Ic2p2-2023 - 182906a

Proceedings of the International e- Conference on 'Cities, People and Places'- IC 2P2-2023
March 24th – 25th, 2023, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Outdoor Open Spaces as a Catalyst for

a Sense of Community:
Referring to Urban Middle-Income Mass
Housing in Colombo, Sri Lanka
Maheshi, Bandara
University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka
Abstract
Researchers have discovered the "Sense Of Community" possesses certain

curative qualities that can be applied to alleviate a variety of contemporary
societal issues. Simultaneously during recent years, residential real estate
developers around the world have seized upon the mystical qualities of
"community" with a passion that has baffled them. Given the intangible
nature of communities, it is questionable whether the urban mass housing
projects are capable of successfully utilizing outdoor open spaces as a catalyst
for SOC.
However, the role of socio-spatial characteristics of outdoor open spaces in

such projects, especially in the middle-income category, has not been
emphasized in the current literature on SOC. Against this backdrop, this study
explores and evaluates the connection between SOC and the physical features
of OOS in UMMH.
This study delves into the subject via three case studies set in the city of
Colombo, Sri Lanka; through a mixed research methodology. The evaluation is
based on a four-factor theoretical framework on socio-spatial dimensions of
SOC adapted from the work of Kim & Kaplan (2004). Each case study was
further examined through four interactive categories of OOS.
The utilisation of OOS was analysed by referring to place theory, place

attachment, place identity and sense of place. The outcomes depict how
people's shared idealisation of the term "community" gives the concept of a
"sense of community" a concrete form by utilising the available OOS by
creating meaningful functions and identities. These outcomes enable
professionals to make community-centric decisions and designs that benefit
the communities they serve.
Keywords: Outdoor open spaces, sense of community, middle-income mass

housing, urban neighbourhoods

Corresponding Author: Maheshi Bandara; E-mail- sarikabandara@gmail.com
1
Introduction
I. Background to the study
A safe and secure place to call home is one of the fundamental human needs; one that
promotes not only physical but also mental health, social interaction, economic productivity,
and personal security. Socially functional outdoor spaces play an important role in the
establishment of healthy communities and neighbourhoods. In a broad sense, it has a direct
bearing on a country's standard of living and economic development.
Being the economic hub of the country, many Sri Lankans seek employment and business
opportunities in the city of Colombo, resulting in densely populated areas. This pattern was
accelerated by the advent of open economic policies in 1977. However, Colombo and its major
suburbs already had a limited amount of land footprint available for residential development by
the 1950s, in response, the government initiated mass housing projects as an alternative for
government employees who represented the middle-income category of Sri Lanka.
It is being long considered community as containing certain curative qualities that can be utilised
to address a variety of contemporary societal issues (Bryson & Mowbray, 2005). Numerous
macro-level issues with Urban Middle-income Mass Housing (UMMH) neighbourhoods include
the unsuitability of open spaces, the non-availability of informal identity, indifference to
prevailing environmental conditions, and the absence of visual and spatial character. Francis et
al. (2012) identify that a strong Sense Of Community (SOC) has been related to enhanced
emotions of safety and security, participation in communal affairs, and civic responsibility.
Humans are innately sociable creatures with a profound need to belong (Heinrich & Gullone,
2006). In a situation where residents share close quarters with other people, the ability to
provide people with the feeling of being in a space where they can be independent and still feel
connected to society is important. It should come as no surprise that UN Sustainable
Development Goal 11, which aims to make urban spaces more inclusive, safe, resilient, and
sustainable (Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform 2017), lays a strong focus on
ensuring safe, high-quality access to public open spaces.
While there is an increasing awareness of the significance of OOS to the social well-being of the
urban population referring to gardens, green spaces, parks etc., there is little research on the
role of OOS inside urban mass housing establishments, particularly in the middle-income
category and their ability to fostering a SOC. This study explores this topic using three case
studies based in the city of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
II. Research gap/ issues of interest
As a landscape component in UMMH, OOS have a huge potential in creating meaningful social
connections. Although the planning and landscape architectural aspects connected with open
spaces in urban public spaces are well-understood, there is still much to learn about why
occupation and preference levels of OOS differentiate between communities and their
effectiveness in terms of their capacity to foster a SOC in UMMH projects. Also, the majority of
existing work on SOC has overlooked the physical aspects of SOC.
Against this backdrop, this study aims to explore the following ROs and RQs in relation to place
theory, place attachment, place identity and sense of place in UMMH; specifically at the
neighbourhood scale.
2
III. Research questions and research objectives

 Research Questions
RQ 1: Do OOS have a catalytic effect in creating SOC in UMMH?
RQ 2: What are the general qualities of OOS that elevate SOC in UMMH?
RQ 3: What type of OOS has the highest effect on SOC?
 Research Objectives
RO 1: To determine the relevance of OOS in UMMH towards a SOC.
RO 2: To evaluate socio-spatial dimensions of OOS in UMMH.
RO 3: To identify the features of SOC conducive OOS in UMMH.
IV. Research methodology

This study utilised both quantitative and qualitative methods which began with a comprehensive
literature review to determine what was previously known about OOS in mass housing
environments. The overall study is mixed methodology research. The twofold approach of the
study explores the relevance of socio-spatial dimensions of SOC in three case studies in one
stage and the specific characteristics of successful OOS referring to selected theories in the next
stage.
The basic flow of the research methodology for this study is summarized in Fig 1.
Fig1: Basic Flow of the Research
Source: Compiled by the author
3
V. Limitations and scope of the study

 The scope of the research is limited to the middle-income social strata of Colombo city.
 This investigation relies upon a limited amount of research work in the Sri Lankan
context in the selected social category and the built environment.
 The influence of individual factors affect to the SOC on the overall study design was not
taken into account (The sample for data collection was a random one, hence it is
assumed that the outcomes represent the thinking pattern whole community in
general.)
 Data collection and observations are restricted to the daytime.
VI. Contribution of the study

This study addresses the prevailing gap in research about spatial requirements for fostering SOC
in UMMH. Since there has not been much research done regarding the selected social and
urban settings in the Sri Lankan context, this study will give directions for further studies in the
study area.
Therefore, the study will provide knowledge in the field of landscape architecture to design
more socially sustainable, human-centric outdoor spaces for UMMH projects. The outcomes
enable landscape architects, architects and urban designers to make more community-oriented
approaches in future developments. And also provide a foundation for making decisions that
will benefit the communities they serve.
In addition, the outcomes will contribute to the maintenance and correcting of errors of already
established OOS in UMMH for resolving various social issues.
1. Literature Review - Role of outdoor open spaces in creating sense of community
4
1.1 Urban middle-income communities in the Sri Lankan context

1.1.1 Determinants and behaviours of the middle-income category
Social status and income are not proportional to one another. The fundamental determinant of
socioeconomic class is the "way of life" (Manawadu et al., 2018). However, when income is
included, social classes can be divided into 3 categories as low-income, middle-income and high-
income (Jayawardhana, 2007). In this instance, the focus will be on the middle-income category.
This category can be identified with its distinctive traits as in Fig 2.
Fig 2: Distinctive Traits of the Middle-Income Category of Sri Lanka
Source: Adapted from Jayawardhana, K. V. G. K. S. (2007). Facilitating spaces for social interaction through
architecture: an examination with special reference to middle income class housing schemes in Colombo
and suburbs (Doctoral dissertation).
The majority of Sri Lanka's population corresponds to the middle-income category while
workers in the public and private sectors, make up the bulk. It is made up of people who are
looking to improve their standard of living. The middle class can be subdivided into the upper
middle class, the middle class, and the artisan class (lower middle class) according to distinctions
in education, income, and social standing (Manawadu et al., 2018).
1.1.2 Housing as a need

