Territorial Cognition, Behavior, and Space of Residents: A Comparative Study of Territoriality between Open and Gated Housing Blocks; a Case Study of Changchun, China

Abstract

Residents have territorial cognition with different hierarchies and conduct corresponding behaviors in the outdoor space of housing blocks through sharing space and facilities. This mechanism stems from human need and might be influenced by physical environmental elements. To understand this effect, especially after a guideline for transforming existing gated housing blocks was enacted in China, this study compared the territoriality of open and gated housing blocks from the view of the cognition, behavior, and space through combined methods. Interview, snapshot, and observation were conducted to capture the situation of these three dimensions, then they were evaluated and grouped by factor analysis and quartiles. Obtained results in the open housing block were found to be inferior to that in the gated case. The conclusion was drawn based on the above that there are remarkable differences between open and gated housing blocks on the intensity of residents’ territorial cognition, the level and quantity of their territorial behaviors, and the distribution as well as continuity of the territorial space.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Purpose

Connecting the self with other targets to expand personal identity is the inherent need of people, and we can perceive its significance in many aspects. It is called territoriality in the residential environment, which is closely related to physical elements in this environment. Based on a traffic-oriented guideline* issued in China in 2016 (short as “the guideline” later), the transformation of existing gated housing blocks into an open mode is gradually being implemented in some cities [1,2]. However, the living habits of residents re disturbed since the transforming of boundary walls and internal roads has changed the physical environment, such as the outdoor space that residents have been accustomed to [3,4,5]. Therefore, after a gated housing block was reconstructed to an open one due to policy, without solid barriers, such as boundary walls and gates, it should be determined how residents adjusted their territorial cognition and behaviors (including the ways of space occupation and the attitude toward the penetration of external space by outsiders) to adapt to the different environment.

This article is the second part of a series of comparative researches. In the authors’ previous study, two appropriate comparable housing blocks were selected to be an experimental group and a control group, respectively, because they have a lot in common except for gated–open status [3]. Those findings indicated that spatial elements and the division of spatial types were affected by the demolition of boundary walls, which is an influence in the dimension of physical features. According to this, we doubt that the territoriality, a product intertwined by physical space and residents’ feeling, will be affected by residential reconstruction in several aspects. Therefore, this study attempts to analyze the territoriality from aspects of cognition, behavior, and space. Investigated residents’ territorial cognition through interviews, divide the territorial degree of space based on the result of their actual territorial behaviors, and then compared the territorial space related to behaviors of two housing blocks to understand the difference on the territoriality.

1.2. Literature Review

1.2.1. The Transformation of Gated Housing Blocks

The author defines “gated housing blocks”, a spatial concept, as a China-typical residential quarter in this series of researches [3]. It verbatim contrasts to the “open housing blocks” which has emerged from the guideline and differs in both social construction and social implication from gated communities in the US based on profound differences in cultural, social, and architectural history [6]. Since the government advocated the transformation of gated housing blocks into open housing blocks or open models, some researchers have paid attention to such renovations. Kan suggested that gated housing blocks should not be denied completely, and a modest approach should be laid on the reconstruction [1]. Zhang focused on the peri-urban area. He thought the gated mode is a new institutional tool of social management for those areas and the consequences of the gated village are in general positive [2]. Sun did not take a position for or against the opening of gates but merely asked how the movement potential of a heavily gated city would change if gates were opened [7]. Zhao discussed un-gating the gated housing block based on the spatial restructuring of a resettlement neighborhood. He pointed out that restructuring usually occurs through a top-down approach, and residents have little influence regarding the neighborhood planning [8].

Scholars have explored the situation of the gated housing block and its transformation into an open pattern from the perspective of policy formulation, policy implementation, urban vitality, and even the development of peri-urban area areas. However, less attention has been paid to the change in residents’ feelings (such as territoriality) caused by this spatial transformation, even when the residents are most directly involved.

