  
 

HUI

l
l

  

‘WWl“WI“WNWJIM

W

 

WW

 

2:) l0

M.A.

 

LIBRARY
Mic‘mgan State
Ul liversity

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE CONFIGURATION OF RESIDENTIAL SPACES
ON OCCUPANTS’ BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS

presented by

So Yun Park

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

degree in Interior Design & Facilities Management

 

4M2. (/‘ﬂw

MTa’jor Professor’s Signature

(7)4444, 3. a2 4/9
/ /
Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KzlProleccaPresIClRCIDateDue.indd

 

THE CONFIGURATION OF RESIDENTIAL SPACES
ON OCCUPANTS’ BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS

By

So Yun Park

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Interior Design and Facilities Management

2010

ABSTRACT

THE CONFIGURATION OF RESIDENTIAL SPACES
ON OCCUPANTS’ BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS

By
So Yun Park

In Environment Behavior Studies (BBS), many theories have established different
factors between built environments and occupants’ behavioral patterns. Among them,
Amos Rapoport focused on the form of the built environment in cultural aspects. In this
study, the indoor-footwear-wearing habit (i.e., wearing outdoor shoes, indoor shoes, or
remaining bare-foot inside of the house) was suggested as one of residents’ behavioral
patterns that can be a part of their culture and investigated the relationship with the
conﬁguration of the entrance area of their houses.

Three hundred fourteen students at Michigan State University participated in an
on-line survey and approximately thirty-ﬁve percent of them answered as staying bare-
foot or wearing only socks in their houses. In cultural aspect, the indoor-footwear-
wearing habits showed relationship not with the concerns that residents put higher value
on their housing, but with the lifestyle such as the number of residents, the existence of
pets, and the housing type or condition. In environmental aspect, the indoor-footwear-
wearing habits did not have relationship with the evaluation of overall condition for the
entrance area of the house. However, the type of ﬂoor material, shoes storing habit, and
the activities held at the entrance area were dependent to that behavioral pattern.

This study suggests households’ different indoor-footwear-wearing habits as a
part of their culture related to everyday living style and that should be considered

importantly in designing the entrance area of the house.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr.
April D. Allen. Thanks for her patience, support, and guidance, not only for this thesis
but also throughout my whole master program. I extend my appreciation to Dr. Eunsil
Lee for her insightful comments and all the support in many ways. My special thanks also
go to Dr. Lillian Phenice for her support and encouragement.

Second, I would like to show my appreciation to Professor Young-Soon Park, my
great mentor since my undergraduate years at Yonsei University.

Finally, my deep gratitude goes to my family. Thanks to my husband, Seok Woo
Lee, who has always been my greatest supporter. Thanks to my lovely daughter, Sang
Hwa for always giving me a big smile. Thanks to my little boy, Sangheon, who was born
prematurely at the end of my third semester, for growing up healthy and energetic. And
special thanks to my parents for their endless love and support.

And, thank you God.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of this Study .................................................................................................... 2
Signiﬁcance of this Study ............................................................................................. 3
Organization of the Following Chapters ....................................................................... 4
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 5
Theoretical Background ................................................................................................ 5
Rapoport ’s Environment Behavior Studies (EBS) .................................................. 5
“Dismantling” Culture ........................................................................................... 7
“Dismantling ” Built Environment .......................................................................... 8
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 9
Factors in Culture ................................................................................................... 9
Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits ........................................................................ 1 1
Entrance Area of Housing .................................................................................... 12
Conceptual Model of this Study ............................................................................ 13
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................................. 16
Research Methods and Procedures ............................................................................. 16
Survey Method ............................................................................................................ 16
Population and Sample ......................................................................................... 16
Survey Instrumentation ......................................................................................... 17
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 20
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 21
Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................... 2]
Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................... 21
Housing and the Entrance Area ............................................................................ 22
Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits ........................................................................ 24
Reliability Test ...................................................................................................... 27
Results and Discussion ............................................................................................... 28

iv

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 43
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 43
Implications ................................................................................................................. 47
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 49
Future Research .......................................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX: Survey Instrument ....................................................................................... 53

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 60

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

Table 16.

Table 17.

Table 18.

Table 19.

LIST OF TABLES

Percentage Distribution of Demographic Characteristics ................................ 21
Percentage Distribution of Housing and Entrance Area Characteristics ......... 23
Percentage Distribution of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits ......................... 25
Descriptive Statistics for Reason of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habit ............. 26
Regression of Reasons on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits ........................... 27
Reliability Analysis on Fixed Elements’ Evaluation .......................................... 27
Chi-Square of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Values ............................ 28
ANO VA of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Family Composition ............ 30
T -test of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Children under Five ................ 31
Regression of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Number of Residents ..... 32
T-test of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Pets ........................................ 32
AND VA of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Housing Type ..................... 33
Regression of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Housing Condition ........ 34
ANO VA of Fixed Elements ’ Evaluation on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits3
......................................................................................................................... 5
Chi-Square of Entrance Area Flooring on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits37
Chi-Square of Closet Items on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits ................. 38
C hi-Square of Shoe Storing on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits ................. 39
Chi-Square of Display Items on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits ............... 4O
Chi-Square of Residents ’ Activities on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits ..... 41

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of This Study ....................................................................... 14

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

People use their residential spaces in their own unique way, demonstrating their
identity through houses’ form, style, interior, or exterior decoration (Cooper Marcus,
1995; Hummon, 1989). For example, in certain ancient Asian countries, people sat on the
ﬂoor, folding their legs, rather than sitting on chairs. Even today, these countries ﬁnd it
more natural to sit on the ﬂoor although they have many chairs in their houses. As a
result, it is common for people in these countries to remain bare-foot inside the house
unlike people from Western cultures, who tend to wear shoes inside their houses.
However, in these days, people from Western cultures including Americans also oﬁen
have a no-shoes policy in their houses. This “indoor-footwear-wearing habit”, as termed
in the current study refers to the different habits about wearing either outdoor or indoor
shoes inside of the house, or remaining bare-foot (Munro & Steele, 1999). Given the
enhanced sharing of cultures through increasing globalization, culture alone may not be
the sole reason for the indoor-footwear-wearing habit. For instance, concerns for indoor
environment quality or health problems that became important recently can be
responsible.

The fact that the indoor-footwear-wearing habit is a behavior that varies
according to the utilization of residential spaces makes it an appropriate characteristic to
be linked to the entrance area of a house. Most people wear shoes outside the house; if
people wear these same shoes inside the house, they may enter the domicile without

performing any habitual activities. On the other hand, people who wear indoor shoes or

go bear-foot in their houses need to change or remove their shoes at the entrance area of
the house. Therefore, the current utilization and evaluation of this space will be different,

resulting in different needs and wants in the design process.

Purpose of this Study

The purpose of the current study is to investigate the relationship between
residents’ indoor-footwear-wearing habits and the conﬁguration of the entrance area of
their houses. Broadly speaking, this research focuses on the connection between the
behavioral patterns and the built environment.

The design process of the built environment incorporates a gap between clients
and actual users, and it is the designer’s responsibility to overcome this gap (Zeisel,
2006). A problem may not present itself if the client is the ultimate user of the built
environment, as sometimes happens in residential buildings. However, in many cases,
people buy existing houses rather than build a new one. After purchases, houses are often
remodeled to ﬁt users’ needs and wants (Kent, 1991), which became more visible in the
design process thanks to Environment-Behavior-Studies (EBS) (Zeisel, 2006). Among
the many theories in the EBS ﬁeld, Rapoport’s theory, which can be summarized by
emphasizing “the critical and multifaceted role of culture in shaping the built
environment” (Rapoport, 2006, p. 56), will be applied as the theoretical background of
this study.

In the discussion of culture, Rapoport (2008) suggested ‘culture core’ (culture
that changes little and slowly) and ‘culture periphery’ (culture that changes quickly,

easily, and eagerly). In the current study, the indoor-footwear-wearing habit is assumed

as a culture core since this behavior cannot be shifted easily, representing the
characteristics of the household. People may keep their indoor-footwear-wearing habits
according to their parents’ behavior or their belief regarding housing. Thereby, this habit
can be considered as creating the identity of residents, in other words, the culture of their
households.
The speciﬁc objectives of this study are:
1. To examine which characteristic of residents (i.e. values, lifestyles, etc.) are
related to the indoor-footwear-wearing habits.
2. To examine how the indoor-footwear-wearing habits of residents are related

to their current utilization or evaluation of the entrance area of the house.

Signiﬁcance of this Study

The house reﬂects, but also shapes the culture of its residents (Sebba, 1991).
Therefore, it is important to know both how the entrance area is currently being utilized
and what residents need according to their behavioral patterns.

In practical terms, providing designers with information about residents’ needs
and wants according to their behaviors offers signiﬁcant insights. Instead of designing
with the knowledge of simple functionality, needs and wants based on users’ behavior
should be studied (Mangum, 2000). This may be particularly important in residential
spaces, as, except for a few visitors, residents are the only occupants who possess and use
the space. In designing the entrance area of the house, the indoor-footwear—wearing habit
is an important behavior to be considered. The size of the entrance area and the usage of

closets or display items can differ by residents’ different behavioral patterns.

On the other hand, theoretically speaking, applying the relationship between
indoor-footwear-wearing habits and the conﬁguration of the house’s entrance area to
Rapoport’s theory will be meaningful, since it will allow for some examination of how
human behavior is related to the built environment according to cultural aspects. If the
residents’ indoor-footwear-wearing habits show the relationship to the cultural factors
and be identiﬁed as a part of household culture, and also if that habits show the
relationship with the entrance area of the house, this can be one of the examples for the

role of culture in Environment-Behavior—Studies (EBS).

Organization of the Following Chapters
This thesis is organized with four more other chapters. Chapter II, literature

review is composed with two parts, theoretical background and conceptual framework.
The former describes Rapoport’s EBS theory and the latter explains the conceptual model
of this study. Chapter III shows the method of this study, focused on the process of the
survey. Chapter IV reports the ﬁndings of the survey. First, the results of descriptive
statistics are provided. Then, the discussions for each research questions are presented.
with the results from statistical analyses. Finally, chapter V discusses overall conclusions

of this study.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Background

Moore (1997) identiﬁed thirteen theories in the ﬁeld of Environment-Behavior-
Studies (EBS). Among them, Amos Rapoport and Irwin Altman were two scholars who
contributed signiﬁcantly to early EBS (Lawrence-Zﬁﬁiga, 1997). Both built their own
frameworks by establishing many factors between built environments and behavioral
patterns. However, Rapoport focused on the form of built environment and the design
processes in cultural aspects, while Altman extended BBS to environmental psychology.
Rapoport thought designers should always be aware of users’ needs and wants by
studying their culture through the design process (Lawrence-Zﬁﬁiga, 1997; Rapoport,
1976). As indoor-footwear-wearing habit is one of residents’ behavioral patterns that can
be a part of their culture, it will affect residents’ needs and wants in their houses,
especially in the entrance area. Therefore, Rapoport’s theory, which Moore (1997, p. 21)
named as “cultural orientation to housing”, will be used as the theoretical background in

the current study.

Rapoport’s Environment Behavior Studies (EBS)

In general, EBS is deﬁned as a ﬁeld of study that seeks to determine how people
inﬂuence and how they are inﬂuenced by the built environment (Werner & Altman,
2000). Based on this concept, Rapoport always asked three basic questions at the

beginning of his discussions (Rapoport, 1985, p. 257; 1987, p. 10; 2000a, p. 118; 2000b,

p.118;2005,p.10;2006,p.59y
1. What characteristics of human beings inﬂuence the built environment?
2. What effects do environments have on people?
3. Given this two-way interaction between people and environments, there
must be mechanisms that link them. What are these mechanisms?

The mechaniSms mentioned in question 3 serves as the main idea behind
Rapoport’s theory. He pointed out several mechanisms, including physiology, anatomy,
perception, cognition, meaning, affect, evaluation, behavior, and supportiveness
(Rapoport, 2000a; 2005). These mechanisms can interact among each other, as well as be
expanded or dismantled. However, it is important that most of them are cultural or are
related to culture (Rapoport, 2000a; 2005).