“Shelter is of supreme importance to man. It is the prime factor in his constant struggle for
survival” (Rappoport, 1969, p.18)
The home environment stands out among the various contexts for human behaviour as the
physical context for a variety of roles and interactions. But more than that, the residential
environment is essential to develop people's sense of place in the world and their spatial
identity (Fried, 1963).
For most individuals, the house is a haven of leisure and relaxation, where they seek to escape
from the stress and obligations of daily life. Hidalgo & Hernández (2001) identified the spatial
range of “house” has the highest social and physical attachment out of city, neighbourhood and
house. Also, the same study revealed that social attachment in all cases is greater than physical
attachment.
5
Nahiduzzaman (2012) identifies housing as more than a technological solution, and its definition
cannot be restricted to a house as a physical structure. The purpose of mass housing is to
provide not just shelter but also a social structure for communities. People celebrate their way
of life by utilising the available areas in these developments (Manawadu et al., 2018).
1.1.3 Middle-income mass housing in Sri Lanka
After the establishment of the open economy in 1977, the Sri Lankan government
acknowledged housing as a critical concern. United Nations Development Program's 1978
regional framework for Colombo included housing as a crucial component, demonstrating the
government's emphasis on housing. In the beginning, the National Housing Development
Authority (NHDA) and State Engineering Corporation (SEC) collaborated to construct mass
housing projects.
Mass housing projects are typically made up of a series of repetitive housing units, (usually
multi-storey buildings). In response to the fluctuating demand, these dwellings are constructed
in a variety of configurations, such as housing units, low-rise residences, multi-story walk-ups,
and high-rise blocks. Additionally, housing units are distributed in clusters adjacent to
unobstructed spaces, parallel rows etc. (Mohanani, 2017). Since this is a quantitative rather than
qualitative solution to housing, there is a compatibility issue among individuals and the
sociological impacts of outdoor design are not adequately concerned in the Sri Lankan context.
The 1970s were the heyday of mass housing in and around Colombo, with later additions.
However, there were some housing complexes developments were there that were established
before this period (Aamar weediya flats -1958, Bluemendal flats – 1959, Aduruppu veediya flats
– in the 1960s etc.) (A. Perera, personal communication, September 20, 2022).
Sri Lankan UMMH falls into two categories. The traditional housing developed by the
government aimed the government workers and the more recent phenomenon, commercially
developed UMMH by the private sector real estate developers. Back then it was not only
middle-income but also a very distinctive category. Back then in the 1950s when there were
hardly any private-sector mass housing projects in Sri Lanka, only UMMH initiation was the first
category. This dissertation focuses on that category.
Although now there are residents of various backgrounds have settled in these UMMH, the
initial owners of these houses are government servants and sometimes the houses have been
passed down to their children. Now they can sell those housing units. However, even today, the
majority of occupants consist of the middle-income category of Sri Lanka. Now more than ever,
the private sector leads the way in residential construction, yet historically, the government has
been the primary producer of UMMH. However, private investors in the middle-income housing
market remain elusive even in the present day.
1.2 Outdoor open spaces
Since this research is based on mass housing in an urban setting (Colombo), OOS can also be
viewed as urban open spaces. Thompson (2002) defines urban open spaces as locations to
celebrate the cultural diversity that enables outdoor recreation to improve citizens' social lives.
The importance of quality OOS to the healthy functionality of a community was not given
sufficient attention in the earlier mass housing developments in Sri Lanka. Although later
designs placed a premium on public open areas, they were underutilised by residents. There are
instances in which spaces are utilised contradictory to the original intent of the designers. (H.
Wickramaratne, personal communication, August 14, 2022).
6
1.2.1 Outdoor open spaces in mass housing

Each urban environment has a pattern of solids and voids, which are created by the shape and
placement of buildings. In other words, buildings create open spaces (voids) for people (Gehl,
1987). Fig 3 divides OOS spaces in UMMH into two categories.
Fig 3: Main Types of OOS in UMMH
The indoor open spaces do not exist in the majority of government initiated UMMS in the early
stages, but they are becoming more present in newer mass housing projects. The focus of this
study is set on OOS.
Mass housing developers must reserve 10% of the property for OOS in Sri Lanka. In many cases,
these areas shrink with time due to illegal encroachments and constructions by residents.
From the perspective of the user, open spaces can be defined as a location that allows for a
variety of activities, including necessary, optional, and social activities (Gehl, 1987). Gehl (1987)
further states that life between buildings consists of more than pedestrian traffic, leisure
activities, and social interactions. Life between buildings encompasses the complete spectrum of
activities that contribute to the significance and attractiveness of urban and residential public
spaces.
Trancik (1991) introduces the idea of “lost spaces” as ill-defined ones, that fail to connect
elements coherently, and lack a true understanding of human behaviour. This concept can also
be applied to OOS in mass housing. Through an in-depth analysis, these lost spaces can be
transformed into spaces that foster social connections and improve the quality of life.
1.2.2 The functionality of outdoor open spaces

1.2.2.1 Physical function
Mahmoudi Farahani (2016) claims that space has historically been an integral component of a
community. In contemporary societies, the establishment of the hierarchy of local communities
based on spatial arrangements of neighbourhoods and residential blocks demonstrates that
space remains an important factor in the formation of local communities.
1.2.2.2 Psychological function
“Meeting of people is also a basic need since man has been defined as a social animal”
(Rapoport, 1969, p.68)
OOS has a great impact on psychological well-being at the individual level as well as the
community level. Gehl (1987) indicated walking around the neighbourhood brings residents
closer to the community, providing chances for improved social involvement, enhanced identity,
and strengthened connections.
7
1.2.2.3 Social function

When constructed and maintained appropriately, open spaces bring communities together,
provide gathering places, and develop social bonds, which have been decreasing in many
neighbourhoods and cities. These venues form the cultural identity of an area, contribute to its
unique characteristic, and provide residents with a sense of place. The residents take pride in
the area in which they reside (Woolley, 2003).
1.3 Sense of community

1.3.1 Defining the community
Crow & Allan (2004) define the term “community” as an umbrella term to cover one's close
social relationships outside the family. The definition of "community" has been the subject of
considerable discussion as a nebulous notion (Mannarini & Fedi, 2009). People feel that
"community" is either an ideal concept or a reality, or occasionally both at the same time
(Cohen, 2013). This conceptual issue in scholarly discussions stems from the duality of the term
"community," as defined in Fig 4 by Gusfield (1975).
Fig 4: Duality of the Term "Community"
Source: Adapted from Gusfield, J. R. (1975). Community: A critical response. New York: Harper & Row.
This indicates that people can create communities in their neighbourhoods, but they can belong
to other communities consisting of religious and common interests-based groups (sport, a
certain activity club etc.). All UMMH residents will be part of several communities outside of
their mass housing neighbourhoods.
1.3.2 Defining the neighbourhood
“Neighbourhood” also can be defined in two concepts; the first one being the physical concept
indicating the place in which people live – district; and the second one is the social concept
characterising the people who inhabit there – community (Briggs, 1997, p.208; Galster, 2001).
Therefore, the physical and social environment inside a mass housing project is the residents'
local neighbourhood.
8
Cochran & Minaker (2020) states that planners can protect and enhance a neighbourhood's
SOC by employing both social policies and physical design tactics. It has been identified that
neighbourhood environments and social networks are becoming obsolete because technology
and mobility enable individuals to access extensive social networks.
The vicinity of neighbours gives an extraordinary opportunity for social interaction and
assistance, such as house surveillance, mail collection, and emergency child care (Ife, 1995).
However, not all interactions between neighbours are pleasant. For example, neighbours can be
a unique source of stress owing to excessive noise, invasion of privacy, and competition for
resources (Unger & Wandersman 1985; Halpern 1995). Therefore, it is vital to develop
surroundings that promote neighbourly aid and safeguard against potentially stressful situations
(Halpern 1995).
Unger & Wandersman (1985) explains SOC as an affective component of neighbouring.
Fig 5: Components of SOC
Source: From Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive,
and affective components of neighboring. American journal of community psychology, 13(2), 139-169.
1.3.3 Background of sense of community concept