1.2.2. Territoriality

Since “territoriality” was introduced into human behavior studies by environmental psychologists in the mid-1960s, researchers have proposed ideas and developed their theories related to it. According to most scholars, territoriality in humans can be defined as a comprehensive mechanism in which people’s territorial cognition and territorial behaviors are intertwined together based on their ownership of physical space [9,10,11,12]. Literature was sorted from the following three aspects:

(1) Territorial cognition

Altman and Chemers [13] indicated that territorial cognition is a feeling or thought stemming from occupying, controlling or personalizing a place, especially concerning the cognition of affiliation and dependency on this territory. Sack’s opinion supported the former theory. He stated that everyone has a sense of territory, a degree of ownership, and control over physical spaces. Taylor [14] compared territorial cognition with other concepts of similarity, such as personal space and private space, and clarified it further.

(2) Territorial behavior

Taylor listed four main themes of defining territorial behaviors: (1) Active defense; for example, residents in gated housing blocks reinforce the main entrance or other gates of their residential quarters. (2) Laying claim through the use of marks and signs; in this study, extra covering or other personal maintenance were found on some rest benches (located in public space of the housing block) in case of rain. (3) Defense and control over nonspatial and nonphysical entities. Bakker defined this behavior as “an individual exerts control, takes initiative, or accepts responsibility”. (4) Association to a place due to repeated usage or the passage of time. Altman [15] also mentioned behaviors such as defense response or using markers and signs to reinforce territoriality. He made a summary of that definition as: “a self/other boundary-regulation mechanism that involves personalization of or marking of a place or object and communication that is ‘owned’ by a person or a group” [16]. Combining with the actual situation, the territorial behavior is defined as a behavior of residents which have changed or influenced the outdoor space in this paper, such as putting personal objects in the outdoor space temporarily or long term, reforming the outdoor space or facilities in it, or creating a new space for individuals or groups with shelters and enclosures, etc. (see detailed classification in chapter 4)

(3) Territorial space and its classification

Territories were also classified according to the nature of physical space [17]. Altman broke human territory into three main categories base on privacy and publicness of them: primary territory, secondary territory, and public territory. Altman and Brown [18] complemented the meaning of primary territory. Taylor [14,19] explained Altman’s theory in detail and distinguished each territory as well as the continuity flowing between them. Another classification was proposed by Newman (defensible space) in 1972 [20], which divided the territory into four degrees: private territory, semi-private territory, semi-public territory, and public territory. Unfortunately, Newman did not offer a specific definition for his territorial degree theory.

Based on Altman’s classification, in addition to the home environment (primary) and urban space (public), there is only one degree, secondary territory, left for outdoor space of housing blocks, it was found to be insufficient to describe the complex situation after knowing residents’ territorial cognition in the pilot survey. Therefore, the authors adopted Newman’s theory but attempted to classify outdoor space into separate territories clearly according to residents’ territorial behaviors occurred in these spaces.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Framework and Investigation

After reviewing the literature on theories of various aspects of territoriality, combined with the actual situation in case studies during pre-investigation in August 2017, the theoretical framework of this research was established. Surveys and analysis were both conducted according to this structure. Finally, this paper determined the classification criteria of territoriality. An integrated survey method and combined analysis methods were applied to investigate territorial cognition, territorial behaviors, and territorial degrees of space areas as shown in Figure 1.

The data of territorial cognition was conducted by a face to face interview from late August to mid-September 2018, and a total of 107 valid answers were obtained, of which 42 were from the open housing block and 65 were in a gated one. Territorial behavior was collected in the same period. The behavior was identified and recorded by snapshot for later analysis. A total of 183 behaviors were recorded in the open housing block and 312 were marked in the gated group. The outdoor space was divided into various areas for analyzing territorial spaces after acquiring results of territorial behaviors in these areas.

2.2. Case Identification

The reconstructed open housing block, CHANGKEB (CKB); QICHECHANG34, the gated housing block, (Q34). These two cases are located in Changchun city and belong to the unique but most common residential pattern of China (residential settlements for employees of state-owned enterprises). Changchun city is the heavy industrial base that China’s first five-year plan (1953–1957) focused on and has developed rapidly since the reform and opening up in the 1980s [3]. Changchun Bus Factory and Changchun First Automobile Factory were two key projects in this stage and built their own residential quarters for employees in 1985 (Q34) and 1988 (CKB). Both of them were gated housing blocks until the CKB was reconstructed to be an open mode according to the guideline of 2016. The employees who lived in these two places at the beginning are basically retired because of age. They constitute the majority of existing residents, and the other occupants are their children or relatives and a small number of tenants. Meanwhile, they are very similar in terms of many aspects such as location, size, and population (see details in

Table 1. Basic information of two housing blocks.

