valuable point to the forefront if the OECD273aims to cover a broad range of countries and issues. Otherwise, researchers will274continue to be obliged to devise their own taxonomies to reflect their own disciplin-275ary standpoints.

2764.3 Occupation

277The occupational statistics of Turkey and the OECD database are less paradoxical278than those regarding family structure. This research categorized the fathers’ occupa-279tion into three main categories to offer a simple profile of the participants. Otherwise,280the social status of the family was considered delimiting and pointless for a study281seeking to display the desires and complaints of children as children. However,282whether a mother is a working mother or a homemaker could have contradictory283and/or competing influence on children. The amount of time spent with the mother as284opposed to the quality of time spent with the mother might have valuable conse-285quences on behavior and expectations and therefore on the terminology of children.286The research proved this assumption correct.

2875 Authentic Terminology of Children in Describing Their Houses

288The children participants’ vocabulary is categorized into 15 major taxonomies to289correspond to the hierarchy of design issues in order to simplify statistical testing and290interpretation (Table 2). Statistical tests upon which interpretations are based are291presented in the following tables and histograms.

2926 Findings

2936.1 Vocabulary Adopted by Children in Describing Their Houses

2946.1.1 Kindergarten, Ages 5–6

295This age group of children tends to describe the rooms/spaces of their houses in296connection with their users and the actions taking place in those spaces: “Mom’s297room, dad and mom’s room, dad’s room, brother’s room, room with the TV, bathroom298where we take a shower, guest room which we use when we have guests.” They299frequently talk about the details, accessories, and equipment of the room: “There are300four-headed lamps on the ceiling”, “bed with drawers” etc. “There are curtains, rugs,301chair, table, and plates.” “There is a border [i.e., threshold] at the entrance of my302room.” “I have a bed with a head.” “I have a picture with my mother.”303Relations between spaces are also indicated in children’s statements: “at the304end of the hall”, “opposite the kitchen”, “near my mother’s room”, “toilet near

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

t2:1 Table 2 Taxonomy of children’s house terminology

t2:2 I. Parts of house IX. Physical environment

t2:3 1. “Salon” (mainly guest room; seldom for bothguests and family)

1. Address

t2:4 2. Guest room (a parlor reserved specifically forguests)

2. Street name

t2:5 3. Sitting room (family room) 3. Neighbor’s house

t2:6 4. Eating room (separate or semi-detached roomfor eating; a sign of status)

4. Sport fields

t2:7 5. Study room (father’s room) 5. Swimming pool

t2:8 6. Room (bedroom) 6. Kid’s park (playground)

t2:9 7. Kitchen 7. Sand pool (specified)

t2:10 8. Bathroom 8. Luna Park (entertainment center)

t2:11 9. Toilet 9. Field (meadow, trees, plants, etc.)

t2:12 10. Mother’s room (parents’ bedroom) 10. Orientation

t2:13 11. My room 11. Height

t2:14 12. Toy room 12. Snow (climatic significance where it is rare)

t2:15 13. Corridor X. Social and psychological environment

t2:16 14. Entrance i.e. Neighborhood relations, privacy,territoriality, etc.

t2:17 15. Sofa (large main entrance or the rectangularspace between bedrooms)

XI. Physical properties of house

t2:18 16. Balcony 1. Hot/cold

t2:19 17. Terrace (mostly the roof terrace) 2. With view/without view

t2:20 18. Garden 3. Spacious

t2:21 19. Basement 4. With air (naturally conditioned)

t2:22 20. Attic floor 5. Sunny-bright

t2:23 21. Furnace room (Central heating room) 6. Few/many rooms

t2:24 22. House front XII. Social and Psychological appreciationof house

t2:25 23. Stairs 1. Fully furnished

t2:26 II. Floor of the entrance to the house 2. Luxurious/non-luxurious

t2:27 III. Magnitude 3. Like house—like home

t2:28 IV. Sub-structural Properties 4. Belonging to one’s self

t2:29 1. With central heating system 5. Room for everyone

t2:30 2. With stove 6. Ownership

t2:31 3. With furnace 7. Warm familial relations

t2:32 4. With elevator XIII. Taste and meaning

t2:33 5. With fire stairs 1. Modern

t2:34 V. Structural components and elements 2. New

t2:35 1. Floor 3. Technological

t2:36 2. Wall 4. Clean

t2:37 3. Ceiling 5. Cute

t2:38 4. Window 6. Different

t2:39 5. Door 7. Small/big

t2:40 VI. Structural materials 8. Wide/narrow



AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

305the bathroom”, “beyond that there is my mother’s room, my room is next to it,306living room and the kitchen next to it”, “out door [meaning main entrance]”,307“following the hall there is our room at the end, on the other side there is the308bathroom, kitchen, and so on.”309Colors and materials are also powerful tools for the description of spaces in this310age group: “Stones are white, walls are white as well, rugs are red, and doors are311muddy [i.e., brownish].” “They made our floors out of wood and they painted our312walls white. My room is wood. Floors are painted green. Some parts of the floors are313wood some stone. They put ruled paper on the walls,” and so on.314The children certainly mention the person with whom they share a room.315Descriptions include the activities that take place in the room, and the mentions of316accessories are detailed and accompanied by possessive adjectives: “my toys, my car,317my dolls, my piggybank, my flute, my skates, my org, my trashcan, my books,” and318so on (Table 3).

3196.1.2 Ages 7–14

320The height of the building, the floor the children live on, the surroundings and the321address are predominantly mentioned by this age group. General expressions include322the numbers and names of rooms: “Four rooms, one kitchen, one living room, and323one bathroom.”324Rooms are named according to uses rather than users: “Our house has 3 rooms, a325bathroom, a kitchen and a toilet. It also has a garden.” “On the east side of our house326there is a bank, on the west side the 12th Regional Director’s office, on the north is the327Black Sea and to the east is the Tangent road [a recently built highway which328unhappily dissects the town].” “Our house is 170 square meters. It has 3 rooms, 1329living room, 1 bathroom and an extra toilet.” “My house is located in Erdogdu

t2:41 Table 2 (continued)

t2:42 1. Concrete-reinforced concrete 9. Tranquil

t2:43 2. Stone 10. Ordered and tidy

t2:44 3. Brick 11. Inducing piece of mind

t2:45 4. Timber 12. Full of love

t2:46 5. Wood cladding 13. Comfortable

t2:47 6. Wall paper 14. Pleasurable

t2:48 7. Carpet-wall to wall carpeting 15. According to one’s heart (meaning“as s/he would have wished”)

t2:49 8. Double glass XIV. House Pets

t2:50 9. Kartonpiyer (limestone cladding) XV. Symbols & Images

t2:51 VII. Color-dye 1. Duplex

t2:52 VIII. Furniture-accessories 2. Triplex

t2:53 3. Apartment

t2:54 4. Historic house

t2:55 5. Simulacra of other building types

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

330District, 3rd floor. The rooms are the kids’ room, a kitchen…” “Our house has3318 rooms. They are the following: a kitchen, mom and dad’s room, my sister’s332room, bathroom, toilet room, living room.” “Our house consists of 7 rooms. The333living room is connected to the kitchen. I have my own room. My little sister has her334own room. My grandmother has her own room. Our guest room, 1 bathroom… There335are 11 windows.” “We are 5 people, my mother, my father, my brothers and I. This is336our house [i.e., they own it]. Our house has 5 rooms, 1 kitchen and 1 balcony.” “Our337house is on the 3rd floor of a 4-story apartment.” “Our flat is a 4-room flat with a

t3:1 Table 3 Vocabulary adopted by children in describing their houses

t3:2 Children’s description of their houses

t3:3 Kindergarten, ages 5–6 Primary school, ages 7–14 High school, ages 15–17

t3:4 All the rooms in the house areexplained along with theirfunctions and actions.

Generally, the emphasis is on thefloor of the flat, the address andthe immediate environment.

In the descriptions, the number ofrooms is generally emphasized.

t3:5 Spaces are generally labeledby their users.

In the descriptions, the sizes ofhouses are generally explainedbased on the number of rooms:“4 rooms, kitchen, salon, andbath” etc…

The names of rooms aredifferentiated by cultural andsocial conventions, such as thedining room, parents’ room,living room, child’s room, etc.Denominations such as mybrother’s room, my mom’sroom become less frequent.

t3:6 Spaces are described based ontheir furniture/equipment

Spaces are generally labeled basedon their users.

The area of the house, the floorof the apartment, whether it isowned by the family, and thepresence of a heating systemare definitively stated.

t3:7 Accessories and other detailsare also mentioned.

The numbers of windows anddoors, the construction, heatingsystem and so on are mentioned.

t3:8 Color and materials are important,and are especially underlined.

Type descriptions such asapartment, duplex, and villa areemphasized. The size of thehouse, the number of windowsand rooms, the construction andheating systems are declared.

t3:9 Children assuredly mentionwhether have their own roomsor share. The activities andfurniture/equipment of thechild’s room are particularlydescribed.

