See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323322397

The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: a syntactic evaluation

of a faculty building

Article · December 2017

DOI: 10.18844/gjae.v7i3.2893

CITATIONS READS

6 2,768

2 authors:

Süheyla Büyükşahin Dicle aydın

Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi neü.edu.tr
45 PUBLICATIONS   145 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   212 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Architecture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Süheyla Büyükşahin on 21 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Global Journal of Arts
Education
Volume 07, Issue 3, (2017) 83-92
www.gjae.eu

The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: a syntactic

evaluation of a faculty building
*
Suheyla Buyuksahin Siramkaya , Department of Architecture, Selcuk University, Sems Tebrizi Mah. Ankara Cad.
No:6 Karatay, Konya and 42030, Konya
Dicle Aydın, Department of Architecture, Necmettin Erbakan University, Kurden Mah. Yeni Meram Cad. No: 262
Meram, Konya and 42090, Konya

Suggested Citation:
Siramkaya, S.B. & Aydin, D. (2017). The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: a syntactic evaluation
of a faculty building. Global Journal of Arts Education. 7(3), 83-92.

Received April 7, 2017; revised June 18, 2017; accepted August 11, 2017.
Selection and peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Ayse Cakir Ilhan, Ankara University, Turkey.
©
2016 SciencePark Research, Organization & Counseling. All rights reserved.

Abstract

The properties of physical environment affect the psychological processes of the individuals and groups using that
environment and their socialization with their environment. Every physical environment includes the existence of a social
environment and every social environment includes the existence of a physical environment; because socialization is one of
the basic human needs. The fulfillment of this basic requirement is possible when the spaces are designed in a way to have
properties giving opportunities to social interaction. Among education spaces faculty buildings are social environments giving
opportunity to young people to socialize, share interests, have relation with each other, develop the relationship within
groups and belonging feelings. Social behaviors, social interactions and gathering areas of students in faculty buildings are
important issues from the point of architectural programming and architectural design performance. This study is depended
on the evaluation of social environments in faculty buildings considering the students’ social interactions upon the selected
faculty building. In the scope of this evaluation long term observations directed at the determination of students social
interactions and gathering areas will be done, the plan of the building will be analyzed through Syntax 2D and as a result the
effect of the spatial configuration on social interaction will be evaluated.

Keywords: Space syntax, environment-human behaviour, spatial configuration, social interaction, faculty buildings.

*ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Suheyla Buyuksahin Siramkaya, Department of Architecture, Selcuk University, Sems
Tebrizi Mah. Ankara Cad. No:6 Karatay, Konya and 42030, Konya
E-mail address: [email protected]
Siramkaya, S.B. & Aydin, D. (2017). The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: a syntactic evaluation of a faculty building. Global
Journal of Arts Education. 7(3), 83-92.

1. Introduction

As a result of the two-way interaction between human and space, while the space forms the
behaviours of the individuals using it with its physical characteristics, the human’s spatial behaviours
change and transform the space. The spatial configuration exists in the relationship between a series
of spaces where the individuals move in, come across and notice others. The location of these spaces,
their way of coming together with other spaces, the physical characteristics of the space and its
connection with outer space can develop movement patterns on humans that will support or prevent
their interactions (Hillier, 2007). In this sense, spatial configuration can be planned in a way to provide
or obstruct the realization of social interaction as a spatial behaviour mode.
Social interaction -as a state of free togetherness in which people with different physical and
mental abilities find opportunities for interaction- is one of the basic human needs since his birth.
Maslow’s (1970) hierarchy of needs includes social interaction as a need and it contains actions and
feelings like being belonged and attached, joining a group, loving, being loved, accepted and etc.
Socialization, establishing social relationships is very important for youth development. The young
should gain earnings aimed at socialization like establishing positive social relationships and adapting
to the milieu they live in for their psychosocial structures to develop in a healthy way. In this sense,
the faculty buildings as the young’s milieus for education are important from the points of physical,
social and psychological views.
Faculty buildings are complicated social organizations composed of structural, social and functional
elements. In these spaces, there should be spatial arrangements for young people to expand their
social network with others and interact with the ones of the same age and adults. In this way they can
feel connected or belonged to the society. These arrangements are supportive in an improving
direction for basic needs of young generation. These needs can be named as friendship, affection,
safety, to become an individual, to have difference, to feel belonged to a society, to experience
adventure and new experiences and to learn (Siramkaya & Aydin, 2013).
It is important for designers to identify what the spatial characteristics should be in the
environments where the social interaction is important and necessary. In this study -which is handled
with the aim of interrogating the effect of spatial configuration on social interaction in architectural
design- the existence of social interaction in faculty buildings and effect of the spatial configuration on
this interaction are investigated via space syntax analysis.