Open Housing Block: Changke B		Gated Housing Block: Qichechang 34
Location: Lvyuan District Area: 60,952 m2 Age: completed in 1988 Story: 6~7 Building amount: 21 Household: 1140 Population: 3100 The aged: 28.4% Residents: employees of Changke factory			Location: Lvyuan District Area: 83,430 m2 Age: completed in 1985 Story: 6~7 Building amount: 22 Household: 1300 Population: 3541 The aged: 29.7% Residents: employees of Yiqi factory
Residential land   non-residential land   greening

). In summary, these two housing blocks are comparable in both social and cultural background as well as physical attributes. By comparing Q34 of gated housing block with reconstructed housing block CKB, it is viable to exclude other possible interfering factors and clarify the effect of changes on residential territoriality.

3. Territorial Cognition

3.1. Data Analysis

For data collecting and analyzing of territorial cognition: The design of question structure presented in Figure 2 is based on the theory from the literature review and draws on Iran and Wang Fang [9,17], involving two parts: basic information and territorial cognition (

Table A1. Interview questions about the territorial cognation part.

Dimensions	Interview Questions
Sense of Safety	Do you feel safe in this environment?
Feeling of privacy	What do you think about the privacy of this place?
Possessing	Do you feel relaxed or relieved here?
	Do you think this place has your personal characteristics?
Defense	Do you feel unhappy when some outsiders hang out around here?
Perception of affiliation	Do you know your neighbors and interact with them?
	Do you feel unhappy when your neighbors hang out around here?

The answer was given by the Likert five-point scale.

). The answer is given by the Likert five-point scale. The SPSS software version 22.0 was used to conduct descriptive statistics and reliability and validity analysis of the data obtained through the interview, and the Cronbach’s coefficient is 0.679 and 0.819, respectively, in the open and the gated case, indicating a good consistency of the questions about territorial cognition.

3.2. Result

Table 2. Basic information of respondents.

2-1 Age						2-2 Family Composition
	age 0–17	age18–35	age 36–59	age 60 and above		alone	couple	two generations	three generations	+grandchildren
open	4	1	15	22	open	17	12	9	2	2
gated	6	3	23	33	gated	29	16	10	3	7
2-3 Living Period					2-4 Frequency of Using Outdoor Space
	less than 1 year	1–5 years	5–10 year	over 10 years		once per week	several times per week		once per day	several times per day
open	0	3	7	32	open	8	3		14	17
gated	0	8	6	51	gated	3	10		23	29

lists the basic information of the respondents in the two cases. Through the description of the sample information, it can be seen that there are a large number of elderly residents in both housing blocks; the family composition of respondents is mainly solitary, followed by the family of couples; 76% and 78% of the residents have lived there for more than 10 years; they use outdoor space more frequently, with daily users accounting for 74% and 80% in each residential area. In summary, the main body of residents in the two housing blocks and the main body of outdoor space users are the elderly who have lived there for a long time, especially the elderly living alone. The outdoor space is used more frequently by these residents also. In terms of the above proportion, there is no significant difference between open and closed housing blocks, which also shows the similarity of respondents in the two groups. Therefore, the deviation of their territorial cognition is worth exploring.

Besides the basic information, the interview also addressed the territorial perception of outdoor space, which is listed in

Table 3. Mean scores and standard deviation of aspects of territorial cognition in outdoor space.

	Open	Gated
	Mean (Std. Deviation)	Mean (Std. Deviation)
Sense of Safety	2.73 (0.87)	4.07 (0.64)
Feeling of privacy	2.80 (0.85)	3.50 (0.57)
Possessing	2.33 (0.75)	3.60 (1.01)
The sense of relief and relaxation	2.77 (0.73)	3.97 (0.76)
Personalization (placing, marking or defining)	1.90 (0.48)	3.23 (1.11)
Defense feeling unhappy of outsiders around	2.97 (0.89)	3.27 (0.63)
Perception of affiliation	2.12 (1.19)	2.22 (1.29)
Knowing and interacting with neighbors	3.17 (0.75)	3.40 (0.67)
Feeling unhappy with neighbors around	1.07 (0.25)	1.03 (0.18)

