Roles of Sense of Place in the use of Communal Spaces as Places for Social Interaction at an Owned Low-Cost Flats Bendungan Hilir II

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Roles of Sense of Place in the use of Communal Spaces as Places for Social Interaction at an Owned Low-Cost Flats Bendungan Hilir II

Joni Hardi

Doctor Candidate in Architecture Parahyangan Catholic University Bandung, Indonesia

Lecture in Department of Architecture, UMB, Jakarta

Y. Basuki Dwisusanto

Liliany Sigit Arifin

Lecturer in Department of Architecture Petra Christian University

Surabaya, Indonesia

Lecturer in Department of Architecture Parahyangan Catholic University Bandung, Indonesia

AbstractThe construction of Owned Low-Cost Flats (Rusunami) Benhil II constitutes a part of the rejuvenation of urban slums. The concept of the rejuvenation of urban slums is to construct Rusunami at the urban slums. All occupants used to occupy the urban slums are relocated to the Rusunami. The form of life of low-income people is to have a high sense of community among the occupants. The values of living together also enter the Rusunami being the rejuvenation of urban slums. The existence of a communal space at Rusunami Benhil II Jakarta is significant because the place can accommodate the needs of gathering, social interaction, and joint activities among the occupants. The existence of the communal spaces should encourage the occupants to spend their time in a meaningful way in the owned low-cost flats, but in reality many communal spaces in the owned low-cost flats do not play any role as they should. This study aims to explore the roles of sense of place in the use of communal space for social interaction at Rusunami Benhil II Jakarta. This study uses qualitative study methods and data collection methods using in-depth interviews with Rusunami occupants. Data analysis uses content analysis using the JMP program to observe the roles of the sense of place in the use of communal space for social interaction. Study results indicate that the lack of interaction between the occupants and their communal space is resulting from lack of emotional relationship (sense of place) between the occupants and their communal space. Occupants participate in social interactions in the communal space according to their sense of place for the communal space. The occupants backgrounds and responses after occupying the flats, the constraining factors of the use of communal space for social interaction, as well as the roles of the communal space for social interaction, influence the sense of place of the occupants towards the use of communal space for social interaction at Rusunami Benhil II

KeywordsCommunal space; sense of place; experience of subjectivity; external environment; grounded theory

  1. INTRODUCTION

    Indonesia encounters various challenges related to the high rate of urban population growth (0.82% based on data from the Ministry of Home Affairs through the Directorate General of Population and Civil Registry of Semester I 2020). The increasing population growth gives an impact on housing

    construction in urban areas. High land prices and construction costs in urban areas have forced low-income community groups to seek affordable housing, namely at urban slum settlements[1]. Slum settlements also function as a transition area between rural life and urban life or can be the center of the urbanization process[2]. The problems occur in almost all major cities in Indonesia.

    Urban growth makes it imperative to make efforts to rejuvenate slum settlements. Based on Occupational Instruction No. 5 of 1990 concerning Rejuvenation of Slum Settlements on State Land, the fundamental concept of the rejuvenation of slum settlement developed by the government today is the concept of land-saving construction in the form of owned low-cost flats [RUSUNAMI]. The original community members are prioritized to occupy the Rusunami without displacing them from the location. Changes in the form of landed housing in slum settlements will certainly give an impact on the social life of the occupants[3, 4]. Low-income groups tend to maintain a sense of community because they come from rural areas with a friendly (gemeinschaft) background. Sense of community is the most prominent social structure in the life of those occupying and living at the RUSUNAMI.

    RUSUNAMI Bendungan Hilir II must provide facilities to facilitate social interaction for its occupants. Social interaction for occupants is important to facilitate the adjustment of the occupants from life in the slum areas to life behavior at RUSUNAMI[5]. Adjustment is one of the requirements for the creation of mental health for the occupants because the failure of occupants to adjust to their dwelling will cause various undesirable social problems, such as social conflicts or tensions with other occupants thereby making them feel frustrated, far from being happy, uncomfortable, and unsafe in the neighborhood where they live[6].

    Communal space is a facility to accommodate the needs for gathering, social interaction and making joint activities among the RUSUNAMI occupants[7, 8].

    The existence of functional space in the form of a communal space gives an impact on the quality of life of the occupants

    and encourages occupants to spend their time meaningfully[9]. The existence of communal space at RUSUNAMI Bendungan Hilir II is not yet fully able to be used for social interaction among the occupants. Some communal spaces already formally planned for social interaction are not used optimally by the occupants.

    This study intends to explore why the communal space is not used properly and under what conditions the occupants use the communal space. This study further intends to observe how the roles of the occupants' sense of place in using communal space for social interaction at RUSUNAMI Bendungan Hilir II.

    dwelling also represents social dimensions and emotional values of the individuals, families and communities[13].

  2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

    1. Literature Review

      Dwelling is a necessity for humans[10]. Behind every human behavior, there are motivation and purpose to fulfill their basic needs for dwelling. Referring to Maslow's theory of human motivation, there are several stages in fulfilling the basic human needs for a home, namely[11]:

      1. Early stage (physiology)

        Dwelling is a basic need serving as a means of accommodating basic human needs such as sleeping, dining, and so on in the form of bedroom, dining room, etc. Cultural and climate differences need attention because they can make differences in realizing these basic needs

      2. Second stage (safety)

        Dwelling is a means of providing protection to humans from heat, rain, and safety to animals and other humans. Humans have an instinct to control their life to avoid from any threatening dangers and a power to resist such dangers by storing and protecting their property therein.