SOC is a fundamental concept in community psychology. Numerous fields, including psychology,
sociology, urban planning, and sustainability policy, contribute to the comprehension of this
complicated phenomenon. Sarason (1974) defined the novel concept of SOC as a "sense that
one was part of a readily available, mutually supportive network of relationships upon which
one could depend and as a result of which one did not experience sustained feelings of
loneliness" (Sarason, 1974, p.1)
While there is no consensus definition for SOC at present, it is frequently expressed as “a feeling
that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the
group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be
together” (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 9).
9
According to Mahmoudi Farahani (2016), local communities are not responsible for fostering the
greatest number of effective attachments at all levels and among all individuals, but rather for
enhancing the quality of life in neighbourhoods.
1.3.4 Significance of sense of community
Hummon (1992) states that despite local circumstances, individuals will seek to foster a SOC.
And also Kim & Kaplan (2004) describes the SOC as an asset of new urbanism.
Fig 6: Significance of SOC
1.3.5 Evaluating the sense of community

The Sense of Community Index (SCI) is the most extensively used approach for measuring SOC
within neighbourhoods (Pooley et al., 2005). It addresses the four elements of SOC
(membership, mutual influence, fulfilment of needs, and a shared emotional connection) based
on the definition of McMillan & Chavis (1986).
It has several versions. The SCI-II's (Appendix C) internal consistency reliability is strong, with
studies indicating a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.94. The subscales were also found to be
trustworthy, with coefficient alpha values ranging from 0.79 to 0.86 (Chavis et al., 2008).
1.3.6 Sense of community as a spatial construct

The relationship between SOC and spatial attributes is not much addressed in the existing
literature. However, it is possible to classify OOS in UMMH as urban public spaces due to the
fundamental similarities of their use. Francis et. al. (2012) developed a conceptual model
depicting the relationship between public open spaces and SOC as in Fig 7.
10
Fig 7: Conceptual Model of the Relationship Between Public Space and Sense of Community
Source: From Francis, J., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L., & Knuiman, M. (2012). Creating sense of community:
The role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 401–409.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002
This model provides insights into further studies on the relation of UMMH, SOC and OOS.
1.3.7 Socio-spatial domains of sense of community

Although SCI-II now serves as the best foundation to construct the comprehension of the
concept of SOC and evaluate it, its indicators are not intended to address the physical attributes
of the community (Kim & Kaplan, 2004). To combine physical and psychological indicators that
affect SOC, Kim & Kaplan (2004) developed a theoretical framework comprised of four areas
highlighted in the literature as summarized in Table 1.
11
Table 1: Socio-spatial Dimensions of SOC
12
Source: Adapted from Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of
community: New urbanist Kentlands and nearby orchard village. Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 313–
340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503260236
Kim & Kaplan (2004) further hypothesized the relationship between the above four domains as
depicted in Fig 8.
13
Fig 8: Domains of SOC and Their Hypothesized Relationships
Source: From Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: New
urbanist Kentlands and nearby orchard village. Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 313–340.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503260236
1.4 Theoretical background

1.4.1 Place theory
Gehl (1987) discussed place theory referring to historical, cultural, and natural contexts with
human needs stating that a place is a space with a particular personality that is generated by a
synthesis of environmental elements, including society. Scholarly work on place theory
enhances the physical environment by including particular forms and qualities that are intrinsic
to its context.
1.4.2 Place Attachment
Place attachment is the “affective relationship between people and the landscape that goes
beyond cognition, preference or judgment” (Riley, 1992, p. 13). According to Brown & Perkins
(1992) often, place attachment processes reflect the behavioural, cognitive, and emotional
embedding that people experience in their socio-physical surroundings.
Place attachment develops behavioural, affective, and cognitive links between an individual or
group and their socio-physical environment. These relationships frame individual and societal
identity and are both constant and adaptive (Mohammed, 2018). The settings may include
homes and communities, which are significant and immediately experienced but whose limits
are not always simply defined.
Berkman et al. (2000) emphasize the connection between social ties and place attachment by
stating “when relationships are solid at a community level, individuals feel strong bonds and
attachment to places and organisations” (p.848). Also, Kamalipour et al. (2012) identified open
spaces as a positive predictor of neighbourhood-level place attachment.
1.4.3 Place identity
In the field of environmental psychology, the concept of place identity is defined as ‘‘a
substructure of the self-identity of the person consisting of, broadly conceived, cognition about
the physical world in which the individual lives’’ (Proshansky &Fabian, 1983, p. 59).
14
Proshansky and Fabian (1983) explain place identity in two ways.

a. The physical environment that plays an important role in determining one's self since
self-identification which extends beyond individual, interpersonal, and societal
processes.
b. The notion that a place might be coherent with an individual's beliefs, attitudes, and
behavioural tendencies.
Feldman (1990) used the term "settlement identity" (which can also be interpreted as
“community identity”) to emphasise the notion that each individual has an identity tied to a
certain form of settlement.
1.4.4 Sense of place
Sense of place is viewed as a broad notion characterising the relationships between individuals
and their physical environments (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001). It is frequently used as an
umbrella term for place attachment, place identity, and place dependence (Duany &
Platerzyberk, 1992). Urban theorists have defined a sense of place as “the extent to which a
person can recognise or recall a place as being distinct from other places” (Lynch 1981, p.131).
Others define it as the significance a person or group attributes to a spatial context (Jorgensen &
Stedman 2001). This meaning can be formed from interactions between individuals in a physical
location, or from an attachment to the physical place in and of itself (Eisenhauer et al., 2000).
1.5 Fostering a sense of community in mass housing – global approaches

Throughout the world, a variety of housing initiatives are being implemented to create more
interactive spaces within mass housing communities. These projects permit the unrestricted
formation of diverse activities and engagements that foster a SOC among residents. The global
approaches discussed here may not be identical to Sri Lankan context-specific initiatives, but
these examples can serve as models for designing humancentric, socially and environmentally
sustainable urban communities.
Intentional communities are not a novel concept, but they are frequently referred to as
experimental spaces or test beds for the future. They are sometimes viewed as utopian
experiments in which individuals and groups attempt to create a better society. Following are
such examples.
1.5.1 Sandbakken, Denmark
Sandbakken is a mass housing complex located south of Aarhus, Denmark atop the undulating
site of a former brickworks, which is bisected by two different, deep valleys.
15
Fig 9: Specific Spatial Characteristics of Sandbakken Layout
Source: Adapted from Sandbakken - Projects - C.F. Møller. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2, 2022, from
https://www.cfmoller.com/p/Sandbakken-i40.html
The project covers a total area of 19 000m 2 and it includes 212 housing units. It possesses two
opposing outdoor areas: first, the packed urban squares of the rectangular courtyards, which all
the front doors open onto; and second, the broad green spaces between the three clusters of
dwellings are reminiscent of the comparatively unspoilt hilly terrain of East Jutland (C.F. Møller,
n.d.).
1.5.2 Tinggarden, Denmark
Fig 10: Layout Map of Tinggården Community
Source: Tinggården - Communal building. (n.d.). Retrieved August 28, 2022, from
https://vandkunsten.com/en/projects/tinggaarden
16
Tinggarden is a paradigm for low-rise, high-density residential architecture. Tinggarden presents

the story of a phenomenally competent non-profit housing experiment that employed
architecture to restore residents' democracy and SOC.(Tinggården - Communal Building, n.d.-b)
The complex is initially organised into six clusters of 78 units, each with its dedicated community
building. There is also a large community centre for the entire community.
Fig 11: Small Houses of Tinggården with Expansive Views and Easy Access to
Community Spaces
17
The open floor concept and facade compositions (Fig 11) with a more expansive view of private
space encourage residents to participate actively in the neighbourhood which allows them to
improve a SOC.
Tinggården community design promotes the idea of elementary flexibility. For example, sturdy,
minimalist homes have flexible walls that permit further alteration, So that, for instance, one
family may acquire and take over a room from a neighbour. This flexibility limits illegal
encroachments. (Fig 12)
Fig 13: Altered Houses in Tinggården to Expand the Space with Zero Illegal Encroachments
Fig 12: Tinggården's Purposefully Designed OOS that Promotes Social Life and a SOC
The average size of a housing unit is about 78 m 2. However, even families with children find that
they have sufficient room because of the availability of communal areas and houses, which
account for about 10% of the space. ( Fig: 13)
18
2.1 Theoretical framework

