RESEARCH FRAMEWORKS OF NORFADZILA, WIDYA, NOR ZALINA, MAZLINA and SAIFUL

1. RESEARCH FRAMEWORKSOFNORFADZILA, WIDYA, NOR ZALINA, MAZLINA and SAIFUL FOR DISCUSSION WITH FAST-TRACK PHD CANDIDATES ON 16TH OCT 2014 AT FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIROMENT UTM

2. Affordancesof School Grounds for Children’s Outdoor Play and Environmental Learning Nor Fadzila Aziz (PB103013) PhD Candidate Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr Ismail Said Faculty of Built Environment UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia 1 October 2014

3. PLANNING AND DESIGN OF SCHOOL GROUNDS Interrelationship between Variables UP potential site for offered affordances offered affordances Environmental Learning Children’s Outdoor Play School Grounds Environment D2 D1 perceived affordances Actualisation of Affordances Conception of ideal school grounds Perception and attitude towards Preferences D3 Children’s needs Children’s interactions Children’s emotions BOTTOM CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOURAL AND PERCEPTUAL RESPONSES

4. Research Objectives RO #4 Ideal school grounds for environmental learning RO #3 Environmental learning in school grounds RO #2 Factors that influence level of affordances RO #1 Affordances of school grounds Needs & preferences Perceptions & attitudes Outdoor play activities Place preferences The potentials & barriers of school grounds for environmental learning Beliefs, preferences & needs Meaning and understanding on the potential affordances of school grounds Features, design patterns & aspects considered The use of school grounds environment Play behaviour patterns & children’s performances Children’s affection & evaluation towards the environment Properties & attributes of school grounds Children’s preference survey (n=80) Teacher’s survey questionnaire (n=71) Children’s drawing (n=80) Children’s walkabout interview & mapping (n=80) Children’s photography & discussion (n=80) Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics RASCH Model Descriptive statistics Content analysis Descriptive statistics (Univariate) Spatial analysis (Hotspots) Content analysis (Interpretative) TRIANGULATION Physical & social factors Person-environment relationship (“ACTUAL” environment) Perceptual & conception (“IDEAL” environment) Theoretical & design implication in enhancing school grounds’ potentials

5. Rebuilding identity of historical area through the use of urban morphology PhD Thesis Defense, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Widya Fransiska Febriati Anwar (PB093004) Supervisor(s): Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ismail Said Dr. Dilshan Remaz Ossen Dr. Moh. Hisyam bin Rasidi December 2009 – January 2013

6. Situating a research with current status quo of a subject Urban Morphology Schuller, 1898; Geisler, 1918; Whitby, 1951; Conzen, 1960; Muratori, 1960; Hillier aand Hanson, 1984; Forties; 1989; Kropt, 1996; Hall, 1997; Levy, 1999; Canigia, 2001; Jiang and Claramunt, 2002; Chapman, 2006; james and Bound, 2009; Tian et.al, 2010; Topcu and Kubat, 2012 Conzen, 1960; Lynch, 1960; Kostof, 1991; Wikantyoso,1997; Hillier, 2001; Ikaputra, et. Al, 2000; Fattahi and Kobayashi, 2009a, 2009b Urban Element Boblic, 1990; Hall, 1997; Purwanto, 2005; Hanh, 2006; Hara, et.al (2008) Inn, 2004;Gospodini, 2004, 2011; Doralti, 2004;Watson, 2006; Plaza, 2006, 2008; Butina, 2006; Niebrzydowski, 2007; Novickas, 2007; Lewicka, 2008; Handal, 2009;Chen, 2011; Sainz, 2012 Urban Setting Urban Structure Change Tuan, 1974; Steele, 1981; Altman and Low, 1992; Hummon, 1992; Jackson, 1994; Cross, 2001; Guillani, 2003; Willian and Vaske, 2003; Smaldone, 2006; Handal. 2006; Beidler, 2007; Hernandez, 2007; Brown and raymond, 2007; Watson and Bentley, 2007; White et.al, 2008; Liu, 2009; Raymod et.al, 2010; Najafi and Kamal, 2011 Urban Reminder Place Familiarity Whitehand and Morton, 2004; Rapoport, 2004; Samant, 2004; Tweed and Sutherland, 2007; Smith, 2008; Rabady, 2010; Ragab, 2011, Kim, 2011 Rebuilding City Identity Place Character City Marketing Sense of Place Authenticity Identity Culture City's Identity Environmental Psychology Place Attachment Image of the city Conservation Preservation Place Identity Identity of Place Rodwel, 2007; Kolzlowski and Bowen, 1997; Sevinc, 2009; Wei and Kiang, 2009; Whitehand and Gu, 2010; Albert and Hanzen, 2010; Hillier, 2001

7. Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 RO#1. The physical and spatial pattern RO#2 Place character that can establish the identity RO#3 The interdependency between the urban morphology and identity Urban Morphology Identity with the Place Place Identity The persistent and new urban element The physical-spatial pattern changes, streetline and riverline People's appreciation in the past (1890-1930) People appreciation in the present (1990-2000s) The current bonding between people and riverside area Old paintings / photos Archival studies Interview Question-naire Interview Question-naire Superimposed the maps Stage 4 The forgotten and memorized elements The new/ remaining/ disappeared urban elements or setting High vs. low appreciation towards place Social Character Physical Character IDENTITY OF RIVER CITY Rebuilding city identity through the use of urban morphology (Widya,2013)

8. PLACE MAKING AND MEANING OF PADANG AS A PUBLIC PLACE IN HISTORIC CITIES OF MALAYSIA Nor ZalinaHarun (PB073042) PhD Candidate, UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia

9. Theoretical Implication Denotative meaning Connotative meaning Abstract meaning Distinctiveness Valuation Symbolical / analogical + Diversity + Place familiarity Place dependence Place belongingness Place identity Place rootedness Place identity Cognitive attachment Affective attachment Symbolic attachment

10. Theoretical Implication: Place disruption process There are three main stages identified in the emotional process that the residents have gone through in dealing with the changes and demolition of Padang Pahlawan. The process can be chronologically observed starting from pre-demolition, followed by demolition itself and ending with post-demolition. PRE-DEMOLITION DEMOLITION POST-DEMOLITION Anger On the process Acceptance Demolition announcement Bargaining EMOTIONAL VOTALITY Testing Denial Shock Rejection Depression PLACE DISRUPTION PROCESS

11. EFFECTS OF EXPERIENTIAL CONTACTS WITH GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ON WELL-BEING OF RESIDENTS IN A SMALL TOWN Mazlina Mansor (PB073016) PhD Candidate Supervisor: Ismail Said Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 15 November 2010

12. INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF THE PARAMETERS • PHYSICAL DETERMINANTS PROPERTIES AND ATTRIBUTES: Diversity, naturalness, coherence & additional attributes (cleanliness, maintenance, facilities) Independent parameters EXPERIENTIAL CONTACTS viewing in & out, being in & active engagements: kinetic-physical, leisure & social activities Parameters that affect the link between cause and outcome parameters (from psychophysical procedures) The interaction between human behaviour and the non-human environment (the green infrastructure network) as a two way process PERCEPTUAL DETERMINANTS Perception; familiarity, preference • Physical well-being • Cognitive well-being • Social well-being Forget worries, relief stress & clear mind from distractions comfortable, relax and calm privacy; safe; preference; satisfaction; attachment Interactions with neighbours & other residents; participate; friendly and satisfied Dependent parameters (PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS) Feeling active; bodily healthy; mobility

13. Theoretical Framework Modeling of street network connectivity for good wayfinding in small towns in Malaysia Cognitive Memory/Spatial Representation Real World Action (Wayfinding) Allin (1896) Underpinning 1 Theory of Recognition Memory; Dual Process Theory Recognition Memory Process Familiarity Process Fast Reaction Wixted, 2007; Atkinson & Juola, 1973, 1974; Hintzman & Curran, 1994; Jacoby, 1991; Jacoby & Dallas, 1981; Mandler, 1980 Recollection Process Slow Reaction Repoport (1970) Hillier and Hanson (1984) Street network of Small Town as Context Human Behavior (Space) Human Behavior In Space Axial Line Move PROCESS Street Connectivity Convex Space (polygon) Interact Recollection reflection Visibility (Isovist Polygon) Visualize Underpinning 2 Theory of Space Syntax (Social Logic Space) Object (Spatial Information – 15 street feature) Subject (Spatial Knowledge – 3 familiarity factors) Porta et al., 2006; Batty, 2004; Jiang, Claramunt, & Batty, 1999; Jiang et al., 2000; Hillier & Hanson, 1984 Familiarity Real World -Wayfinding (decision making/reaction/verbal explanation)