      3. Third stage (belonging)

        Dwelling is a place for families to interact, devote all their attention, feelings, and affections and also as a place to interact with fellow occupants as human cannot live alone and always need others to communicate and achieve their existence. Dwelling is a place where people socialize with each others.

      4. Fourth stage (prestige)

        Dwelling images the owner. In many cultures, dwelling is the reflection of the owner's social status.

      5. The fifth stage (self-actualization)

        Dwelling is a means of self-actualization that can be achieved only if the occupants have fulfilled the four previous stages. At the self-actualization stage, the occupants have characters they symbolize through themselves or from what they have, so hat dwelling becomes one of the means capable of showing their characters.

        If humans have fulfilled the needs at the lower level, then they will exert to meet the needs at the upper level[12]. If the needs are not fulfilled yet at a certain stage, then they adapt and adjust themselves until they finally find an ideal place to live in. The abovementioned Maslow's theory indicates that in Asia, in addition to fulfilling physiological and safety needs,

        Fig. 1. Abraham Maslow's Human Motivation Theory in Western and Asian Perspective (Source: Studying the fast-changing purchasing habits of Chinese travelers by Li Xiang)

        The interaction between the occupants and the places where they occupy gives reciprocal effects on the characters of the place where they occupy thereby making the place where they occupy become meaningful (meaningful place) or place- lessness. Sense of place is a factor that changes space to a special place according to the behavioral and emotional characteristics of the users. Place is an emotional bond between the occupants and the place where they occupy through the daily routines of human life known as the phenomenology of place.

        Meanwhile, Cross (2001) in Hashem (2013) defines the sense of places as a combination of the bond between the communal space and the social activities therein[14].

        According to Canter (1977) in Hashem (2013), the sense of place is not determined but created from the interaction (dialectical) results between the occupants (people) and their communal space (place)[15]. Sense of place summarizes complex relationships, associations and interactions (dialectics) between occupants (people) and their subjective experiences (cultural and personal, memory and experience factors) and the influences of their external environment (physical, social, place satisfaction, interaction and activity feature, and time factors). Everyone has different experiences, motivations, and intellectual backgrounds that will form a different sense of place. Likewise, the different physical characteristics of the environment will give a different sense of place[16].

        The interaction between occupants and their communal space occurs in three dimensions, namely cognitive, behavioral, and emotional[17]. Cognitive aspect relates to place parameters namely cognitive spatial perception of the form of the environment (communal space). Emotional aspect relates to occupant parameters namely emotional dimension to the meaning of the environment (communal space). Meanwhile, behavioral aspect relates to activity parameters (social interaction) namely behavioral dimension to the function of the environment (communal space).

        To show the sense of place of the occupants of Rusunami Benhil II, both as owners and renters, there are five communal space scales according to Shamai (1991) in Hashem (2013), namely knowledge of being located in a place (at this level occupants are familiar with communal space but do not have

        an emotional bond and are not yet tied to the communal space)

        , belonging to a place (at this level occupants are not only familiar with communal space but begin to have emotional bond with the place), attachment to a place (at this level occupants have a strong emotional bond with the communal space, they have developed a unique symbolic identity at the place according to the characteristics of the occupants), identifying with a place goals (at this level, the occupants are integrated with the communal space in the sense that they know the purposes of the communal space, the occupants are very satisfied with the purposes of the communal space created, they develop a strong attachment to the communal space, involving in a place (at this level, occupants have active roles in the communal space, they are willing to invest their own resources such as money, time, or others in the activities of the communal space), sacrifice for a place (at this stage, occupants is willing to sacrifice for the sake of their shared values, namely the sense of community for the sake of the communal space)[18].

        Humans usually participate in social activities according to their sense of place (Canter, 1977 in Hashem, 2013). Sense of

        Humans usually participate in social activities according to their sense of place (Canter, 1977 in Hashem, 2013). Sense of

        Fig. 2. Different Scales of Sense of Place (Source: Shamai (1991) in Hashem (2013)

        place summarizes complex relationships, associations, and interactions (dialectics) between humans and their subjective experiences (memories, traditions, history, culture, and society) and their external environment influences. This means that the sense of place is not determined but created from the interaction between humans and their places.

        According to Steele (1981) in Hashem (2013), the formation of sense of place is determined by two factors. The first factor is cognitive factor and human perception of their physical environment. The second factor is determined by the physical characteristics of the environment. Cognitive factor includes the meaning that people perceive from a place. Everyone has different experiences, motivations, intellectual backgrounds that can form a different sense of place[19]. Likewise, the different physical characteristics of the environment will give a different sense of place. Place corresponds to the cognitive, behavioral, and emotional dimensions of the sense of place. Identity, fun, mysterious, pleasant, wonderful, security, vitality and memory also have certain effects on how people communicate with places.

        According to Low & Altman (1992) a symbolic relationship with a place formed by giving emotional meaning to a certain place is called place attachment[20]. The level of the place attachment depends on an individual's emotional attachment to the place. The higher the individual interests to a place, the more the individual attaches to the place and the more the individual care about the place[21]. Several factors that influence the creation of place attachments are

        1. Physical Factor

          Physical and social factors play the same roles in the creation of place attachment. Physical factor plays direct roles in the creation of place attachment, while social factor gives indirect roles in the creation of place attachment.