Furniture details are rarelydescribed. Generally, the detailsof the child’s own room areemphasized.

t3:10 All spaces of the house aredescribed as rooms (eventhe toilets).

t3:11 Rarely, the relations of roomswith one another are defined.



AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

338kitchen, a bathroom and a toilet.” “Three rooms, 1 living room, a bathroom, a water339closet [i.e., toilet].” “Two rooms, 1 living room, the bathroom and the toilet.” “Four340rooms, 1 kitchen, 1 living room and a bathroom.”341Relations between spaces are indicated in the children’s statements: “When you342enter our house there is a long living room, in front there is my room, there is the343dining room next to it, and my mother’s room is opposite my room.” “When you344enter the room we see a semi-place [i.e., an entrance]. From the semi-place we enter345the living room, from the living room to the rooms.”346Various details are also cited: “Our apartment is a concrete building.” “My room is347the smallest of the house. I share my room with my little brother.” “Our house is a 1-348story building. There are 3 rooms, 1 kitchen, bathroom and toilet.” “Our apartment349[flat] is 4 rooms 1 kitchen. It has heating [i.e., central heating]. I have my own room.350It is by the street.” “One story. Has a heating system and it is warm.” “Comfortable351and wide, 125 m2.” “Uppermost apartment”. “There are 3 rooms at the top floor and3523 rooms at the bottom.” “Our apartment is 5-story. We are at the fourth floor. By the353Tangent road [the avenue which took this name among the citizens of Trabzon after354major transformations in the city], in the “Time” apartment (name of the apartment).355It is not our own house.”356Various housing types are specified, such as flat, duplex, and villa: “Our house is a3573-story villa (single family housing unit) with a garden, 4 rooms, 3 bathrooms and a358large balcony.”359Size (area), window and door quantity, and materials are mentioned in several360answers. Details about furniture and equipment are not frequently cited in this age361group. “I have a 4-room house. There is one study table [desk] and a 2-story bed [i.e.,362a double-decker].”, “Our house consists of 2 rooms and 1 living room. Furniture363consists of two living room ensembles, 2 tables, 1 TV set and some house furniture. It364is approximately 130 m2 large, a calming house.” “TV room, study room, real room365[i.e., the main family room].”366Bathrooms and toilets are rarely mentioned as “rooms”: “Our house is an apart-367ment flat. Seven rooms. These are bathroom, toilet…” (Table 3).

3686.1.3 Ages 15–17

369In the renditions of this age group, the number of rooms is generally emphasized: 2370rooms, 3 rooms, 4 rooms, and so on. Such spaces as the living room, kitchen, and371bath are also mentioned. Knowledge concerning the size of the house (area), the floor372number on which the family resides, ownership, heating systems, and so on, is373registered.374The names of spaces—dining room, parent’s room, child’s room—are empha-375sized. Such appellations as “my brother’s room” and “my mother’s room” decline.376Descriptions become more specific and conventional: “Our house has 3 rooms—377kitchen, salon and bath.” “Our house has a heating system and is a duplex.” “Our378house has 3 rooms, a salon and a heating system.” “Our house has 3 rooms, a salon, a379bath, a toilet, and a kitchen.” “It is a quadruplet and has an elevator, heating system380and so on.” “Our house is 3 storeys; we are living on the second floor. It has 3 rooms,381we are tenants.” “Our house has 3 rooms and a living room. It is ample, spacious and382cheerful. We own the house” (Table 3).

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

3836.2 Vocabulary Employed by Children in Describing Their Favorite Spaces384in the House


386This age group of children registers a couple of spaces as favorites, such as the387bathroom, kitchen, guest room, and so on, explaining the reasons right away: “There388is a table and armchairs in the guest room.” “I like the guest room and the salon389because they are taller, thicker and wider. My room is also wide.” (Table 4)390The emphasis is on furniture, accessories, and the people who use these spaces: “I391like the guest room, kitchen, table and cupboard in the living room. There are covered392ashtrays. I make paintings on the kitchen table.” “I love my mother’s room, because393my mother sleeps there.” Generally, the children say that they like their own room394because their toys are in that room and they play there: “My room, because there are a395lot of toys which I like.” “I like my furniture, everything in my room.” “My room.396Because it is so beautiful.” “I like my room. Because it is my own room.”

3976.2.2 Ages 7–13

398In this age group, the favorite space is the child’s own room. Because these spaces are399the children’s own territory, they find their rooms quiet and comfortable. In addition,400their belongings are there. “My room. Because it is my own room.” “My room.

t4:1 Table 4 Vocabulary employed in describing the favorite spaces in the house

t4:2 Which is your favorite space in your house? Why?

t4:3 Kindergarten, ages 5–6 Primary school, ages 7–14 High school, ages 15–17

t4:4 This age group generallymentions an assortment ofspaces as the favorite spaces.The bath, the kitchen, and eventhe hall are mentioned asfavorite spaces in houses.

In this group, the favorite space isthe child’s own room, becausethis room is the child’s ownroom, it is quiet and gives themcomfort, privacy and refuge. Italso contains all of the child’sfurniture/equipment. Thus, ittends to be the children’sfavorite space regardless of itsaesthetic quality.

In this age group of children, thefavorite space is the child’s ownroom. Because it is the child’sown room, it is quiet and givesthe child comfort, privacy andrelief. It also contains all of thechild’s furniture/equipment.Thus, it tends to be thechildren’s favorite spaceregardless of its aestheticquality.

t4:5 For any space to be likable, thefurniture and accessory of thespace and the love of the personusing the space are sufficient.

The living room, salon and guestroom are also mentioned asfavorite spaces: They are morebeautiful and comfortable, thetelevision is there, the entirefamily comes together there,and so on.

The living room, salon and guestroom are also mentioned asfavorite spaces: they are morebeautiful and comfortable, thetelevision is there, the entirefamily comes together there, andso on.

t4:6 The children love their own roomspredominantly because theirtoys are there and they playthere.



AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

401Because nobody interrupts me there.” “My room. Because it is silent and beautiful.”402“My room. Because I do anything I like there.” “My own room. Because it belongs to403me. Everything is in my room.” “My room. I do everything in my room.” “My room.404Because I have all kinds of freedom there.” The living room, family room and guest405room are also favorite spaces, because they are more beautiful and comfortable; there406is a television set, the family comes together in these spaces and so on (Table 4).

4076.2.3 Ages 15–17

408These children generally point out their own room as their favorite space in the house409because they stay there alone, rest there, find it quiet, and so on: “My room, because I410can only be alone there and I have peace of mind there.” “My room, because I can411act/behave as I like.” “My room, because it is mine.” “My room, because it is the412most comfortable place.” “I like my room. I like to think of being left alone there.”413“My room. Because I am left to myself.” “My room. Because it is the only place I feel414safe.” “My room, because I can hide in there when something happens and nobody415can interrupt me.” “My room, because it describes me and I feel at rest there.”416Having a television and video in the living room is an important reason for the417living room being declared another favorite space: “Living room. Because there is the418television set.” In addition, spaces where everybody comes together are favored:419“Living room. Because all the family comes together in this space.” Noiselessness,420spaciousness, and tidiness are positive aspects of guest rooms and salons: “Guest421room. It is more silent than any other room.” “Salon. Because it is large.” “Salon,422because it is the most uncluttered space.” Declarations are sometimes related to need:423“Our small room [i.e., the family room]. Because sometimes, when I am bored, I can424go and study there alone. I can contemplate there what I want [a child who does not425have a private room].” Common descriptors of such rooms are “very fun”, “very426beautiful” and “big” (Table 4).

4276.3 Vocabulary Employed by Children in Defining the “Ideal House”


429Children in this age group describe their dream house in terms of the accessories they430want to see in the house, and the color of the house: “Cabinets, there should be431stairs…” “Should have a roof [i.e., an attic]”. “There should be a table, a TV, an432armchair.” “I would like a garden. I want a farm [i.e., animals] in the garden.” “A433house with a roof, with a chimney, flowers, trees.” “Flowers, pool, sand and sea434bordering the garden.”435Houses with open and semi-open spaces such as a balcony, a patio, and a garden436are in high demand. “I like a house with a garden.” “Should have a garden.” “I like437the houses with back yards.” “Apartments [i.e., flats] with large balconies. You look438down and watch. I also like the gardens. It is very nice to play in the garden,439swimming in the pool.” Two-story houses are also in demand as opposed to flats in440tall apartment buildings.441There are some discrepancies in the children’s expressions, however. Some prefer442single-family houses while others prefer tall apartment buildings: “I like the

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

443apartments3 [flats] with indoor stairs. It should have only two story stairs, though.” “I444like unroofed [i.e., having a terrace roof], I like buildings like houses [i.e., clean, tidy,445modern facilities but mimicking the traditional houses outside].” “You should be able446to climb up so many stairs [with an exclamation of joy, meaning a duplex].” “I also447like the houses that you climb upstairs, that have stairs inside.” “I like the houses like448our building.” “I like large houses, multi-story houses, one-story houses, and two-449story houses.” “I like the apartments. I want them to be one story.”450Color is an important feature of the houses this age group specifies. “I like451beautifully painted houses.” “I like houses with colors.” “I like colorful houses”452(Tables 5 and 6).