Discussing “good” housing design, Franklin (2001) argued that Rapoport
concluded that the built environment should be congruent with and supportive of the
users’ culture. The failure to do so means that, the built environment will cause stress
(Franklin, 2001). Rapoport thought that culture presents a reason for users’ needs and
wants in detail. Therefore, the environment should be culturally responsive (Rapoport,
1987). To be responsive, the environment has to be congruent with culture (Rapoport,
1987). According to this logic, the congruence between the indoor-footwear-wearing
habit and the conﬁguration of a house’s entrance area should be considered in the design
process.

The famous diagram that Rapoport presented in his several studies clariﬁes the
relationship between culture and the residential built environment. He argued that

concepts of both culture and environment are too general, broad, and abstract to be

connected directly to each other. Therefore, he dismantled them into several factors and
demonstrated the connections among them (Rapoport, 1989; 2000a; 2005; 2008). The
following paragraphs detail how Rapoport dismantled culture and environment in his

diagram.

“Dismantling” Culture

Culture plays an important role in Rapoport’s EBS framework. It is a complex
term that can be deﬁned in several ways. According to Rapoport (1989), culture is a way
of typical life and a way of coping with the ecological setting. It is also a shared system
of beliefs, values, symbols, and styles that characterizes a group of people (Lang, 1987).
However, the most basic concept of culture is that “culture is what makes humans
human” (Rapoport, 1989, p. 12).

Determining exactly how many kinds of cultures exist in the world is a
challenging prospect. The answer depends on how groups are delineated. However, each
culture is very unique with its own peculiar history (Lang, 1987). Consequently, culture
is a method by which the group maintains its identity and relates to the environment
(Rapoport, 1987).

Rapoport further interpreted culture as “a theoretical construct” (Rapoport, 2005,
p.94). Given that culture is too complicated to be described in a single word and too
broad to be connected directly to the residential built environment, Rapoport proposed
“dismantling” culture (Rapoport, 1989; 2000a; 2008). Basically, he dismantled culture in
two different ways. First, culture is taken apart into kinship, family structure, roles, social

network, status, identity, institutions, and so on. In this way, each factor represents social

expression and becomes more concrete, manageable, and observable than culture itself.
Second, Rapoport conceptualized culture in a more speciﬁc expression. Culture can be
developed into a world View which shapes one’s values. Values inﬂuence lifestyle, while
lifestyle affects activity systems. In addition, ideals, images, schemata, meanings, norms,
standards, rules, and expectations were also considered as the speciﬁc expressions. In this
study, values, lifestyle, and behavior (activity systems) will be applied to the factors of
the culture since lifestyle and behavior explain residential spaces better than culture itself

incorporating values to some degree (Rapoport, 1970; 1989; 20003; 2008).

“Dismantling” Built Environment

As with culture, the built environment is so general that it cannot be connected
directly to culture (Rapoport, 1989). Therefore, built environment also needs dismantling.
Rapoport suggested several ways to conceptualize the built environment (Rapoport,
2000a; 2000b; 2005). Among them, describing the built environment as a composition of
ﬁxed elements, semi-ﬁxed elements, and non-ﬁxed elements was considered as the most
concrete and simplest approach (Rapoport, 2000a; 2000b; 2005).

A ﬁxed element is a building itself, such as walls, ﬂoors, ceilings and columns. A
semi-ﬁxed element can be the furnishings. Finally, residents and their activities are called
non-ﬁxed elements. Usually in residential environments, residents cannot change ﬁxed
elements easily. Meanwhile, the non-ﬁxed elements are the residents themselves. The
characteristics or behaviors of residents should not be modiﬁed to suit the built
environment. However, semi-ﬁxed elements can be manipulated to express the identity of

residents and to utilize the space according to residents’ behaviors (Rapoport, 1982a).

In the current study, evaluation of the environmental quality for the entrance area
of the house can be examined as ﬁxed elements. The closet for shoes, coats, hats, and
umbrellas or displays such as shoe racks and ﬂoor mats can be explored as semi-ﬁxed
elements. Finally, all the different activities that can occur at the entrance area, such as
welcoming visitors, changing shoes, and getting dressed. in coats or jackets will serve as

non-ﬁxed elements.

Conceptual Framework
Factors in Culture

Values. The concept of value can be deﬁned as a person’s point of view
regarding the various beliefs in the world. Values identify what issues are considered
seriously. Rapoport stated that “values describe how people value various goods” (2000b,
p. 151). In the design process of the house, values explain residents’ preferences and
choices. Some may put more value on health, while others are more concerned with
comfort. Some may put more value on privacy, while others are more focused on visitors
for entertainment.

Lifestyle. It is difﬁcult to understand all the different needs and wants for all
people in the design process. However, lifestyle represents a more limited range of these
people (Michelson, 1987), deﬁning who an individual is and the identity of a group to
which that individuals belongs (Bonaiuto & Bonnes, 2000). Rapoport (2000b; 2005)
stated that the concept of lifestyle is particularly useful to apply to the design process for
three reasons: 1) lifestyle is general; 2) most other aspects, such as age, sex, race, religion,

education, occupation, and ideology, can be included; and 3) it has been used for many

studies in other ﬁelds.

Lifestyle can be classiﬁed into various ranges using various criteria (Rapoport,
1985). Sorokin, Zimmerman, and Galpin (1931) deﬁned four stages according to the
development of a nuclear family: a couple without children, a couple with grade-school-
aged children, a couple with high-school-aged children, and an all-adult family.
Meanwhile, Bell (1968) proposed three different lifestyles related to the choice of
housing: familism, careerism, and consumerism. Familism refers to the preference for
living in suburban, single-family houses, while the other two indicated center-city
residential choices. This focuses on the value of the family rather than the stage of family
development.

It is important to clarify that lifestyle is different than life-stage or life-cycle,
which are deﬁned in terms of age or biological development. Lifestyle considers the
backgrounds of the family. Stokols (1982) gave an example of the difference using two
working mothers. If one is working to pursue her career while the other is forced to work
for economical reasons, they cannot be in the same lifestyle group. Given these unique
aspects of lifestyle, values should be considered with lifestyle.

Behavior (activity system). Organization or utilization of the residential space
differs among different cultures, making it a challenge to ﬁgure out which speciﬁc factor
is responsible for the conﬁguration of the residential space (Kent, 1991). Ultimately,
daily living should be the focus. Daily living consists of residents’ primary behaviors
(Howell & Tentokali, 1989), which are basically regarded as the culture (Kent, 1991),
namely the most speciﬁc expression of culture (Rapoport, 2000b). Thus, behaviors can be

a mediating factor between residents and their built environment (Michelson, 2000). For

10

this reason, Rapoport (1989) described behaviors or activities as an expression of needs
and wants that determine the ﬁmction of the space. They can serve to deﬁne the
organization of built environments, linking them directly to design (Rapoport, 2005). In
fact, Rapoport (1982b) argued that the cultural difference in behaviors is most important
in the form of the built environment. However, he did not reduce culture to behavior
directly. Rather, he emphasized the meaning of behaviors, making it meaningﬁil to

consider the values and lifestyles.

Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits

The form of the house may be an expression of the occupant. However, it is also a
stereotyped expression. For instance, most Americans reject the high-rise apartment
building as a family home. A free-standing, independent house with a yard is more often
preferred (Cooper, 1974). Behavioral patterns within the house can also be expressions of
the residents, as determined by their unconscious image of the house, in other words, the
stereotyped house image in their society.

The indoor-footwear-wearing habit (i.e., wearing outdoor shoes, wearing indoor
shoes, or being bare-foot inside of the house) is a fundamental behavior that causes other
differences in daily activities. Residents who wear outdoor shoes in their house will
usually sit on chairs and may not care too much about ﬂoor sanitation. However,
residents who remain bare-foot in their house tend to sit on the ﬂoor more often and need
to be aware of ﬂoor cleaning.

Many factors can lead to the indoor-footwear-wearing habit. First, it could be a

cultural matter. If one’s parents wear outdoor shoes inside the house, the children may

11

follow this behavior as a stereotyped behavioral pattern. However, cultural matters may
not be the only reason. Given that sustainability has become such an important issue
today, many people are conscious of indoor air quality. As such, they may prefer wood
ﬂooring to carpeting (Andes, 2000; Spetic, Kozak, & Cohen, 2007) because of toxic
effects of carpet exposure or indoor humidity (Andes, 2000), or they may remove outdoor
shoes while at home for sanitation purposes. Moreover, health issues can affect such
habits. Perennial rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and asthma have been known to be related to
indoor environment quality (Beguin & Nolard, 1996). Rizzo, Naspitz, Femandex-Caldas,
Lockey, Mimica & Sole (1997) concluded that shoes’ soles bring negative bacteria inside
the house. Therefore, they advised leaving shoes outside the house or at least outside the
bedroom.

Munro and Steele (1999) also conducted a study on household-shoe wearing and
purchasing habits. They found that, among people, aged 65 years and older, 32.4 percent
of women and 28.3 percent of men did not wear shoes inside their houses. In other words,
more than one quarter of the elderly do not wear shoes inside. This rate may increase due

to concerns about environmental quality and health issues.

Entrance Area of Housing

In general, a living room is known as a space in which the integration and the
identity of the residents are expressed (Reme, 1993). However, before entering the living
room, visitors have to pass the entrance area of the house, where they ﬁrst experience the
residents’ identity. Lawrence (1984; 1987; 1989) conducted several studies about the

entrance area of residential spaces, concluding that the entrance area serves as a boundary

l2

between public and private, exterior and interior, polluted and non-polluted. According to
Lawrence’s (1984) research that was held in Switzerland, this small area serves as the
most social space in the house, acting as the role of a sala. A sala is the most public room
that was placed between the bedroom and the entry of the house in the Renaissance
period. Even though a sala was the largest space used for banquet and entertainment in
the past (Blakemore, 2006, p. 95), the important function of receiving welcomed guests
as well as uninvited visitors is continued to a small entrance area of today.

In addition, the ﬁmctions of an entrance area can also include being a controller of
visibility, a shelter from the weather, and an area for storage of
clothing and accessories (Alexander, Ishikawa, Silverstein, Jacobson, Fiksdahl-King, &
Angel, 1977). Many other activities can occur here as well. Residents can put on or take
off their hats and coats, or gather their umbrellas. Indeed, the space for such activities as
well as storage for coats, hats, and umbrellas is needed (Lawrence, 1987). The needs and
wants for the entrance area design can also differ according to the indoor—footwear-
wearing habits. If residents are used to being bare-foot inside their houses, the entrance
area will need to have space to put on or take off shoes as well as store them. Visitors

may also be asked to remove their out-door shoes in this area.

Conceptual Model of this Study

For the purpose of the current study, which seeks to investigate the relationship
between residents’ indoor-footwear-wearing habits and the conﬁguration of the entrance
area of their house, the conceptual model is developed based on Rapoport’s diagram, as

previously mentioned (Rapoport, 1989; 2000a; 2005; 2008). Rapoport’s (2005) combined

13

diagram deﬁnes the relationship between two different ways of dismantling culture and

the expressions of the built environment. However, in this study, only a certain part of

this diagram is used to examine the research question:

Is there any relationship between residents’ indoor-footwear-wearing habits and

the conﬁguration of the entrance area of their house?

Culture is dismantled into speciﬁc expressions instead of social expressions. Values,

lifestyles, and behavior (activity systems) are selected from among several expressions.

In addition, the simplest and most deﬁnite expression is selected from among four

different ways of conceptualizing environment and used for the conceptual framework in

this research. Figure] illustrates the conceptual model of this study.

 

Culture

 

 

 

 

V
Values

 

 

 

 

 

- Concerns of comfort,
health, privacy, safety,
sanitation, social life,
etc.