The relationship between OOS in UMMH and SOC is a multifaceted topic. It has been studied
from many perspectives, using multiple methods. While various architects, urban designers, and
sociologists have contributed insightful criticisms to the design of OOS, the measures,
methodologies, data sources, and rigour of the investigations that inspired these critiques are
contradictory. Moreover, many suggestions do not appear to be compatible with middle-income
neighbourhoods.
The theoretical framework for the study is graphically presented as in Fig 14.
19
Fig 14: Theoretical Framework of the Study
20
2.2 Research methodology

This is a mixed-method study that combined qualitative and quantitative approaches which
allows an in-depth understanding of the addressed context through the study (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2011). This synergistic method combines the best features of each strategy while
mitigating the drawbacks (Punch, 2000). It notes generalisations, trends and participant
viewpoints to provide a comprehensive understanding of study objectives.
2.2.1 Stages of research
2.2.1.1 Literature review
A comprehensive literature review provided theoretical background and context for the study. It
identified the quality, methodologies, and limitations of prior research, guiding the design of
qualitative research and questionnaire items for the main survey.
Because of the novelty and complexity of this study, literature from many disciplines was used.
These fields include urban planning, architecture, social and environmental psychology.
2.2.1.2 Study design
Plan for achieving ROs conceptualised (Fig 15). Case study selection, fieldwork, and data-
gathering procedures were also designed. (Fig 16)
Fig 15: Conceptual Plan for Achieving ROs
21
Fig 16: Methodology - Detailed Research Process
22
2.2.1.3 Preliminary stage

At this stage, UMMH projects mentioned in Fig 17 were visited.
Fig 17: UMMH Projects that were Analysed During the Preliminary Stage
Source: Compiled by author
23
Unstructured interviews were carried out among the residents accompanied by thorough
observations to screen the most suitable locations for the data collection. Case study selection
through screening was done according to Fig 18. Screening intends to select 3 case studies with
similar social backgrounds to examine RO 1 and RO 2.
Fig 18: Conceptual Model - Use of OOS Factors Rooted in Place-Based Attachment and Identity Towards a
SOC
Source: Adapted from Francis, J. (2010). Associations between public space and mental health in new
residential developments (Doctoral dissertation, University of Western Australia).
Physical and policy factors for case studies are considered definite (All case studies are
government-initiated housing developments, and they are governed under the Condominium
Management Authority's same condominium management laws). Individual factors affecting
SOC were neglected as a study limitation. Case study screening outcomes are as in Fig 19.
24
Fig 19: Results of Preliminary Case Study Screening
2.2.1.4 Pilot study

12 residents (4 per UMMH) participated in test Questionnaire 1. Some statements of
the questionnaire were modified. Maps/ other documents were accessed and resource persons
were consulted.
2.2.1.5. Data collection – Phase 1
Data collection was done in two phases. During phase 1, a group of 3 consisting of landscape
architecture and architecture undergraduates, and a social science graduate to reduce the bias
and to include a broader perspective.
Questionnaire 1 (Appendix A) which was used to gather fundamental data for the study was
distributed during phase 1. It's a set of 17 statements that address factors of the theoretical
framework by Kim et al (2004) and respondents were asked to rate them according to a Likert
scale (Table 3).
Six of the 126 residents who completed the questionnaire were excluded as they left too many
questions unanswered. 120 residents from all 3 case studies comprised the refined sample (40
respondents from each case study).
25
Table 2: Assessing Statements for 17 Subfactors of Socio-Spatial Dimensions of SOC
26
2.2.1.6 Desk study

Respondents' answers to each questionnaire section and Likert scale scores were analysed. The
questionnaire included a map of the UMMH neighbourhood to mark specific OOS of use. The
OOS were then classified into 4 categories for further analysis in phase 2.
Table 3: OOS Classification
2.2.1.7 Data collection - Phase 2

Focus groups were conducted. Participants in the focus groups responded to a brief
questionnaire 2 (Appendix B) and engaged in in-depth discussions of the research topic. An
experienced civil engineer together with the group of 3 mentioned in section 2.8.3.2.
assisted the focus groups.
2.2.2 Reliability of testing materials
Questionnaire 3 (Appendix C) SCI II standard questionnaire developed by Mcmillan & Chavis
(1986) was distributed among 45 residents (15 from each case study) as a validating test for
previous questionnaires and findings and to analyse RO 1. Participants were asked to rate a
series of statements about their neighbourhood.
27
2.2.3 Data analysing and presentation methods

 For RO 1: Three types of bar charts
Fig 20: Example Bar Chart for RO 2 (Example) - Type I
Fig 21: Example Bar Chart for RO 2 (Example) - Type II
Fig 22: Data Presentation (Example) - SCI II
28
 For RO 2: Table 4
Bar charts (As depicted in Fig 21 and Fig 22)
Table 4: Data Analysing Table for RO 2
29
 For RO 3: Table 5
Photographic analysis
Sketches
Table 5: Data Analysing Table for RO 3
Data analysing for this study was primarily done using Microsoft Excel.
30
2.2.3.1 Interpreting Likert scale data

Table 6: Likert Scale Numeration and Assigned Values for Questionnaires 1 and 2
The SCI II is also interpreted through a Likert scale. But the scoring procedure of SCI II is rather
simple.
Table 7: Likert Scale Numeration and Assigned Values for SCI II
31
Scoring procedure
For the analysis or comparison of the data obtained for a factor, the answers obtained were
assigned a scoring index “i”. (If a respondent mark 5, it will calculate as 5)
Ex: A = Pedestrianism
2.2.4 Sampling method

Because population lists for each case study were unavailable, data collection samples were
chosen on-site using systematic sampling which selected respondents based on predetermined
10-minute intervals.
• No specific age group is targeted when collecting data (However, residents under the age of 15
were not chosen as respondents due to the possibility of not understanding the questionnaire's
base)
• Data collection was limited to permanent residents of the case studies.
2.2.5 Research instruments
1. Existing literature, maps and resource persons
The secondary data regarding the context of the three case studies were collected through
existing literature, documents, booklets and maps from NHDA.
2. On-site observations and documenting
According to the attributes identified, to collect data regarding the adaptability and landscape
character, observational studies were done in the open spaces and surrounding areas of the
study area. Photographs and notes were taken during observations.
3. Questionnaires
There were 3 questionnaires utilised in the study.
i. Questionaries 1 - Designed to assess 17 subcomponents of socio-spatial domains of SOC
by Kim & Kaplan (2004)
ii. Questionnaire 2 – Brief assessment on interactive levels of
iii. Questionnaire 3 - The standard SCI II by (Mcmillan & Chavis, 1986) to test the reliability
of SOC measures taken in questionnaire 2 in each case study.
4. On-site interviews
Both structured and unstructured interviews were used to get in-depth information from the
respondents and resource persons.
5. Focus Groups
Powell & Single (1996, p.499) defined the focus group as “a group of individuals selected
assembled by researchers to discuss and comment on, from personal experience, the topic that
32
is the subject of the research”. Focus groups provide a closer view of a community. Three focus
groups were conducted among 3 groups for 3 case studies (10 residents per case study) to
gather extensive information. The conversations built within the focus groups aided to
overcome the shortcomings of the interviews and analyse the specific spaces in the case studies
and how people created meaningful spaces and more SOC.
2.2.6 Data presentation methods
The following data presentation methods were utilized for the study.
 Tables and graphs
 Photographic / sketch analysis
 Graphical representations
3. Case studies, data analysis and findings
3.1 General introduction to case studies