4536.3.2 Ages 7–14

454Children in this age group respond primarily in terms of the house’s units, interior455decoration, size, storey number, ordinance issues and structural elements such as456elevators, fire exits, heating, and earthquake regulations. Nevertheless, they also dream457of luxurious facilities: “A house with a garden. Has a basketball basket, a two-story only458owned by us.” “Duplex. A house in which I have my own room.” “Duplex, with garden459and my own study room.” “It should be compact. It should be coordinated and calm.” “It460should be coordinated and clean.” “It should be happy and calm.” “Large, coordinated461and everything required should exist.” “It should be beautiful, have an elevator and462heating [central heating] and be clean.” “It should be fully furnished, having everything463inside.” “A one-story building with central heating, TV and fireplace.” “Concrete464building. Two-story.” “It should be large. Four bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom with465bathtub, extra toilet, guest room and living room.” “There should be a fire escape. To466protect from earthquakes, houses should be built with strong foundations.” “It should be467one-story with a central heating system. Should have large rooms.” “Concrete building468with fire escape and elevator.” “It should be 2-story, commodious, should have a pool469and a garage.” “In my opinion a house should have a garden.” “It should be full of470technological devices.” “It should be comfortable. Beautiful and comfortable!” “In a471house, I should have my own room. It should have a balcony.” “Large and comfortable.472Should have width [i.e., be spacious].”473Some very interesting comments on memories and their values for children were474also abundant: “Everybody likes their house because they experience valuable475moments.” “I miss our old house. I was used to it. I had friends there.” “In my476opinion, a house should be historical like ours. Historic houses are more valuable for477me.” “In my opinion a house should be happy and relaxing” (Tables 5 and 6).

4786.3.3 Ages 15–17

479Children in this age group take notice primarily of psychosocial factors, valuing480houses that are comfortable, relaxing, calm, tolerant, and confident. They also481emphasize the presence of “owned” rooms for every individual in the family.482Frequently repeated are demands for houses with central heating systems as opposed

3 Turkish people never say “I live in a flat,” they use the word “apartment” universally. Accordingly,Turkish children observe that convention.



AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

t5:1 Table 5 Vocabulary employed by children in defining their ideal house

t5:2 Ideal house

t5:3 Kindergarten, ages 5–6 Primary school, ages 7–14 High school, ages, 15–17

t5:4 Emphasis is on furniture andother details they crave.

Emphasis is mainly on interiordecoration, order and neatness.Nevertheless, mention ofelevators, fire escapes, centralheating systems, resistance toearthquakes is also frequent.

Children in this age group takenotice of psycho-social factorsand solace, and articulate suchconcepts as convenience, peace,intelligence, confidence, security,etc.

t5:5 Color bears significantimportance. They yearnfor open spaces, terraces,balconies and gardens.

In addition, spaces, which would“turn the house into a haven” arementioned and features such asthe size and the number of floorsare emphasized.

This group demands individualrooms for each family member.Secondarily, they emphasizecentral heating systems, gardens,pools and sport/recreation areas.

t6:1 Table 6 Terms and adjectives employed in defining the ideal house

t6:2 Terms and adjectives

t6:3 Kindergarten, ages 5–6 Elementary school, ages 7–14 High school, ages 15–17

t6:4 Big and beautiful Colossal Peaceful

t6:5 Beautiful Palatial Affluent

t6:6 Big Beautiful interiors Assuring

t6:7 House with balcony Beautiful Cheerful

t6:8 House with garden Wide Clean

t6:9 House with backyard Orderly Orderly

t6:10 Two- story Neat Quiet

t6:11 Single storey Happy Modern

t6:12 Multiple-storey Comfortable Functional

t6:13 With roof Spacious Detached

t6:14 Colored walls Airy Nicely furnished

t6:15 Colored Functional Humble

t6:16 Painted With scenery Centrally heated

t6:17 New Furnished Duplex

t6:18 Roofless [i.e., flat roof) Fully furnished Triplex

t6:19 Houses under snow Luxurious Like my house

t6:20 Like our house Centrally heated High

t6:21 Like home House with elevator House with garden

t6:22 Centrally heated Single storey House with pool

t6:23 Storied house (apartment) House with fireplace Beautiful

t6:24 With window House with pool Big

t6:25 House with terraces Reinforced concrete Comfortable

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

483to stoves and with gardens. Children mention the presence of sports and recreation484facilities and swimming pools in the house or its garden. Commonly used adjectives485in the responses are tidy, organized, beautiful, modern, comfortable, big, large, quiet,486and so on.487Children in this group emphasize the house’s situation in terms of floors, demand a488rich variety of amenities, and hold room ownership as an important issue: “It should489be a duplex and have a garden.” “On the first [i.e., ground] floor there should be a490salon, a kitchen, on the second floor [i.e., first] there should be one room and491bedrooms for each child.” “It should be a triplex villa in a large garden. It should492have large pool and there should be a dog in its garden. The interior of it should be493furnished super perfectly. My room should be as wide as the guest’s room, on the roof494floor [i.e., the attic]. There should be posters everywhere as well as on the ceilings.495There should be a computer.” “In my opinion, a house should be four-story. On the496first floor there should be the garage, playing space on the second floor, house on the497third floor and a swimming pool on the fourth floor.” “A triplex, huge garden, all498facilities for doing sports, ice area, basket area, tennis court, athletic salon, Olympic499pool, three rooms for me, a bath–toilet and disco.” “It should be with a garden, a500triplex, with a pool. In addition there should be a special area for sports.” “It should501be very large. The ground floor should be all glass. Get a sea view. Its walls and502furniture should be colorful.” “It should be very comfortable, useful [i.e., functional],503with garden and pool.” “My house certainly should have a garden.” “In my opinion,504the most important thing concerning a house is that it should be in beautiful505surroundings and be large.” “It should be beautiful, clean, have a heating system,506villa type, have a garden, overlooking a pool, and it should be in one of the beautiful507cities of our country.” “It should be a duplex, have a car garage, fireside/chimney, a508large garden.” “It should be a triplex, have a large garden and an area for doing509sports.” “Especially my room should have a balcony.” “It should be a duplex. Both510floors should have a bath and toilet.” “Get a room of my own.” “Everybody has own511room.” “It should be big, beautiful, and modern.”512The children also emphasized sub-structural systems, as emerges in the above513statements, as well as the properties of the building elements, furniture and so on:514“The windows should be large.” “Color should be taken notice of.” “The furniture515should be comfortable and beautiful.” “The house should be as large as a family516deems necessary.” “Security should be taken care of.” “In my opinion, a house should517have a heating system, garden and balcony.”518Along with physical properties, this age group also has a tendency to cite envi-519ronmental and psychosocial factors concerning the house and familial relations,520qualities very rarely mentioned by the younger groups: “It should be large, modern,521comfortable, and clean, warm/glad and quiet.” “It should be calm and relaxing. That522is enough.” “I do not care much about furniture. It should be comfortable and523peaceful.” “It should be extremely comfortable and warm.” “It should be large, high,524comfortable, have double-glazed windows, a heating system. Also it should be525peaceful.” “In my opinion, it should be peaceful and the members of the family526should have confidence in one another and have respect for each other.” “Peace,527happiness, confidence.” Children in this group make such interesting remarks as528“Everybody should be able to change everything they want in their own rooms”529(Tables 5 and 6).



AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

5307 Statistical Analyses and Interpretations

531In this study the relations between children’s variables and house use are checked via532Ki-square tests. If the expected value of a cell was below 5, the Likelihood Ratio test533was employed; otherwise, the Pearson Chi-Square test was applied. Furthermore,534correlations between various variables regarding the children and their house termi-535nology were analyzed via the Spearman test. Significant statistical difference was536tested at the p<0,05 level. The Adj. Res. value indicated the source of difference537when the absolute value was higher than 2.

5388 Statistics Related to Terminology

539& Variations by gender and age

540There were significant sex-related differences in conceptions of the house (x2:5416,823, df: 1, p:,009) among the participants. The male population was much more542concerned than the female population with such physical qualities as the number of543rooms, spaciousness, quality of ventilation, light and sun, and whether the house has544nice views.545A stronger significant difference emerged between age groups: The 5–6 age group546was definitely more concerned with furniture and accessories (x2: 128,435, df: 2, p:,000),547colors (x2: 154,663, df: 2, p:,000) and building components such as stairs, doors,548windows, floors, ceilings and the materials of the house (x2: 116,302, df: 2, p:,000).549This interest seemed to decline with age. Children above 15 did not even mention550materials. Conventional names of the units of the house started to show up in the 7–14551age group, but that usage actually settled down after 15 (x2: 13,174, df: 2, p:,001).552Mention of physical descriptions of the house such as what floor it is on and where553it is seemed to be lacking in the 5–6 age group. Such qualities also seemed negligible554for children over 15 (probably they sensed that the questions did not allude to such555issues). For the 7–14 age group, physical properties, especially the area of rooms (x2:55683,367, df: 2, p:,000) and number of floors (x2: 16,396, df:2, p:,000) were significant557matters. Children became more emotionally involved with the house with age:558psychosocial interpretations became frequent after age 15 (x2: 6,345, df: 2, p:,042).