RQl

 

V
Lifestyle

8 - Family composition

a: - Ethnicity

- Existence of pets

- Housing condition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entrance Areﬂf the House

Fixed Elements

 

 

RQ3

 

Walls, ﬂoors, ceiling, & columns
- Environmental qualities
- Satisfaction

 

 

Semi-ﬁxed Elements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ Behavior

 

V

RQ4

 

Floor materials
Closet (fumiture) and display items

 

 

Non-ﬁxed Elements

 

 

 

 

 

- Wearing outdoor shoes
- Wearing indoor shoes
- Staying bear-foot

V

RQS

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of This Study

14

 

Activity - welcoming / controlling visitor
- changing shoes
- getting dressed; coat or hat

 

 

The conceptual model of this study (see Figurel) shows several relations between

behavior and the entrance area of the house. In addition, inﬂuences are expected through

values, lifestyles, and behavior. Speciﬁc research questions that will be examined are

suggested as follows:

RQl.

RQ2.

RQ3.

RQ4.

RQS.

Does residents’ behavior (i.e., indoor-footwear-wearing habit) differ by
the different concerns which the residents place higher value on?

Does residents’ behavior (i.e., indoor-footwear—wearing habit) differ by
their different lifestyles?

Does residents’ current evaluation and satisfaction of the ﬁxed elements
at the entrance area of the house differ by their different behavior (i.e.,
indoor-footwear-wearing habit)?

Does residents’ current utilization of the semi-ﬁxed elements at the
entrance area of the house differ by their different behavior (i.e., indoor-
footwear-wearing habit)?

Do residents’ activities, the non-ﬁxed elements at the entrance area of
the house differ by their different behavior (i.e., indoor-footwear-

wearing habit)?

15

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODS

Research Methods and Procedures

The research method of this study is a survey. Survey research is useful for
collecting detailed quantitative information and adequate for discovering phenomena
such as housing satisfaction (Zeisel, 2006). According to F raenkel and Wallen (2006),
there are four basic ways to collect data in a survey; a direct administration to a group, a
mail survey, a telephone survey, and a personal interview. However, an on-line survey
was employed in this study. “Survey Monkey”, the web—based survey tool is the speciﬁc
product. Generally, an on-line survey is similar to a mail survey, but it requires fewer
expenses and shorter time. Also, it is easier to recruit participants, send reminders to them,
and process the data (Lee, 2008; Porter & Whitcomb, 2003).

A pilot study was conducted on purpose of ensuring the validity of the
questionnaire. The participants were sixteen undergraduate students enrolled in a class in
interior design at Michigan State University. Some questions of the survey were modiﬁed

according to the results of the pilot study.

Survey Method
Population and Sample
The target population of this study is the households in the Lansing area,
including Lansing, East Lansing, and Okemos in Michigan. However, since it is

impracticable to gather the e-mail addresses of the residents in this area, students at

16

Michigan State University were determined as the survey participants based on a
convenience sampling method.

The total number of students who do not live in the residence halls and whose
local addresses are in the Lansing area was 13,756. This included both undergraduate and
graduate students at Michigan State University. Among them, 6,000 were selected
randomly. A recruitment letter that included a link to the on-line survey was sent by an e-
mail. Four hundred forty-one started to answer the survey with 314 completing it. Overall
response rate is only 7.35%. Since the sample was selected only among the students at
Michigan State University who are using their e-mail daily, it may not represent all
households in the Lansing area. The sample may tend to be educated more highly and
aged younger compared to the average of households in the Lansing area. This may result

in limitations when generalizing the results of this study.

Survey Instrumentation

The instrumentation of this survey was developed based on prior research and the
conceptual model of this study (see Figure] ). It was also modiﬁed according to the
results of the pilot survey. Questions are categorized according to the six variables of the
study.

Values. Participants were asked to answer questions about the value that they
consider most important related to their opinion on housing. Indicators of value were
abstracted from several previous research studies. Privacy, social life, and sanitation of
the house serve as indicators for the discussion of the entrance area of the house

(Lawrence, 1984; 1987; 1989), while comfort, safety, and privacy serve as indicators of

17

perceived residential quality (Amerigo & Aragones, 1997). Concerns about health and
sanitation were drawn from the discussion of the indoor—footwear—wearing habit (Munro
& Steele, 1999) and research on ﬂooring materials for houses (Andes, 2000; Spetic,
Kozak, & Cohen, 2007). At ﬁrst, this question was designed as a 5-point Likert-type
scale. However, according to the result of the pilot study, most of the respondents rated 4
(important) or 5 (very important) for all values. It is because all the six values represent
important functions in housing. Therefore, for the main survey, a multiple choice
question was used to select up to three that they think most important among the values
of comfort, health, privacy, safety, sanitation, and social life.

Lifestyle. Lifestyle has been broadly studied in the ﬁeld of marketing and
advertising. Plummer (1974) suggested four dimensions of lifestyle for marketing
research: activities, interests, opinions (A10) and demographics. Activities tell how
residents spend their time, interests explain what they deem important in their
surroundings, opinions imply their view of the world around them, and demographics
show some basic characteristics of residents. In this study, as AIO (activities, interests,
and opinions) was considered in the question related to value, behavior, and non-ﬁxed
elements, only demographics was asked in regard to lifestyle.

The stage of family development was the focus. Broadly speaking, the stage is
divided into four categories: families with children, single-parent families, single
individuals, and couples with no children (Morris & Winter, 1978). In detail, participants
were asked to provide the ages and the number of children due to the fact that wearing or
not wearing shoes inside the house is expected to be a bigger issue among families with

younger children. In addition, education, income, ethnicity, and the current condition of

18

the house were asked as closed—ended questions.

Behavior. Information on the current condition of residents’ indoor-footwear-
wearing habits is the core focus of this study. Munro and Steele (1999) surveyed people
aged 65 years and older regarding their household-shoe wearing and purchasing habits.
Based on their research, an indoor-footwear—wearing habit can be categorized as wearing
outdoor shoes, wearing indoor shoes, and being bare-foot or wearing socks. In this survey,
they were divided into seven categories, including residents who take off their outdoor
shoes only in particular rooms (such as their own bedroom). In addition, the reason for
indoor-footwear-wearing habits was asked by using a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Fixed elements. Fixed elements of the house consist of walls, ﬂoors, ceilings,
and columns. Using ﬁxed elements, the evaluation of the current condition of the
entrance area of the house can be determined. Therefore, environmental quality questions
were asked to be evaluated using the semantic differential scale, which presents several
pairs of adjectives through which the researchers can measure participants’ attitude
toward a particular concept (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). Twenty-two pairs of adjectives
out of sixty-four, which serve as the lexicon of environmental descriptors (Kasmar,
1970), were used for this study (Bechtel, 1976). These are considered to be related to the
values in this study, focusing primarin on size, function, atmosphere, and usage of the
entrance area of the house. In addition, satisfaction was also asked along with evaluation.

Semi-ﬁxed elements. Semi-ﬁxed elements indicate furnishings in the built
environment. Materials that are related to shoes can be ﬂoorings, and the furniture placed
at the entrance area of the house is usually closets. Therefore, in the questionnaire of this

study, the ﬂoor materials of the entrance area and the current conditions of needs or

19

wants related to the closets, which store shoes, coats, umbrellas, and hats, were asked
using closed-ended questions. The current usage of other furniture and display items such
as ﬂoor mats or shoe racks were asked as well.

Non-fixed elements. The questions about various kinds of activities occurring in

the entrance area of the house were included in the questionnaires.

Data Analysis

Survey data were analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS
version 13). For the ﬁrst step, demographic characteristic, housing and the entrance area,
and indoor-footwear-wearing habit were observed by descriptive statistics such as
frequency, percentage, and mean to understand current condition and distribution of the
respondents. Then, since the instrument had various types of questions and therefore the
data of each variable had different types of measurement scale, T-test, analysis of
variance (AN OVA), regression analysis, and chi-square were used adequately to examine

each research question.

20

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics
A total of 314 completed questionnaires were collected by on-line survey. As the
ﬁrst step of analyses, descriptive statistics for demographic characteristics, housing,

entrance area, and indoor-footwear-wearing habits were conducted.

Demographic Characteristics
The frequency and the percentage distribution of respondents’ age, gender, and

education level are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Demographic Characteristics

 

Frequency Percentage

 

 

 

 

Respondent age 18 — 24 209 66.6 %
25 — 34 89 28.3%
35 — 44 8 2.5%
45 — 54 7 2.2%
55 — 64 1 0.3%
Respondent gender Male 116 36.9%
Female 198 63.1%
Respondent Some high school / No degree 2 0.6%
education level High school graduate 36 11.5%
Technical school / Some college 94 29.9%
College degree 121 38.5%
Graduate degree or higher 61 19.4%
Total 3 14 100.0%

 

More than half of respondents (n = 209, 66.6%) was between 18 and 24 years old.
Eighty-nine (28.3%) was between 25 and 34 years old, 8 (2.5%) was between 35 and 44

years old, 7 (2.2%) was between 45 and 54 years old, and only 1 (0.3%) was between 55

21

and 64 years old. Dominant gender was female (n = 198, 63.1%), while male was 116
(36.9%). Regarding education level, over one-third of respondents reported to have
college degree (n = 121, 38.5%), 94 (29.9%) as technical school or some college, 61
(19.4%) as graduate degree or higher, 36 (11.5%) as high school graduate, and only 2
(0.6%) as some high school or no degree followed. Since the participants of this survey
were undergraduate and graduate students at Michigan State University, respondent age
tended to be younger and education level tended to be higher.

However, the majority of participants were Caucasian (n = 270, 86.0%), and
91.7% (n = 288) of participants’ native country was United State of America. Since
respondents’ ethnicity and native country was concentrated to one group, these may not
be considered as one of the variables to test differences in indoor-footwear-wearing

habits.

Housing and the Entrance Area

Table 2 shows the percentage distribution on the concept of residents or family,
housing, and the entrance area of the house. For family composition, about half of the
respondents (n = 173, 55.1%) indicated that they do not live with other family members
which can be named as single individuals, 60 (19.1%) indicated as a couple with no
children, 74 (23.6%) as a family with children, and only 7 (2.2%) as a single-parent
family. This can also mean 81 (25.8%) out of 3 14 respondents have children in their
household. Number of residents who live together in their houses ranged from one to
eight. 118 (37.6%) was two, 68 (21.7%) was four, 57 (18.2%) was three, and 46 (14.6%)

was one. This ﬁnding can be considered that many single individuals live with their

22

roommates rather than their families. In terms of housing type, 140 (44.6%) were living
in apartment buildings, and similarly 138 (43.9%) were living in a single-family detached
house. Only 35 (11.1%) answered for a multi-family attached house and there was no

response for other types of housing.

Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Housing and Entrance Area Characteristics

 

Frequency Percentage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family composition Family with children 74 23.6%
Single—parent family 7 2.2%
Couple with no children 60 19.1%
Single individual(s) 173 55.1%
Number of residents 1 46 14.6%
2 1 18 37.6%
3 57 18.2%
4 68 21.7%
5 or more 25 7.9%
Housing type Single-family detached house 138 43.9%
Multi-family attached house 35 11.1%
Apartment building 140 44.6%
Others 1 0.3%
Housing condition Very poor condition 0 0%
Poor condition 5 1.6%
Adequate condition 67 21.3%
Good condition 178 56.7%
Excellent condition 64 20.4%
Number of 1 120 38.2%
entrance doors 2 117 37.3%
3 58 18.5%
4 or more 19 6.1%
Main entrance door Front door 228 72.6%
Door to the backyard 29 9.2%
Door to the garage 42 13.4%
Side door 15 4.8%
Entrance area layout Separated from other areas 136 43.3%
Not separated from other areas 178 56.7%
Closet near Yes 219 69.7%
main entrance area No, but need one 49 15.6%
No, and do not need one 46 14.6%
Total 3 1 4 100.0%

 

In addition, for housing condition, 56.7% (n = 178) of respondents rated as good

23

condition, 21 .3% (n = 67) as adequate condition, 20.4% (n = 64) as excellent condition,
and 1.6% (n = 5) as poor condition were followed. This tells that 98.4% answered that the
condition of their current house is acceptable or even better. The range of entrance door
number was from one to six. More than one-third (n = 120, 38.2%) of respondents had
only one entrance door in their house. Almost equally 117 (37.3%) had two, and 58
(18.5%) had three. The majority of respondents were using the front door as their main
entrance door (n = 228, 72.6%). Among them, 120 can be considered it is because they
have only one entrance door. Forty-two (13.4%) were using a door to the garage, 29
(9.2%) were using a door to the backyard, and 15 (4.8%) were using a side door.