        2. Social Factor

          A positive relationship between physical place and inter- individual social communication facilitates the meaning of a place. Place attachment develops with those interacting positively and the strength of social compatibility directly relates to the intensity of social relationships.

        3. Cultural Factor

          Cultural factors play important roles in the preference of place where groups, families and members of society interact with the same culture in the place attachment

        4. Personal Factor

          Place attachment differs from person to person, depending on personal characteristic factors. Individualism is an important factor in influencing the social orientation of individuals in developing intimate social communication. Place reflects identity and differences in groups determined by gender, class, race, ethnicity, and culture.

        5. Memory and Experience Factors

          Place attachment occurs when people experience strong memories and experiences over a long period of time at a place and become a large repository of the meaning of the place. Places need to be more than just places, but capable of recalling special memories, experiences, and adventures[22]. Even, the relationship between people and place is a self- contained process based on their emotional communication with place[23].

        6. Place Satisfaction Factor

          An individual's satisfaction with place depends on his/her perception of the place in terms of physical, social, emotional qualities. The level of place attachment depends on the extent to which a place can fulfill the needs and expectations of the users. Satisfaction factor with place includes satisfaction with facilities, adaptability, performance and building sustainability arrangements, management, social communication, and the economic value of a place.

        7. Interaction and Activity Features Factor

          One of the important factors that play important roles in forming place attachment is human interaction and the form of activities occurring at the place. The existence of activities such as festivals, celebrations, and other cultural events are some social activities that can foster place attachments

        8. Time Factor

        The long-time factor at a place will increase place attachment. Time can develop place attachment and prolonged residency to a place will determine the level of attachment to the place

    2. Methodology

    To explore the roles of sense of place in the use of communal space at Rusunami Benhil II, this study uses grounded theory study method. Information is mainly collected by interviewing

    occupants of the Owned Low-Cost Flats Benhil II, both as owners and renters by using recording tools. The categorization of respondents between occupants as owners and occupants as renters is intended to know the difference in their sense of place from the use of communal space at RUSUNAMI Bendungan Hilir II. Interviews were conducted in an unstructured manner and informal in nature. Questions are tiered with 2 to 3 questions. Answers to the first question will be the material for the second one, and so on. Ladder interview used is a combination of middle-out and bottom-up approaches. In the bottom-up approach, the first question is where the social interaction occurs, then what social interaction activities occur to the place, and why these activities are important to do in the communal space. Whereas in the middle-out approach, the first question is what is (what social interaction is carried out), and where (where the social interaction is carried out), and then why (why the social interaction is important to the occupants), and then why they use the communal space at RUSUNAMI Bendungan Hilir II to get the answers.

    Occupants, both the owners and renters, of RUSUNAMI Bendungan Hilir II were interviewed by asking the occupants profiles (age, sex, occupation, education level, origin, length of stay at Rusunami Benhil II), social interaction places and social interaction activities at Rusunami Benhil II. The interview results were recorded using a tape recorder. Audio data from the recorder were then converted into text data in the form of interview transcripts.

    Data analysis is preceded with finding key words in the interview transcripts able to answer the study problems. Keywords with similar meanings are then grouped into the same category and this process is called open coding. After the data is categorized using open coding, then relationship between the category called axial coding and axial coding is tracked. Analysis used in axial coding includes distribution analysis, correspondence analysis, and cluster analysis. Distribution analysis in the form of spread and frequency of categories is visually displayed in the form of a bar chart. Correspondence analysis is conducted to reveal the correspondence (coincidence) between the categories, while cluster analysis is intended to reveal the correspondence results in the form of a dendrogram. Axial coding is intended to analyze the level of relationship occurring between the sense of the place of the occupants to the communal space at Rusunami Benhil II, whether it is included in the level of knowledge of being located in a place, belonging to a place, attachment to a place, identifying with a place, involving in a place, or sacrifice for a place. At this stage, whether the dialectics between the occupants' sense of place and their communal space occurs in the cognitive, behavioral or emotional dimensions are also analyzed. The results of the analysis already conducted at the open coding and axial coding stages are then synthesized in the form of hypothesis at the selective coding stage.

  3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

    Owned Low-Cost Flats Benhil II is located at Jl. Penjernihan 1, RW 8, Benhil Village, Tanah Abang Sub-district, Central Jakarta Municipality. This flat has 3 big blocks (Block A, Block B and Block C) and stands on an area extending to 4.5 hectares. Each block has 10 floors of which the ground floor is used for common and business spaces, while the floor thereon

    is entirely used for dwelling. The total flats units are 614 and each flats unit extends to 21 m2. Each flats unit consists of 1 open space that can be used for bedrooms and living room. In addition, it also has 1 bathroom/toilet, 1 kitchen and 1 drying room.