2. The relationship between social interaction and space

Today environmental designers specify that architecture feed social interaction. When the
architecture is considered in the direction of this aim, it is necessary to evaluate the spatial
configuration. In this sense, spatial configuration is evaluated in the scale of the physical and
functional distance between people, groups and activities. The arrangement of rooms, walls, doors
and separators affects the opportunities of people to see, hear and react to each other. Barriers,
openings, street locations and physical arrangements can provide opportunities or form obstacle for
social interaction (Wells, 2009).
Gibson’s “affordance theory” includes important clues about social interaction and space. Gibson
(1966) examined the interaction between physical environment and individuals. According to this, the
thing providing opportunities for the individual to interact with his environment is the characteristics
of physical environment and the conditions he lives in. Affordance theory focuses on how the physical
environment can encourage an individual to do cognitive activity. These are the characteristics of the
perceived and identified environment, which may cause behavior because of their functional

84
Siramkaya, S.B. & Aydin, D. (2017). The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: a syntactic evaluation of a faculty building. Global
Journal of Arts Education. 7(3), 83-92.

importance. In this sense different environment patterns supports different behaviors, in other words
they support some behavior while restrict some others (Yıldız&Sener, 2006).
The formation or degree of social interaction is directly related to the physical conditions of the
space. Therefore, there are circumstances preventing or supporting the social interaction in the space
(Figure 1). While some factors like the walls, long distances, and high speed between individuals
obstruct the social interaction, short distances, low speed and right locations can support social
interaction (Gokce, 2007).

Figure 1. Supportive and preventive conditions depending on the physical environment for social interaction
(adapted from Gehl, 1987).

From the point of social view, the built environment can be defined as an area for meeting, existing
together and being aware together. The boundaries separating the built environment and the
connections combining it arrange the behaviors, activities, and the people to come together and stay
away from each other. The boundaries, surrounding and the characteristics of adjacency,
containment, sub-section, accessibility and visibility in the space create relationships (Peponis &
Wineman, 2002). In researches, spaces are identified as “low interactional (sociofugal)” and “highly
interactional (sociopetal)” environments according to their characteristics determining the level of
social interaction (Sommer, 1969). The concepts of sociofugal and sociopetal are the concepts firstly
exposed by psychologist Humphrey Osmond to explain the space quality. According to Osmond
(1957), “the spaces providing the opportunities of eye contact and conversation distance between
people” are named as sociopetal. As oppose to this, sociofugal arrangements obstruct the interactions
of the people in conservation distance by causing them to look different ways from each other. Unlu
(1998) expresses that low interactional environments are the spaces, which can be defined as “hard
architecture” where personalization is extremely difficult, while highly interactional environments
provide some options appropriate to personalization forms in the level of behaviors. Brand (1998),
85
Siramkaya, S.B. & Aydin, D. (2017). The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: a syntactic evaluation of a faculty building. Global
Journal of Arts Education. 7(3), 83-92.

mentioned that the process related to how the space for a useful and effective social interaction can
be designed is very complicated and requires a dense knowledge. In this complicated process, it is
quite important to evaluate personal and cultural characteristics of the individual, spatial
characteristics, perception of the space and the qualities of the social relationships in society as a
whole to design spaces supporting social interaction.

3. Methodology

Research methodology is formed to investigate the effect of spatial configuration on social

interaction. Faculty buildings are specified as area for case study and Selcuk University Faculty of
Engineering having a gridal plan with inner courtyards is examined. In this faculty building “low
interactional” and “highly interactional” spaces are determined by observation, these spaces are
evaluated in a way depending on syntactic parameters and the characteristics of spatial configuration
those allowing and disallowing socialization are defined.

3.1. Space syntax analysis

The plan is uploaded to the “Syntax 2D” program licensed by The University of Michigan to apply
space syntax analysis. Spatial configuration is analytically evaluated by space syntax analysis and
quantitative data is obtained. Movement and vision areas are superposed on the plans of sample
building and the potentials of users to come together are determined. A number of points are
identified on the plans to understand characteristics of different regions and obtain comparable
values. These points are selected among the spaces, which are important components of the spatial
configuration (entrances, circulation areas (nodes, corridors)), the main spaces with determined
functions (cafeteria, foyer) and the regions thought to be planned as social interaction areas. The
values of mean depth, connectivity, integration-n, isovist area, isovist perimeter and circularity
parameters are obtained by the means of the program.