The selected 3 case studies are located in Colombo District, Sri Lanka.
 Maligawatte housing scheme, Maligawtte
 Soysapura , Moratuwa
 Bamblapitiya flats, Bambalapitiya
1) Maligawatte housing scheme, Maligawtte

2) Soysapura , Moratuwa
3) Bamblapitiya flats, Bambalapitiya
Fig 23: Location Map of the Case Studies in the Colombo District
33
3.1.1 Maligawatte housing scheme, Maligawatte

Maligawatte housing scheme was planned for a 43-acre marshy land in 1973 by NHDA together
with SEC. NHDA further developed it into a housing scheme with 1512 units. Later in April 2012,
Maligawatte housing scheme was refurbished under the second phase of "Nagamu Purawara -
Janasevana Hundred Thousand Homes" and community development project.
The territory of this housing scheme is more of an urban public space as some government
institutions, commercial spaces, and public roads are located within the housing scheme. The
site is accessible via Jayantha Weerasekara Mawatha and Colombo – Kandy A1 road.
Fig 24: Satellite Image of the Maligawatte Housing Scheme
Source: Adapted from https://earth.google.com
34
Fig 25: Site Boundary and Access Ways of Maligawatte Housing Scheme
Source: Adapted from https://snazzymaps.com/
35
3.1.2 Bambalapitiya flats, Bambalapitiya

Bambalapitiya flats differentiate from other case studies as it has a physicaly demarcated
boundary which creates a more private feeling among the residents. It is accessible via Colombo
– Galle A2 road.
Fig 26: Satellite Image of Bambalapitiya Flats
Source: Adapted from https://snazzymaps.com/
Fig 27: Site Boundary and Access Ways of Bambalapitiya Flats
3.1.3 Soysapura, Moratuwa

This UMMH was constructed in 1970 on land owned by the Soysaramaya temple which now acts
as the main religious place of the housing scheme. Soysapura is accessible via Angulana road
36
and Soysa road. The project consists of 1264 housing units spread around 44 four-storey blocks.
The current playground was added subsequently, in 1997.
Fig 28: Satellite Image of Soysapura
37
Fig 29: Site Boundary and Access Ways of Soysapura
Source: Adapted from https://snazzymaps.com/3.2 Findings on socio-spatial domains of sense of

community
38
This section summarizes the outcomes of questionnaire 1, interviews and observations with
short descriptions of specific facts.
3.2.1 Findings about community attachment
C o m m u n ity a tta ch m en t
Maligawatte housing scheme Bambalapitiya flats Soysapura
72.5
78
70.5
70.5
75
73
72
71
63.5
63.5
55.5
55.5
n s ip n
t io es h t io
n s
ac te
d er ra
sf n g
at
i ec o
w te
s n
n
f in
y o o l
it C
se ca
n lo
m
u en
m
S rm
o te
C g
n
o
L
Fig 30:Community Attachment Subfactor Levels Across the Case Studies
According to Questionnaire 1, over 70% of respondents had lived in their housing projects for
over 20 years.
Maligawatte residents had the highest community attachment, while Bambalapitiya residents
had the lowest. The following bar charts analyse the impact of community attachment
subfactors in each case study.
Maligawatte housing scheme
Community Attachment
Long term local integration 70.5
Sense of ownership 72
Connectedness 73
Community satisfaction 72.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Fig 31:Subfactor Analysis of Community Attachment – Maligawatte Housing Scheme
39
Maligawatte housing scheme scored equally on each community attachment subfactor. Semi-
structured interviews revealed that most residents had other housing options, but they
preferred the scheme as the place of residence. Residents expressed that they feel connected
to their places and were satisfied with the OOS, noting specific spaces ( Further discussed in
section 3.2) in general although the outdoor environment was not the beat.
Sense of ownership can increase community attachment, but it was observed that residents
carry out illegal encroachments (specifically in recently built blocks) which affect OOS quality as
well as the structural stability of the blocks in the long run. One identified the reason for this is
that the floor area of the early-built UMMH was large enough to comfortably accommodate a
family of 4-5 members. Initial housing layouts in all three case studies have adequate OOS. With
the addition of new blocks, the land becomes scarce. This resulted in the allocation of less floor
space per new residential unit.
Bambalapitiya flats
Long term local integration 75
Sense of ownership 55.5
Connectedness 63.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Fig 32: Subfactor Analysis of Community Attachment – Bambalapitiya Flats
Bambalapitiya flats had a decent, well-maintained OOS with no illegal encroachments. Residents