    Fig. 3. Rusunami Benhil II Location (Google Earth)

    Public and social facilities on the ground floor of the flats are in the form of common and business spaces. The common space on the ground floor is in the form of parking area, playground, medical post, secretariat of the Association of Flats Occupants, public toilets, lobby lift, PAUD (Early Childhood Education), and a hall usually used for celebration events, community meetings, and religious activities. Meanwhile, the business space on the ground floor is used for staple food stalls, salon, pharmacy, food stalls, and others. A communal space also exists on each typical floor at Block A, Block B and Block C. The communal spaces are provided for social interaction of the occupants (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

    Fig. 4. A Typical Plan of Owned Low-Cost Flats Bendungan Hilir II Showing the Position of a Communal Space (Source: Personal Documents)

    Respondents in this study were divided into two groups, namely the occupants owning the flats units and occupants renting the same. Total occupying owners of the Rusunami Benhil II are only 66 (10%), the remaining 548 units (90%) are occupied by the renters. Total occupying owners are spread at Block A, Block B and Block C. namely 33 units at Block A, 26 units at Block B and 7 units at Block C. Meanwhile, the occupying tenants are spread at Block A, Block B and Block C, namely 229 units at Block A, 236 units at Block B and 108 units at Block C. The spread of respondents whose status is owner and renter at Rusunami Benhil II is described as follows:

    Fig. 5. Distribution of Respondents, Owners and Renters at Owned Low- Cost Flats Bendungan Hilir II Jakarta

    The characteristics of the owner respondents are dominated by women (62%) and housewives (39%), predominantly from Jakarta (43%) and Central Java (32%), the respondents are mostly adults of 36 – 45 years old (36%) and elderly people of 46 – 55 years old (19%). Generally, the educations of the respondents are Senior High School (54%) and all owner respondents have occupied their dwelling for more than 10 years. Flats units they currently occupy have been bought since the early construction of the Rusunami. Before they live at the Rusunami Benhil II, it was a slum area. 90% of the owner respondents live in the slum area. In consequence of fire there, the government rejuvenated the slum area by constructing Rusunami Benhil II.

    While the characteristics of tenant occupants are dominated by women (60%), and most of the respondents work formally as private employees (36%), housewives (20%) as well as private persons or traders (23%) with total average working hours of 8 to 10 hours per day. Most of them come from Central Java (28%), West Java including Bogor, Tangerang, and Bekasi (25%) and Jakarta (21%). The average age of the tenant

    respondents are teenagers to elderly people (94%) with almost equal proportion of age groups, and their education is dominantly from the graduates of Senior High School (71%). Comer respondents generally occupy Benhil II Flats for more than ten ears, while the tenant respondents generally live there for 5 years. The reasons why they moved or rented at Rusunami Benhil II in general are generally due to the close access from their place of work and its strategic location in the center of Jakarta.

    Profiles of the owner resondents and the comer or renter respondents will certainly affect their sense of place to the communal space at Rusunami Benhil II Jakarta as described in more details as follows:

    1. The Roles of Rusunami Benhil II for Occupants and Their Relationship with the Place for Social Interaction at Rusunami Benhil II.

      The occupants with ownership consider the roles of Rusunami Benhil II more as the role of belonging (58%) according to Maslow's theory (1943), namely a place for families to interact, devote all their attention, feelings, and affections. In Maslow's (1943) theory, the role of belonging is included in the third stage of the meaning of occupying, above the physiological role being the most basic role, and safety being the role at the second stage. Dwelling plays the roles as a place for social interaction with fellow occupants thereby corresponding to human nature that cannot live alone and always need other people to communicate and achieve their existence. Meanwhile, comer or tenant occupants consider the roles of Rusunami Benhil II only as a physical role namely fulfilling their basic or physiological needs (24%) and the need for protection (safety) from the outer world (18%). Dwelling is only considered to fulfill basic human needs such as sleeping, eating, and so on. Dwelling also provides protection from bad climate and infleunces from outside. Therefore, according to Maslow's theory (1943), the meaning of Rusunami Benhil II has not yet reached human existence as a social being according to the comer or intent occupants. They have not yet reached the third stage of human needs for a place to live, namely the role of belonging (Maslow, rn1943).

      This category emerging from the roles of Rusunami Benhil II for the occupants with ownership and rent occupants is illustrated in Table 1 below:

      TABLE I. MAIN CATEGORIES THAT ARISING FROM THE ROLE OF RUSUNAMI BENDUNGAN HILIR II

      No.

      Main Categories

      The theme of main categories

      Occupants as an owner

      Occupants as an leaseholder

      1.

      A place for arise family

      Belonging

      27%

      12%

      2.

      A place for shelter

      Safety

      20%

      18%

      3.

      A place as residential

      Belonging

      19%

      4.

      A place to go home

      Belonging

      12%

      11%

      5.

      A place to rest

      Physiological

      24%

      The relationship between the views of the occupants with ownership and the roles of Rusunami Benhil II and the place where the occupants make a social interaction is very weak (Pearson Value of 0.0845). This means that the place where the occupants make a social interaction in Rusunami Benhil II is not determined by their views of the flats. Different from the rent occupants, their views to the roles of Rusunami II strongly relate to the place where they make a social interaction at the flats (Pearson Value of 0.395).

