Self-Sufficient Community through the Concepts of Collective Living and Universal Housing

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2011) 000–000

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

AicE-Bs 2012 Cairo ASIA Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies

Mercure Le Sphinx Cairo Hotel, Giza, Egypt, 31 October – 2 November 2012 “Future Communities: Socio-Cultural & Environmental Challenges”

Self-Sufficient Community through the Concepts of Collective Living and Universal Housing

Harlina Mohamad Ali1, Mazuiyah Mohd Dom2, Muhamad Shamin Sahrum3

Centre of Studies for Architecture

Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi, MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

[email protected]

Abstract

The idea of self-sufficient community is noble as the awareness for the protection of environment grows. There is a tendency for a community to become less cohesive due to different socio-cultural backgrounds. Thus, communal–based activities (including green initiatives) which promote collective living can be implemented to inculcate community spirit. Housing development is a community and should have collective spaces for defined communal activities. For the internal layout, universal housing design is ideal as the needs of diverse people and abilities over time are addressed. The paper advocates collective living strategies and universal housing features towards achieving a self-sufficient community. © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. Keywords : self-sufficient community; collective living; green initiatives; universal housing features.

1. Introduction

For the future, the notion of self-sufficient community is the answer as the awareness for the protection of environment and ecological systems grows. The increase in human population is inevitable and thus the consumption of natural resources increases too. Social and cultural issues go in tandem with the growth of population. The tendency for society to become less cohesive is greater due to clash of backgrounds, unfamiliar traits and different customs. To achieve a self-sufficient community, the community must also

2 Author name / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000

be cohesive. The community’s well-being is important to be addressed and can be achieved through a more conducive living environment. The identification of practical green initiatives that promote collective living can be implemented in a community as ritual everyday activities. This will inculcate community spirit while advocating the notion of saving the planet as a common cause. Housing development is the most recognised representation of a community and it generates the population. Housing development should be lavished with quality open spaces for defined community activties as it encourages socio-cultural integration. Universal housing design would be an ideal concept for the internal layout as it refers to homes that are flexible and meet the needs of people of different ages and abilities over a period of time. The design incorporates key living features that aim to make homes accessible and enhance the quality of life for all including single person or a couple, person with disability, the elderly, family with children and three-generation family. Qualitative method is applied in this research, using unobtrusive method of content analysis on existing theory, national housing policy and standard guidelines, obtrusive method of visual perception study on human behavioural pattern as well as case studies. The research is focused on recommendations of green initiatives and other strategies for collective living and generating housing design proposals through universal housing features towards achieving a self-sufficient community. A community which has all the elements that fullfill the needs and requirement of diverse levels of people will transform Malaysians into a more nurturing society.

2. Past, Present and Future Issues

In the past our fore-fathers lived sustainably by being self-sufficient in their everyday lives. The culture had always been to maintain a return-to-the-ground ethos where daily living required one to “reap what you sow” from the earth. To be able to live sufficiently, the land was used as needed by cultivation with respect to the environment. Through this way of living, the importance of living collectively as a community comes into being. The model of the kampung or village was the initial phase of the society’s political structure. The people planted their own crops collectively, reared their own livestock and invented their own food stock through simple but effective techniques as well as being hands-on in their daily activities. Consequently, this pro-active approach to life created master craftsmen among the older generation. Malaysia used to be an agriculture-based society and blessed with an abundance of natural resources and good weather all year round. Rooted in strong cultural backgrounds, the lives of Malaysian society back then evolved around tight and close-knit communities. Activities were done collectively and almost everything from social to cultural events was done at community level and shared basis. For instance, Yahya (2003) noted that the concepts of sharing and cooperation were fundamental to the Malay culture and to the traditional Malay lifestyle, as well as the general preference for community intimacy over personal privacy.