. It can be seen that there are marked differences in “Sense of safety”, “Feeling of privacy”, and “Possessing”, in which the most obvious one is “Sense of Safety”, which scores only 2.73 in the open housing block and 4.07 in the gated. Light differences can be found in the defensive attitude towards outsiders. When asked whether they were unhappy when outsiders come around, the score in the open case was 2.97, and the answer in the gated group was 3.27. The more similar results of the two housing blocks are their “Perception of affiliation”, with only a difference of 0.1. The data implies that they have communication with their neighbors and do not have a sense of exclusion towards their neighbors for the use the outdoor space. On the whole, the major scores of territorial cognition in the open housing block are less than 3 points, while the situation in the gated housing block is the opposite, mostly higher than 3 points.

The above results are based on the sample data of two housing blocks through the interview. To test the overall situation, a statistical test was performed to observe the difference between the population means. After the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, the data distribution was found to be not consistent with normality, hence, the Independent-Samples Mann–Whitney U test, a nonparametric test method, was used. The results are shown in

Table 4. Hypothesis test summary of residents’ territorial cognation between two housing blocks.

Null Hypothesis	Test	Sig.	Decision
The distribution of Q1 is the same across categories of category of housing blocks.	Independent-Samples Mann–Whitney U Test	0.000	Reject the null hypothesis.
The distribution of Q2 is the same across categories of category of housing blocks.	Independent-Samples Mann–Whitney U Test	0.000	Reject the null hypothesis.
The distribution of Q3 is the same across categories of category of housing blocks.	Independent-Samples Mann–Whitney U Test	0.001	Reject the null hypothesis.
The distribution of Q4 is the same across categories of category of housing blocks.	Independent-Samples Mann–Whitney U Test	0.000	Reject the null hypothesis.
The distribution of Q5 is the same across categories of category of housing blocks.	Independent-Samples Mann–Whitney U Test	0.738	Retain the null hypothesis.
The distribution of Q6 is the same across categories of category of housing blocks.	Independent-Samples Mann–Whitney U Test	0.218	Retain the null hypothesis.
The distribution of Q7 is the same across categories of category of housing blocks.	Independent-Samples Mann–Whitney U Test	0.557	Retain the null hypothesis.

Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is 0.05.

: The differences in residents’ territorial cognition between housing blocks. Q1 and Q2 are corresponded to “Sense of Safety” and “Feeling of privacy”, respectively, and Q3 and Q4 correspond to two dimensions of “Possessing”. The P values of Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 are less than 0.05, which means that there are significant differences between the two housing blocks in terms of three cognitions above. Q6 and Q7 correspond to dimensions of “Perception of affiliation”, whose p values are 0.218 and 0.557, greater than 0.05. It indicates there is no significant difference between the two cases, which is consistent with the results in Table 3. The exception is Q5, which is inconsistent with the sample analysis results, showing that the two housing blocks have similar cognition of “defense”, while in Table 3 they are 2.97 (open) and 3.27 (gated), separately. Even if the statistical significance told such a story, the authors still felt a slight difference during the investigation. Of course, this might be the error of subjective feeling.

4. Territorial Behavior

4.1. Data Analysis

In this paper, territorial behavior is defined as the outdoor placing behavior, which is abundant in the amount and has obvious characteristics. Four dimensions of measuring territorial behavior are reflected in the theoretical structure (Figure 3).

First, the recording of space-occupying was conducted by snapshot and observation, then the interpretation of the attributes of these placed objects into variables based on the theoretical structure for statistics. After that, factor analysis was used to get the comprehensive score of attribute variables, and last, divide all scores into groups by quartiles. After grouping, the corresponding territorial analysis was performed according to a theoretical basis selected by this article.

4.2. Result

Table 5. Recorded frequency of outdoor placing behavior.