559& Variations contingent on the mother’s role

560The children of working women often employ categories such as building compo-561nents (x2: 11,155, df:1, p:,000), colors (x2: 6,890, df: 1, p:,000) and furniture and562accessories (x2: 12,303, df: 1, p:,000). By contrast, the children of homemakers employ563categories determined by social norms: they are more concerned with the units of the564house (x2: 6,332, df: 1, p:,012) and areas of rooms (x2: 4,837, df: 1, p:,028).

565& Variations contingent on household type (family structure)

566The household population also seems to affect the richness of the terminology567employed in children’s house talk. Only children from three-person families tend to568discuss houses in terms of building elements and components (x2: 23,272, df: 2,569p:,000), building materials (x2: 38,599, df: 2, p:,000), furniture/accessories (x2:

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

57032,177, df: 2, p:,000), color (x2: 30,029, df: 2, p:,000) and to some extent, psycho-571social aspects (likelihood ratio: 3,958, df: 2, p:,138). The terms employed by these572children are quite in advance of those used by the society as a whole. Children from 4573to 5-person families emphasized the names of rooms more than other age groups (x2:5746,279, df: 2, p:,043). Children from families including the elderly conceived of the575house in terms of social and psychological concepts indicating status, prestige and the576like and chose corresponding local terms in expressing themselves (x2: 3,959, df: 2,577p:,138). Such children evinced a rich vocabulary for imagery (likelihood ratio: 2,317,578df: 2, p:,314). Thus, one may conclude that the more composite the family, the richer579the vocabulary of children with regard to the house.

5809 Statistics Related to Present and Ideal House Definitions

581In defining the ideal houses children would like to have someday, participants582significantly differed in terms of their order of importance of properties and their583frequencies as follows (Table 7).584In definitions of the present house and the ideal there was a weak correlation in585referring to house units at the p<0,05 level (p:,022, r:,129) and to building compo-586nents p<0,05 level (p:,038, r:,170). In terms of the colors, furniture and accessories587and physical properties cited by the children there were even weaker statistical588correlations at the p<0,05 level (consecutively, p:,008, r:,148; p:,004, r:,161;589p:,010, r:,144). These findings clearly indicate that the house arrangements children590presently possess have nothing in common with their image of an ideal house. They591expressed high expectations of what a house should be.

592& Variations in ideal house definitions contingent on gender and age

593Analyses of children’s responses to the properties an ideal house should have594demonstrated that boys tended to cite sub-structural properties (p: 7.07; r: 0.14) and

t7:1 Table 7 Frequency of terminolo-gy adopted in describing theideal house

t7:2 Dimensions adopted in describingthe ideal house

Frequency (%)

t7:3 Taste 161 50.9

t7:4 Units of house 95 30.1

t7:5 Symbols & images 70 22.2

t7:6 Physical properties 67 21.2

t7:7 Psychosocial appreciations 53 16.8

t7:8 Furniture & accessories 42 13.3

t7:9 Environmental properties 41 13.0

t7:10 Sub-structural properties 26 8.2

t7:11 Number of floors 15 4.7

t7:12 Area of rooms 12 3.8

t7:13 Building components 12 3.8

t7:14 Building materials 12 3.8

t7:15 Color 10 3.2



AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

595socially embedded images and terms (p: 3.77; r: 0.14) more often than girls at the p<5960,05 level. As children mature, it seems likely they begin to realize that it is difficult597to afford large houses: Demand for greater magnitude houses significantly differs598between the youngest (5–6) and oldest (15–17) children (p: 27.7; r: 0.29). The599youngest group tended to prefer houses “with rich colors, with rich variety of pets600in the gardens” (p: 21; r: 0.25). By contrast, the older group (15–17) paid more601attention to the quality of neighbors (p: 8.9; r: 0.16) and became more conscious of602the names and functions of rooms (p: 7.95; r: 0.15). Rather than insisting on luxury,603they turned to concepts such as a house being comfortably furnished, belonging to604one’s self, its amenability to individualization, and so on (p: 33.53; r: 0.32).605The children began to emphasize their taste in localized terms as they aged. The 7–60614 age group expressed dreams of large detached houses “with attics” (p: 27.7; r: 0.3),607“houses in green fields” (p: 13.12; r: 0.2), “luxuriously and beautifully furnished608houses” (p: 13.12; r: 0.2) as opposed to the mediocre dreams of the older group. With609respect to housing, it seems this age group is the most difficult to satisfy.610In short, the children’s “ideal house” is a detached house with multiple floors611(doublex, triplex etc.), with far advanced sub-structural amenities, new technological612products, better environmental characteristics and urban/open space facilities. The613children seem to ache for more freedom, recreation and entertainment within the house.614They use a rich variety of demonstrators encompassing taste, pleasure and aesthetics.615From these standpoints their ideals are at odds with what they have. They wish to change616many things in the house, startingwith what they actually territorialize–their own rooms.617The research also explored children’s demands for changes in the house.

618& Demand for change

619The children’s demands for change involved a variety of spaces, but the frequency620of demand for changing the child’s room was the highest (Table 8). An interesting621inquiry was whether private room ownership occasioned any major difference in the622children’s demand for change. While 35,4 % of the children with their own rooms623cited their own room as the most liked space in the house, the desire to make changes624to the private room emerged in 57,70 % of the children who owned a private room.625Children demanded all sorts of changes, ranging from changing everything, moving626one basic function to another room, adding more space, changing the order of627furniture, adding extra furniture, and so on. (Table 8).628No statistically significant difference was observed between the genders in terms629of the types of change desired in the house (p:,729, p>0,05) (Table 13). Nonetheless,630age, house type and household type were associated with significant differences in631terms of types of change. Based on the Adj. Res. value, differences by age at the p<6320,05 level (x2: 27,228, df: 10, p:,002) emerged based on the 5–6 age group’s citing the633changing of functions of rooms at 2,2 %, the 7–14 age group’s desire to change634everything at 3,3 %, changing the functions of the rooms at 39,6 %, and the desire of635the 15–17 age group to change everything at 3,1 %.636A statistically significant difference was observed in the children’s demand for637change based on the participant’s house type at the p<0,05 level (x2: 14,627, df: 5,638p:,012). The difference emerged from the frequency of citing a desire for changing639everything at 5,5 % among those living in apartments and at 3,8 % among those640living in detached housing (Table 9).

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

641A statistically significant difference in the children’s wishes for various changes in642the house was also observed by household type at the p<0,05 level (x2: 20,676, df:64310, p:,023). The difference emerged based on the frequency of citing the desire for644changing the order of furniture at 3,9 % among children of married couples in only-645child families and at 7,2 % among children of married couples having 2 or more646children (Table 9).

64710 Statistics Related to use

648& Preferred spaces

649The preferred spaces at home were the child’s room and the family room.650However, a significant difference between the genders emerged in that regard at the651p<0,05 level (x2: 18,222, df:8, p:,020), as well as between the age groups (x2:65264,243, df:16, p:,000). The female population tended to cite kitchens as preferred653spaces, while the male population tended to cite balconies. As for the age groups,

t8:1 Table 8 Frequency of types of change demanded by children

t8:2 Demand for change Frequency % Cumulative%

t8:3 Child’s room (move to another room) 44 21.3 30.4

t8:4 Child’s room (entirely) 9 4.3

t8:5 Child’s room (change places of furniture) 10 4.8

t8:6 Family room (move to another room) 16 7.7 10.6

t8:7 Family room (entirely) 6 2.9

t8:8 Kitchen (entirely) 1 .5 3.4

t8:9 Kitchen (move to another room) 6 2.9

t8:10 Salon (entirely) 6 2.9 2.9

t8:11 Exchange rooms (many) 20 9.7 9.7

t8:12 Add furniture 14 6.8 10.2

t8:13 Change places of furniture 7 3.4

t8:14 Change everything 15 7.2 7.2

t8:15 Adding space to the house 9 4.3 4.3

t8:16 Other (miscellaneous & idiosyncratic) 44 21.3 21.3

t8:17 Total 207 100.0 100.0

t9:1 Table 9 X2 results of types of change by participant properties, house and family types

t9:2 X2 Likelihood ratio df p

t9:3 Types of change Gender 2,811 – 5 .729

t9:4 Age – 27,228 10 .002

t9:5 House type – 14,627 5 .012

t9:6 Family type – 20,676 10 .023



AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

654based on the Adj. Res. Values, a difference emerged based on the preference of the 5–6556 age group for the parents’ bedroom, the preference of the 7–14 age group for salons656and guest rooms, and the preference of the 15–17 age group for salons and kitchens.657No statistically significant difference was observed between the sexes in terms of658the reasons for their preferences (p:,057, p>0,05). Adversely, a significant difference659at the p<0,05 level was observed between the age groups in terms of the reasons for660their preferences (x2: 37,656, df:16, p:,002). The youngest group emphasized details661and accessories, the 7–14 group underlined taste-related denotations, and the 15–17662group highlighted positive psychosocial factors (Table 10).