3.2. Statistical analysis

The values obtained from space syntax analysis, the data of observation are overlapped and
syntactical values of “low interactional”, and “highly interactional” spaces are achieved. In this
context, the findings of observation are integrated and improved by space syntax analysis. The
syntactic values are transformed into nominal values and classified in 3 groups. The social interaction
activities determined as a result of observation findings are also digitized and classified. The
relationship between these nominal values are relatively evaluated and interpreted through SPSS 16.0
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) Chi-square tests.

4. A case study evaluating the effect of spatial configuration on social interaction

The Selcuk University Faculty of Engineering (Table 1) building was constructed in 1996 in central
region of Alaaddin Keykubat Campus in the north of Konya in Turkey. The faculty building with the
courtyarded gridal plan was built as 4 blocks (A, B, C, D) and then 2 blocks in the same plan schema
and 2 rectangular laboratory buildings were added in 2010. There are rooms for academic and
administrative staff, classrooms, ateliers, laboratories, a conference hall and a cafeteria in the
building. The building has ground+3 floors and designed with open inner courtyards.

Table 1: Faculty of Engineering

86
Siramkaya, S.B. & Aydin, D. (2017). The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: a syntactic evaluation of a faculty building. Global
Journal of Arts Education. 7(3), 83-92.

West Facade

Site Plan South Facade

Before starting the analysis it is determined that there are social interaction activities on ground
and first floor of the building as a result of pre-observation study. No social interaction activity was
observed on other floors or in the laboratory blocks of the building. For this reason ground and first
floor of the building are examined in the case study. Besides as a result of observation; the points
where social interaction occurs or not among 50 points (Table. 2) defined on the plans were
determined.
The spaces preferred by the students for social interaction activities are determined as cafeteria
(M6), nodes (M11, M16, M36) and corridors (M10, M17, M27, M30, M34) as a result of observation.
Among these spaces it is seen that cafeteria (M6) and node (M36) are more frequently used for social
interaction.

Table 2: The points determined on the floor plans and their functional classification

87
Siramkaya, S.B. & Aydin, D. (2017). The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: a syntactic evaluation of a faculty building. Global
Journal of Arts Education. 7(3), 83-92.

ENTRANCES
Student Entrance:M1, M23
Deanery Entrance:M12
CIRCULATION AREAS
Nodes: M5, M11, M16, M18,
M20, M26
Corridors: M2, M3, M4, M7, M8,
M9, M10, M13, M14,
M15, M17, M19, M21,
M22, M24, M25
MAIN SPACES WITH IDENTIFIED
FUNCTIONS
Cafeteria: M6

Ground Floor

CIRCULATION AREAS
Nodes: M31, M36, M41, M43,
M45, M50
Corridors: M27, M28, M29, M30,
M32, M33, M34, M35,
M37, M38, M39, M40,
M42, M44, M46, M47,
M48, M49

First Floor

4.1. Findings from space syntax

The integration-n, mean depth, connectivity, isovist perimeter, isovist area and circularity values are
determined for the points defined on the plans. It can be seen on the graphical view of the analysis
that the plan schema of the faculty is not an integrated configuration. The areas with high integration-
n value (colored in red) cannot be observed in the general layout of the faculty. The areas having low
integration-n value (colored in blue) in other words regions with low degree of movement are
dominant on the plan (Figure 2).
As it can be seen on Figure 2, the spaces with higher integration-n value are the nodes, which are
the intersection points of the circulation areas. In general layout it can be seen that spaces with
88
Siramkaya, S.B. & Aydin, D. (2017). The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: a syntactic evaluation of a faculty building. Global
Journal of Arts Education. 7(3), 83-92.

highest integration-n value are placed in central areas of the plan, integration-n value decreases in
spaces connected to the circulation and the depth of the spaces increases.

Ground Floor First Floor

Figure 2. Integration-n graphic of Faculty of Engineering floor plans

The integration-n graphic of floor plans and spaces preferred for social interaction are coincided
and marked together with the main circulation axis on the plans (Figure 3). According to these analysis
it is seen that the regions with high integration-n value and the social interaction spaces overlap in
nodes (M11, M36) and cafeteria (M6), but does not overlap in corridors (M10, M17, M27, M30, M34)
and node (M16). In addition to this it can be said that the social interaction spaces used more
frequently by the students (M6, M11, M16) are placed even on the main circulation axis (M11) or
directly connected to that axis (M6, M16).

Ground Floor First Floor

89
Siramkaya, S.B. & Aydin, D. (2017). The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: a syntactic evaluation of a faculty building. Global
Journal of Arts Education. 7(3), 83-92.