Open-Frequency: n =183		Gated-Frequency: n = 312
bed	1	bear	1
cabinet	1	bench	3
chair	33	chair	59
clothes	18	clothes	40
eggplant	1	plant	23
plant	7	pram	3
pram	5	sofa	5
socks	1	stool	40
sofa	6	table	15
stool	29	underwear	8
table	9	wheelchair	1
tea table	1	bedclothes	31
bbq	1	bench	14
bedclothes	7	bicycle	38
bench	1	e-bike	12
bicycle	39	motor	1
cart	4	stool	11
chair	1	table	1
e-bike	11	tent	6
motor	5
parasol	1
tent	1

presents the number of times all outdoor placing behaviors were recorded in the two housing blocks. A total of 183 placed objects were recorded in the open housing block and 312 were marked in the gated group. Although the area and population of the two cases are similar, the number of outdoor placing in the gated is much higher than in the other one. If 10% of the total number is defined as a high-frequency behavior, conspicuous behaviors in the open housing block are: placing bicycles (39), placing chairs (33), placing stools (29), and placing clothes (18); for the gated: placing chairs (59), placing clothes (40), placing stools (40), placing bedclothes (31), and placing bicycles (38). In general, outdoor placing behaviors in the two housing blocks are similar in categories, but there are large differences in the number, and the differences in their attribute will also be revealed in the subsequent analysis.

After the description of basic information of territorial behaviors, territorial features of placed objects were interpreted to be parameters and scored by following seven attributes of four dimensions (Figure 4), factor analyzing was conducted in the next procedure to calculate a comprehensive factor score of territorial behaviors and then arrange all placing behaviors according to their scores.

Each object placed outdoors is scored according to the definition of the theoretical structure, and this score is also regarded as a score for the territorial behavior of “place things in the outdoor space”. The specific scoring method is given in Figure 4. For example, when examining the exclusiveness of such behavior under the dimension of “defense”, the object without a lock is counted 1 point, and the locked object is scored 2 points. In this way, scores of each placed object can be obtained, and they were evaluated by the factor analysis to obtain a whole comprehensive factor score to represent each placed object in

Table 6. Comprehensive factor score of placed objects.

Placed Objects in the Open Housing Block			Placed Objects in the Gated Housing Block
O-POn	Area	Factor Score	G-POn	Area	Factor Score
O-PO1	a2	−0.255111996	G-PO1	a5	−0.243544789
O-PO2	a2	−0.255111996	G-PO2	a10	−0.243544789
O-PO3	a2	−0.255111996	G-PO3	a10	0.169703788
O-PO4	a2	−0.191218281	G-PO4	a10	0.169703788
O-PO5	a2	−0.191218281	G-PO5	a10	−0.243544789
O-PO6	a2	−0.191218281	G-PO6	a10	−0.243544789
O-PO7	a3	0.158861145	G-PO7	a11	0.36012824
O-PO8	a5	−0.255111996	G-PO8	a11	0.36012824
O-PO9	a5	−0.255111996	G-PO9	a11	0.36012824
O-PO10	a5	−0.232541243	G-PO10	a11	0.36012824
…	…	…	…	…	…
O-PO181	e	−0.533171338	G-PO310	d	0.522491802
O-PO182	e	−0.533171338	G-PO311	d	0.522491802
O-PO183	e	−0.438588738	G-PO312	e	−0.110937498

(O-PO represents placed objects in the open housing block, G-PO is abbreviated of placed objects in the gated housing block). The territoriality of all placed objects was then sorted and grouped based on this comprehensive score (Figure 5).

All behavioral scores were equally divided into four groups by quartiles, and all behavioral data in both housing blocks were represented by a boxplot (Figure 5). Comparing the open and gated groups, it can be seen that their minimum and lower quartile values are similar; but from the median, the gated group has higher values; the larger gap is in the upper quartile and the maximum value. According to the quartile value, the territorial behavior is divided into four grades. While following the two blue lines in the boxplot, it shows that some territorial behaviors classified as Level 4 and Level 3 by comprehensive factor scores in the open housing block can only be divided into Level 3 and Level 2 in the gated one. In addition, outlier samples 148 and 54 appear in the open group, especially sample 54 which has a much higher score than other behaviors, no matter in open or closed housing blocks. Since there is no error in the snapshot and statistics steps of these two behaviors, they are not excluded as abnormal values, but recognized as: there are also some extremely high-level behaviors in the open case, despite the overall territorial scores being lower than in the gated housing block. The specific situation will be explained in the next chapter in conjunction with the territorial space.