      Figure 1. Results of the Analysis of the Relationship between the Place for Social Interaction at Rusunami Benhil II and the Views of Rent Occupants of the Roles of Rusunami Benhil II

      The results of the dendrogram and correspondence analysis conclude that rent occupants considering their dwelling as a place to return tend to use the communal space for social interaction. The rent occupants considering the roles of the flats as a place to raise a family tend to choose the ground floor as a place for social interaction. The rent occupants considering the roles of the flats as a place for shelter tend to choose a place for social interaction close to their dwelling, namely in the the corridor of Rusunami Benhil II. The occupants considering the roles of the flats as a role of belonging, namely a place for the families to interact, devote all their attention, feelings, and affection tend to choose a place for social interaction in the communal space on a typical floor and on the ground floor of Rusunami Benhil. II. Meanwhile, the rent occupants considering the roles of the flats as a safety function, namely a place to take shelter, tend to choose a place for social interaction close to their dwelling namely on the corridor or terrace of the flats.

    2. Places for Social Interaction at Rusunami Benhil II and Their Relationship with the Profiles of the Occupants.

      The two groups of occupants use the same social interaction space, namely in the communal space, the ground floor, and the terrace or corridor of Rusunami Benhil II, but the two groups of occupants consider the use of communal space on a typical floor differently. Occupants with ownership use the allocation communal space more on typical floor for social interaction on a larger scale for formal social interaction activities such as for social gathering and meetings with fellow occupants, while the rent occupants use communal space more to meet their personal needs due to the existence of the stalls in the communal space. The existence of shops in the communal space and on the ground floor of the flats attracts the occupants to interact socially while shopping there. Social interaction activities in the form of informal and shorter social interaction time, such as greetings with neighbors who happen to pass by in the corridor area or chat with neighbors, are more often carried out in the flats corridor considering the proximity to their dwellings. The sense of place occurring between the occupants and the places for social interaction is included in the category of belonging to place or even

      attachment to a place (Shamai, 1991). At the level, the occupants with ownership have a very strong emotional relationship with the place for social interaction and certain groups, particularly housewives (attachment to place).

      Rent occupants know the existence of places for social interaction (communal space, ground floor, and corridors or hallways) but do not have any emotional bond with the places (knowledge of being in a place). They go there only to fulfill their shopping needs in the communal space and on the ground floor. Their social interaction take place at a very low level by just greeting or chatting with the shop owners.

      TABLE 1. MAIN CATEGORIES OF PLACES FOR SOCIAL INTERACTION AT RUSUNAMI BENHIL II

      No.

      Main Categories

      The theme of main categories

      Occupants as an owner

      Occupants as a leaseholder

      1.

      Communal Space

      Belonging to a place/place attachment (Penghuni Pemilik) Knowledge of being located in a place (Penghuni Pendatang/Penyewa)

      29%

      31%

      2.

      Ground Floor

      Belonging to a place/place attachment (Penghuni Pemilik) Knowledge of being located in a place (Penghuni Pendatang/Penyewa)

      28%

      25%

      3.

      Terrace/Corridor

      Belonging to a place/place attachment (Penghuni Pemilik) Knowledge of being located in a place (Penghuni Pendatang/Penyewa)

      22%

      16%

      The places for social interaction at Rusunami Benhil II also relate to the profiles of the occupants. For the owner occupants, the places for social interaction at Rusunami Benhil II have a strong relationship with the education of the occupants (Pearson Values by 0.4814) and a strong relationship with the sex of the occupants (Pearson Values by 0.3567). The communal space tends to be used by housewives. They tend to have a lot of time at Rusunami Benhil II and more frequently use the communal space for social interaction, especially since there are stalls at the communal space. The terrace or corridor of the flats tend to be used by female occupants whose educational background of SD / SMP / S1 and working as private employees. They only have a very little time at the Rusunami because they work as private employees and use the corridor or terrace of the flats in front of their dwelling as a place for social interaction. The ground floor of the tends to be used by male and female occupants who open businesses on the ground floor of Rusunami Benhil II (private person) whose education background is senior high school. Meanwhile, the places for social interaction at the flats units tend to be used by the retirees spending more time in the dwelling.

      Figure 2. The Relationship Between Education and Sex of the Owners and Place for Social Interaction at Rusunami Benhil II

      For the rent Occupants, the place for social interaction at Rusunami Benhil II has a strong relationship with the education of the occupants (Pearson Values by 0.4831) and a strong relationship with the length of their stay at Rusunami Benhil II (Pearson Value by 0.6489). The results of correspondence analysis indicate that the communal space tends to be used by the occupants with higher education (Bachelor). Occupants with senior high school education tend to use the terrace or corridor for social interaction and some others do not have any special place for social interaction. Meanwhile, those with lower education (SMP) tend to use their flats units and the ground floor for social interaction, while those with senior high school education tend not to have any special place and some of them use the terrace or corridor of the flats for social interaction. Rent occupants who have been living in the flats for <5 years tend to only use their flats units for social interactions and the communal space when shopping at the food stalls. They do not have any special place for social interaction. Occupants who have been living in the flats for > 5 – 10 years tend to have the ground floor of Rusunami Benhil II for social interaction. Meanwhile, occupants who have lived for> 10 years tend to interact in the terrace area or the Rusunami Benhil II corridor.

      Figure 3. Relationship between Education and Length of Stay of Rent Occupants with Places for Social Interaction at Rusunami Benhil II

      Overall, the profile of the occupants with ownership is strong in influencing the places for social interaction at Rusunami Benhil II (average P value 0.2341), while the profile of the rent occupants is very weak in influencing the places for social interaction (average P value 0.1437).

