vii
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER
1
2
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
vii
LIST OF TABLES
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
xii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
xv
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
1
1.2 Problems with Public Space and Their Quality
3
1.3 Research Question
4
1.4 Purpose and Objectives of the Study
5
1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Study
6
1.6 Significance of The Study
7
1.7 Research Methodology
8
1.8 Organization of the Research
8
PUBLIC REALMS AND QUALITY OF LIFE
1.1 The Shift In Planning Ideology
2.1.1
Traditional Cities
10
11
viii
2.1.2
Modern Cities
12
2.1.3
Patching the Ruined Cities Sense
14
2.2 Public Spaces vs. Public Place; Concepts and
16
Definitions
2.2.1
Public definitions and concept
16
2.2.2
Place vs. Space
17
2.3 Public Places Categories and Contribution to Social
18
Life in Cities
2.3.1
Public Places and Urban Activities
2.3.2
Public
Spaces
Contribution
19
to
20
Socialization
3
2.4 Socialization and Quality Of Life
22
2.5 Conclusion
24
BEHAVIOR WITHIN BUILT ENVIROMENT
3.1 Experiencing the Space
25
3.2 Environmental Behavior
26
3.2.1
Environment
26
3.2.2
Relation Between Behavior And
27
Environment
3.3 Features of Public Space Environment
4
30
3.3.1
Physical Features of the Environment
30
3.3.2
Non-Physical Features of the Environment
40
3.4 Connecting the Dots
45
3.5 Conclusion
50
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Research Process
51
4.2 Research Methodology
53
4.3 Data Collection
53
4.4 Used Software
54
4.5 Data Analysis
55
ix
4.5.1
4.5.2
AHP
55
4.5.1.1 Model construction
56
4.5.1.2 Pairwise Comparison
58
4.5.1.3 Priority Derivation
59
4.5.1.4 Geometric Mean
59
Descriptive Analysis (e.g. Scatter Plot;
60
Pyramid Graph)
5
4.5.3
Cross Tabulation
60
4.5.4
Conclusion
61
DATA ANALYSIS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Analysis of the Respondents
62
5.1.1
Young People (Public)
63
5.1.2
Professionals
63
5.2 Priorities According to Professionals
64
5.2.1
Essential Criteria and Sub-Criteria
65
According to Professionals
5.2.1.1 Professional Evaluation of
65
Physical Feature of Public Spaces
5.2.1.2 Professional Evaluation of Non-
71
Physical Feature of Public Spaces
5.3 Priorities According to Public –Young People
5.3.1
Essential Criteria and Sub-Criteria
77
78
According to Young People
5.3.1.1 Public Evaluation of Physical
79
Feature of Public Spaces
5.3.1.2 Public Evaluation of Non-
84
Physical Feature of Public Spaces
5.4 Difference Between the Preference of the Two
88
Group
5.4.1
Sub-criteria of physical feature of public
88
x
spaces Physical
5.4.2
Sub-criteria of physical feature of public
90
spaces Physical
5.4.3
Distribution of professional and public
91
preferences
5.5 Criteria And Sub-Criteria Presentation In Current
92
Guideline in Relation to Respondent Evaluation
5.6 Conclusion
6
94
CONCLUSION
6.1 Summary of Findings
6.1.1
Public
Space
95
Categorization
and
96
Contribution to Social Life in Cities
6.1.2
Environment and Human Behavior
96
6.1.3
The Variation in Respondents Preferences
97
and Choices
6.2 Recommendations Regarding Current Guidelines
6.2.1
Including the Non-physical Features of
98
98
Environment in Guidelines Setting
6.2.2
Public participation in planning and
99
designing the space
6.3 Conclusions
101
REFERENCES
102
APPENDIX A
108
APPENDIX B
115
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
Table 3.1
TITLE
Guidelines and Literature Content Analysis Regarding the
PAGE
47
Physical Feature
48
Table 4.1
Guidelines and Literature Content Analysis Regarding the
Non-Physical Feature
AHP scale of Judgment.
Table 5.1
Profile of Respondents (public)
63
Table 5.2
Profile of Respondents (professionals)
63
Table 3.2
58
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
TITLE
FIGURE NO.
PAGE
Figure 1.1
Functionally-Dead Public Space in Dubai.