Figure 3. The relationship between integration-n graphic and social interaction spaces

4.2. Comparison between Space Configuration and Social Interaction Activities Data

The relationship between the syntactic values of the points defined on the plans and nominal
values of social interaction activities (Table 3) is analyzed with Chi-square test.

Table 3: The syntactic values of the defined points and social interaction activities
Mean Isovist Isovist Circularity Social
Connectivity Integration-n
depth area perimeter interaction
M1 Stud.Ent. 9 6,93 0,39 0,63 0,38 24 -
M2 Corridor 22 6,79 0,60 1,33 1,13 97 -
M3 Corridor 29 6,78 0,58 1,07 1,09 111 -
M4 Corridor 19 5,93 1,16 1,15 1,15 115 -
M5 Node 64 4,95 1,84 2,72 2,73 279 -
M6 Kafeterya 189 4,51 2,08 7,98 3,52 156 +
M7 Corridor 41 4,64 2,04 1,37 1,12 93 -
M8 Corridor 21 5,30 1,47 1,14 1,09 106 -
M9 Corridor 40 5,86 1,18 1,25 1,20 115 -
M10 Corridor 49 5,18 1,81 1,60 1,65 170 +
M11 Node 102 4,40 2,32 3,50 2,51 180 +
M12 Dea.Ent.. 58 5,01 1,52 2,26 1,66 122 -
M13 Corridor 26 4,34 2,17 1,02 1,17 134 -
M14 Corridor 27 4,43 1,77 1,05 1,38 183 -
M15 Corridor 28 4,82 1,70 0,99 1,08 119 -
M16 Node 26 4,62 1,33 1,09 0,64 38 +
M17 Corridor 42 5,42 1,14 1,35 1,07 85 +
M18 Node 76 5,88 1,10 2,83 1,98 138 -
M19 Corridor 25 5,59 1,63 1,23 0,97 77 -
M20 Node 81 4,93 1,88 3,20 2,00 125 -
M21 Corridor 21 5,19 1,43 1,17 1,18 118 -
M22 Corridor 29 5,73 0,98 1,26 1,25 126 -
M23 Stud.Ent. 80 5,10 1,37 2,94 2,26 174 -
M24 Corridor 49 5,16 1,25 1,85 1,99 214 -
M25 Corridor 43 4,64 1,69 1,34 1,09 89 -
M26 Node 101 4,49 1,99 3,34 2,49 186 -
M27 Corridor 66 6,02 2,71 1,50 1,48 147 +
M28 Corridor 56 6,86 2,05 1,24 1,34 146 +
M29 Corridor 51 6,87 2,06 1,18 1,10 104 -
M30 Corridor 50 6,04 2,73 1,05 1,14 125 -
M31 Node 80 5,27 3,79 1,83 0,95 50 -
M32 Corridor 52 5,38 3,46 1,11 1,09 108 -
M33 Corridor 53 5,87 2,85 1,15 1,18 122 -
M34 Corridor 68 5,20 3,85 1,59 1,66 175 +
M35 Corridor 67 4,71 4,39 1,48 1,61 175 -
M36 Node 134 4,06 6,09 3,01 2,09 145 +
M37 Corridor 77 4,91 3,84 1,75 1,71 168 -
M38 Corridor 38 4,91 3,99 1,02 1,14 128 -
M39 Corridor 42 4,41 4,39 1,13 1,40 173 -
M40 Corridor 50 4,39 4,55 1,18 1,53 201 -
M41 Node 50 4,63 3,12 1,12 0,65 38 -
M42 Corridor 64 5,26 3,24 1,54 1,31 112 -
M43 Node 73 5,72 3,06 1,55 1,90 234 -
M44 Corridor 58 5,39 4,59 1,24 1,02 84 -
M45 Node 175 4,72 5,66 4,05 1,72 74 -
M46 Corridor 50 5,04 4,08 1,12 1,12 113 -

90
Siramkaya, S.B. & Aydin, D. (2017). The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: a syntactic evaluation of a faculty building. Global
Journal of Arts Education. 7(3), 83-92.