5. Territorial Degree of the Space Area

5.1. Data Analysis

For the territorial space: Outdoor space of two housing blocks was divided into various areas according to the location (Figure 6). After obtaining the territorial score and grouping of placed objects, all objects in each space area were counted, and then the quartile statistics were used again to group the space areas. Again, these groups were combined with the theoretical basis (Figure 7). Finally, the territorial characteristics and anomaly values of placed objects and space areas are explained.

5.2. Result

Table A2. Territorial score of space areas in the open and gated housing blocks.

Open Housing Block: Changke B										Gated Housing Block: Qichechang 34
Area	Score	Area	Score	Area	Score	Area	Score	Area	Score	Area	Score	Area	Score	Area	Score	Area	Score	Area	Score
ao1	6	ao28	0	ao55	0	ao82	2	bo26	68	ag1	0	ag34	0	ag67	0	bg15	47	bg48	0
ao2	12	ao29	0	ao56	2	ao83	0	bo27	0	ag2	0	ag35	0	ag68	0	bg16	18	bg49	8
ao3	4	ao30	0	ao57	0	bo1	9	bo28	0	ag3	0	ag36	0	ag69	4	bg17	40	bg50	35
ao4	0	ao31	0	ao58	0	bo2	0	bo29	0	ag4	0	ag37	6	ag70	0	bg18	2	bg52	42
ao5	20	ao32	0	ao59	24	bo3	0	bo30	0	ag5	2	ag38	0	ag71	0	bg19	0	bg53	3
ao6	10	ao33	18	ao60	0	bo4	0	bo31	0	ag6	0	ag39	0	ag72	0	bg20	8	bg54	12
ao7	14	ao34	8	ao61	5	bo5	0	bo32	5	ag7	0	ag40	0	ag73	0	bg21	3	bg55	0
ao8	3	ao35	6	ao62	0	bo6	0	bo33	3	ag8	0	ag41	0	ag74	4	bg22	14	bg56	0
ao9	0	ao36	0	ao63	0	bo7	0	bo34	0	ag9	0	ag42	0	ag75	0	bg23	0	bg57	3
ao10	0	ao37	3	ao64	0	bo8	0	bo35	0	ag10	12	ag43	2	ag76	0	bg24	3	bg58	10
ao11	0	ao38	1	ao65	0	bo9	0	bo36	0	ag11	20	ag44	0	ag77	0	bg25	7	bg59	0
ao12	0	ao39	9	ao66	3	bo10	0	bo37	0	ag12	0	ag45	0	ag78	2	bg26	25	bg60	0
ao13	2	ao40	0	ao67	4	bo11	0	bo38	0	ag13	0	ag46	0	ag79	0	bg27	12	bg61	15
ao14	0	ao41	4	ao68	0	bo12	0	bo39	0	ag14	0	ag47	0	ag80	2	bg28	2	bg62	0
ao15	0	ao42	18	ao69	4	bo13	0	bo40	0	ag15	0	ag48	2	ag81	0	bg29	0	bg63	52
ao16	0	ao43	1	ao70	0	bo14	0	bo41	0	ag16	0	ag49	0	ag82	0	bg30	1	bg64	0
ao17	0	ao44	31	ao71	2	bo15	0	bo42	4	ag17	13	ag50	0	ag83	0	bg31	0	bg65	9
ao18	3	ao45	4	ao72	0	bo16	0	co1	5	ag18	2	ag51	3	ag84	0	bg32	0	bg66	0
ao19	7	ao46	0	ao73	8	bo17	0	co2	8	ag19	0	ag52	0	ag85	0	bg33	0	bg67	2
ao20	0	ao47	0	ao74	23	bo18	0	co3	0	ag20	0	ag53	0	bg1	0	bg34	2	bg68	23
ao21	9	ao48	0	ao75	6	bo19	0	co4	0	ag21	0	ag54	20	bg2	9	bg35	3	bg69	4
ao22	0	ao49	0	ao76	5	bo20	0	co5	0	ag22	0	ag55	0	bg3	4	bg36	8	cg1	2
ao23	0	ao50	0	ao77	13	bo21	0	co6	5	ag23	0	ag56	2	bg4	6	bg37	3	cg2	0
ao24	0	ao51	6	ao78	2	bo22	8	do	0	ag24	0	ag57	5	bg5	4	bg38	6	cg3	2
ao25	0	ao52	0	ao79	15	bo23	0	eo	6	ag25	0	ag58	0	bg6	4	bg39	8	cg4	0
ao26	0	ao53	28	ao80	6	bo24	0			ag26	6	ag59	0	bg7	5	bg40	0	cg5	0
ao27	0	ao54	20	ao81	7	bo25	0			ag27	16	ag60	0	bg8	21	bg41	10	cg6	0
										ag28	0	ag61	0	bg9	1	bg42	9	cg7	0
										ag29	0	ag62	0	bg10	2	bg43	5	cg8	0
										ag30	0	ag63	0	bg11	2	bg44	11	dgx	47
										ag31	0	ag64	0	bg12	0	bg45	18	eg	2
										ag32	4	ag65	0	bg13	7	bg46	10
										ag33	12	ag66	0	bg14	0	bg47	19