Slightly over half of participants (n = 178, 56.7%) answered their entrance area is
not separated from other areas in their houses, while 136 (43.3%) answered it is separated.
Regarding furniture, 219 (69.7%) reported they have a closet near the main entrance area
of their house. However, among 95 (30.2%) who do not have closet near the main
entrance area, 49 (15.6%) reported they need one, and similarly 46 (14.6%) reported they

do not need one.

Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits

The ﬁndings of participants’ indoor-footwear-wearing habits were the most core
part in this survey. Table 3 presents the frequency and percentage distribution for
different indoor-footwear-wearing habits, and table 4 shows descriptive statistics for the
reason for this habit. Regression analysis was conducted to examine if there is a
relationship between those two variables, the indoor-footwear-wearing habit and the

reason for that habit (Table 5). Conducting regression analysis, the mean of indoor-

24

footwear-wearing habits was calculated by seven categories (Table 3). Score one is

always staying bare-foot, and as the score goes up, the residents wear shoes often start

with indoor shoes to outdoor shoes, and at last, score seven is usually wearing outdoor

shoes inside of the house.

Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f % f %

1 always bare-foot (socks) 112 35.7 bare-foot 112 35.7

usually bare-foot (socks) / sometimes .
2 indoor shoes 108 34'4 rnldcpor 134 42.7
3 usually indoor shoes 26" 8.3 S es
4 both indoor shoes & outdoor shoes 32 10.2
5 usually outdoor shoes / sometimes 29 9'2

bare-foot outdoor

---~ 68 21.7

6 usually outdoor shoes except some 3 1 0 shoes

rooms '
7 usually outdoor shoes 4 1.3

total 314 314

 

 

 

 

 

 

As shown in table 3, participants reported their indoor-footwear—wearing habits

among seven different categories. Slightly over one third of respondents said that they

always stay bare-foot or wear only socks inside of their houses (n == 112, 35.7%). One

hundred eight respondents (34.4%) usually stay bare-foot but also wear indoor shoes.

This indicates that 70.1% are used to staying bare-foot at home even though sometimes

they wear socks or indoor-shoes. Twenty-six (8.3%) answered that they usually wear

indoor shoes and 32 (10.2%) wear both indoor and outdoor shoes. Also, 10.2% (n = 32)

can be said to wear outdoor shoes usually even though they sometimes stay bare-foot or

take off their outdoor shoes in some particular areas. Only 1.3% (n = 4) answered that

they wear outdoor shoes inside of the house.

In a prior study (Munro & Steele, 1999), indoor-footwear-wearing habits were

25

categorized as being bare-foot or wearing socks, wearing indoor shoes, and wearing
outdoor shoes. According to this division, seven different groups were combined into
three. One hundred twelve participants (35.7%) do not wear any shoes inside of the house.
They stay bare-foot. One hundred thirty-four respondents (42.7%) wear indoor-shoes and
68 (21.7%) wear outdoor-shoes. In addition, this habit can also divided into people who
do not wear outdoor shoes inside of the house (n = 246, 78.4%) and people who wear

outdoor shoes (n = 68, 21 .7%).

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Reason of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habit

 

 

‘ Mean SD N
Lifelong habit from childhood 3.68 1.292 314
Comfort 4.26 0.885 314
Convenience in living 3 .85 1 .006 314
Sanitation of the house 3.38 1.286 314
Family health 2.82 1.118 314

 

The reason of indoor-footwear—wearing habit was measured by 5-point Likert-
type scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). According to table 4,
participants rated comfort highest with the mean of 4.26 (SD = 0.885). Convenience in
living (M = 3.85), lifelong habit from childhood (M = 3.68), sanitation of the house (M =
3.38), and family health (M = 2.82) followed.

Table 5 presents the result of regression analysis of indoor-footwear-wearing
habits on reasons that people agree most. Except for convenience in living, all the others
showed statistically signiﬁcant relationship with indoor-footwear-wearing habits. It
appears that respondents who stay bare-foot more than others tend to think that their habit
is because of a lifelong habit from childhood (F = 7.533, p<.01), comfort (F = 20.464,

p<.01), sanitation ofthe house (F = 13.928, p<.01), or family health (F = 8.118,p<.01).

26

 

Table 5. Regression of Reasons on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits

 

Reason

 

 

2 r 2 .
dependent variable Beta t R Adjusted R F Sig.
Lifelong habit from

my childhood -.138 -2.745 .024 .020 7.533 .006
Comfort -.153 .034 .062 .059 20.464 .000
CO‘I‘Y‘Emence m -.008 -202 .000 -.003 .041 .840

1vrng
sm‘ﬁ‘a’m“ “the -.185 -3732 .043 .040 13.928 .000
01186
Family health —.124 .044 .025 .022 8.118 .005
Reliability Test

Most of survey questions that are categorized in six variables (i.e., values,
lifestyle, behavior, ﬁxed elements, semi-ﬁxed elements, and non-ﬁxed elements) were
measured by different scales in different aspect. Therefore, reliability analysis in most
questions may be meaningless. However, respondents’ evaluation on current ﬁxed
elements was asked by twenty-two pairs of adjectives, and it was measured by rating
scale which measurement is interval. Therefore, for this part, reliability analysis can be
conducted by grouping adjectives into four different focuses: size, function, atmosphere,
and usage. Cronbach’s alpha was employed to test the internal consistency of scales and
the results are shown in table 6. Cronbach’s alpha coefﬁcient ranged from .729 to .850,

and they are considered to be acceptable for further research in this variable.

Table 6. Reliability Analysis on Fixed Elements’ Evaluation

 

 

N of items Mean Cronbach’s Alpha
size 3 3. 173 .850
function 4 2.526 .793
atmosphere 12 2.862 .806
usage 3 2.358 .729

 

27

Results and Discussion
To investigate the relationship between residents’ indoor-footwear-wearing habits
and the conﬁguration of the entrance area of their houses, there were two speciﬁc
objectives for this study: (1) to examine which characteristic of residents (i.e. values,
lifestyles, etc.) are related to the indoor—footwear—wearing habits and (2) to examine how
the indoor-footwear-wearing habits of residents are related to their current utilization or
evaluation of the entrance area of the house. At the base of these two objectives, ﬁve

research questions were suggested and they were examined as follows.

RQ 1. Does residents’ behavior (i. e., indoor-footwear-wearing habit) differ by
the different concerns which the residents place higher value on?

For the different concerns which the residents place higher value on, participants
were asked to choose up to three values that they think most important related to their

housing among six values (i.e., comfort, health, privacy, safety, sanitation, and social life).

Table 7. Chi-Square of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Values

 

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Statistics (Values on housing) Pearson Chi-Square
Frequency 32:; 13:3: 0:32? total Value ASS)??? '
comfort 103 124 64 291 .296* * .863
health 32 49 28 109 3321* .190
privacy 58 68 31 157 .702* .704
safety 80 94 46 220 .289* .865
sanitation 36 41 16 93 1 .613 * .446
social life 27 35 17 79 .132* .936
total 112 134 68 314

 

* 0 cell (. 0%) have expected count less than 5.
** 1 cell (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.98.

Since, the measurement scale of both variables are nominal (however, in some

other tests, such as analysis of variance or regression, the measurement scale of indoor-

28

footwear-wearing habit are considered as interval), Chi-Square was conducted to
examine the relationship between indoor-footwear-wearing habits and the values that
residents think important for their housing. Table 7 shows the descriptive statistics of
values on housing and the results of Pearson Chi-square. Comfort (n = 291) appears as
the value that the most respondents, regardless of their indoor-footwear-wearing habits,
chose as an important one related to their housing. This result corresponds with the
reason of indoor-footwear-wearing in which respondents also rated comfort highest
(Table 4). After comfort, safety (n = 220), privacy (n = 157), health (n = 109), sanitation
(n = 93), and social life (n = 79) followed.

However, any of the six values failed to show a signiﬁcant relationship with
indoor-footwear-wearing habits. It means, in the population, the observed frequencies
will be equal to the expected frequencies. So, the indoor-footwear-wearing habit is
independent to the values on the housing. This result is dissimilar with the statistically
signiﬁcant relationship on indoor-footwear-wearing habits with comfort, sanitation of the
house, and family health as the reason for the habit (Table 5). It may be because the
former was asking for the value of the whole housing and participants’ everyday life,

while the latter was concentrating on the reason for indoor-footwear-wearing habits.

RQ 2. Does residents’ behavior (i. e., indoor-footwear-wearing habit) differ by
their different lifestyles?

In order to examine differences in indoor-footwear-wearing habits according to
residents’ lifestyle, family composition, ethnicity, existence of pets, housing type and
condition were planned to be analyzed.

At ﬁrst, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine if the mean of

29

indoor-footwear—wearing habits is different by different family compositions. The factors
of the independent variable were four different types of family composition; a family
with children, a single-parent family, a couple without children, and a single individual.
For the dependent variable, the mean of indoor-footwear-wearing habit was calculated
using seven categories (Table 3); one was staying bare-foot and seven was wearing
outdoor shoes inside of the house. It means that the higher respondents get for the mean
of indoor-footwear-wearing habit, the more they tend to wear outdoor shoes inside of the

house.

Table 8. AN 0 VA of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Family Composition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F Sig.
between groups 4.020 .00
Post Hoc Tests (Bonferroni) Mean Std Error Sig
difference ' '
Family w/ children Single-parent family -1.344 .560 .102
Couple w/o children .447 .246 .421
Single individual(s) .271 .197 1.000
Single-parent family Family w/ children 1.344 .560 .102
Couple w/o children 1.7%“ .565 .010
Single individual(s) L614“ .546 .020
Couple w/o children Family w/ children -.447 .246 .421
Single-parent family -1.790* .565 .010
Single individual(s) -.176 .212 l .000
Single individual(s) Family w/ children -.271 .197 1.000
Single-parent family -l.6l4* .546 .020
Couple w/o children .176 .212 1.000

 

* p<.05

According to table 8, the signiﬁcance level of analysis of variance (ANOVA)
is .008. It indicates that indoor-footwear-wearing habits can be different by different
family composition. However, Bonferroni’s post hoc tests show that the difference exists
only between a single-parent family and a couple without children, and a single-parent

family and a single individual. And as the result of mean difference, a single-parent

30

farme tends to wear outdoor shoes more than a couple without children or a single
individual. A single-parent farme is a group that has children while the other two groups
do not. Therefore, a T-test was conducted again to examine if the mean of indoor-
footwear-wearing habits differs according to the existence of children under ﬁve. Two

groups were divided by having children younger than ﬁve or not.

Table 9. T-test of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Children under Five

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Statistics Levene’s Test
of Indoor-Footwear-Wearing Habits for Equality of Variance
N Mean SD F Sig.
Yes 23 2.43 1.409
No 291 2.30 1.440 .162 .688
total 314

 

 

The result on table 9 indicates that it is not signiﬁcant (sig. = .688). Therefore,
there is no difference in indoor-footwear-wearing habits between the respondents with
children under ﬁve and without children under ﬁve. At the beginning of this study, the
residents with younger children were expected to be more sensitive with wearing outdoor
shoes inside of their houses. However, according to the ﬁnding in this survey, it turned
out indifferent.

In addition, number of residents was also analyzed related to indoor-footwear-
wearing habits. Since, the measurement scale of this variable, number of residents, was
ratio scale, regression analysis was conducted for examination. According to table 10, the
number of residents has signiﬁcant effects on indoor-footwear-wearing habits (,8 = .192,
F = 9.125, p < .01). Only 2.8% (R2 = 0.028) of the variance in indoor-footwear-wearing
habits was explained by the number of residents. However, it appears that the more

residents live together they tend to wear outdoor shoes more than indoor shoes and tend

31

to wear indoor shoes more than staying bare-foot inside of their houses. It can be
assumed that greater the number of residents can be the reason of an unclean ﬂoor and

that may cause residents to wear shoes inside of their houses.

Table 10. Regression of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Number of Residents

 

Beta t R2 Adjusted R2 F Sig.