663& Favorite study spaces

664Children cited the child’s room and the family room as favorite study spaces in665general, but the different age groups expressed different preferences for study spaces666at the p<0,05 level (x2: 81,885, df: 8, p:,000). The 5–6 age group tended to prefer the667spaces occupied by parents; the 7–14 age group tended to express a high preference668for their own or shared rooms. The 15–17 age group tended to prefer their own669rooms, but they also reported using guest rooms. Nevertheless, the presence of a670child’s room occasioned a statistically significant difference in the choice of study671space at the p<0,05 level (x2: 13,723, df: 4, p:,008) (Tables 11 and 12) . The672frequency of reasons cited by children for their preferences is shown in Table 13.

673& Favorite play spaces

674The places where children prefer to play are depicted below (Table 14). There was675a statistically significant difference between the opposite sexes in terms of places for676play at the p<0,05 level (x2: 14,782, df: 12, p:,022). Girls tended to prefer interiors,677especially guest rooms, by contrast with the strong tendency of the male population to678prefer to play outside the house (Table 15). The age groups expressed different679preferences for play spaces at p<0,05 (x2: 89,517, df: 12, p:,000). The 5–6 age680group tended to prefer the child’s room, family room and parent’s room. They did681not mention gardens and courts. Meanwhile, the 7–14 age group expressed a strong682preference for gardens and courts, and the 15–17 age group emphasized streets683(Table 15). The frequency of reasons cited by children for their preferences is684shown in Table 16.

t10:1 Table 10 Frequency of reasonsfor preference

t10:2 Reasons for preference Frequency %

t10:3 Positive psycho-social factors 48 23.5

t10:4 Aesthetics & taste 39 19.1

t10:5 Furniture 29 14.2

t10:6 Miscellaneous & idiosyncratic 27 13.2

t10:7 Territory 25 12.3

t10:8 Function 15 7.4

t10:9 Positive environmental factors 8 3.9

t10:10 Details& accessories 13 6.4

t10:11 Total 204 100.0

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF 685& Playing with friends in the house

686Places the children preferred for play when friends were present are depicted687below (Table 17). The genders evinced significant differences in their reasons688expressed for choice of play spaces when friends were around at the p<0,05 level689(x2: 85,746, df: 18, p:,000) (Table 18). Clearly, street furniture and elements are690important in the play of boys, who cited those elements at 4,3 % and did not mention691positive psychosocial factors. The female population cited positive psychosocial692factors at 7,5 %, and made no mention of furniture, perhaps based on their693preference for passive social play and providing their own tools and toys (Gür et694al. 1980a, b).695The age groups showed different preferences for play spaces at the p<0,05 level696(x2: 89,517, df: 12, p:,000). The Adj. Res. results point to the source of difference:697The 5–6 age group cited the child’s room at 11,9 %, the family room at 3,2 %, and the698house front and street at 0,5 %, and did not mention gardens and courts. Meanwhile,699the 7–14 age group mentioned gardens and courts at 10 %, “other” at 5,0 %, and cited700the family room at only 1,4 %. The 15+ age group mentioned the child’s room at only7010,5 % and streets at 9,6 % (Table 18). The reasons underlying these choices are702rendered in Table 19.703No significant difference emerged by gender in terms of reasons for preferences of704play space (p:,077, p>0,05) (Table 20). However, a significant difference did emerge705in terms of reasons for preference of play space between the age groups at the p<0,05706level (x2: 31,957, df: 12, p:,001). That difference arose from the frequency of citation707by the 5–6 age group of furniture, at 3,7 %, impositions of cleanness and tidiness at70810,1 % and a lack of mention of psychosocial factors. By contrast, the 7–14 age group709cited furniture at 1,8 %, and the 15+ age group cited positive environmental factors at7103,7 % (Table 20). Private room ownership did not occasion a difference between the711sexes and age groups in terms of choice of play area. (p:,633, p>0,05), (Table 20).712Thus, the private room is a favoured space for study but not for play.

t11:1 Table 11 Study spaces preferredby children

t11:2 Study spaces preferred Frequency %

t11:3 Child’s room 244 83.8

t11:4 Family room 21 7.2

t11:5 Family room& child’s room 12 4.1

t11:6 Other 8 2.7

t11:7 Salon 6 2.1

t11:8 Total 291 100

t12:1 Table 12 X2 differences between home study space choice by gender, age and private room ownership


t12:3 Study space Gender – 2,734 4 .603

t12:4 Age – 60,958 8 .000

t12:5 Private room – 13,723 4 .008



AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

71311 Interpretations

714This study sought to document the house preferences and house-related vocabulary of715Turkish children to assist urban planners, architects and interior designers in devising716future designs in consideration of children. It endeavored to build a terminology for717discussing certain matters involving children during participation projects. Such718might be considered far-fetched goals, but mass housing is a grave issue worldwide719and shows every evidence of remaining so in days to come. Children are important720features of healthy future societies and the ways they are brought up and the places721where they are brought up merit significant attention.722This research has clarified how children’s conception of the house differs greatly723from that of adults and architects. The house delimits their freedom of activities. They724long for territoriality and identity but at the same time wish to integrate with the725family. The resulting problematic should be the main consideration in designing726homes for families at the child-rearing stage. However, the age of children compli-727cates the situation a step further.728The research reveals a quite interesting phenomenon: Children’s perceptions and729appreciation of the house tend to go through stages. When they are young (6 and730under), children’s perceptions are visual and sensual, later (7–14) those perceptions731become more objective and materialistic, and after 15 or so their perceptions and732interpretations emerge in more subjective and emotional ways. This finding has

t13:1 Table 13 Frequency of reasonscited by children for the choice ofstudy space

t13:2 Reasons Frequency %



t13:5 Positive psychosocial factors 35 15.4

t13:6 Impositions of tidiness & cleanness 19 8.4

t13:7 Taste 16 7.0

t13:8 Aesthetics 15 6.6

t13:9 Miscellaneous 13 5.7

t13:10 Territoriality 10 4.4

t13:11 Total 227 100.0

t14:1 Table 14 Spaces in which chil-dren prefer to play

t14:2 Play spaces preferred Frequency %

t14:3 Child’s room 88 40.2

t14:4 House front-street 62 28.3

t14:5 Garden-inner court 24 11.0

t14:6 Kindergarten 14 6.4

t14:7 Other (corridors and entrances) 11 5.0


t14:9 Family room & child’s room 10 4.6

t14:10 Total 219 100.0

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

733strong relevance to housing design, and it should be considered in tandem with the734issues mentioned above.735In designs for the masses, users are anonymous. Therefore, it is vital to distinguish736between houses for childless families, be they old or young, and families at the child-737rearing stage. The proportions of their homes should be determined in advance in738accordance with demographic data, and designers should employ principles to meet739the expectations of various family structures.740As mentioned above, the partitioning of space by different cultures mirrors their741cosmic views, beliefs, values, social norms and practices of privacy, territoriality,742individualization and so on (Giuliani 1987; Kent 1991; Gür 2000). Turkish traditional743houses formerly consisted of almost equal-size, multi-purpose rooms which were744distinguishable from one another by furniture denoting their purpose. Although745Turkish children associate the house with the family and happiness in general746(http://forum.yapisal.net/sektorel-haberler/7129-cocuklarin-gozuyle-ev.html (EPOS747developers resaerch); 11.01.2007), this research disclosed that perception of houses748among children had already changed: They differentiated each enclosed space by its749modern name—kitchen, corridor, entrance, bedroom, sitting room (family room),750guest room, salon, and so on. The research also demonstrated that the genders and age751groups had different preferences for units of the house and for study and play spaces,752with regard to spaces often not meant for them. The reasons underlying their choices753yield valuable hints for architects.754For instance, young children evince a tendency to wish to be close to parents755during study and play based on their choice of spaces for study and play, whereas756older groups prefer privacy. Therefore, integrating house types would be better for757young families, while segregating house models would be advisable for families with758teenagers. Integrating house types are those staged around the living room. In some,

t15:1 Table 15 X2 correlations of home play space choices by gender, age and private room ownership


t15:3 Play space Gender – 14,782 6 .022

t15:4 Age – 89,517 12 .000

t15:5 Private room – 11,276 6 .080

t16:1 Table 16 Reasons underlyingchoice of play space

t16:2 Reasons Frequency %

t16:3 Imposition of tidiness & cleanness 30 27.5


t16:5 Positive psychosocial factors 17 15.6


t16:7 Other 8 7.3


t16:9 Details 4 3.7

t16:10 Total 109 100.0



http://forum.yapisal.net/sektorel-haberler/7129-cocuklarin-gozuyle-ev.html

AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

759the kitchen and living room are resolved into one area, which can be called the760“multi-purpose living room” (Gür et al 2012). In segregating house types, day and761night domains are carefully separated. In the night domain, children’s rooms are762aligned along a corridor or a communal space. In these solutions, children manage to763use their own rooms without much interaction with parents.764The study shows that children, lamentably, lack appropriate places for play at765home. Age is an important differentiating factor (x2: 85,746, df: 18, p:,000) in this766respect. The youngest children prefer the child’s room, family room and parents’767room; the 7–14 age group shows a strong preference for gardens and courts, but in768actuality uses even corridors and entrances. The older age group prefers the streets.769In Turkey, friends visiting children in the house are usually the children of the770mother’s guests during the day. The chance of finding an appropriate play area is even771worse when friends are around. Turkish mothers impose grave restrictions to keep the772house clean and tidy; therefore, children are tempted to go outside. Boys go out, girls773stay in or near the house and use the guest rooms (x2: 18,330, df: 9, p:,032), if these774are available, when their friends visit. This finding corroborates old behavior775mapping research which disclosed that the female population prefers passive776activities during the play and gathers at doorsteps, fences and similar niches777enclosed by the house, while the male population uses the entire street and nearby778empty lots or green spaces for active activities (Gür et al. 1980a, b).