As Malaysia becomes more developed and the population grew, the socio-cultural dynamics shifted as Malaysians becomes more affluent and moved towards technology-based society. Currently, however there is mounting evidence that human settlements have detrimental impact on the environment and ecological systems. Globally, there is awareness towards self-sufficient living and it is growing particularly in the West as earth-friendly practices are heavily-advocated to further reduce carbon footprint and help Mother Earth in every possible way. These earth-friendly practices should start first from the home and then the community. Children should be taught from a young age to respect the environment and that even the smallest effort makes a difference. Svensson (2012) argued that socio-cultural dispositions, material culture and collective action need to be included in future strategies for creating more sustainable lifestyles.

The hypothesis is that unavoidable conditions and circumstances in the future might set Malaysians towards the direction of self-sufficient living once again. For instance, are Malaysians ready for extreme

Author name / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000 3

scenarios like major climate change and thus shortage of food and resources? This country has always been on the kinder receiving end of Mother Nature and has not been tested with devastating catastrophe as in other countries and Malaysians tend to take things for granted. There is a growing need to rethink how people live and sustain themselves within the urban environment of the future. Rapid urbanisation brings more and more people from the rural areas to large cities, and with it pulling the balance of poverty into the cities. World population is expected to grow from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion between 2007 and 2050; virtually all of the 2.5 billion increases will occur in the developing world’s urban areas (UNDESA, 2008). With these alarming data, it is increasingly worrying that good and quality habitable living spaces will become scarce in Malaysia due to large scale migration to urban areas. It is also feared that good quality living might only be available and made exclusive to those who can afford them. Thus, the gap between the well-off and poor widens. This leads to the next issue of insufficient food supply. The supply of food sources continues to grow unstable due to increase in food prices affected by external factors. For example, volatile supply of rice or wheat in the international market due to climatic conditions, natural disasters and hostilities. A new alternative living scheme need to be materialised in order to live in a more healthy and self-sufficient environment. Future communities should be self-sufficient and this can be achieved through collective living as our forefathers did before. If people live collectively, the community becomes more cohesive through community-based projects and from environmental approach, activities based on green initiatives. From design perspective, collective living can be achieved through spatial approach by creating ‘space collective.’ ‘Space collective” refers to common spaces within housing complex that aims at giving the neighbourhood a new spring through both strong and suitable contemporary architectural and urban intervention that benefits the community (MDW Architecture, 2010). Communal spaces are created within the community for a variety of activities. From socio-cultural perspective, the community spirit could be inculcated once again through human-centric activities as a way to strengthen the society. It is through the aspects of collective community living should one embrace the future.

3. The Definitions of Self-Sufficient Community and Collective Living

The definition of being self-sufficient is being able to fulfill one’s own needs without help from others or living within one’s means while the term community means people living in one place, like district or city and considered as a whole (Oxford Advanced Dictionary, 2001). Being totally self-sufficient is not easy to achieve especially in the urban areas as compared to the rural areas because of the constraints of space for farming and rearing live stocks. However, it is a step in the right direction if like-minded people who are concerned about the environment and wish to share their skills and know-how through networking to initiate self-sufficient living collectively. A self-sufficient community can begin at a smaller scale for instance, a self-sufficient urban housing. Today, we face the challenge of constructing a sustainable or even self-sufficient dwelling, which is a living organism that interacts with its environment, exchanging resources and which functions as an entirely self-sufficient entity, like a tree in a field (Guallart, 2006). A self-sufficient dwelling project should be connected to nearby structure in order to balance the excess and lack of interaction (Fraga & Burg, 2006). Fraga and Burg elaborated that an area of the city is self-sufficient when it has a variety of activities and design should make emphasis on dense, collective and complexity of activities. This paper looks into the characters of self-sufficient housing as an independent entity that advocates collective living but at the same time relates back to the neighbouring context and the city as a whole. A self-sufficient dwelling is one that is connected to the local system and knows how to respond to the social, cultural and technical as well as economics of its surroundings (Guallart, 2006). Collective living refers to a group or society as a whole that share responsibility, action and effort in their daily live (Oxford Advanced Dictionary, 2001). This paper


investigates the notion that collective living promotes solidarity and cohesiveness among the residents in a community. This paper also viewed collective living from three (3) separate but inter-connected strategies i.e. from environmental approach, socio-cultural approach and spatial approach. The elaboration is as follows:

3.1. Environmental approach

Environmental approach is seen as activity–based community projects based on green strategies. Among the activities that can be done collectively include edible garden and organic farming through permaculture techniques, seeds and organic fertilizers produced through cooperatives, rain-water harvesting, composting and mulching, recycling, community parks, etc. For instance, Cultivating Community is a Melbourne-based organization that promotes community gardens in public housing estates. The CEO of Cultivating Community, Ben Neil said major factors for community gardens include the need to be connected to the community, the importance of organic produce and food politics, the desire for immigrants to grow food from their countries that is not available in Australia and social interaction for people living alone (Millen, 2006). Neil elaborated the benefits of belonging to a community garden, in addition to the social aspect, include improved mental health, improved physical health through exercise, improved diet through increase in fresh vegetables and fruits intake as well as appreciation of other cultures and their cuisines. In Malaysia, organic farming through permaculture design principles is taking shape nicely in rural settings such as in Embun Pagi, Batu Arang, Selangor pioneered by Sabina Arokiam and Permaculture Perak in Lenggong, Perak headed by Ladia Kuta. Permaculture is a system to design human settlements and agriculture systems to mimic those in natural ecologies and it includes earthcare, peoplecare and fairshare (Bell, 2004). Urban permaculture can be practised and is essentially common sense living, which means using the resources available to the fullest. This include worm bins, garbage enzymes, fermented food, intensive small scale gardening, recycling, container planting and making cordage out of used bags (Millen, 2006). The principles of permaculture should be practised to instill awareness and sensitivity towards the environment among the adults and children alike. In 2008 the Federal Government of Malaysia proposed to re-initiate the Green Planet Programme (Dasar Bumi Hijau). The effort was to identify and locate vacant and unused land to be used for edible gardens with the condition of getting approval from the land owners and related authorities and involved the Housing and Local Government Ministry as well as corporate bodies. Edible gardens are cultivated on patches of land offering freshly grown produce, for consumption or sell by the cooperative of farmers and gardeners in housing development. This scenario is already a common sight at low or medium cost apartments where residents collectively cultivate an unused piece of land nearby. Self cultivation and the idea of collective living go hand-in-hand and they are inseparable. Growing one’s own food ensures food security and that domestic demand is met, even if the market’s food supply is unsteady. According to Van Rooyen et al. (1995), the economic rationale for urban farming is that it is often seen as a temporary survival strategy to allow a fallback position if sufficient urban income is not generated. This means that effort is put where effort is needed and this advantage increases the practice of urban farming. On transportation aspect, close proximity to the infrastucture system and public transportation nodes are important for any housing development in the urban areas. It helps to reduce carbon footprint, both individually and as a city, while keeping a healthier lifestyle for the urban residents. 3.2 Socio-Cultural Approach Collective living can also be done through activities which are humanistic oriented. This includes community policing or Rukun Tetangga in the Malaysian context which promotes crime prevention, security and safety for the community as well as solidarity among the residents. A community child-care


centre which is run by the local residents encourages the culture of looking out for each there. Religious oriented activities strengthened one’s beliefs and brotherhood and centred on places of worship. In Islam, the mosque or surau is a community centre where one goes to pray and learn, socialise, seek advice, taking care of the dead and double up as a school or orphanage. Community kitchen is also part of collective living strategy where social and religious events can be organized. The idea of community kitchen can be done weekly or even on daily basis where a group of residents in the community take turns to cook for the community. This will encourage social interaction, better communication and friendlier environment among the residents and it is a concept practiced widely in co-housing development in the West. Any residential development should include recreational facilities such as a community park that include children playing area, playing field, sports courts, exercise apparatus, reflexology area, etc. The playing area for the children should allow easy surveillance form the parents through ‘eyes on the street’ concept. This is to ensure safety of the children and to prevent any untoward incidents. A common hall is a bonus as it promotes community activities to be held and can double up as playing area for indoor sports. However, its function must be clear so as not to become a white elephant in the end. Another collective living strategy is community participation during the preliminary design process of future housing development. This allows the residents to give their opinion and recommendations on how they wish their housing community should be designed. It also encourages better understanding of end-users needs for the architects and other consultants involved in the housing project. This inter-activity between residents will foster good relationship and trust. Eventually, trust translates to a safer neighbourhood.