preferred their location due to easy access to work. As per the outcomes of interviews,
community attachment in Bambalapitiya flats does not highly rely on spatial factors. This
community is relatively more reserved compared to other two case studies. Residents had a
neutral attitude on sense of ownership and connectedness.
40
Soysapura
Long term local integration 78
Sense of ownership 70.5
Connectedness 71
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Fig 33: Sub Factor Analysis of Community Attachment: Soysapura
Soysapura scored 78% for the length of residency implying the residents have lived there for a
long period. Soysapura had a high sense of ownership over their outdoor spaces. Interblock
spaces were not assigned a specific function when considering the overall layout of the housing
scheme, but residents of some blocks have utilised them for community needs such
as gardening spaces, small playing spaces, parking spaces etc. rather than letting those spaces
go abandoned.
3.2.2 Findings about community identity
C o m m u n ity id en tity
Maligawatta housing scheme Bambalapitiya flats Soysapura
85
84
77
73.5
73.5
66
62.5
65
61.5
58.5
60
59
50.5
53
53
U n i q u e n e ss Co n tin u ity Sig n ifican ce Co n g r u en ce Co h esiv e n ess
Fig 34: Community Identity Subfactor Levels Across the Case Studies
41
Community identity can be interpreted in many ways. An identity can base on the social factors
as well as the physical factors of a setting. In this instance, the community identity was
measured according to residents’ responsive adaptability according to socio-spatial needs.
Maligawatte housing scheme community had the most vibrant and unique identity out of all 3
case studies. The lack of OOS and their rigid nature has led to decreased amount of community
identity in socio-spatial wise, in Bambalapitiya flats.
Community identity
Cohesiveness 85
Congruence 65
Significance 73.5
Continuity 58.5
Uniqueness 84
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Fig 35: Subfactor Analysis of Community Identity -Maligawatte Housing Scheme
The vibrance of social diversity inside the Maligawatte community has helped to build a physical
environment that symbolizes their uniqueness which has been shaped by the community. They
have made their own places with unique meanings.OOS facilitated community needs in general.
But there were instances where the design shortcomings and poor maintenance of spaces
interrupted the use of OOS.
Bambalapitiya flats
Community identity
Cohesiveness 62.5
Congruence 66
Significance 61.5
Continuity 53
Uniqueness 53
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Fig 36: Subfactor Analysis of Community Identity – Bambalapitiya Flats
Bambalapitiya flats had the least variations in the outdoor environment. The community identity
in Bambalapitiya flats was rather a maintained one over the years than a community-built
42
identity. The residents have practiced keeping existing OOS in a more arranged way which
demonstrates the community personality of the community. But some residents have adapted
the spaces between blocks into nice gardening spaces where the people in the same block work
together to maintain them.
Soysapura
Community Identity
Cohesiveness 77
Congruence 59
Significance 73.5
Continuity 50.5
Uniqueness 60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Fig 37: Subfactor Analysis of Community Identity - Soysapura
Soysapura has a serene nature to its identity. Residents’ shared values on OOS can be seen
through the way they utilise them.
3.2.3 Findings about social interactions
Social interaction
Maligawatte housing scheme Bambalapitiya flats Soysapura
78.5
79
71.5
75
75
67.5
65.5
64.5
55
49.5
54
43
n
g
te
r n rt
ri io po
u un at p
b
o co ip su
h en t ic l
ig ar ia
e al p oc
N ci y S
so n
it
al u
u m
as m
C o
C
43
Fig 38: Social Interaction Subfactor Levels Across the Case Studies
A higher level of social interaction was identified in the Maligawatte housing scheme. The spatial
layout and the arrangement of outdoor spaces allowed more social contact among the
residents.
Social interaction
Social support 75
Community participation 75
Casual social encounter 79
Neighbouring 78.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Fig 39: Subfactor Analysis of Social Interaction -Maligawatte Housing Scheme
A higher level of social interaction could be identified in Maligawatte housing scheme. The
spatial layout and the arrangement of outdoor spaces allowed more social contact among the
residents. The residents have diverse cultural backgrounds and events such as processions,
almsgiving takes place inside the neighbourhood frequently.
Bambalapitiya flats
Social interaction
Social support 55
Community participation 54
Casual social encounter 43
Neighbouring 49.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Fig 40: Sub Factor Analysis of Social Interaction - Bambalapitiya Flats
The questionnaire survey revealed that Bambalapitiya flats had the least level of social
interactions within the community. Interactive OOS other than the street network and
playground/children's park was minimal in this case study which has affected the lower levels of
social ties. The spatial organization has not facilitated social activities.
44
OOS in this case study is not thoughtfully planned considering the hot, humid climate of the area
which makes OOS less preferable during day time. Also, the lack of seating/ resting spaces
around the premises discourages the residents from having informal social interactions.
However, there were indoor spaces dedicated to societies of the community (Buddhists
association of Bambalapitiya flats etc.) but they were reserved for more formal events. In this
manner, the informal interaction level of the community was low.
Soysapura
Social interaction
Social support 65.5
Community participation 71.5
Casual social encounter 67.5
Neighbouring 64.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Fig 41: Subfactor Analysis of Social Interaction - Soysapura
It was revealed that residents have various community events such as new year celebrations,
Vesak celebrations as community events which facilitate social interactions where the
community has high participation. Casual encounters between the residents were observed as
friendly and more frequent compared to Bambalapitiya flats residents. They enjoy such
occasional encounters and there is a higher level of contact among the people from different
blocks.
45
3.2.4 Findings about pedestrianism
Pedestrianism
Maligawatta housing scheme Bambalapitiya flats Soysapura
86.5
92
90
75.5
66.5
76
61.5
64
64
55
42.5
49
y y t s
it it si ie
il u n t
ab
q ra vi
k in s
t ti
al p
as ac
W ro el
p M v
a n le
ri et
e st re
ed st
P e
al
sc
an
t ri
es
ed
P
Fig 42: Pedestrianism Subfactor Levels Across the Case Studies
In all three case studies, extensive pedestrian activity is observed during weekends. Maligawatte
flats had a higher level of street-side interactions while in Bambalapitiya flats, it was far less.
Street networks across all case studies were maintained properly.
Pedestrianism
86.5
Mass transit 92
76
Walkability 90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Fig 43: Subfactor Analysis of Pedestrianism - Maligawatte Housing Scheme
Pedestrianism is highly visible in Maligawatte housing scheme. Pedestrian scale street-level

activities scored 86.5%. Due to the increased tree density, natural shade levels within the
housing development were high. It has led to increased outdoor activity during the daytime
46
also. Roads facilitate convenient mass transit within the community. Streetside mobile shops
were a frequent observation, and such spaces have a higher level of interaction.
Bambalapitiya flats
Pedestrianism
42.5
Mass transit 66.5
55
Walkability 49
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Fig 44: Subfactor Analysis of Pedestrianism - Bambalapitiya Flats
The location of the Bambalapitiya flats facilitates easy access to public transit for its residents.
However, most of them use private transportation methods. The street network inside provides
adequate space for vehicular activities. There were no alleyways or pathways that are functional
inside, except the main street network provided through the design of the housing scheme.
Pedestrian scale activities were minimal inside the premises. Residents preferred the streets
with more shade for pedestrian scale street-level activities.
Soysapura
Pedestrianism
Pedestrian scale street
75.5
level activities
Mass transit 61.5
Pedestrian propinquity 64
Walkability 64
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Fig 45: Subfactor Analysis of Pedestrianism - Soysapura
With a rate of 75.5 pedestrian-scale street activities, Soysapura street network provided a
variety of pedestrian-scale activities. Some residents are engaged in small businesses in street
sides, but it does not disturb vehicular or pedestrian activity. Streets are in good condition and
can be identified as safe and quality spaces.
47
3.3 Outcomes of SCI II

The calculated scores of SCI II as follows.
SCI II score
90
81
80
71
70
60
50 42
40
30
20
10
0
Maligawatte housing Bambalapitiya flats Soysapura
scheme
Fig 46: Outcomes of SCI II

3.4 Features Source: Compiled by the author
of sense of community
conducive outdoor open spaces
48
This section qualitatively analyse the spatial characteristics OOS categories based on the results
of questionnaire 2, focus group outcomes and observations.
3.4.1 Mobility network
Streets define the boundaries and fabric of a neighbourhood, while being the dominant OOS
category in UMMH, mobility networks facilitate various community activities. Together, their
walkability and ability to shelter roadside activities form emotional bonds among residents.
Fig 47: SOC Conducive Ability of Mobility Network
3.4.1.1 Maligawatte housing scheme

Interactivity in the mobility network is highly visible in Maligawatte housing scheme, especially
during weekends. The higher tree density/ natural shade levels have facilitated to an increased
amount of pedestrian-scale street-side activities.
Fig 48: The Higher Level of Shade Along the Street Network in Maligawatte Housing Scheme and a Hindu
Procession Happening in the Opposite Direction of the Same Street
49
People have formed their own short paths to minimize walking distances. These spaces are
highly functional in social interaction. This suggests missing parts of the original design but also
depicts the adaptive nature of the design through informal interactive spaces.
Small temporary shops and mobile vendors were observed occupying shaded roadsides and
pathways of the property. These were the most-used mobility network spaces.
It has been observed that older individuals gather along roadsides and engage in casual
conversation.
In highly interactive spaces, there was a deficiency in properly arranged seating. Oftentimes,
older men were observed gathering and exchanging stories on roadsides. They bring chairs or
another sort of movable seating to the roadside to communicate and interact with neighbours.
Fig 49: A People-made Pathway Inside the Housing Scheme

Fig 50: Source: Compiled by the author
Interactive Spaces in Mobility Network with
Roadside Shops and Temporary Parking
Source:Compiled by the author
50
3.4.1.2 Bambalapitiya flats

The mobility network is exactly as given in the design
with no pathways created by residents. The grid-type
internal streets are spacious but they do not contribute
much towards social interactions. The lack of shade and
sheltering nature of the mobility network do not
provide opportunities for residents to interact during
the daytime.
The mobility network of Bambalapitiya flats is largely
used for transit rather than as recreational spaces.
Residents did not express a need of having informal
social contacts in mobility network as discovered in
focus group discussions.
Fig 51: Wide Streets Without Shade and No Streetside Interactions - Bambalapitiya Flats

3.4.1.3 Soysapura
Soyspura's clean and well-kept mobility network has adequate levels of shade. It was observed
that the street sides are spacious and that residents engage in social interactions and streetside
activities.
Residents have created small resting and gathering places on the street sides with shade. By
evening, those places are completely occupied by neighbourhood groups. Such locations are
clean and well-maintained as well.
Fig 52: Clean and Well-maintained Fig 53: Street-Side Resting Places Created
Mobility Network by the Community
Source: Compiled by the author Source: Compiled by the author
Residents who engage in jogging expressed the need for more informal resting spaces as the
community is more sociable compared to Bambalapitiya flats’ community.
51
3.4.2 Enclaves
Fig 54: SOC Conducive Ability of Enclaves