t17:1 Table 17 Frequency of placescited as play space withfriends

t17:2 Play spaces preferred when friendsare around

Frequency Percent%

t17:3 Parents’ room 85 37.8

t17:4 House front-street 41 18.2

t17:5 Other 23 10.2

t17:6 Garden–inner court 19 8.4

t17:7 Corridor 16 7.1

t17:8 Family room & parents’ room 10 4.4

t17:9 Kindergarten 9 4.0


t17:11 Guest room 8 3.6

t17:12 Salon 5 2.2

t17:13 Total 225 100.0

t18:1 Table 18 X2 correlations of play space choice when friends are around by gender, age and private roomownership

t18:2 X2 Likelihood ratio df P

t18:3 Spaces for playing with friends Gender – 18,330 9 .032

t18:4 Age – 85,746 18 .000

t18:5 Private room – 10,900 9 .283

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF 779Webley’s study (1981) investigated the hypothesis that there is a sex difference in

780the extent of children’s home ranges and therefore a corresponding difference in their781home area cognitive maps using a photographic recognition test and by the home782range extent indicated by children on aerial photographs. He associated sex-related783differences with differences in the size of familiar territory rather than with any male784superiority in spatial cognition. Q13Castonguay and Jutras (2009), on the other hand,785totally disregarded sex-related differences, arguing that “children identify parks and786playgrounds, and spaces near an acquaintance’s home as their favorite places. Liked787places vary according to children’s age and degree of vegetation, children’s negative788perceptions of places are centered on safety threats”, meaning that all children,789regardless of sex, would like to go to parks, playgrounds and streets. This assumption790seems to be correct. However, sex-related differences are cultural by definition and791they do exist. The present research and random observations in Turkey overtly792corroborate the behavior mapping research which located sex-related differences in793the use of open spaces (i.e. streets) (Gür et al. 1980a, b).794To summarize, play at home has almost never been thought of as an issue in house795design. This finding suggests a vitally important criterion in the design of housing796environments.797Insufficient housing environments cause serious problems for children.4 Evans798(2003) critically points out what is known about the built environment and mental799health and insists, “The built environment has direct and indirect effects on mental800health. High-rise housing is inimical to the psychological well-being of women with801young children. Poor-quality housing appears to increase psychological distress, but802methodological issues make it difficult to draw clear conclusions. The mental health803of psychiatric patients has been linked to design elements that affect their ability to804regulate social interaction (e.g., furniture configuration, privacy)” (p. 536).805Evans mentions “women with young children” but ignores children per se and806health matters, as if children do not exist. Nevertheless, he duly underlines the fact807that researchers lack the longitudinal research methods necessary to make sound808statements: “More prospective, longitudinal studies and, where feasible, randomized809experiments are needed to examine the potential role of the physical environment in

4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_Child_Health: Brazil Child Health, an NGO “recognizes that illnessesare not simply matters of biology but are rooted in socioeconomic factors that aggravate and perpetuate thedisease.”

t19:1 Table 19 Reasons underlying thechoice of play space whenfriends are around

t19:2 Reasons Frequency Percent%

t19:3 Imposition of tidiness & cleanness 33 35.5


t19:5 Other 12 12.9


t19:7 Positive psycho-social factors 7 7.5

t19:8 Details 3 3.2


t19:10 Total 93 100.0



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_Child_Health

AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

810mental health. Even more challenging is the task of developing underlying models of811how the built environment can affect mental health” (p. 536).812Although there exists no relevant scientific statement so far, the role of play in the813healthy growth of children is so strongly highlighted by child psychologists that814common sense leads researchers to argue that children in general and male children in815particular must be able to access playgrounds and sports facilities near their housing.816This necessity is badly neglected in the transformation projects in Turkey because the817more houses the developer clumps into the available land the more profit he makes.818Furthermore, children of different household types, such as those who live in819individual family houses and those who live in flats significantly differ along the820dimension of “demand for change” (likelihood ratio: 14,627; df:5; p:,012). This821difference emerges based on the frequency of citing the desire for “changing every-822thing” being higher among those participants who live in flats as compared to those823living in detached housing. Such is the case because detached housing generally824offers more freedom of behavior in many respects, given its front and back gardens,825and so on. Developers overlook this issue for reasons already declared above. Where826land values are relatively low, individual houses should be preferred in designing for827the masses.828Children develop a strong sense of territoriality as they grow. The main reason829underlying their appreciation for their own room is that it is theirs. They have a830territory to defend and to rejoice in. However, this same room is the one they want to831change the most. This paradox could be an indication of the pleasure of ownership832being translated into the capacity to change, altogether implying the creation of an833identity (Erikson 1980).834For architect designers all this is serious information, especially when they deal835with social housing for large families. Low-income houses are small, and the average836family size is 4–5 in Turkey. For that matter, principles of accommodation, adapt-837ability and flexibility are indispensible, rational and functional design principles,838which should be taken into consideration in such designs. In parallel with the growth839process of children, a house should adapt itself to emerging demands. Movable840partitions to provide private small spaces might resolve some privacy and identity841problems. Other solutions could be devised for the benefit and well-being of children842if designers were sensitized to this important issue of raising children at home. For843instance, they could at least try to design more but smaller bedrooms within the same844area of the house.845The research draws attention to the fact that young children like colorful environ-846ments; they are attracted by all sorts of details and accessories. Bedrooms for the

t20:1 Table 20 X2 correlations of reasons for home play space choice by gender, age and private roomownership

t20:2 X2 Likelihood ratio df P

t20:3 Reasons of preference for play space Gender – 11,383 6 .077

t20:4 Age – 31,957 12 .001

t20:5 Private room – 4,323 6 .633

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

847youngest could be decorated with colorful details to satisfy this age group. Such848provision does not necessarily imply expensive solutions; a skilled mother or father849can make a night lamp from colorful cardboard, or devise a graphic design for the850ceiling or walls. The father can paint cabinets himself in bright colors children love,851such as red, magenta or orange (Gür and Zorlu 2002).852From another disciplinary perspective, as clearly demonstrated by this research,853emotional attachment to the house and family is strong at around age 15. Therefore, if854possible, moving from one house to another should be avoided for families with855children at the critical ages of puberty.856This research highlights the terminology adopted by children in discussing the857house and thereby provides a helpful framework for architects involved in housing858design for in-situ research. It especially clarifies at what age the conventional words859and terms start to appear in children’s vocabulary and can perhaps hint at ways to860improve dialogue with children in general. Words related to the house are symbols of861social structures (Duncan 1985). These detailed findings concerning house terminol-862ogy may also offer critical knowledge to interested scholars of psychology863concerning the development of language in children and to scholars of sociology864concerning the social structure of the family.865Findings of this research apply independently of children residing in high- or low-866density housing, but they demonstrate that a conventional vocabulary and thus the867ability to manage living in the existing culture develops earlier in children in families868which include the elderly, a fact which deserves consideration regarding the prospects869for the elderly. Their existence in the family seems important from the perspective of870child rearing. Families ought to re-consider the institutional alternative in determining871the fate of older family members.872Since a similar study does not exist in the literature, we are in no position to873compare these findings with those for children of other nationalities, either histori-874cally or internationally. It is hoped that when researchers accumulate knowledge875internationally it will then be possible to discern differences in terms of conception876and terminology between Turkish children and others. Such may be another merit of877this study: to open up new areas of research.

878Acknowledgments This research was conducted by Professor Şengül Öymen Gür, and carried out by879scholars: Tülay Zorlu, Levent Alver, Altay Çolak, Mukaddes Demirbaş, Simla Özdemir, Emine Saka.880Şengül Yalçınkaya Erol and Kıymet Sancar provided the statistical tests. The author owes great thanks to881each research assistant involved in this study.