3.2. Spatial Approach

Collective living in terms of spatial approach means investigating how communal spaces or ‘space collective’ can be shared by the dwellers in a community but at the same time their private domain or personal sphere are protected. The collective residential project is always a testing ground and in recent years, European cities have been investigating new relationship between the concepts of private and collective space as a means to develop new approaches to the idea of a city (Cocco & Pibiri, 2006). According to Cocco and Pibiri, these are hybrid spaces for socialization; and new residential projects face the city as an infrastructure which breaks down independent and isolated blocks into functional social spaces. The degrees of territoriality are assimilated and defensible space becomes a reality within the community. Defensible space theory is about spaces that are intentionally designed to be supervised, either directly or indirectly in order to maintain safety and security (Newman, 1973). People will only defend the spaces if they take pride in the spaces and claim territoriality over it. Once the ‘sense of belonging’ is attached to the place, they will automatically defend the space from being intruded by strangers (Abbas, 2000). Shumaker and Taylor (1983) defined ‘attachment to place’ as a positive effective association between individuals and their residential development. The new dwelling culture that is emerging sees the residence widening towards shared, semi-private and public spaces that hosts activities directed to the neighbourhood; and these inter-residential quality spaces help strengthen neighbourly relations, social as well as cultural bonds (Cocco and Pibiri, 2006).

4. The Concept of Universal Housing Design

According to Universal Housing Development Guidelines (Australian Standard, 2008), Universal Housing Design refers to homes that are practical and flexible which meets the needs of people of different ages and abilities over time. This type of design incorporates key easy living features that aim to make homes accessible and adaptable and enhance the quality of life for all levels of occupants including single person, people with disability, old age pensioners, people with temporary injuries and family with young children. Conceptually, universally designed housing is an approach to building homes with living


spaces which meet the current and future needs of home occupants and is well integrated within the community. It is an inclusive design philosophy which enhance the design of products, services and environments. The concept of Universal Design was developed in the United States in the 20th century which brought about major social changes with respect to civil and human rights. Driven by factors of disabled and injured soldiers from the wars, the rights and needs of older people and people with disabilities, the government responded with the introduction of equal rights and anti-discrimination legislation. According to Follete (1998), it first entered into usage in the mid 1980’s by architect Ronald L. Mace, FAIA. The United State’s approach principally focussed on accessibilities where regulations, codes, standards, policies and procedures were developed to provide societal inclusion to people with disabilities. Over the years Universal Design extends beyond the confines of accessibilities to include all persons and creates that inclusion by promoting integrated and mainstream products, environmental features and services. The development of ergonomics and human factors and their application in industrial design and engineering greatly influenced the focus of the Universal Design principles (Follete, 1998). This design approach slowly gained acceptance worldwide including countries like Japan, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom which have acted to introduce a Universal Design standard into their planning and building codes. This term is also known as Design For All, Life Span Design and Inclusive Design. The United Kingdom 'Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods Strategy’ announced in 2008 includes the Lifetime Homes Standard (a Universal Housing standard) in its Codes for Sustainable Homes. The strategy includes a plan for all public and private housing to be built according to that Standard by 2013. The Australian Standard for Affordable Housing (AS2499) has been developed using Universal Housing Design Guidelines and it includes Key Design Features and Good Practices towards adaptable and accessible dwelling design (Newman, 2011). Victoria Council of Social Services (2008) stated that Universal Housing Design offers universal benefits that not only strengthening social inclusion and improving recognition of human rights, but also highlighting significant social and economic benefits.

4.1. Design Principles

The followings are seven (7) principles of Universal Housing Design (Molly, 1998) which can be applied in the design process of a proposed self-sufficient housing: Principle 1 : Equitable to use Housing design should be useful, appealing and marketable to all potential home occupants with diverse ability. The design features include: • Covered or enclosed garage with level approach to the house. • Level principle entrance with a landscaped approach on a sloping site. • Power-assisted garage entrance doors. • External and internal sensor lights. Principle 2 : Flexible in use Housing design and products selection should accomodate a wide range of individual preference and abilities. The design features include: • At least two-living spaces on the ground floor level of a dwelling to accommodate a ground floor

bedroom or office space in the future. • Aligning front and rear entrance doors and considering room configurations to facilitate dual

occupancy as a mortgage-helper or in the event of an elderly parent moving in due to the illness.