There were several high functional religious enclaves
such as shrines. Some of them were provided through
the original design but the majority have established in a
later period according to the needs of the population.
The most functional and highly noticeable space of
enclaves is the main node of the community which
consists of two shrines (Fig 53, Fig 54). There can always
be seen a couple of residents interacting around this
area.
The shade is high. The location of streetside small shops
and these shrines attract residents for individual needs,
but the placement of the spaces passively makes more
interaction between people that use enclaves for
different purposes interact with each other.
Fig 55: A Buddhist Enclave Provided through the Original Design

52
The placement and character of enclaves are determined by the cluster identity. The identity
and character of different enclaves attract individuals of similar interests that make it easier to
develop bonds. Residents expressed that they have created such spaces to match their
identities. Enclaves with high-quality place identity make up the mental picture of the entire
community making them an important part of the community.
One such space is the Christian enclave located at the ramp that goes up to the tallest block in
the Maligawatte housing scheme. The location, colour and character of that space speak a lot
about the cluster identity of that block.
Fig 57: The Christian Enclave at the Edge of the Ramp; Place Identity that has Developed through
Multifunctionality, Character of Space and Burrowed View of ‘Nelum Kuluna’

There were no functional enclaves within the premises. Although a shrine was observed and it
did not act as an enclave.
53
3.4.2.3 Soysapura
Fig 58: Locating at a Node Right infront of the Play Ground

The specific enclave observed in Soysapura attracted more young people due to its location.
Although there were not many interactions observed during day time, residents mentioned that
the space is highly occupied during late evenings.
3.4.3 Planned recreational spaces
Fig 59: SOC Conducive Ability of Planned Recreational Spaces
Playgrounds and children's parks are the planned recreational spaces that were provided in the
case studies. During the focus groups, playgrounds and open spaces were usually viewed
favourably, but negative issues also arose.
54
Fig 60: The Basketball Court with High Visibility and Easy Access
The basketball court which acts as a general

playground for children is occupied most of the day.
Older residents revealed that they enjoy watching
children play. Also, the location of the basketball court
had high visibility. Residents were not hesitant to let
their children stay there as they think the space is safe.
There is another playground located at the edge of the
housing scheme that is also high in function.
The community park that was provided by the original
design is currently not in use. Residents mentioned a
lack of maintenance and poorly arranged resting
spaces as a reason for not using the space.
Fig 61: Abandoned Community Park at Maligawatte Housing Scheme
55
Fig 62: Childrens' Playground of Bambalapitiya Fig 63: Public Playground of Bambalapitiya Flats
Flats
Source: Compiled by the author Source: Compiled by the author
It was unable to observe any interactive activity during the daytime of weekday site visits in
planned recreation spaces of Bambalapitiya flats. Some activities were happening in the late
evenings. But according to residents, these places become more active on certain days like
school vacation periods etc. Residents were satisfied with the spaces but mentioned the need
for more play equipment in the children’s park. Not much character could be seen in terms of
place identity in both spaces. Also, both of them had a low sheltering nature.
3.4.3.3 Soysapura
Fig 64: Public Playground of Soysapura

Soysapura is equipped with a large public playground which hosts various sports events. The
large trees at the edge of the playground improve the sheltering nature of the space. The
ground has a higher level of visibility and therefore residents expressed that they felt it safer
even during the night time. Maintenance of the ground was in a preferable state as identified.
3.4.4 Interblock spaces
56
Fig 65: SOC Conducive Ability of Interblock Spaces
In most cases, neighbourhood OOS are merely residual spaces, as opposed to purposefully
created activity or interaction places. As a result, most Sri Lankan government-funded housing
developments are abundant in interblock spaces that do not foster positive social functions
except providing ventilation requirements.
For instance, open areas without a specific function occasionally drew vandals from
neighbouring suburbs and also within the community.
Illegal encroachments of interblock spaces were prominent. Some residents even modified the
original housing units despite the overall structural stability of the construction. Such additions
and encroachments are a major threat to the further reduction of OOS as well as to the overall
quality of the outdoor environment. The elementary flexibility that was discussed in the
literature review was observed as people have tried to make extensions from the home units to
create new additions to places making one-of-a-kind spaces. These illegal attempts demonstrate
the need for elementary flexibility through the planning of UMMH.
Residents on the first level are more engaged in gardening and yard chores due to their
proximity to outdoor environments. In this instance, outdoor spaces served as extensions of the
inside living space of the block.

57
The spatial organisation plan (Appendix D) demonstrates that, despite the variety of block
layouts, the overall project lacks a sense of proximity due to not having more private and
dedicated OOS per block opposed to Bambalapitiya flats. There were some housing clusters
which had better and more dedicated spaces. The residents of those blocks seem to be more
reserved than the others.
Fig 66: Illegal Encroachments and Modifications Done by the Householders

Residents of the Bambalapitiya flats praised the well-kept
gardens. Often, gardens were restricted to the residents of
a particular block; they were surrounded by iron wire
fencing to prevent incursion and ban the use of those
spaces by the residents of other blocks and outsiders.
Gardening seemed to be an interactive social activity but as
it happens in restricted spaces, it is more used for solitary.
In addition, not all residents of the first floor take part in
this activity. Despite the possibilities for horticulture, some
yards are untidy and disorganised. Again, the block identity
is revealed through the use of OOS.
Fig 67: Interblock Spaces in Bambalapitiya Flats being

Utilised as Gardening Spaces
58
3.4.4.3 Soysapura
Fig 68: Use of Interblock Spaces as Home Gardens
Interblock spaces are used for various purposes in Soysapura housing scheme. One main and
frequent use is gardening activities and the other utilisation is using them as play spaces by
the children who live in immediate blocks.
59
3.5 Discussion
 Outcomes for RO 1:
Fig 69: Comparison between SCI II Scores with Average Scores of SOC Conducive Ability of OOS
60
Table 8: Evaluated Levels of Socio-Spatial Domains among the Case Studies
61
Table 8: Effectiveness of Interactive OOS Categories in Creating SOC
62
Table 9: Features of SOC Conducive OOS
Conclusion
Quality and sufficient OOS should be offered in urban mass housing developments. A built-up
residential area alone cannot sustain the social needs of its population. OOS provide the ground
for unrelated individuals who voluntarily combine their efforts to integrate aspects of their lives
for the collective community's benefit.
As per the outcomes of this study;
i. The SCI II scores fluctuated in harmony with SOC conducive ability of OOS. There were
only slight differentiations between the scores. Therefore, it can be concluded that OOS
act as a catalyst for a SOC in UMMH.
ii. Out of four interactive categories of OOS, planned recreational spaces have the highest
effect on SOC as an average.
iii. There are specific features of OOS in UMMH that elevate their SOC conducive ability.
Also recognising and responding to the diversity of the communities, the sentimental values
attached to OOS, and their identities are important facts of consideration during refurbishments
of existing UMMH.
63
Landscape architecture is a social art with a strong focus on social challenges. The landscape
architectural output cannot meet the expectations of the public if the design does not meet the
requirements of a community. A community’s needs, and their preferences vary, so do the
spaces they demand. Thus, they respond and react in response to changing needs by adapting
their surroundings to better accommodate new options.
References
Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health:
Durkheim in the new millennium. Social science & medicine, 51(6), 843-857.
Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In Place attachment (pp.
279-304). Springer, Boston, MA.
Bryson, L., & Mowbray, M. (2005). More spray on solution: Community, social capital and
evidence based policy. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 40(1), 91-106.
Chavis, D. M., Lee, K. S., & Acosta, J. D. (2008). The Sense of Community (SCI) Revised: The
Reliability and Validity of the SCI-2. Paper presented at the 2nd International Community
Psychology Conference, Lisboa, Portugal. Retrieved from
http://www.communityscience.com/pdfs/Sense%20of%20 Community%20Index-2(SCI-
2).pdf
CF Moller Architects. (2022, October 18) Sadbakken. https://www.cfmoller.com/p/Sandbakken-