      TABLE 2. THE CORRELATION BETWEEN RESIDENT PROFILES AND PLACES OF SOCIAL INTERACTION IN BENDUNGAN HILIR II OWNED SIMPLE FLATS.

      No.

      Correlation between categories

      The theme of correlation between categories

      correlation

      P

      Value

      owner

      correlation

      P Value

      leaseholder

      1.

      A place for social interaction

      Education

      Sense of place

      cognitive

      Strong enough

      0,4814

      Strong enough

      0,4831

      2.

      Gender

      Sense of place

      cognitive

      Strong enough

      0,3567

      nothing

      0,0337

      3.

      Occupation

      Sense of place

      cognitive

      Very weak

      0,0859

      Very weak

      0,0968

      4.

      Age

      Sense of place

      cognitive

      Very weak

      0,2096

      Very weak

      0,0713

      5.

      Place of origin

      Sense of place

      cognitive

      nothing

      0,0368

      nothing

      0,0340

      6

      Length of stay

      Sense of place

      cognitive

      nothing

      Strong

      0,6489

      avera

      ge of P Value

      0,2341

      0,1437

    3. The Role of Communal Spaces for Social Interaction and Their Relationship with Places for Social Interaction at Rusunami Benhil II.

      For the occupying owners, the existence of communal space plays an important role as a center of activities, namely a place where people gather and care each others. Communal space is a place where family and friends interrelate (community space as relationship with family and friends). Communal spaces are important to the occupying owners because they have limited flats occupational unit so that they need a larger space for larger events such as social gathering, celebration or wedding events, community meetings, tahlilan when someone passes away, thanksgiving, and children's playground. Communal space on a typical floor is also considered important because not everyone can rent a multipurpose room on the ground floor of the flats and the distance of the communal space is not that far from their dwelling if compared to the multipurpose room located on the ground floor. Physically, the communal space is considered comfortable because it is spacious and open and there are lots of light. Communal spaces tend to be used for formal or planned activities and big events so that the communal spaces will be busy if used by occupants at certain times if there is one of the activities mentioned above. If no formal activity or big event takes place in the communal space, the space will be empty as if it is not used. With the importance of the roles of the communal spaces, belonging to place, emotional bond between the places for social interaction and the occupants

      will be formed. However, this emotional bond only occurs to the occupying owners not the rent occupants.

      Different from the occupying owners, the rent occupants consider the roles of the communal space are important because there are stalls there thereby facilitating them to buy daily necessities without having to go to the ground floor. There is no emotional bond between the rent occupants and their communal space because they usually buy daily necessities at the stalls therein or when feel bored in their residential unit and want to find a room outside their dwellings. They also use the communal space when there are big events such as thanksgiving, family events, tahlilan and so on. They prefer to use the communal space when there are big events and do not use the hall on the ground floor because the use of the communal space is free of charge but must obtain permission from the local community management. 7% of the rent occupants even state that the existence of the communal space on the typical floor of the flats is not important to them. The roles of communal space for social interaction at Rusunami Benhil II have a strong relationship with the occupation of the occupants with ownership (Pearson Values by 0.4520), a strong relationship with the sex of the owners (Pearson Value by 0.3651), a very strong relationship with the education of the occupants with ownership (Pearson Value by 0.7781), and a strong relationship with the area of origin ofthe occupants with ownership (Pearson Value by 0.5044). The results of the dendrogram and correspondence analysis indicate that the profession of housewives with elementary school and senior high school educational backgrounds tends to consider the roles of the communal space are very important and make the communal space as a place to gather or interact with other occupants. They also consider the roles of the communal space are wider and more diverse for celebration or big events and social gathering, children playground and Quranic recitation or tahlilan. They generally fall into the group of adulthood (36-45 years) and early elderly people (46-55 years) and come from DKI Jakarta, Central Java, Banten and West Java being the largest population at Rusunami Benhil II. In this case, housewives seem to be the central figures considering the importance of the roles of the communal space as a place for social interaction at Rusunami Benhil II. They have a lot of free time for social interaction with various activities. Their education is not too high, and their age is productive to make activities. The same area of origin among them makes the social interaction in the communal space imperative for them if compared to other occupants.

      In this case, the roles of the communal space seem to be very important for the occupying owners. Not only being familiar with the existence of the communal space (knowledge of being located in a place), they also have an emotional bond to the communal space seen from the various activities they carry out in the communal space (belonging to place). Some of the occupying owners even have a strong emotional bond with the communal space, by providing seats in the corridor area and communal space and providing different identities in other communal spaces according to the characteristics of the users (attachment to a place). All occupants understand the purposes of the communal space for social interaction. They are very satisfied with the existence of the communal space on a typical floor because the use of a multipurpose room on the ground floor costs money. A strong bond between the

      occupying owners and the communal space on a typical floor can be seen from the active roles of the occupying owners in social interaction activities in the communal space and various social interaction activities in the communal space (Identifying with a place goals). Certain occupants, especially housewives, have invested their time for social interaction activities in the communal space (involving in a place).