• Kitchen counter tops at both a standing and sitting height to accommodate reduced standing endurance, temporary and long term mobility impairment and small children.

Principle 3 : Simple and intuitive to use Housing design and layout should accomodate all home occupants regardless of their past experience, familiarity or cognitive ability. The design features include: • Consistent location of light switches throughout a dwelling. • Level access throughout the home reducing risk of injury and falls. • Logical layout of rooms within a home dwelling in addition to open plan living spaces. • Avoidance of long corridors. • Entrance doors are defined to ease orientation. Principle 4 : Easy to intepret Housing design should communicate environmental information to the home occupant, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities. The design features include: • Product selection and insulation options selected to enhance acoustic clarity. • Switch designs for lights and general purpose outlets which are uniform, easy to use and detectable. • Selection of appliances which incorporate audible/visual cues and flexible installation options. Principle 5 : Safe and sensible to use Housing design minimises hazards and adverse consequences of unintended actions. The desgin features include: • Automatic cut-off cook tops and cool-plates which are only activated in contact with cook-pans. • Installing double-cut doors locks to allow keys to be inserted into a keyhole either way. • Safety switch activation to prevent electrical surges and accidental overload. Principle 6 : Requires low physical effort Housing design and product should be easy, comfortable and efficient to use to accommodate a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. The design features include: • Window operation units located at a height that is within both standing and seated reach ranges,

requiring only single-handed operation. • Shower amenities that accommodates both standing and seated showering positions. • Lever style door hardware and taps. Principle 7 : Promotes ease on approach to housing features and elements. Living spaces designed to ensure sufficient area is provided for the house occupants to easily approach, reach and manipulate the elements within their home environment. The design features include: • Covered entrance doors and generous internal foyer areas. • Wider internal corridors to ease moving of furniture and assist approach to doorway entrances for

people using mobility equipment. • Providing reasonable circulation space between fixed furniture and fittings such as kitchen cupboards

and bath. In a nutshell, this paper recommends using the the concept of Universal Housing Design in the design process of the internal layout of self-sufficient housing development. The design principles can be applied to the housing development as they fullfill the needs and requirements of diverse income group and levels of society. The design principles also respond to changing social, technological and economic conditions. Thus, this is a sustainable design approach and is ideal for self-sufficient housing. Building houses with Universal Housing Design features will improve access in and around the homes making them easier and


safer to live in for all people regardless of age and abilty. Housing that is adequate for health and wellbeing is an essential element of sustainable, socially inclusive and liveable communities.

5. Design Proposal

The notion of home no longer involves a monotonous and singular event dwelling. In this ever mobile society, home is made up of collective memories and series of events that one associates oneself with and sum up what home is. Home is not merely limited to within the four walls of the house. The familiar smell of one’s favorite food from a hawker stall, the sound of children laughing in the neighborhood, a frequent meeting point, a congregation at a small mosque or familiar faces at the night market are all elements that create the condition of ‘home’. The collective memories and series of events reinforce the understanding of what home is. As Duncan (1985) said, for all people home is the centre of the world and a place of order that contrasts with the chaos elsewhere.

Fig. 1. Proposed layout plan Source: Muhd Shamin (2012)

Using the collective living strategies through spatial approach and applying the Universal Housing Design features, the public spaces within the housing block is every bit as important as the habitable spaces. The public spaces are the communal spaces or ‘space collective’ which is designed to be at every floor and is intended for community cohesion. The floors are connected not just vertically but horizontally as well. On various levels there are programmatic spaces intended to provide residents with


the necessary facilities for eventful living such as religious centers, eateries, nursery and gymnasium which are all connected by vertical gardens accessible via staircases and lifts. While the upper floors are catered for the residents, the ground floor focuses on landscaped gardens which is open to all and public promenade which cuts through the building for pedestrians and residents alike.