M47 Corridor 51 5,54 2,85 1,16 1,20 117 -

M48 Corridor 53 5,03 3,58 1,49 1,57 166 -
M49 Corridor 69 4,52 4,72 1,48 1,45 142 -
M50 Node 131 4,32 5,59 2,76 2,33 198 -
(Dea.Ent: deanery entrance, Stud.Ent: student entrance)

According to the results of the analysis; it is determined that the mean depth (x2=7,973, df=2,
p=0,019<0,05), integration-n (x2=17,039, df=4, p=0,002<0,05), isovist area (x2=17,024, df=4,
p=0,002<0,05) and isovist perimeter (x2=16,024, df=4, p=0,002<0,05) values of the space directly
affect the social interaction which will occur in that space. It is seen that there is no effect of the
connectivity (x2=8,785, df=4 p=0,067>0,05) and circularity (x2=8,785, df=4, p=0,067>0,05) values on
social interaction.

5. Discussion

The analyses and comparison tests exposed that spatial configuration has effect on social
interaction as follows:

 The mean depth, integration-n, isovist area and isovist perimeter values of the space positively
affect the social interaction possibilities in that space. The individuals have higher possibilities to
interact socially in easily accessible spaces with low mean depth values. The spaces preferred
for social interaction have high integration-n values. High isovist area and perimeter values
which provide wide and uninterrupted visual domination and give the sense of controlling the
space can be seen as supportive data for social interaction possibilities in that space.
 It is determined that the connectivity and circularity values of the space do not have any effect
on that space to be a social interactive space. The number of the connected spaces,
permeability level or the form of the space to be circular or not do not affect social interaction
possibilities in that space.

6. Conclusion

Depending on the research results, it can be said that it will be possible to do more effective designs
for social interaction in faculty buildings by paying attention to the integration-n, mean depth, isovist
area and isovist perimeter values of the space in the design process. In complex multi-functional
buildings with high number of users, circulation network must be uninterrupted, regular and
accessible for spaces to be integrated and appropriate for social interaction. In general layout, it is
important that social interaction spaces should not be deep spaces, they should be directly accessible.
When the importance of visual contact for social interaction is considered the solutions which do not
limit the visual area are significant for social interaction areas.
In this study social interaction is defined as one of the basic needs of students in faculty buildings
and planning spaces with social interaction possibilities is introduced as a design problem. In the result
of the research, architectural characteristics of social interaction spaces are determined by
interpreting the findings of space syntax parameters. In addition to the integration-n and mean depth
values which were presented as values positively affecting the social interaction in the space in other
studies before, the positive effect of the isovist area and isovist perimeter values of the space on social
interaction is determined in this study and in this sense an important contribution is provided in
research area.
Social interaction is one of the basic needs for human beings especially in recent years as
technological developments in communication area put the people away from each other. In this

91
 Siramkaya, S.B. & Aydin, D. (2017). The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: a syntactic evaluation of a faculty building. Global
Journal of Arts Education. 7(3), 83-92.

sense, it is important to plan social interactional places for users in architectural design. As Syntax 2D
is a tool to analyze human movements and gathering areas, it will be useful to analyze building plans
and design accordingly. In further studies, this analysis can be broadened and used in other types of
complex public buildings to design places for people to socialize.

References

Brand, J. L. (1998). Physical space and social interaction, Haworth Officing Research/Ideation. One Haworth
Center Holland, Michigan, USA.
Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings: using public space. Van Nostrand Reinhold Com, New York.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Gokce, S. (2007). A research on landscape design which will develop social interaction: Cukurambar District,
(Master Thesis), Ankara University Institute of Applied Sciences, Ankara.
Hillier, B. (2007). Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture,
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/3848/1/SpaceIsTheMachine_Part1.pdf
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. Harper and Row, New York.
Osmond, H. (1957). Function as a basis of psychiatric ward design, Mental Hospitals. Architectural supplements,
83, 235-245.
Peponis, J., & Wineman, J. (2002). Spatial structure of environment and behavior, in Robert B. Bechtel and A.
Churchman (ed), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, pp: 271-291, John Wiley&Sons Inc, New York.
Siramkaya, S.B., & Aydin, D. (2013). Social Space Concept in Psycho – Social Development of University Youth
and its Examplification in Faculty Buildings, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 140, Pages
246–254, (2nd World Conference on Psychology and Sociology, PSYSOC 2013, 27-29 November 2013,
Brussels, Belgium)
Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space: the behavioral basis of design, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice- Hall, N.J.
Unlu, A. (1998). First concepts in environmental design. Istanbul Technical University Pub., Istanbul.
Wells, B. W. P. (2009). The psycho – social influence of building environment: Sociometric findings in large and
small office spaces. People and Buildings, 97-119, Transaction Publishers, ABD.
Yıldız, D., & Sener, H. (2006). Usage value analysis model of outer spaces defined by buildings, ITU Journal/a
Architecture. Planning, Design, 5(1), 115 – 127.

92

View publication stats