 

Residents size .192 3.021 .028 .025 9.125 .003

Second, the ethnicity of participants was not able to be considered as one of the
variables in lifestyle. Since respondents’ ethnicity or native country were concentrated in
Caucasian (n = 270, 86.0%) or USA. (n = 288, 91.7%), and the rest were distributed
widely over a large range, it seemed to be meaningless to compare the mean of indoor-

footwear-wearing habits among the group of ethnicity or native country.

Table 11. T-test of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Pets

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Statistics Levene’s Test
of Indoor-Footwear-Wearing Habits for Equality of Variance
N Mean SD F Sig.
Pets 154 2.45 1.526
No pets 160 2.18 1.334 5.485 .020
total 3 14

 

 

Third, pets were considered to be a factor that causes difference in residents’
everyday lifestyle in their houses. T-test was used to examine if there is any difference in
indoor-footwear-wearing habits by the existence of pets. Table 11 presents that it is
signiﬁcant (Sig. = .020). Comparing the means of two groups living with pets (M = 2.45)
and without pets (M = 2.18), household that does not live with pets tends to stay bare-
foot or do not wear outdoor shoes more that the other. It can be assumed that if there is a

pet in the house, the ﬂoor can get dirty easily and that could bring some residents not to

32

stay bare-foot.

At last, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine if there is any
difference, regarding to indoor-footwear-wearing habits, in different types of houses
(Table 12). The factors for the independent variable were three groups; a single-family
detached house, a multi-family attached house, and an apartment building. A dependent
variable, the mean of indoor-footwear-wearing habits, is calculated in the same way with
the prior test of ANOVA. On the other hand, to examine the effect of housing condition
on indoor-footwear-wearing habit, regression analysis was used. Housing condition was
asked to select among ﬁve levels: very poor, poor, adequate, good, and excellent, and

they were used as an interval scale for regression analysis (Table 13).

Table 12. ANOVA of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Housing Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F Sig.
between groups 9.040 .000
Post Hoc Tests (Bonferroni) artiﬁce Std. Error Sig.
Single-family Multi-family
detached house attached house '052 265 Low
m Apartment building _ .687* .168 .000
Multi-family Single-family
attached house detached house "0’2 2651000
Apartment building .636 .265 .051
. . Single-family *
Apartment burldrng detached house -.687 .168 .000
Multi-family
attached house "636 26__5_ '05]
N = 313
* p<. 05

According to table 12, the signiﬁcance level shows .000. It appears that indoor-
footwear-wearing habits can be different by different types of houses that respondents

live in. Moreover, according to Bonferroni’s post hoc tests, the difference is presented

33

between the respondents of a single-family detached house and an apartment building. By
the result of mean difference, the respondents who live in an apartment building tend to
stay bare-foot more than the respondents in a single-family detached house. The smaller
sizes for an apartment building or the front yard and the back yard for a single-family
detached house could be the reason for this result. Since, an apartment building (n = 140,
44.6%) and a single-family detached house (n = 138, 43.9%) are the house type that were
answered most frequently (Table 2), difference between these two groups can be

considered more meaningful.

Table 13. Regression of Indoor-F ootwear- Wearing Habits on Housing Condition

 

Beta t R2 Adjusted R2 F Sig.
Housing condition -.352 -3.049 .029 .026 9.294 .002

 

 

The result in table 13 tells that regression analysis is statistically signiﬁcant (F =
9.294, sig. = .002). The R2 value of .029 indicates that only about 2.9% of the variance in
indoor-footwear-wearing habits can be explained by housing condition. And according to
the value of beta (,8 = -.3 52), it can be suggested the residents in better condition of the

house tends to stay bare-foot more than others.

RQ 3. Does residents’ current evaluation and satisfaction of the ﬁxed elements at
the entrance area of the house diﬂer by their drﬂerent behavior (i. e.,
indoor-footwear-wearing habit)?
A ﬁxed element in research question 3 designates a house building itself, such as
walls, ﬂoors, ceilings and columns (Rapoport, 1982a). Therefore, it cannot be changed

according to residents’ different behaviors. However, the evaluation and satisfaction for

the building can vary. For this research question, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was

34

 

conducted. Three categories of indoor-footwear-wearing habit (Table 3) were used as the
factor of an independent variable. A dependent variable was the score on ﬁve points of
rating for each set of adjectives. Twenty-three different tests were operated and table 14
presents descriptive statistics of each pair of adjectives and the result of analysis of

variance.

Table 14. AN 0 VA of Fixed Elements ’ Evaluation on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVA
Descriptive Statistics (bare-foot / indoor shoes /
H __ outdoor shoeS)
Min. Max. Mean SD F Sig.

Size
Adequate size (I) Inadequate size (5) 2.50 1.435 .086 .918
Huge (1) Tiny (5) 3.63 1.098 .356 .701
Roomy (l) Cramped (5) 3.39 1.181 .126 .882w
Functional (l) Nonfunctional (5) 2.04 1 .167 .693 .501
Organized (1) Disorganized (5) 2.53 1.213 .779 .460
Well planned (1) Poorly planned (5) 2.97 1.200 1.602 .203
Well organized (l) Poorly organized (5) 2.56 1.195 1.829 .162_
Atmosphere w.--
Clean (1) Dirty (5) 2.47 1.206 1.660 .192
Comfortable (l) Uncomfortable (5) 2.63 1.025 .623 .537
Complex (1) Simple (5) 4.24 .950 .866 .421
Empty (l) Full (5) 3.03 1.180 .233 .792
Free space (1) Restricted space (5) 3.12 1.241 .412 .662
Inviting (l) Repelling (5) 2.58 .970 .480 .619
Neat (l) Messy (S) 2.53 1.354 .151 .860
Pleasant (1) Unpleasant (5) 2.52 .923 .1 17 .889
Private (1) Public (5) 3.16 1.282 .297 .743
Uncluttered (l) Cluttered (5) 2.60 1.395 .430 .651
Uncrowded (l) Crowded (5) 2.92 1.251 .771 .463
Tidy (l) Untidy (5) 2.50 1.280 .418 .658
Usage _
Convenient (l) Inconvenient (5) 2.21 1.100 .242 .785
Multiple purpose (1) Single purpose (5) 2.68 1.453 .1 12 .894
Useful (1) Useless (5) 2.18 1.109 .550 .577
Satisfaction ﬂ _.
Satisﬁed (l) Unsatisﬁed (5) 2.56 1.149 1.081 .340

 

35

The descriptive statistics shows that the. participants answered that they think the
entrance area of their house is rather simple (M = 4.24), tiny (M = 3.63), cramped (M =
3.39), public (M = 3.16), and restricted (M = 3.12). However, the result of analysis of
variance (ANOVA) appears that there is no difference in the evaluation and satisfaction
of the entrance area according to different indoor-footwear-wearing habits (i.e., staying
bare-foot, wearing indoor shoes, or wearing outdoor shoes inside of their houses). It can
be considered that in population, there is no relationship between the evaluation of
entrance area and indoor-footwear-wearing habits. Also, most of the respondents were

neither satisﬁed nor unsatisﬁed with this area (M = 2.56).

RQ 4. Does residents’ current utilization of the semi-fixed elements at the
entrance area of the house differ by their different behavior (i. e., indoor-
footwear-wearing habit)?

Rapoport (1982a) deﬁned semi-ﬁxed elements as the furnishings of the house in
his studies. In this research, semi-ﬁxed elements were understood by ﬂoor materials,
furniture, shoe storing, and display items. At ﬁrst, the relationship between the ﬂoor
materials of entrance area and the indoor-footwear-wearing habits was inquired. Then the
questions whether the participants have a closet near the entrance area of their house,
what they store in that closet, where do they store their shoes other than the closet near
the entrance area, and what kind of display items do they have at the entrance area was
answered.

Carpet (n = 111, 35.3%) was the most frequently used material for the entrance

area ﬂooring, vinyl (n = 80, 25.4%) and wood (n = 79, 25.1%) followed. According to

the result of chi-square (Table 15, sig. = .030), the ﬂooring materials of entrance area and

36

indoor-footwear-wearing habits was dependent. Also, with the differences between
observed frequencies and expected frequencies in carpet, more respondents tended to

remove their shoes at home when the carpet is used at the entrance area (Table 15).

Table 15. C hi-Square of Entrance Area Flooring on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Statistics (Floor material of entrance area) Chiigrgﬁzre
bare indoor outdoor As m .
Frequency -foot shoes shoes total Value S)ig.p
carpet O 51 43 17
E g 39.6 47.4 24.0 11 l - -
wood ﬂooring O 17 38 24
E i 28.2 33.7 17.1 79 .-.
vinyl ﬂooring O 34 29 17
E 28.5 34.1 17.34 80 1” “a“
ceramic tiles I O 9 19 8
_ E 12.-8 15-4 73 36...... -
stones 0 1 2 1
“WWW E 1 .4 1 .7 0.9 4
others 0 O 3 1
E 1.4 1.7 0.9 4
total 112 134 68 314 19.973* .030

 

 

* 6 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.87.

For the furniture, 219 (69.7%) out of 314 respondents appeared to have a closet
near the entrance area of the house (Table 2). With this total number of 219, chi-square
was conducted to analyze if the type of items stored in the closet is dependent on
residents’ indoor-footwear-wearing habits. Respondents who answered that there is a
closet near the entrance area of their house (n = 219) were asked to check all different
kinds of items in their closet, and indoor-footwear-wearing habits were categorized into
three groups, which are staying bare-foot, wearing indoor shoes, and wearing outdoor

shoes inside of their houses (Table 3).

37

 

Table 16. Chi-Square of Closet Items on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Statistics (Items in the closet near entrance area) Pearson Chi-Square
Frequency 3.2: 1:13;: 0:11:22? total Value Assign
shoes 45 56 24 125 3.731* .155
bags 31 29 15 75 .894* .640
coats 63 77 38 178 4.969* .083
hats, gloves, scarves, etc. 42 54 23 119 3.818* .148
umbrellas 41 42 17 100 3 .602* .165
cleaning equipment 49 48 26 123 .8 1 7* .665
tools 23 28 12 63 1.071 * .585
total 82 8 7 50 21 9

 

 

* 0 cell (0%) have expected count less than 5.

According to descriptive statistics in table 16, coats (n = 178) were the item that is
stored in most participants’ closet near the entrance area. Shoes (n = 125) and cleaning
equipment (n = 123) followed. There were also some unusual answers beside the ones
suggested in the question. One of them was a washer and a dryer (n = 2). This item
seemed to be for the respondents who use a door to the backyard as their main entrance
door. On the other hand, all the signiﬁcance levels for the result of chi-square were not
acceptable (Table 16). No items could be concluded to have relation with different
indoor-footwear-wearing habits. In population, the observed frequencies will be equal to
the expected frequencies. They are independent.

There were only 95 (30.2%) who do not have a closet at the entrance area (Table
2). However, among 219 respondents who have a closet, only 125 stored their shoes in
that closet (Table 16). Therefore, all the places where participants store their shoes
mainly were asked. Chi-square analysis was used to examine if the place where
participants store their shoes is dependent on different indoor-footwear-wearing habits.
Table 17 presents the frequency for the place where the participants store their shoes and

the result of chi-square analysis.

38

Table 17. Chi-Square of Shoe Storing on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Statistics (Shoe storing place) Clliie-ercSlgzre
bare indoor outdoor As m .
Frequency -foot shoes shoes total Value S)ig.p
closet near main 0 32 43 9 8.478* .014
entrance area E 30.0 35.8 18.2 84
cabinet or shoe rack near 0 33 21 7 12.040* .002
main entrance area E 21.8 26.0 13.2 61
. O 45 77 37 7.786* .020
Closet 1” bedroom E 56.7 67.9 34.4 159
closet in dressing room 0 4 4 2 085*" '959
-13 16..---- 4:3... 2-2- 1.9
closet or cabinet in O 5 5 2 .272** .873
garage E _ 4.3 5.1 2.6 12
ﬂoor 0 38 38 29 4.157* .125
E 37.5 44.8 22.7 105
total 112 134 68 314

 

 

* 0 cell (.0%) have expected count less than 5.
** 2 cells (33.3 %) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2. 60.
*** 3 cells (50. 0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.1 7.