i40.html
Cochran, S., & Minaker, L. (2020). The value in community gardens: a return on investment
analysis. Canadian Food Studies/La Revue canadienne des études sur l'alimentation, 7(1),
154-177.
Cohen, A. P. (2013). Symbolic construction of community. Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L., & Smith, K. C. (2011). Best practices for mixed
methods research in the health sciences. Bethesda (Maryland): National Institutes of
Health, 2013, 541-545.
Crow, G., & Allan, G. (2014). Community life. Routledge.
de Souza Briggs, X. (1997). Moving up versus moving out: Neighborhood effects in housing
mobility programs. Housing policy debate, 8(1), 195-234.
Duany, A., & Plater-Zyberk, E. (1994). The neighborhood, the district and the corridor. The new
urbanism: Toward an architecture of community, 17-20.
64
Eisenhauer, B. W., Krannich, R. S., & Blahna, D. J. (2000). Attachments to special places on public
lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community
connections. Society & Natural Resources, 13(5), 421-441.
Feldman, R. M. (1990). Settlement-identity: Psychological bonds with home places in a mobile

society. Environment and behavior, 22(2), 183-229.
Francis, J., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L., & Knuiman, M. (2012). Creating sense of community: The
role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 401–409.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002
Fried, M. (1963). Urban problems. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 33(2), 342–345.

https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1939-0025.1963.TB03825.X
Galster, G. (2001). On the nature of neighbourhood. Urban studies, 38(12), 2111-2124.
Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings.

https://www.academia.edu/download/49875924/Jan_Gehl-
Life_Between_Buildings__Using_Public_Space-Island_Press_2011.pdf
Gusfield, J. R. (1975). Community: A critical response . New York: Harper & Row.
Hanaw Mohammed, H. M. T. (2018). The impact of heritage decline on urban social life. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 55, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2017.12.002
Heinrich, L. M., & Gullone, E. (2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature review.
Clinical Psychology Review, 26(6), 695–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CPR.2006.04.002
Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernández, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273–281.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221
Hummon, D. M. (1992). Community attachment. In Place attachment (pp. 253-278). Springer,

Boston, MA.
Ife, J. W. (1995). Community development: Creating community alternatives-vision, analysis and

practice. Longman Australia.
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners
attitudes toward their properties. Journal of environmental psychology, 21(3), 233-248.
Jayawardhana, K. V. G. K. S. (2007). Facilitating spaces for social interaction through

architecture: an examination with special reference to middle income class housing
schemes in Colombo and suburbs (Doctoral dissertation).
Kamalipour, H., Yeganeh, A. J., & Alalhesabi, M. (2012). Predictors of place attachment in urban
residential environments: A residential complex case study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 35, 459-467.
65
Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: New
urbanist Kentlands and nearby orchard village. Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 313–340.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503260236
Lynch, K. (1981). The Form of the City. In Cities and City Planning (p.131). Springer, Boston, MA.
Mahmoudi Farahani, L. (2016). The Value of the Sense of Community and Neighbouring. In
Housing, Theory and Society (Vol. 33, Issue 3, pp. 357–376). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2016.1155480
Manawadu, T., & Dharmasena, J. (2018). Impact of spatial perception on place making in open
spaces of middle class housing schemes around Colombo. Sustainability for people, 50.
Mannarini, T., & Fedi, A. (2009). Multiple senses of community: The experience and meaning of
community. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(2), 211–
227. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20289
Mohanani, A. (2022, September 12). Mass housing: A budding and compelling segment. 99
acres. https://www.99acres.com/articles/mass-housing-a-budding-and-compelling-
segment.html
McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1984). A theory of sense of community. Journal of Community

Psychology, 10, 127-139.
Nahiduzzaman, K. (2012). Housing the urban poor: An integrated governance perspective: The

case of Dhaka, Bangladesh (Doctoral dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology).
Nations, U. (2016). Sustainable development knowledge platform. Colombo: Nations U.
Powell, R. A., & Single, H. M. (1996). Focus groups. International journal for quality in health
care, 8(5), 499-504.
Pooley, J. A., Cohen, L., & Pike, L. T. (2005). Can sense of community inform social capital?. The
Social Science Journal, 42(1), 71-79.
Proshansky, H. M., & FABIAn, A. K. (1983). y KAMINOFF, R. Place-identity: physical world

socialization, 108, 83-108.
Rappoport, A. (1969). House form and culture. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
Riley, R. (1992). Attachment to the ordinary landscape. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place
attachment (pp. 13–35). New York: Plenum Press.
Sandbakken - Projects - C.F. Møller. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2022, from
https://www.cfmoller.com/p/Sandbakken-i40.html
Sarason, S. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community

psychology. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1975-01813-000
Thompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and urban planning,
60(2), 59-72.
66
Tinggården - Communal building. (n.d.-b). Retrieved August 28, 2022, from

Trancik, R. (1991). Finding lost space: theories of urban design. John Wiley & Sons.
Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive, and
affective components of neighboring. American journal of community psychology, 13(2),
139-169.
Woolley, H., 2003. Urban open spaces. s.l.:Taylor & Francis.
67

Ic2p2-2023 - 182906a

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ic2p2-2023 - 182906a

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ic2p2-2023 - 182906a

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proceedings of the International e- Conference on 'Cities, People and Places'- IC 2P2-2023

March 24th – 25th, 2023, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Outdoor Open Spaces as a Catalyst for

Researchers have discovered the "Sense Of Community" possesses certain

However, the role of socio-spatial characteristics of outdoor open spaces in

The utilisation of OOS was analysed by referring to place theory, place

Keywords: Outdoor open spaces, sense of community, middle-income mass

III. Research questions and research objectives

IV. Research methodology

Fig1: Basic Flow of the Research

Source: Compiled by the author

V. Limitations and scope of the study

VI. Contribution of the study

1. Literature Review - Role of outdoor open spaces in creating sense of community

1.1 Urban middle-income communities in the Sri Lankan context

1.1.2 Housing as a need

1.2.1 Outdoor open spaces in mass housing

Fig 3: Main Types of OOS in UMMH

Source: Compiled by the author

1.2.2 The functionality of outdoor open spaces

1.2.2.3 Social function

1.3 Sense of community

Fig 4: Duality of the Term "Community"

Fig 5: Components of SOC

1.3.3 Background of sense of community concept

Source: Compiled by the author

1.3.5 Evaluating the sense of community

1.3.6 Sense of community as a spatial construct

1.3.7 Socio-spatial domains of sense of community

Table 1: Socio-spatial Dimensions of SOC

Fig 8: Domains of SOC and Their Hypothesized Relationships

1.4 Theoretical background

Proshansky and Fabian (1983) explain place identity in two ways.

1.5 Fostering a sense of community in mass housing – global approaches

Fig 9: Specific Spatial Characteristics of Sandbakken Layout

Fig 10: Layout Map of Tinggården Community

Tinggarden is a paradigm for low-rise, high-density residential architecture. Tinggarden presents

2.1 Theoretical framework

Fig 14: Theoretical Framework of the Study

Source: Compiled by the author

2.2 Research methodology

Fig 15: Conceptual Plan for Achieving ROs

Source: Compiled by the author

Fig 16: Methodology - Detailed Research Process

Source: Compiled by the author

2.2.1.3 Preliminary stage

Source: Compiled by author

Fig 19: Results of Preliminary Case Study Screening

Source: Compiled by author

2.2.1.4 Pilot study

Table 2: Assessing Statements for 17 Subfactors of Socio-Spatial Dimensions of SOC

Source: Compiled by the author

2.2.1.6 Desk study

Source: Compiled by the author

2.2.1.7 Data collection - Phase 2

2.2.3 Data analysing and presentation methods

Fig 20: Example Bar Chart for RO 2 (Example) - Type I