Fig. 2 Proposed Sectional Perspective Source: Muhd Shamin (2012) Usable area is every bit as valuable especially in multi-storey housing. The tendency is to use area to the maximum, where every square foot should be habitable. Often neglected are the empty spaces such as


small greenery areas and public meeting places which have an impact on improving living conditions. Current multi-storey housing dictates long narrow corridors at every floor level. This is a common sight among medium cost apartments and flats in Malaysia. Quality living in high rise are currently only for the higher income and well-off. Good design should permeate all levels of society and a rethinking of how public spaces are utilised for quality living is needed. In this proposal, vertical voids are placed at every four floors. In vertical dwellings, circulation is the main pulse running throughout the building. Thus, it seems only logical for the public spaces to be positioned where interaction between residents would occur most. A large central void will act as a main node located at various points in the building and accommodates a ‘vertical garden’ in the multi-storey housing. Corridors of different floors will run adjacent to this void, providing visual retreat away from the monotonous rows of doors into one of green sceneries. Each of these voids could have a different program. On one void, a community garden could be established, while on another a children’s playground. The residents make use of the spaces as they wish. All this relates to the idea of ownership and feeling belonged. To have a feeling of belonging to a place is important. Feeling belonged means to have personal relationship with the place of being, to feel like a part of the neighborhood. Chuan, et al (2010) reported that among the decision people make when purchasing a house in the Klang Valley is that neighbourhood living and community environment quality are both the influencing elements to the house purchasing decision. This is because Malaysian households prefer to stay longer in the neighborhood. Furthermore, Chuan, et al elaborated that neighbourhood and environment quality is not only the vital component for personal network as consumers are psychologically secured when trustworthy neighbours are around.

6. Conclusion

This paper is part of an on-going research which is still in its infancy. However, the potentials of the new ideas put forward in this paper for the betterment of future communities from socio-cultural and environmental perspectives is promising and exciting. The recommendations may not be immediately viable in the current scenario as the awareness for the protection of the environment particularly among Malaysians is still low. However, we must be prepared for the future and create innovative solutions in the present. The idea of self-sufficient community through the concepts of collective living and universal housing may not be familiar now. But as envisioned by Guallart (2006), the city proves to be a fertile ground for experimentation of new forms of living and capable of responding to the changing needs of the inhabitants.

Acknowledgements The authors paper would like to thank the Secretariat of AicE-Bs 2012 Cairo for being understanding and accommodating during the preparation of this paper.

References

Abbas, M.Y. (2000) Proxemics in Waiting Areas of Health Centres: A Cross Cultural Study (PhD. Thesis. U.K.: The University of Sheffield) Bell, G. (2004). The Permaculture Garden. Permanent Publications (UK), ISBN 1-85623-027-9 .