Slightly over half of the participants (n = 159) store their shoes in the closet in the
bedroom. The following answer was the ﬂoor (n = 105), that many participants recorded
speciﬁcally for the category of others. It was the second most frequent place to store their
shoes, and it distributed over the ﬂoor of entrance area, living room, bedroom, and even
under the bed. However, placing shoes on the ﬂoor cannot actually mean storing.
Moreover, since the question allowed for a multiple choice, this place can be for some
shoes that residents wear most often in that season.

For the result of chi-square in table 17, the level of signiﬁcance in a closet near
the main entrance area, a cabinet or a shoe rack near the main entrance area, and a closet
in the bedroom were low enough to be concluded that they are dependent on indoor-
footwear-wearing habits. By comparing observed frequencies and expected frequencies,

residents who stay bare-foot or wear indoor—shoes inside of their house tend to store their

39

shoes in the closet near the entrance area more than residents who wear out-door shoes

inside. For the cabinet or the shoe rack near the entrance area of the house, residents who

stay bare-foot store their shoes in that place more than residents who wear indoor or

outdoor shoes inside their house. Therefore, residents who do not wear out-door shoes in

their house can be assumed that they store their shoes near the entrance area more than

others. Moreover, residents who stay bare-foot or wear only socks intend to place an

extra cabinet or shoe rack for storing their shoes compared to others. In addition, the

result appears that bare-foot residents store shoes in the bedroom closets less than

residents who wear indoor or outdoor shoes inside of their house.

Table 18. Chi-Square of Display Items on lndoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits

 

Descriptive Statistics (Display items near entrance area)

Pearson Chi-Square

 

 

 

Frequency bare-foot indoor outdoor total Value Asymp.
shoes shoes Slg.
ﬂoor mat 81 108 46 235 4.604* .100
storage cabinet 7 8 5 20 . 149* * .930
console table 14 19 6 39 1.190* .551
bench or chair 8 21 9 38 4.277* .1 18
shoe rack 22 14 5 41 7.032* .030
14.6(E) 17.5(E) 8.9(E)

coat hanger 18 29 14 61 1.284* .526
decorations 27 48 22 97 4.008* .135
none 14 14 8 36 .261* .878
total 112 134 68 314

 

* 0 cell (0%) have expected count less than 5.

** 1 cell (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is4. 33.

For the display items at the entrance area of the house, 235 out of 314 respondents

answered they have ﬂoor mats (Table 18). The ﬂoor mat seems to become a necessary

item in living, both in the functional aspect and the symbolic aspect. However, only a

shoe rack showed a signiﬁcant relationship with indoor-footwear-wearing habits (sig.

= .030). Comparing observed frequencies and expected frequencies for a shoe rack,

40

respondents who stay bare-foot inside of the house deﬁnitely show higher frequency (0 =
22, E = 14.6). This result can be easily expected that residents who take off their shoes at
the entrance area need a shoe rack if there is no closet or the closet is not planned for

storing shoes.

RQ 5. Do residents ’ activities, the non-ﬁxed elements at the entrance area of the

house differ by their different behavior (i. e., indoor-footwear-wearing
habit)?

Non-ﬁxed elements of the house in this study are deﬁned as residents’ activities at
the entrance area of the house (Rapoport, 1982a). Activities such as welcoming guests,
changing shoes, or putting on coats were assumed to occur differently according to

different indoor-footwear-wearing habits.

Table 19. Chi-Square of Residents ’ Activities on Indoor-Footwear- Wearing Habits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Statistics (Residents’ activities) Cl'Iiie-aSrcjgzre

bare indoor outdoor As m .

Frequency _ foot shoes shoes total Value S)ig.p

welcoming or saying 0 99 112 57 1.291 * .524
good-bye to guests E 95.6 114.4 58.0 268

changing, putting on, or O 100 111 30 53.226* .000
taking off shoes E 86.0 102.8 52.2 241

. . O 31 41 6 12.205* .002
putt1ng shoes into closet E 27.8 33.3 16.9 78

asking visitors to O 40 47 7 15.978* .000
remove outdoor shoes E 33.5 40.1 20.4 94

putting on or taking off 0 71 101 35 11.969* .003
coats, hats, gloves, etc. E 73.8 88.3 44.8 207

putting coats into closet O 46 62 17 8632* '013
E 44.6 53.3 27.1 125

checking appearance 0 17 21 11 .033* .984
before going out E 17.5 20.9 10.6 49
total 112 I34 68 314

 

 

* 0 cell (0%) have expected count less than 5.

41

According to table 19, welcoming or saying good-bye to guests (n = 268) and
changing, putting on, or taking off shoes (n = 241) were the activities that appeared most
frequently at the entrance area of the house. All the activities categorized on the question
were about guests, shoes, or coats. Besides those seven activities that were suggested in
the question, caring for pets especially cleaning their paws was reported for other
activities. The result of chi—square in table 19 indicates that all activities except
welcoming or saying good-bye to guests and checking appearance before going out are
dependent on indoor-footwear-wearing habits. For changing, putting on / taking off shoes,
putting shoes into the closet, and asking visitors to remove outdoor shoes, observed
frequency shows higher than expected frequency for respondents who stay bare-foot and
wearing indoor shoes inside of their houses. This result corresponds to the expectation,
that residents who stay bare-foot or wear indoor shoes inside their houses will conduct
more activities related to taking off or changing shoes at the entrance area of the house.
Also, it can be assumed that they may need more space for these activities. However,
respondents who wear indoor shoes tends to put on / take off coats, hats, gloves or put

them into the closet more than others.

42

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

Generally speaking, staying bare-foot inside the house is known as a part of Asian
culture. However, in this study, despite 86.0% of participants being Caucasian and 91.7%
of participants’ native country being the United State of America, 35.7% (n = 112)
answered they always stay bare-foot and 34.4% (n = 108) said they usually stay bare-foot
but sometime wear indoor shoes (Table 3). This indicates that 70.1% of respondents are
used to staying bare-foot. According to Munro and Steele (1999)’s study, 32.4% of
women and only 28.3% of men aged 65 years and older did not wear shoes inside of their
houses. Even though, ten years have passed since then and their study was targeting the
elderly, the result of 70.1% respondents staying bare-foot in this study is more than
expected.

There were two speciﬁc objectives in this study. Research question 1 and 2 were
about the ﬁrst one, examining which characteristics of residents are related to the indoor-
footwear-wearing habits, and research question 3, 4, and 5 were about the second,
examining whether the indoor-footwear—wearing habits are related to their entrance area
of the house.

RQI was about the relationship between the value which residents place higher
for their housing and the indoor-footwear-wearing habits. According to the result of this
study, all the six values failed to show a signiﬁcant relationship with indoor-footwear-

wearing habits. It means, in the population, the observed frequencies will be equal to the

43

expected frequencies. So, the indoor-footwear-wearing habit is independent to the values
concerned for housing. This result did not agree with the statistically signiﬁcant
relationship between indoor-footwear-wearing habits and the reasons which are comfort,
sanitation of the house, and family health (Table 5). It could be because the former was
asking for the value of the whole housing or participants’ everyday life, while the latter
was concentrating on the reason for the behavior. Health and sanitation were the values
that were discussed in previous studies on indoor-footwear-wearing habit (Munro &
Steele, 1999) and ﬂooring materials for houses (Andes, 2000; Spetic, Kozak, & Cohen,
2007). Those two values were expected to be taken higher by the respondents who stay
bare-foot inside of their house. However, it appeared that those can be the reason for
taking off shoes inside, but residents who wear outdoor shoes still consider them as an
important value on housing. It can be also concluded that considering the values of their
whole housing, residents do not even recognize that they have a behavioral habit of
staying bare-foot or wearing outdoor shoes. They accept it as so natural that they may not
even think about other behavioral patterns. This can support partly that the indoor-
footwear-wearing habit can deﬁned as ‘culture core’, which means culture that changes
little and slowly (Rapoport, 2008). It is not a behavior that can be changed by the demand
such as sanitation or family health.

RQZ asked about the relationship between lifestyle and the indoor-footwear-
wearing habit. There were many factors for the variable of lifestyle. At ﬁrst, although
analysis of variance (ANOVA) of indoor-footwear-wearing habit presents signiﬁcant
difference on family composition, the result of Bonferroni’s post hoc tests showed that

differences existed only between limited groups (Table 8). Rather than, family

44

composition, the number of residents and the existence of pets were the factors that
explained the relationship to indoor-footwear-wearing habits (Table 10 & l 1). According
to statistical analysis and general perception, it is reasonable to conclude that as more
residents or pets are living in the house, the more they tend to wear outdoor shoes. It is
difﬁcult to keep the ﬂoor clean enough to stay bare-foot if there are many people or pets
in the house. Also, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the type and the condition of
housing, living in an apartment building and the better condition have a relationship to
the behavioral pattern, which is staying bare-foot inside (Table 12 & 13).

Indoor-footwear-wearing habit can be affected by the culture of the entire society,
such as some Asian countries where most of the households distinguish inside from
outside of the house by taking off their outdoor shoes and staying bare-foot. However,
according to this study, this habit could be affected by the different culture of each
household. Indoor-footwear-wearing habit can vary according to the households’ lifestyle
which can be deﬁned as the number of residents, the existence of pets, the type of
housing, and the condition of housing.

RQ3 assumed that indoor-footwear-wearing habit is related to the ﬁxed elements
at the entrance area of the house. However, no relationship was supported (Table 14).
Much the same with the conclusion of RQl, which remarked that there is no relationship
between the value concerned for the whole house and the indoor-footwear-wearing habit,
the evaluation of the overall condition for the entrance area of the house was not affected
by the indoor-footwear-wearing habit.

RQ4 was about the relationship between indoor-footwear-wearing habit and the

semi-ﬁxed elements at the entrance area of the house. The ﬂoor materials of the entrance

45

area were dependent to indoor-footwear-wearing habits. Respondents who have carpet at
the entrance area tend to remove their shoes more than expected (Table 15). It can be
explained by considering that carpet is more difficult to clean than wood ﬂooring or vinyl
ﬂooring. Also it is warmer for the people staying bare-foot inside of their houses.

For the furniture, the variety of items that were stored in the closet near the
entrance area was not statistically different by indoor-footwear-wearing habits (Table 16).
Whether respondents stay bare-foot or not, the’utilization of the closet had no difference.
However, people who stay bare-foot at home tend to store their shoes in the closet,
cabinet or shoe rack near the entrance area of the house. Of course, respondents who
wear shoes at home tend to store their shoes in the closet of their bedrooms (Table 17).
Overall semi-ﬁxed elements could be concluded to have a relationship to the indoor-
footwear-wearing habits, although the closet near the entrance area is not utilized at most
according to different indoor-footwear-wearing habits.

RQ5 could be also concluded to show a relationship between non-ﬁxed elements
and indoor-footwear-wearing habit (Table 19), especially in most activities that is
connected to shoes; changing, putting on, taking off, storing or asking to remove shoes.
However, only 94 respondents answered that they ask visitors to remove or change their
outdoor shoes (Table 19). Considering that 112 respondents out of 314 always stay bare-
foot and 134 wear indoor-shoes (Table 3), 94 is only 38% of respondents who do not
wear outdoor shoes (n = 246) inside of their houses. This indicates that many people do
not wear their outdoor shoes at home for the reason of comfort, sanitation or any others,
but they still accept visitors wearing outdoor shoes. This means that the general culture in

this area do not mind wearing outdoor shoes inside of the house, even though the

46

majority of residents (78.4%, Table 3) do not wear outdoor shoes at home. They may
think staying bare-foot is just their household’s behavioral pattern, not the culture of the

entire community. Also, they seem to respect others’ life style.

Implications

Design implications. Rapoport (1976, p.31) emphasized ‘culture-speciﬁc design’,
but also discussed two sets of problems for that. One was the fact that culture changes.
The other was the heterogeneity of the population who are using the environment. In the
case of residential design, these two problems are not of concern. Indoor-footwear-
wearing habits, a part of household’s culture, can be deﬁned as ‘culture core’ (Rapoport,
2008), which does not change easily. Also, a residential environment is usually used by
one certain household which share their own homogeneous culture. With this theoretical
basis, indoor-footwear-wearing habits were studied related to housing in the aspect of
culture in this study.