      Figure 4. Results of Analysis of the Relationship between the Roles of Communal Spaces Social Interaction at Rusunami Benhil II and Occupation, Sex, Education and Area of Origin

      The roles of the communal space for social interaction at Rusunami Benhil II has a strong relationship with the occupation of the rent occupants (Pearson Value by 0.7123), a strong relationship with the sex of the owners (Pearson Value by 0.3307), a very strong relationship with the education of the occupying owners (Pearson Value by 0.8769), a very strong relationship with the area of origin of the occupying owners (Pearson Value by 0.8445), and a strong relationship with the length of stay in the flats (Pearson Value by 0.6609). The rent occupants working in the formal sector know the use of the communal space for big and formal events. The rent occupants working as private persons know the use of the communal space for places of worship such as Quranic recitation and tahlilan, as well as to interact with other occupants. Male occupants tend to know the role of the communal space as a place for social gathering or interaction, while female occupants know the role of the communal space as a place for children's playground and as a hall or public facility. All rent occupants with their educational backgrounds and areas of origin understand the use of the communal space as a place for social interaction, except for a few of those with Bachelor's education background (2%) coming from outside DKI Jakarta state that the existence of the communal space on a typical floor is not important for them. The shorter they stay at Rusunami Benhil II, the less important the existence of the communal space on the typical fllor of the flats.

      The occupants occupying Rusunami Benhil II for <5 years consider the communal space as not playing an important role to them. Those occyping Rusunami Benhil II for > 5 – 10 years consider the communal space as a place to sell, so that all their needs can be fulfilled from the stalls in the communal space. Whereas those who occupying Rusunami benhil II for

      > 10 years consider the roles of the communal space in a broader sense namely as a place for celebration or big events or social gathering, as a gathering place or social interaction, and as a hall or public facility.

      Figure 5. Results of Relationship Analysis between the Roles of Communal Spaces as Places for Social Interaction at Benhil II Rusunami and the Length of Stay at Benhil II Rusunami

      Generally, the rent occupants know the use of the communal space on the typical floor of the flats as a place for social interaction, but they never use it. They generally use the communal space if there is a need, namely, to shop at the stalls located in several communal spaces on the typical floor of Rusunami Benhil II. They consider that shopping at the stalls in the communal space is easier than shopping at the stalls on the ground floor of the flats. Communal space on the typical floor of the flats is used when you feel stuffy inside the dwelling. Some of the rent occupants consisting of housewives (3%) and workers (1%), even feel that the

      existence of the communal space on a typical floor was not important for them. The sense of place formed between the communal space and the rent occupants lies in the level of knowledge of being located in a place. The rent occupants understand the roles of the communal space as a place for social interaction, but they are not involved in using the communal space as a place for social interaction so that there is no emotional bond between the rent occupants and the communal space. They are not yet integrated with the communal space.

      The category emerging from the roles of the communal spaces as places for social interaction is described as follows:

      TABLE 3. MAIN CATEGORIES OF THE ROLES OF COMMUNAL SPACES AS PLACES FOR SOCIAL INTERACTION AT RUSUNAMI BENHIL II

      No.

      Main categories

      The theme of main categories

      Occupants as an owner

      Occupants as a leaseholder

      1.

      Play an important role

      Community space as a center of activities

      36%

      37%

      2.

      A place of celebration/social gathering

      Community space as a relationship with family and friends

      28%

      20%

      3.

      playground

      Community space as a relationship with family and friends

      10%

      9%

      4.

      A place to interact with residents

      Community space as a relationship with family and friends

      9%

      9%

      5.

      A place for recitation/tahlilan

      Community space as a center of activities

      8%

      6.

      Hall/Public facilities

      Community space as a center of activities

      9%

      Overall, the profile of the occupants with ownership property significantly influences the role of the communal space at Rusunami Benhil II (average P value 0.4656). Meanwhile, the rent occupants highly understand the roles of the communal spaces as places for social intraction (average P value 0.5748) but they do not play a role in the use of the communal spaces.

      TABLE 4. THE CORRELATION BETWEEN RESIDENT PROFILES AND THE ROLE OF COMMUNAL SPACES ON RUSUNAMI BENHIL II

      No.

      Correlation between categories

      The theme of correlation between categories

      correlation

      P

      Value

      owner

      correlation

      P Value

      leaseholder

      z

      The role of communal space as social interaction

      Education

      Belonging to a place personality

      Very strong

      0,7781

      Very strong

      0,8769

      2.

      Gender

      Belonging to a place personality

      Strong enough

      0,3651

      Strong enough

      0,3307

      3.

      Occupation

      Belonging to a place personality

      Strong enough

      0,4520

      strong

      0,7123

      4.

      Age

      Belonging to a place personality

      Very weak

      0,2287

      Very weak

      0,1096

      5.