882Appendix: Questionnaire Form

883Name and Family name:884Sex:885Age886Grade:887School name:888Home address:889Mother’s occupation:



AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

890Father’s occupation:891Write down the number of persons in the household (and your affiliation with892them):893I. House Type:894Apartment:895Detached House:896II. 1. Could you tell us things about your house? Describe your house.8972. Do you have a private room in your house? If not, with whom do you share it?8983. Where do you study most of the time? Why?8994. Where do you play most of the time? Why?9005. Where do you play when your friends visit you? Why?9016. What are your favorite places at home? Why?9027. Would you mind telling us a very good or a very bad thing that happened to you903in your house?9048. If you were free to change things in your house what changes would you do?9059. Can you tell us about the best house in your mind?

906

907References Q14

908Adema, W., Huerta, M. C., Panzera, A., Thevenon, O., Pearson, M. (2009). The OECD Family database:909Developing a cross-national tool for assessing family policies and outcomes. http://www.ucllouvain.be/910cps/ucl/doc/demo/documents/Thevenon_Base_OCDE.pdf.911Amaturo, E., Costagliola, S., & Ragone, G. (1987). Furnishing and status attributes: a sociological study of912the living room. Environment and Behavior, 19(2), 228–249.913Andrews, H. F. (1973). Home range and urban knowledge of school-age children. Environment and914Behavior, 5(1), 73–89.915Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford: Stanford U. Press.916Barker, R. G., Wright, H., & Herbert, F. (1955). Midwest and its children. The psychological ecology of an917American town. New York: Row, Peterson & Co.918Berg, H. W., & Daniel, T. C. (1980). Children in four neighborhoods: the physical environment and its919effect on play and play patterns. Environment and Behavior, 12(3), 308–320.920Berg, H. W., & Medrich, E. A. (1980). Play patterns, environment. Environment and Behavior, 12(3), 321–921349.922Bishop, J. (1974). Children’s images of Harvich. In R. Küller (Ed.), Architectural psychology. Proceedings923of the Lund conference (pp. 308–320). London: Architectural Press.924Bonnes, M., Giuliani, M. V., Amoni, F., & Bernard, Y. (1987). Cross cultural rules for the optimization of925the living room. Environment and Behavior, 19(2), 204–227.926Bunting, T. E., & Cousins, L. R. (1985). Environmental dispositions among school-age children. Environ-927ment and Behavior, 7(6), 725–769.928Burchett, B. M. (1971). A descriptive study of fourth, fifth and sixth grade student’s attitudes relating to929environmental problems. Unpublished Dissertation. Indiana: Indiana U. Press.930Castonguay, G., & Jutras, S. (2009). Children’s appreciation of outdoor places in a poor neighborhood.931Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 101–109.932Chipeniuk, R. (1995). Childhood foraging as a means of acquiring competent human cognition about bio-933diversity. Environment and Behavior, 27(4), 490–513.934Coates, G., & Bussard, E. (1974). Patterns of children’s spatial behavior in a moderate density housing935development. In R. W. Moore (Ed.), Childhood city: Man-environment interactions (pp. 131–141).936Milwaukee: EDRA.937Cohen, S., & Horm-Wingerd, D. (1993). Children and the environment: ecological awareness among pre-938school children. Environment and Behavior, 25(1), 103–121.939Cohen, S., & Trostle, S. (1990). Young children’s preferences for school related physical environmental940setting characteristics. Environment and Behavior, 22(6), 753–767.

Ş.Ö. Gür


http://www.ucllouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/demo/documents/Thevenon_Base_OCDE.pdf

http://www.ucllouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/demo/documents/Thevenon_Base_OCDE.pdf

AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

941 Q15Cooper, C. (1974a). Children’s play behavior and low-rise, inner city housing development. In R. Moore942(Ed.), Childhood city: Man-environment interactions (pp. 197–211). Milwaukee: EDRA.943Cooper, C. (1974b). The house as the symbol of the self. In J. Lang et al. (Eds.), Designing for human944behavior: Architecture and the behavioral sciences (pp. 130–146). Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson945and Ross.946Cooper-Marcus, C. (1978). Remembrance of landscapes past. Landscape, 2(3), 54–62.947Cornell, E. H., & Hay, D. H. (1984). Children’s acquisition of a route via different media. Environment and948Behavior, 16(5), 627–643.949Devlin, A. S. (1994). Children’s housing style preferences: regional socio-economy, sex and adult com-950parison. Environment and Behavior, 26(4), 527–560.951Drake, J. (1984). Architects and user requirements in public-sector housing: towards an adequate under-952standing of user requirements in housing. Environment and Planning, 4(11), 417–433.953Duncan, J. S. (1985). The house as a symbol of social structure: Notes on the language of objects among954collectivistic groups. In I. Altman & C. M. Werner (Eds.), Home environments (Vol. 8, pp. 133–152).955New York: Plenum Press.956Eco, U. (1980). Function and sign: The semiotics of architecture. In G. Broadbent et al. (Eds.), Signs,957symbols and architecture (pp. 11–69). New York: Wiley.958Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.959Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and life cycle. New York: Norton.960Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the961New York Academy of Medicine, 80(4) December, 536–555. http://cmbi.bjmu.cn/news/report/2004/962Urban/view/31.pdf.963Foucault, M. (1994). Kelimeler ve şeyler (Les mots et les choses). In M. A. Kılıçbay (translated into964Turkish). Istanbul: Imge [Originally by Gallimard in 1966].965Frost, J. L., & Strickland, E. (1985). Equipment choices of young children during free play. In J. L. Frost &966S. Sundlin (Eds.), When children play (pp. 93–101). Maryland: Wheaton.967Gaster, S. (1991). Urban children’s access to their neighborhood: changes over three generations. Envi-968ronment and Behavior, 23(1), 70–86.969Giuliani, M. V. (1987). Naming the rooms: implications of change in the home model. Environment and970Behavior, 19(2), 180–203.971Giuliani, M. V. (1991). Autobiographical reports of residential experience: An exploratory study. Interna-972tional symposium for housing research and design education. London: South Bank Polytechnic.973manuscript.974Giuliani, M. V., Bove, G., Rullo, G. (1993). The spatial organization of domestic interior. In The meaning975and use of housing. Ethnoscapes: Current challenges in the environmental social sciences, 7 (pp. 117–976134). New York: Avebury.977Gür, Ş. Ö. (1983). Contemporary architectural education and an application. KTU Bulletin, 1, 182–188.978Gür, Ş. Ö. (1993a). Participation of children in design and planning. Educational facilities towards 21st979century congress (pp. 141–149). Istanbul: YTÜ, School of Architecture.980Gür, Ş. Ö. (1997). House preferences of user at different stages of acculturation. EKISTICS, 61(366/367),981176–182.982Gür, Ş. Ö. (2000). House culture in the Eastern Black sea region. Istanbul: YEM.983Gür, Ş. Ö. (1988). Needs research and interpretation in architecture, EKISTICS, (55) 28/29/30 (Triple984Issue). Athens, 141–145.985Gür, Ş. Ö. (1993b). Konutta yaşam niteliğini belirleyen boyutlara genel bir bakış [A general look at the986paradigms that determine the quality in housing], (pp. 4.1–4.61). Research on housing quality in the987Eastern Black Sea Region-Turkey, State Planning Department. Report No: 91.112.002.2., Ş. Ö. Gür &988S. Aydemir (Eds.), KTU.989Gür, Ş. Ö., & Zorlu, T. (2002). Çocuk mekanları (Spaces for children). Istanbul: YEM.990Gür, Ş. Ö., Lang, J., Özbilen, A., Ertürk, S., & Ibis, T. (1980a). Children and environment: streets as play991space for children. KTU Bulletin, 5, 70–76.992Gür, Ş. Ö., Ertürk, S., İbiş, T., & Özbilen, A. (1980b). Çocuk ve çevresi: çocuk oyun alanları olarak993sokaklarımız [Child and environment: streets as playgrounds]. KTU Bulletin, 5, 71–76.994Gür, Ş. Ö., Özbilen, A., & Ertürk, S. (1989). Children and environmental psychology: Design implications995of the cognitive evaluations of school environments by primary school children. Trabzon: KTU.996Gür, Ş. Ö., Erol, Ş. Y., & Erbay, M. (2012). The impact of modernization on Non-Western architecture:997Case of kitchens in Turkey. Saarbrücken: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing AG & Co. KG.998Hayward, D. G., Rothenberg, M., & Beasley, R. R. (1974). Children’s play and urban playground999environments. Environment and Behavior, 6(2), 131–169.