, Figure 8 and Figure 9 respectively show the territorial scores of each spatial area, grouping the spatial areas according to the scores, and combining the territorial theory to classify and locate the grouped spatial areas.

In Table A2, since the territorial score of a space area is derived from the sum of all territorial behaviors in this spatial region, some space areas without territorial behaviors were counted as 0 points (a-area of open housing block was abbreviated as ao, a-area of gated abbreviated as ag; the same goes for bo, bg, etc.). Specific operations are as follows: Eight placed objects were found in the ao5, which are O-po8~O-po15; O-po8~O-po13, the territorial behaviors of Level 2, were counted as 2 points; O-po14 and O-po15 are territorial behaviors of Level 4, which are calculated as 4 points; a total of 20 points were obtained finally as the territorial score of ao5. If there is not any object in a space area, such as ao9, it was counted as 0 points.

Figure 8 compares the territorial score of all the space areas in the two housing blocks by a boxplot. In both cases, 50% of the space areas were scored as 0 points, and these areas are counted as Level 1; the upper quartile and the maximum see a similar situation in the two housing blocks, and these two ranges are the samples of the remaining 50% of whole space areas, which were counted as Level 2 and Level 3, respectively. Combined with the territorial grading theory in Figure 7, a space area with a territorial score of 0 points can be regarded as public territory, and Level 2 and Level 3 are considered to be semi-public spaces and semi-private spaces respectively as well.

In addition to the above description, the boxplot also indicates that there are still some space areas in the two settlements which are considered outliers, which were excluded because they are much higher than the maximum of the quartiles. These ungrouped areas were defined as Level 4; since their scores are higher than the area of Level 3 and are not grouped explicitly, they are considered to be higher than the semi-private and close to the private in the territory. The Level 4 groups have 12 samples in the open housing block and 18 samples in the gated one separately. Besides this, even within the group of outliers, the credit of these data are significantly different. In the open group, only one sample, 109, corresponds to the bo region and is much higher than other outliers, while the remaining outliers are relatively close and belong to the ao area. It can be seen that the high territorial space in the open housing block is dominated by ao area. In the gated group, the outliers are divided into two groups with similar amounts. The larger part, such as sample 281, 296, and 233, are all bg areas, while the smaller part has both bg and ag areas but with bg areas as the majority. It indicates that although these outliers belong to the same high territorial group, the value of the bg area is still higher.

Figure 9 illustrates the territorial distribution of all degrees more clearly in the form of spatial positioning. The white, blue, yellow, and red represent Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4, respectively.

In the open housing block, the highest one Level 4, the red area, is scattered in all parts of the outdoor space. One of 11 red areas belongs to the “b area” (unit front area), and remaining 10 belong to the “a region” (entrance buffer). It means that the entrance buffer was used more frequently as an advanced territorial space, and then comes the unit front area. However, it should be pointed out that although area b has only one sample, b26, which is evaluated as a high-level territorial space, this space area has the highest territorial score (see sample 109 in Figure 8). It is located in the inner corner of an L-shaped unit building and has one more enclosure than other areas. The continuity of high territorial level can be found only in a53 and a54, which are adjacent to some commercial facilities, such as retail stores, restaurants, and laundromats. Perhaps these stores, which are closely related to residents’ lives, have affected the continuity of the territoriality in the surrounding space.