3
Figure 2.1
Map of Isfahan Shows the Old Town Boundaries and
11
the Heart of the City
Figure 2.2
Shaikh Zayed Road, the Impossible Road to Cross,
13
Dubai
Figure 2.3
Same Spaces but Different Place
17
Figure 2.4
Activities Within Square in Copenhagen, Denmark
21
Figure 2.5
Relations between Number of Outdoor Activity and
22
Frequency of Interaction
Figure 2.6
Relation between Place functionality , Its Environment
22
and the Activity it Contains
Figure 3.1
Human Scale and Embodied Meaning in Tiananmen
34
Square, Beijing
Figure 3.2
Night Market a Place for Shopping, Eating,
39
Socializing and Recreating, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
Figure 3.3
Fish Market, Dubai, UAE
42
Figure 3.4
Intimate, Personal, Social and Public distances.
44
Figure 3.5
Hierarchical Models of Feature, Criteria and Sub-
49
Criteria
Figure 4.1
Flow of Research Activity
52
Figure 4.2
Conceptual Hierarchical Models of Feature, Criteria
56
and Sub-Criteria
xiii
Figure 4.3
The Three Different Hierarchies as Shown in Expert
57
Choice
Figure 4.4
Sample of Tactile and color’s Sub-Criteria’s’ Ranking
58
Under Physical Feature in Expert System
Figure 4.5
Priorities According To One of the Respondent in the
59
Administrator Group
Figure 5.1
Varieties in Ranking the Importance of Visual Aspect
64
of Space According to Professions.
Figure 5.2
Importance of Criteria of the Physical features
66
According to Professionals
Figure 5.3
Values of Sub-Criteria of Tactile and Color According
67
to Professionals
Figure 5.4
Values of Sub-Criteria of Edge According to
68
Professionals
Figure 5.5
Values of Sub-Criteria of Urban Furniture According
68
to Professionals
Figure 5.6
Values of Sub-Criteria of Soft-Scape and Hard-Scape
69
According to Professionals
Figure 5.7
Overall Values of Physical Sub-criteria According to
70
Professional.
Figure 5.8
Non-Physical Criteria Priority According to
72
Professional.
Figure 5.9
Values of Sub-Criteria of Illumination and Lighting
73
According to Professionals
Figure 5.10
Values of Sub-Criteria of Distance According to
73
Professionals
Figure 5.11
Values of Sub-Criteria of Users Criterion According to
74
Professionals
Figure 5.12
Values of Sub-Criteria of Odor and Smell According
to Professionals
75
xiv
Figure 5.13
Overall Evaluation of Sub-criteria of the non-physical
76
criteria According to Professional.
Figure 5.14
Different Ethnics and the Preference of Cultural
77
Constrain as Sub-Criteria of Sight and View.
Figure 5.15
Different Ethnics and the Preference of Social
78
Distance as Best Interaction Distance in Public Space.
Figure 5.16
Public Evaluations of Physical Criteria of Public
79
Space.
Figure 5.17
Values Given to Sub-Criteria of Edge According to
80
public
Figure 5.18
Evaluation of Sub-Criteria of Tactile and color
81
According to Public
Figure 5.19
Evaluation of Sub-Criteria of Soft-Scape and Hard-
81
Scape According to Public
Figure 5.20
Evaluation of Sub-Criteria of Path and Accessibility
82
According to Public
Figure 5.21
Evaluation of Sub-Criteria of Surrounding According
83
to Public
Figure 5.22
Overall Evaluations of Physical Sub-Criteria
84
According to Public
Figure 5.23
Public Evaluations of Non-Physical Criteria of Public
85
Spaces
Figure 5.24
Evaluation of Sub-Criteria of lighting and Illumination
85
According to public
Figure 5.25
Evaluation of Sub-Criteria of Distance According to
86
public
Figure 5.26
Evaluation of Sub-Criteria of Users According to
87
Public.
Figure 5.27
Overall Evaluations of Non-Physical Sub-Criteria
According to Public
88
xv
Figure 5.28
Compression of Non-Physical Sub-Criteria Evaluation
89
between the Two Respondents Group.
Figure 5.29
Compression of Non-Physical Sub-Criteria Evaluation
91
between the Two Respondents Group.
Figure 5.30
Professionals and Public Ranking of the Criteria of
Good Public Place
92
xvi
LIST OF APPENDIXES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
Appendix A
Young People Questionnaire Form
108
Appendix B
Professionals Questionnaire Form
115