Based on the ﬁndings of this study, indoor-footwear—wearing habit is related not
to ﬁxed-elements but to semi-ﬁxed elements and non-ﬁxed elements. However, there are
two-way interactions between people and environments (Rapoport, 1985; 1987; 2000a;
2000b; 2005; 2006). By different indoor-footwear-wearing habits, residents may affect
the place where they store their shoes and the type of display items at the entrance area of
the house. If the designers consider the line of ﬂow of storing shoes and activities related
to shoes, residential environmental design may be able to lead human beings effectively.
There are some practical implications for designers.

First, although residents who stay bare-foot intend to store their shoes near their

47

entrance area more often than residents with other indoor-footwear-wearing habits, there
were still more respondents who store shoes in the closet of bedrooms (Table 17). In this
case, they often need to carry shoes from the bedroom to the entrance area or the reverse.
If the closet near the entrance area is well designed for storing shoes, this place could be

more practical for residents who stay bare-foot or wear indoor shoes.

Second, considering that many residents, whatever their indoor-footwear-wearing
habits are, place their shoes just on the ﬂoor (Table 17), enough space or a shoe rack for
everyday shoes may be needed at the entrance area. Also, if the entrance area is separated
in any method it could be helpful to arrange residents’ outdoor shoes. However, this
suggestion could be dependent on residents’ taste.

Third, residents who do not wear outdoor shoes inside of their house carried out
more activities than others at the entrance area, for example changing shoes (Table 19).
Therefore, more room may be helpful.

Theoretical implications. First of all, studying indoor—footwear-wearing habit as
a behavioral pattern could be meaningful by itself. There were not many prior studies on
indoor-footwear-wearing habit. Munro and Steele (1999) did the research on this subject,
but they related to purchasing shoes and the sample target was seniors. Therefore, this
study is one of the ﬁrst studies to investigate indoor-footwear-wearing habit related to the
residential environment. If the whole society has the same indoor-footwear-wearing habit,
such as some Asian countries where all the people accept it as natural to take off outdoor
shoes at home and no one needs to ask visitors to remove outdoor shoes at home, this
subject may be unnecessary to be studied. However, the ﬁndings in this study imply that

the indoor-footwear—wearing habit is different in every household and their utilization of

48

the space is different according to that habit.

Second, the conceptual model of this study (Figure 1) was based on Rapoport’s
famous diagram (Rapoport, 1989; 2000a; 2005; 2008) that showed a relationship between
dismantled culture and dismantled enviromnent. According to the ﬁndings, it implies that
indoor-footwear—wearing habit can be one of the activity systems (behaviors), which is
the last level of dismantled culture. This habit did not have a relationship to value which
is a more abstract concept in dismantled culture, but showed some relationship to lifestyle
which is a more concrete concept. However, in the relationship between indoor-footwear-
wearing habit and residential environment of the entrance area, the habit implies some
relationship to semi-ﬁxed elements and non-ﬁxed elements but not to ﬁxed-elements.
Thedretically, indoor-footwear—wearing habit ﬁts into the activity system of the
conceptual model. It is related not to the whole image of housing (i.e., value or ﬁxed
elements), but to everyday living style (i.e., lifestyle, semi-ﬁxed elements, or non-ﬁxed

elements). These relationships can suggest many other future studies.

Limitations
Limited generalization of ﬁndings. First of all, a convenience sampling method
that is used for this survey may cause the limitation in generalizing the results of this
study. Since the survey was conducted on-line, the sample was selected among the e-mail
addresses that were accessible. They were undergraduate and graduate students in
Michigan State University. For this reason, the results are skewed to younger age, from
18 to 24 years old (66.6%, Table l) and single individuals (55.1%, Table 2) in family

composition. With random sampling among all the households of Lansing area in

49

Michigan, this study will be more representative. Therefore, the sample may not
represent the target population. Care should be taken when applying the conclusion of
this study to the whole community.

Limitation in validity and questionnaire interpretation. In literature review,
prior research on indoor-footwear-wearing habits was hardly found. Many of the
questionnaires in this survey were newly made based on only a few research studies
(Munro & Steele, 1999; Lawrence, 1984; 1987; 1989). Since the questions were not
adopted ﬁ'om an existing study or scale, they were not veriﬁed and the validities of some
variables can be low.

Moreover, the different interpretation of questions in the survey can also be a
limitation. Since this survey relied on self-reported data, there can be some biases.
Respondents could interpret differently on the same questions of asking the utilization of
the elements in residential spaces. Also, they might have different standards in measuring
evaluation or satisfaction of the entrance area. If the case study is conducted prior to the
survey, the questionnaire can be complemented.

Limitation in statistical analysis. With the limitation in questionnaires, many
different kinds of statistical analysis were conducted. However, none of them could test
casual relationship. Therefore, in this study, the reasons or the effects of indoor-footwear-
wearing habits could not be concluded. Only differences, relationships, or independency
among variables were tested.

In spite of these limitations, it is hoped that this study can bring a better
understanding of indoor-footwear-wearing habits related to the cultural aspect and

residential spaces.

50

Future Research

Since there were not many prior studies on indoor-footwear-wearing habit
especially related to the residential environment, there can be many suggestions for future
research.

First, differences are expected in indoor-footwear-wearing habit and related issues
in the residential environment among different ethnic groups. Rapoport (1976, p.12) said
anthropology can contribute to environmental design by providing descriptions of
environment and how they are used. However, in this study, 86.0% of respondents were
Caucasian and 91.7% answered their native country is the United State of America. If the
survey is conducted through various ethnic groups in the United States or in many other
countries, differences in indoor-footwear-wearing habits and their utilization of
residential spaces can be found according to different ethnicity. Also different structures
of the houses from different culture can be considered with residents’ behavioral patterns.
And this will allow cross-cultural comparisons in indoor-footwear-wearing habit.

Second, if the survey is conducted with the respondents of general households not
students, the result can be more generalized. Moreover, differences in the indoor-
footwear-wearing habits according to the different age groups can be expected.

Third, weather can be a new variable. In this study, 35.7% of respondents
reported that they always stay bare-foot at home and 34.4% said they usually stay bare-
foot although they sometimes wear indoor shoes (Table 3). There were more people who
stay bare-foot than expected. However, considering a long period of winter with frequent
snowing in Michigan, the weather can be an issue in indoor-footwear-wearing habit.

When snowing outside, shoes will be wet and dirty and no one would like to wear those

51

outdoor shoes inside of their houses even though they are not used to staying bare-foot.
Therefore, if the survey is done at the same time in the southern area of the US where
summer is much longer than winter with little or no snowfall, the effect of different
weather in indoor-footwear-wearing habit could be ﬁgured.

Fourth, indoor-footwear-wearing habit can be also related to other daily habits in
residential spaces. In this study, indoor-footwear-wearing habit was only related to
residents’ opinions of houses, lifestyles and the entrance area of the houses. However, the
indoor-footwear-wearing habit is a fundamental behavior that causes other different
activities. Therefore, it will be meaningful to study the relationship between indoor-
footwear-wearing habit and other habits in residential habits such as sitting on the ﬂoor,
lying down on the ﬂoor, the way of cleaning the ﬂoor, and so on.

Fifth, the survey in this study found only the surface of a relationship between
indoor-footwear-wearing habit and the entrance area of the houses. The situation of every
house is different. If the case study followed by interview is conducted on the
representative houses for each group of different indoor-footwear-wearing habits, there
could be much more interpretation to be considered as the result of qualitative study.

Also, this will bring more suggestions in the practical design process.

52

APPENDIX: Survey Instrument

53

MICHIGANSTATE
UNIVERSITY

September 22, 2009
Dear Sir or Madam:

I am a Master of Arts candidate in Interior Design at Michigan State University. You are
invited to participate in a research study regarding your household’s shoe wearing habits.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between residents’ indoor-
footwear-wearing habits and the conﬁguration of the entrance area of the house. This
study is for residential spaces in the Lansing area. If you are not a resident of Lansing,
East Lansing, or Okemos, or if you live in dormitories, please do not continue.

Your participation in this study will take approximately ten minutes. Your answers will
remain anonymous. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent permitted by
law. Your participation is completely voluntary and you may choose not to participate at
all, or you may refuse to answer certain questions or discontinue your participation at any
time without consequence. There are no right or wrong answers.

If you have questions about this study, please contact So Yun Park at pgkso3@msu.edu.
or Dr. April Allen at allen_apr@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns about your
role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input,
or would like to register a complaint about this survey, you may contact, anonymously if
you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-
355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall,
MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Thank you so much for your time and participation. By completing and submitting the
questionnaire, you are indicating your voluntary participation.

Sincerely,

So Yun Park, MA Candidate
School of Planning, Design & Construction

April D. Allen, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor

54

Section I. The current condition and the evaluation of the entrance area of the house

1. The number of the entrance doors in my house is

 

 

2. My family uses most frequently. (Please check one.)
C] the front door C] a door to the garage
C] a door to the backyard [:1 others (please speciﬁc )

 

* The main entrance area that is mentioned in the questions below indicates the one your
family uses most ﬁequently, the answer of Q2.

3. The main entrance area of my house is separated from the living room or the other
areas.

 

CI Yes (move to question 3A) [:1 No (move to question 4)
3A. It is separated . (Please check all that apply.)
1:1 by wall 1:] by different ﬂoor material
[:1 by columns I] by others (please speciﬁc )

 

4. I have a closet near the main entrance area of my house.

El Yes (move to question 4A) [:1 No (move to question 48)

4A. Items which I store in that closet are: (Please check all that apply.)

[:1 shoes D coats CI hats, gloves, scarves, etc.
[:I bags CI umbrellas Dcleaning equipments
Cl tools 1:] others (please speciﬁc )

 

4B. I don’t have a closet near my main entrance area, but I need one.

CI Yes [3 No

5. I usually store my shoes in . (Please check all that apply.)

 

1:] a closet near the main entrance area

CI a cabinet or a shoe rack near the main entrance area

[___I a closet in the bedroom

CI a closet in the dressing room

CI a closet or a cabinet in the garage

[:1 others @lease speciﬁc )

 

55

6. Display items that I place at the main entrance area of my house are: (Please check all
that apply.)
Cl ﬂoor mat [3 storage cabinet

[:1 shoe rack [:1 coat hanger
1:1 decorations (vase, sculpture, ﬁsh bowl, etc.)

El console table
Cl bench or chair
CI others (please specify: )

7. Activities that are held at the main entrance area of my house are: (Please check all
that apply.)

[:1 welcoming guests, or saying good-bye to guests

Cl changing shoes / putting on or taking off shoes

[:1 putting shoes into the closet

1:] asking visitors to change or remove their out-door shoes
Cl putting on or taking off coats, hats, gloves, or scarves
1:] putting coats, hats, gloves, or scarves into the closet

Cl checking my appearance before going out

El others (please specify: )

 

8. I think the current condition of the main entrance area of my house is: (Please circle
only one number for each set of adjectives.)

Huge l 2 3 4 5 Tiny

Roomy l '2 p3 »» 4 {5" _Cramped ,~
Adequate size 1 2 3 4 5 Inadequate size
Empty I 2 i5 3 -. ‘ , 4 """ ‘5 i ' Fu11, 3‘"
Free space 1 2 3 4 5 Restricted space
Uncrowded 1 2 j : 3 4" g' r52:- Crowded '3
Complex 1 2 3 4 5 Simple
Uncluttered l 2, 7 3 j '4 I " 5 Cluttered:
Neat l 2 3 4 5 Messy

Well organized l 2 3 4 5 Poorly organized
Tidy 1 2 3 4 5 Untidy
Functional 1 2 - 7 . 3 .4 -S Nonfunctional
Well planned I 2 3 4 5 Poorly planned
Organized l 2 ' ' 3 4 5 Disorganized
Useful 1 2 3 4 5 Useless
Multiple purpose 1 2 3 4 5 Single purpose
Convenient l 2 3 4 5 Inconvenient
Clean 1 2 3 4 5 Dirty

Pleasant l 2 3 4 5 Unpleasant
Inviting 1 2 3 4 5 Repelling
Private 1 2 3 4 5 Public
Comfortable 1 , 2 3 4 5 Uncomfortable
Satisﬁed l 2 3 4 5 Unsatisﬁed

5
Q

somewhat: '

neither

56

‘ 8011:9th my

Section II. The opinion on the house

9. In regard to my house, I think the most important values are: (Please check up to three
values.)

El comfort El health |:l privacy
El safety El sanitation El social life

Section III. Indoor-footwear-wearing habit

10. My indoor-footwear-wearing habit can be best described as: (Please check one.)

[:1 always staying bare-foot or wearing only socks inside of my house.