In the gated group, there is a good continuity not only within red areas with the highest territoriality but also between the red, yellow, and blue areas. The space areas of Level 4 are distributed both in a area and b area, which has four samples and 13 samples, respectively. In general, the territory space with the highest degree is more inclined to appear in the b area which is the unit front space. The strongest continuity can be found in two groups, they are (b15, b16, b17, and a17) and (b50, b51 and b52). The position of the former is the inner angle of an L-shaped unit building, and the latter is located in the middle of the whole residential area, both of which have less interference from external space.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

After comparing the territoriality of open and gated housing blocks, differences were found in residents’ territorial cognition, residents’ territorial behaviors, and territorial space they used.

(1)

In terms of territorial cognition, residents in two housing blocks have a similar cognition point, “Perception of affiliation”, which includes the cognition outside of themselves and within the resident group. The authors speculate that this situation is due to the similar work-related relations between the residents in the two cases. Besides this similarity, there are obvious differences in the sense of security, privacy, possession, and defense, etc. The scores in the open group are generally lower than those in gated one, which indicates that residents in the gated housing block have stronger territorial cognition.

(2)

In regards to territorial behaviors, there is little difference in the category of territorial behavior since these categories are derived from basic needs in residents’ daily lives. While the amounts of observed territorial behaviors are quite different under the similar population bases of the two housing blocks. In the environment of the gated housing block, people conduct more territorial behaviors, and the territorial scores of these behaviors such in Level 3 and Level 4 are higher than the same levels in the open case.

(3)

For the territorial space, half of the space areas in both housing blocks are considered public spaces because of low territorial scores, but the gated housing block has more space areas with higher-level territorial scores, and also, the continuity of their distribution is stronger than that in the open group. It is also worth noting that most of the high-level territorial space in the open case cling to the “entrance buffer area”, while the high-level areas in the gated are mostly concentrated in “unit front”. Comparing the distance of these areas from residents’ own private territory, the unit building, the high-level areas in the open settlements are formed close to their private territory, while the gated housing block enable the residents to go a little further, to the “unit front”, to expand their semi-private or semi-public territory.

In addition to the above conclusions, there are two areas in the open housing block that need to be noted. In the case of low territoriality in the open housing block overall, the performance of territorial behavior and space of these two areas are prominent outside from the whole. One is located in the corner of an L-shaped unit building, it is a relatively closed space even if in the open area; the other area does not have too many enclosures, while it still performs well in the territoriality, perhaps because it is close to the necessary facilities, such as retail stores, laundry rooms, etc. It can be concluded that certain commercial establishments (liquor stores, bars, book store) and service facilities (parking facilities) may be involved in building territoriality [21]. D. Sohn also mentioned that grocery stores, restaurants, and offices have a positive role in improving neighborhood safety and territoriality [22]. These findings were originally inspired from Jane Jacobs and later expanded by Oscar Newman to emphasize the spatial arrangement of buildings, street design, and diversity of land use [20,21,23], but the first two suggestions of structural adjustment (building arrangement) can only be interfered before or at the beginning of the construction. Considering the optimization of open-oriented reconstruction in future, if the removal of solid physical elements (such as walls) caused by the policy is inevitable, we should try to enhance the territoriality from the perspective of flexible facilities or non-spatial factors, such auxiliary facilities and the commercial use.

The spatial structure of residential areas might affect many aspects of living sustainability. In the daily life of residents, expanding their attributes outward and interacting with outdoor space can increase people’s happiness and living standards. The main body of this study is the old residential areas, in which most of the residents are the elderly. Since the retired old people have lost an important social relationship, industrial relationship, the territoriality generated by interacting with their living environment will be more important. After a traffic-oriented guideline changed their familiar living space, how did residents transform the territoriality and how to maintain it in a more open environment are questions worthy of our consideration.

*: Mainly because of the traffic problems, the central government of the People’s Republic of China released a guideline in February 2016 to address “obvious issues” and “urban ills”, such as making traffic networks intensive and unclogging the urban roads by two main approaches: (a) promoting open housing blocks with small areas among newly-built residential areas; and (b) reconstructing gated housing blocks by removing bounding walls and connecting internal roads with urban roads.