Boano C., Lamarca M. G. and Hunter W., (2011), The Frontlines of Contested Urbanism : Mega-projects and Mega-resistances in Dharavi, Journal of Developing Societies Volume 27, Issue 3-4: 295, Scopus, Sage Publications, Journal homepage: http://jds.sagepub.com/content/27/3-4/295 Chan H.W.E. and Lee G.K.L., (2009), Universal design for people with Disabilities: A study of access provisions in public housing estates, Journal of Property Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 138-146, Scopus, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Journal homepage: www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-7472.htm Chuan, S., et al. (2010). House Purchasing Decisions: A Case Study of Residents of Klang Valley, Malaysia. Coco, F.N. Pibri, R. (2010) Sharing in Collective Living. In C3, No.329. Seoul:C3 Publishing Co. Duncan, J.S. (1985). The House as a Symbol of Social Structure. In I. Altman & C.M.Werner, (eds), Home Environments. New York: Plenum. Fraga, R. & Burg, O.T. (2006). Urban Sustainable. In Self-Sufficient Housing – IAAC First Advanced Architecture Contest. Catalonia: IAAC+Actar. Follete, M. (1998). Design Research and Methods. Centre for Universal Design, NC State University. Gallent N., Madeddu M., (2010), Internal Housing Space Standards in Italy and England, Journal of Progress in Planning, Volume 74, Issue 1, Page 1-52, Scopus, Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pplann Gossett A. et al, (2009), Beyond access: A case study on the intersection between accessibility, sustainability, and universal design, Journal of Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, Vol. 4, No. 6, Pages 439-450, Scopus. Guallart, V. (2006) Self-Sufficient Habitat. In Self-Sufficient Housing – IAAC First Advanced Architecture Contest. Catalonia: IAAC+Actar Housing & Local Government Ministry. (2008). Pekeliling Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan Bil. 5 Tahun 2008 – Pelaksanaan Program Bumi Hijau oleh PBT, unpublished. Nissim, R. (2008). Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods Strategy. UK Lifetime. Lo, Alex Y. & Jim, Chiyung (2012) Citizen Attitude and Expectation towards Green Space Provision in Compact Urban Milieu, Land Use Policy 29 (2012) 577– 586, Scopus. Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol Mariani, N. (2005). Urban Park and the Elderly: A Case Study of Taman Tasik Bandar Permaisuri, Kuala Lumpur. University Malaya. McCulloch. A. (2012), Housing Density as a Predictor of Neighbourhood Satisfaction among Families with Young Children in Urban England, Population, Space and Place Volume 18, 85–99, Scopus . MDW Architecture. (2010). Sharing in Collective Living. In C3, No.329. Seoul: C3 Publishing Co.


Millen, T. (2006). Greening the Planet, One Backyard at a Time. In Ecos, issue Aug-Sept 2006, 132, pg 30-31. CSIRO Publishing Newman, O. (1973). Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City. London: Architectural Press. Newman, R. (2011). Australian Standard for Affordable Housing (AS2499). Oxford Advanced Dictionary. (2001). Oxford University Press. Satoshi Kose, (2009), How Can the Exploding Senior Population be Accommodated? Japanese Struggle Towards Inclusive Design, Journal of Engineering Design, 21:2-3, Scopus, Taylor & Francis, Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjen20 Shumaker, S. A., & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Towards a Clarification of People-Place Relationships : A Model of Attachment to Place. In N. Feimer & E. S. Geller (eds), Environment Psychology – Directions and Perspectives. New York: Praeger Smets, J. H. (2011), Housing the Elderly: Segregated in Senior Cities or Integrated in Urban Society? Journal of House and the Built Environment. Scopus, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Svensson, E. (2012). Achieving Sustainable lifestyles? Socio-cultural Dispositions, Collective Action and Material Culture as Problems and Possibilities. Journal of Local Environment, Mar2012, Vol. 17 issue 3, pg 369-386. Teck-Hong. T. (2012). Housing Satisfaction in Medium- and High-Cost housing: The Case of Greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Habitat International, Volume 36, 108 – 116:, Scopus, .Journal homepage. (www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint) . Temelová J., Dvorˇáková N,. (2011), Residential Satisfaction of Elderly in the City Centre: The case of revitalizing neighbourhoods in Prague, Scopus. Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locatecities Australian Standard. (2008). Universal Housing Development Guidelines. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (2008). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 revision, executive summary, United Nations, New York. Van Rooyen, C.J., et al. (1995). Towards an Urban and Rural Development Strategy for the Gauteng Province with Emphases on Agriculture and Conservation: An Inventory. Victoria Council Social Services. (2008). Universal Housing, Universal Benefits. Yahya, A, (1998). The Kampong. In Chen Voon Fee (ed), the Encyclopedia of Malaysia – Architecture. Kuala Lumpur: Archipelago Press. Zastrow, C. H (2004) Understanding Human Behaviour and the Social Environment. Thomson Learning Inc., USA.


www.urbanpermaculture.com.au/about.html www.ecosmagazine.com http://embunpagi2009.files.wordpress.com http://www.permaculture.org.uk www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2007/2007WUP_ExecSum_web.pdf.

Self-Sufficient Community through the Concepts of Collective Living and Universal Housing

Documents

Transcript of Self-Sufficient Community through the Concepts of Collective Living and Universal Housing