El usually staying bare-foot or wearing socks, and sometimes wearing indoor shoes.

[I usually wearing indoor shoes inside of my house.

Cl wearing both indoor shoes and outdoor shoes inside of my house.

El usually wearing outdoor shoes inside of my house, but sometimes staying bare-foot.

El usually wearing outdoor shoes inside of my house.

1:] usually wearing outdoor shoes inside of my house except for some particular rooms.
(please speciﬁz the rooms: )

 

r—I
p—A

. I think the reason of my indoor-footwear-wearing habit is: (Please circle only one
number for each statement.)

323$: Disagree Neutral Agree $eg
Lifelong habit from my childhood 1 2 3 4 5
Comfort 1 2 4 5
Convenience in living 1 2 3 4 5
Sanitation of the house 1 2 3 4 5
Family health 1 2 3 4 5

Section IV. The current situation of the house and the family

12. My present house is: (Please check one.)

C] a single-family detached house

[:1 a condominium, a duplex, etc. (multi-family attached house)
[3 an apartment building

1:1 a mobile house

[1 others @lease speciﬁc )

 

13. The ownership of the house which I live in now is:

[:I own home D rent home I:l other

57

14. The current condition of my house is: (Please check one.)

1

8.

. The number of people who live in my house (including me) is

[3 very poor condition, needs to be torn down

Cl poor condition, needs major repairs

[:1 adequate condition, needs many repairs but mostly minor ones
[3 good condition, needs some minor repairs

Cl excellent condition

apply)
wood vinyl ceramic
°’” 1"” flooring flooring are; 3’0”“

Main entrance area El 1:] Cl El 1:]
Living room Cl ‘ Cl Cl Cl ., : CI
Kitchen Cl [:1 Cl 1:] Cl
Bedroom Cl Cl C1 Cl C]
(if the main entrance is not thefront door)

Front entrance area [:1 Cl E El 1:1

. My family can be described as: (Please check one.)

l:l a family with children Cl 3 single-parent family
Cl a couple with no children Cl a single individual

Here are the people who live with me. (Please check all that apply.)
El Spouse / Partner

D Children age 2 and under. How many?

D Children age 3 to 5. How many?

El Children age 6 to 18. How many?
El Children over the age of 18. How many?

l:l Parents. How many?

C] Other relatives. How many?

D Roommates. How many?

 

I live with a pet.

El Yes (move to question 18A) l:l No (move to question 19)

18A. My pets are: (Please check all that apply.)

[:1 dog l:l cat El bird
[3 ﬁsh Cl others @lease speciﬁc

58

. The ﬂoor ﬁnishing for each room in my current house is: (Please check all that

others

||lll

Section V. General Information

19. My gender is: 1:] male El female

20. My age is:
D less than 18 years Cl 35 to 44 years Cl 65 to 74 years
D 18 to 24 years Cl 45 to 54 years D 75 years and older
[:1 25 to 34 years Cl 55 to 64 years

21. My highest education level completed is:

13 some high school / no degree Cl college degree
Cl high school graduate E] graduate degree or higher
Cl technical school / some college

22. My ethnicity is: (Please check one.)

D Caucasian Cl Hawaiian or other Paciﬁc Islander
Cl African-American CI Hispanic

CI American Indian or Alaska Native 1:] Indian

[:1 Asian El others

 

23. The other family member whose ethnicity is different from me is: (Please check all
that apply.)

1:] not applicable

Cl Caucasian D Hawaiian or other Paciﬁc Islander
[3 African-American Cl Hispanic

1:] American Indian or Alaska Native El Indian

Cl Asian Cl others

 

24. My native country is:

 

25. My household income in 2008 can be described as:

Cl less than $19,999 D $80,000 to $99,999
1:1 $20,000 to $39,999 [3 $100,000 to $1 19,999
El $40,000 to $59,999 [3 $120,000 or more

C] $60,000 to $79,999

59

REFERENCES

60

REFERENCES

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., F iksdahl-King, 1., & Angel, S.
(1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Amerigo, M. & Aragones, J. I. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to the
study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1 7, 47-5 7.

Andes, G. G. (2000). The eﬂect of carpet fiber on the growth of dermatophagiodes

farinae in a controlled environment. Unpublished master’s thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Bechtel, R. B. (1976). The perception of environmental quality: Some new wineskins for
old wine. In K. H. Craik & E. H. Zube (Eds), Perceiving environmental quality:
Research and applications (pp. 105-122). New York: Plenum Press.

Beguin, H. & Nolard, N. (1996). Prevalence of fungi in carpeted ﬂoor environment:
Analysis of dust samples from living-rooms, bedrooms, ofﬁces and school
classrooms. Aerobiologia, 12, 1 13-120.

Bell, W. (1968). The city, the suburb, and a theory of social choice. In S. Greer et al.
(Eds), The new urbanization (pp. 132-168). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Blakemore, R. G. (2006). History of interior design and furniture: From ancient Egypt to
nineteenth-century Europe. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bonaiuto, M. & Bonnes, M. (2000). Social-psychological approaches in environment-
behavior studies: Identity theories and the discursive approach. In S. Wapner, J.
Demick, T. Yamamoto & H. Minami (Eds), Theoretical perspectives in
environment-behavior research: Underlying assumptions, research problems, and
methodologies (pp. 67-78). New York: Kluwer Academic & Plenum Publishers.

Cooper, C. (1974). The house as symbol of the self. In J. Lang et al. (Eds.), Designing for
human behavior: Architecture and the behavioral sciences (pp. 130-146).
Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

Cooper Marcus, C. (1995). House as a mirror of self: Exploring the deeper meaning of
home. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.

Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in
education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Franklin, B. J. (2001). Discourses of design: Perspectives on the meaning of housing
quality and ‘good’ housing design. Housing, Theory and Society, 18, 79-92.

61

Howell, S. C. & Tentokali, V. (1989). Domestic privacy: Gender, culture, and
development issues. In S. M. Low & E. Chambers (Eds), Housing, culture, and
design: A comparative perspective (pp. 281-297). Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.

Hummon, D. M. (1989). House, home, and identity in contemporary American culture. In
S. M. Low & E. Chambers (Eds), Housing, culture, and design: A comparative
perspective (pp. 207-228). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Kasmar, J. (1970). The development of a useful lexicon of environmental descriptors.
Environment and Behavior, 2, 153-169.

Kent, S. (1991). Partitioning space: Cross-cultural factors inﬂuencing domestic spatial
segmentation. Environment and Behavior, 23(4), 438-473.

Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in
environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Lawrence, R. J. (1984). Transition spaces and dwelling design. Journal of architectural
and Planning Research, 1(4), 261-271.

Lawrence, R. J. (1987). Housing, dwellings and homes: Design theory, research and
practice. Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Lawrence, R. J. (1989). Translating anthropological concepts into architectural practice.
In S. M. Low & E. Chambers (Eds), Housing, culture, and design: A comparative
perspective (pp. 89-113). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lawrence-Zr’rﬁiga, D. L. (1997). Studying culture and history in exotic places and at
home. In G. T. Moore & R. W. Marans (Eds), Advances in environment,
behavior, and design (Vol. 4) (pp. 41-70). New York: Plenum Press.

Lee, E. (2008). Exploring housing satisfaction and adjustment processes of cross-cultural
sojourners: The case of Korean sojourners in the United States. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Mangum, C. (2000). Designing for need, not form and function. Human Ecology 28(1),
4-6.

Michelson, W. (1987). Groups, aggregates, and the environment. In E. H. Zube & G. T.
Moore (Eds), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol.1) (pp. 161-
185). New York: Oxford University Press.

Michelson, W. (2000). Linking built environments to everyday life: Assumptions, logic,
and speciﬁcation. In S. Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto & H. Minami (Eds),
Theoretical perspectives in environment-behavior research: Underlying
assumptions, research problems, and methodologies (pp. 141 -148). New York:
Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.

62

 

Moore, G. T. (1997). Toward environment — Behavior theories of the middle range. In G.
T. Moore & R. W. Marans (Eds), Advances in environment, behavior, and design
(Vol. 4) (pp. 1-40). New York: Plenum Press.

Morris, E. W. & Winter, M. (1978). Housing, family, and society. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

Munro, B. J., & Steele, J. R. (1999). Household-shoe wearing and purchasing habits: A

survey of people aged 65 years and older. Journal of the American Podiatric
Medical Association, 89(10), 506-514.

Plummet, J. T. (1974). The concept and application of life style segmentation. The
Journal of Marketing, 38, 33-37.

Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey
response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(4), 579-588.

Rapoport, A. (1970). The study of spatial quality. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 4(4),
81-95.

Rapoport, A. (1976). Sociocultural aspects of man-environment studies. In A. Rapoport
(Eds), The mutual interaction of people and their built environment: A cross-
cultural perspective (pp. 7-35). Hague: Mouton Publishers.

Rapoport, A. (1982a). Identity and environment: A cross-cultural perspective. In J. S.
Duncan (Eds), Housing and identity: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 6-35). New
York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc.

Rapoport, A. (1982b). The meaning of the built environments: A nonverbal
communication approach. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Rapoport, A. (1985). Thinking about home environments. In I. Altman & C. Werner
(Eds), Home environments (pp. 255-286). New York: Plenum Press.

Rapoport, A. (1987). On the cultural responsiveness of architecture. Journal of
Architectural Education, 41 (I), 10-15.

Rapoport, A. (1989). Housing, culture, and design: A comparative perspective (S. M.
Low & E. Chambers, Eds). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Rapoport, A. (2000a). Science, explanatory theory, and environment-behavior studies. In
S. Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto & H. Minami (Eds), Theoretical
perspectives in environment-behavior research: Underlying assumptions,
research problems, and methodologies (pp. 107—148). New York: Kluwer
Academic & Plenum Publishers.

Rapoport, A. (2000b). Theory, culture and housing. Housing, Theory and Society, 1 7(4),
145-165.

63

Rapoport, A. (2005). Culture, architecture, and design. Chicago: Locke Science
Publishing Company, Inc.

Rapoport, A. (2006). Archaeology and environment-behavior studies. Archeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 16, 59-70.

Rapoport, A. (2008). Some further thoughts on culture and environment. International
Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 16-39.

Reme, E. (1993). Every picture tells a story: Wall decorations as expressions of
individuality, family unit and socio-cultural belonging. Journal of Popular
Culture, 26(4), 19-38.

Rizzo, M. C., Naspitz, C. K., Femandez-Caldas, E., Lockey, R. F ., Mimica, I., & Sole, D.
(1997). Endotoxin exposure and symptoms in asthmatic children. Pediatric
Allergy and Immunology, 8, 121-126.

Sebba, R. (1991). The role of the home environment in cultural transmission.
Architecture and Behavior, 7(3), 223-241.

Sorokin, P., Zimmerman C. C., & Galpin, C. J. (1931). A systematic source book in rural
sociology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Stokols, D. (1982). Environmental psychology: a coming of age. In A. Graut (Eds), The
G. Stanley Hall lecture series (Vol. 2) (pp. 155-205). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Spetic, W., Kozak R., & Cohen, D. (2007). Perception of wood ﬂooring by Canadian
householders. Forest Products Journal, 5 7(6), 34-38.

Werner, C. M. & Altman, I. (2000). Humans and nature: Insights from a transactional
view. In S. Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto & H. Minami (Eds), Theoretical
perspectives in environment-behavior research: Underlying assumptions,
research problems, and methodologies (pp. 21-3 7). New York: Kluwer Academic
& Plenum Publishers.

Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design: Environment / behavior / neuroscience in
architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning. New York & London: W. W.
Norton & Company, Inc.

64