http://cmbi.bjmu.cn/news/report/2004/Urban/view/31.pdf

http://cmbi.bjmu.cn/news/report/2004/Urban/view/31.pdf

AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

1000Helphend, K. I. (1978). Environmental autobiography. Childhood City Newsletter, 4, 8–11.1001Herman, J. F., Norton, L. M., & Klein, C. A. (1986). Children’s distance estimates in a large scale1002environment. Environment and Behavior, 18(4), 211–230.1003Horvatt, R. E. (1974). Fifth and eighth grade student’s orientation toward the environment and environ-1004mental problems. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Madison: U. of Wisconsin.1005Ittelson, H. W. (1973). Environmental perception and contemporary perceptual theory. Environment and1006cognition (pp. 1–9). New York: Seminar Press.1007Jacobs, J. (1961). The use of sidewalks: Contact and assimilating children. In Death and life of great1008American cities. New York: Random House.1009Jencks, C. (1980). The architectural sign. In G. Broadbent et al. (Eds.), Signs symbols and architecture (pp.101071–118). New York: Wiley.1011Kent, S. (1984). Analyzing activity areas: An ethnoarcheological study of the use of space. Albuquerque: U.1012of New Mexico Press.1013Kent, S. (1990a). Activity areas and architecture: An interdisciplinary view of the relationship between use1014of space and domestic built environments. In S. Kent (Ed.), Domestic architecture and the use of space1015(pp. 1–9). Cambridge: Cambridge U.1016Kent, S. (1990b). A cross-cultural study of segmentation, architecture and the use of space. In S. Kent (Ed.),1017Domestic architecture and the use of space (pp. 127–153). Cambridge: Cambridge U.1018Kent, S. (1991). Partitioning space: cross-cultural factors influencing domestic spatial segmentation.1019Environment and Behavior, 23(4), 438–473.1020Lawrence, R. J. (1985). A more humane history of homes: Research method and application. In I. Altman1021& C. Werner (Eds.), Home environments: Human behavior and environment, advances in theory and1022research 8 (pp. 113–132). New York: Plenum.1023Lehman, J., & Durlak, J. (1974). User awareness and sensitivity to open space: A study of traditional and1024open plan schools. In D. Canter & T. Lee (Eds.), Psychology and the built environment (pp. 164–170).1025London: Architectural Press.1026Lukashok, A., & Lynch, K. (1956). Some childhood memories of the city. JAIP, 22, 142–152.1027Q16Lynch, K. (Ed.). (1977). Growing up in cities. Cambridge: MIT Press.1028Mallenby, T. W. (1974). Personal space: direct measurement techniques with hard of hearing children.1029Environment and Behavior, 6(1), 117–123.1030Manning, P. (1967). The primary school: An environment for education. The Pilkington Research Unit,1031Dept. of Building Science, U. of Liverpool.1032McKechnie, G. (1974). ERI manual. Berkeley: Psychologists Press.1033McKechnie, G. (1977). The environmental response directory in application. Environment and Behavior, 9,1034225–276.1035Mitchell, S. K., & Lunneborg, P. W. (1968). Effects of environmental education on first graders. The1036Journal of Environmental Education, 4, 34–37.1037Moore, R. C. (1976). Patterns of activity in time and space: The ecology of neighborhood playgrounds. In1038D. Canter & T. Lee (Eds.), Psychology and the built environment (pp. 118–132). London: Architectural1039Press.1040Moore, R. C. (1986). Childhood domain: Play and space in child development. Wien: Groom Helm.1041Moore, G. T. & Lackney, A. (1994). Educational facilities: Research analysis and design patterns. Center1042for Architecture and Urban Planning Research, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.1043Moore, R. W., & Young, D. (1978). Childhood outdoors: Towards a social ecology of the landscape. In I.1044Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Children and the environment (pp. 83–130). New York: Plenum.1045Moos, R., & Lemke, S. (1980). Assessing the physical and architectural features of sheltered care settings.1046Journal of Gerontology, 35, 571–583.1047Mussen, P. H., Conger, J. J., & Kagan, J. (1963). Child development and personality. New York: Pergamon.1048Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21(3), 235–257.1049Nash, B. C. (1981). The effects of classroom spatial organization on four-and-five-year old children’s1050learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 144–155.1051Okada, S. (1984). Life at the children’s house. JA (6) 90.1052Opie, I., & Opie, P. (1969). Children’s games in street and playground. London: London University Press.1053Oswald, D. (1987). The organization of space in residential buildings: A cross-cultural perspective. In S.1054Kent (Ed.),Method and theory in activity area research: An ethnoarchaeological perspective (pp. 295–1055344). New York: Columbia U. Press.1056Q17Parr, A. E. (1969). Lessons of an urban childhood. The American Montessori Society Bulletin, 7, 4.1057Pearce, M., (1995). Three schools, three worlds: the city-the school. AD (65), 7/8, VII-IX.

Ş.Ö. Gür


AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

1058Pennartz, P., & Elsinga, M. (1990). Adults, adolescents and architects. Environment and Behavior, 22(5),1059675–714.1060Q18Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1948). The child’s conception of space. New York: Norton [1967].1061Rapoport, A. (1969). House form and culture. New York: Prentice-Hall.1062Rapoport, A. (1990). Systems of activities and systems of settings. In S. Kent (Ed.), Domestic architecture1063and the use of space (pp. 9–21). Cambridge: Cambridge U.1064Rivlin, L. G., & Wolfe, M. (1972). The early history of a psychiatric hospital for children: expectations and1065reality. Environment and Behavior, 4(1), 33–73.1066Schnieder, B. (1995). Different housing demands: Segregative and integrative options in the actual housing1067discussions in Germany. Housing question of the others (pp. 94–95). Ankara: TMMOB.1068Sebba, R. (1991). The landscapes of childhood: the reflection of childhood’s environment in adult1069memories and in children’s attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 23(4), 395–423.1070Sebba, R., & Churchman, A. (1986). Schoolyard design as an expression of educational principles.1071Children’s Environment Quarterly, 3, 70–76.1072Stea, D., & Blaut, T. M. (1973). Some preliminary observations on spatial learning in school children. In R.1073M. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Images and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior (pp.1074226–234). Chicago: Aldine.1075Stebbins, R. A. (1973). Physical context influences on behavior: the case of classroom disorderliness.1076Environment and Behavior, 5(3), 291–315.1077Susa, A. M., & Benedict, J. O. (1994). The effects of playground design on pretend play and divergent1078thinking. Environment and Behavior, 26(4), 560–580.1079Tars, S. E. (1972). A longitudinal, observational study of the impact of home and institutional environments1080on the behavior of a child. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, U. of Michigan.1081Tars, S. E., & Appleby, L. (1973). The same child in home and institution: an observational study.1082Environment and Behavior, 5(1), 3–29.1083Webley, P. (1981). Sex differences in home range and cognitive maps in eight-year old children. Journal of1084Environmental Psychology, 1(4), 293–302.1085Wilk, R. R. (1990). The built environment and consumer decisions. In S. Kent (Ed.), Domestic architecture1086and the use of space (pp. 34–43). Cambridge: Cambridge U.1087Wright, H. F. (1967). Recording and analyzing child behavior. New York: Harper and Rowe.

1088



AUTHOR'S PROOF

UNCORRECTEDPROOF

AUTHOR QUERIES

AUTHOR PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUERIES.

Q1. Please check captured Abstract and set of Keywords if appropriate.Q2. Please check if the section headings are assigned to appropriate

levels.Q3. The citation “Gür 1993” (original) has been changed to “Gür 1993a,

b”. Please check if appropriate.Q4. The citation “Kent 1990” (original) has been changed to “Kent

1990a, b”. Please check if appropriate.Q5. The citation “Kent 1991a, 1991b” (original) has been changed to

“Kent 1991”. Please check if appropriate.Q6. The citation “Giuliani 1993” (original) has been changed to

“Giuliani et al. 1993”. Please check if appropriate.Q7. The citation “Gür et. al. 1980” (original) has been changed to “Gür

et al. 1980a, b”. Please check if appropriate.Q8. The citation “Moore 1994” (original) has been changed to “Moore

and Lackney 1994”. Please check if appropriate.Q9. The citation “Cooper 1974” (original) has been changed to “Cooper

1974a, b”. Please check if appropriate.Q10. The citation “Hayward & Rothenberg 1974” (original) has been

changed to “Hayward et al. 1974”. Please check if appropriate.Q11. “Sanoff 1973” is cited in text but not given in the reference list.

Please provide details in the list or delete the citation from the text.Q12. The citation “Foucault 1966” (original) has been changed to

“Foucault 1994”. Please check if appropriate.Q13. The citation “Castonguay (2009)” (original) has been changed to

“Castonguay and Jutras (2009)”. Please check if appropriate.Q14. Reference "EPOS developers resaerch:http://forum.yapisal.net/

sektorel-haberler/7129-cocuklaringozuyle-ev.html" was deleted inthe reference list and captured as normal text in the body.

Q15. Please check captured pages in this reference if correct.Q16. Lynch (1977) was not cited anywhere in the text. Please provide a

citation. Alternatively, delete the item from the list.Q17. Please check captured volume number if correct.Q18. Please check captured year and comment if correct.Q19. Decimal commas were change to decimal dots. Please check Tables

1 and 7-20 if captured correctly.

How Children Describe Their House: Present vs Ideal

Documents

Transcript of How Children Describe Their House: Present vs Ideal