      Place of origin

      Belonging to a place personality

      strong

      0,5044

      Very strong

      0,8445

      6

      Length of stay

      Belonging to a place time

      nothing

      Very strong

      0,6609

      Avera

      ge of P Value

      0,4656

      0,5748

    4. Constraining Factors of the Use of the Communal Spaces as Places for Social Interaction.

      The communal space on the typical floor of Rusunami Benhil II is not used routinely by the occupants. There are five main factors constraining the routine use of the communal space at Rusunami Benhil II by its occupants. The first factor is that most rent occupants do not want any social interaction in the communal space (27%). They tend to be anti-social or sociopath. Some of the rent occupants even consider that the communal space is used only by the unemployed. The second factor is that the communal space is used only for formal activities (23%) such as in case of certain events such as tahlilan, Quranic recitation, or thanksgiving. In everyday life, the communal space is empty in case of absence of formal events. The third factor is that the communal space has no activity or is empty (18%) as it is mostly used by the occupying owners or the existing occupants being only 10% of the total number of occupants. Meanwhile, the rent occupants being the new occupants with the largest total number of occupants in the flats do not like to gather with other occupants because they are busy with their work and need a break after returning from work. The fourth factor is the communal space is privatized by other occupants (14%). Some occupants use the communal space for personal interests such as raising birds, sleeping places, as a place to sell or open food stalls, store goods because they no longer fit in their dwelling, as a warehouse for storing unused furniture. The privatization of the public space makes other occupants feel reluctant to use the communal space. The fifth factor is that the communal space is physically uncomfortable to use for chatting due to lack of privacy as many people pass by (7%). In addition, physically the place is too visible, and the location is difficult to reach, so it makes the feel reluctant to come there to socialize.

      Another supporting factor constraining the use of the communal space as social interaction is the absence of facilities therein in the form of food stalls or seats. The existence of food stalls on a typical floor can overcome their difficulty to buy daily necessities when they are in the flats and can intensify the occupants to meet and greet each others when they shop at the food stalls in the communal space. Legally, the existence of food stalls in the communal space is not allowed, however it can intensify social interaction among the occupants of the flats. The seats in the communal space also become the constraining factor of the use of the communal space as a place for social interaction. The existence of facilities in the form of seats in the communal space further encourages the occupants' desire to chat or gather there.

      The occupants 'dissatisfaction with the quality of the communal space (place satisfaction) emotionally and physically reduces the occupants' bond to the communal space (place attachment). This corresponds to the opinion of Low and Altman (1992).

      For the rent occupants, the absence of activity in the communal space is the main reason why they do not use the communal space (23%). The absence of activities in the communal space causes the erasure of the place attachment in the communal space. Other factors are most new rent occupants do not want social interaction in flats (20%), the privatization of public spaces (communal spaces) into private

      spaces by other occupants (10%), and the communal space is only used for formal activities ( 6%) contributing to the constraining factors of the use of the communal space for social interaction. What makes it interesting from the viewpoints of the rent occupants is incomplete facilities in the communal space, such as the existence of stalls and seats (6%). Food stalls in a communal space is important for the rent occupants for being their supporting activity for social interaction in the communal space, even though they are just greeting and chatting with the stall owners.

      The main categories emerging from the constraining factors of the use of the communal spaces as places for social interaction are described as follows:

      TABLE 5. MAIN CATEGORIES THAT ARISING FROM INHIBITING FACTORS FOR COMMUNAL SPACE TO BE USED AS A PLACE FOR SOCIAL INTERACTION IN RUSUNAMI BENHIL II

      No.

      Main categories

      The theme of main categories

      Owned

      Lease

      1.

      No activity or quite

      Interaction and activity features

      18%

      23%

      2.

      Most leaseholder do not want social interaction

      Sociopath

      27%

      20%

      3.

      Privatized by other residents

      Territory

      14%

      10%

      4.

      Used only for formal activities

      Interaction and activity features

      23%

      6%

      5.

      Not comfortable because a lot of people passing by

      Place satisfaction

      7%

      6.

      There are no facilities (warung or seating) in the communal space

      Interaction and activity features

      6%

      7.

      permission to use is difficult

      Place satisfaction

      6%

  4. CONCLUSION

The use of the communal space on the typical floor of Rusunami Benhil II is influenced by the occupants' sense of place to the communal space. Several aspects affect the occupants' sense of place to he communal space at Rusunami Benhil II, namely:

    1. The occupying owners have formed an emotional bond with the communal space (attachment to place). They are not only familiar with the existence of the communal space (belonging to place), but also understand the purpose of providing communal space (identifying with a place goals) and play active roles in the use of communal spaces as places for social interaction (involving in a place). Meanwhile, the rent occupants recognize the existence of the communal spaces as places for social interaction but do not have any emotional bond with the communal spaces (knowledge of being located in a place) because they do not play any active role in using the communal spaces as places for social interaction. The difference in the sense of place level between the occupying owners and the rent occupants at Rusunami Benhil II affects the emotional relationship between the occupants and the communal spaces (place attachment). The higher the occupant's interests in the communal spaces, the more attaching the occupants to the communal spaces and the more concerned the occupants to the communal spaces. Likewise, the smaller the occupant's emotional relationship to

the communal space, the smaller the roles of the communal spaces as places for social interaction.

Figure 6. Differences in Sense of Place Levels between the Occupying Owners and the Rent Occupants

The occupying owners coming from are used to living with a high sense of community. The culture of social interaction is the norm they brought to Rusunami Benhil II. The existence of the communal spaces at Rusunami Benhil II is certainly intended to accommodate the needs for social interaction in the flats. The existence of the communal spaces is very important for their life. Different from the rent occupants, they come from the Rusunami Benhil II area. The rent occupants do not each others because they come from different regions and have different socio-economic backgrounds. The sense of community between the rent occupants and the occupying owners is poor. 7% of the rent occupants state that the communal spaces at Rusunami Benhil II are not important. 20% of the rent occupants do not want social interaction in the flats. Most of the rent occupants do not want the communal space (27%). They tend to be antisocial (sociopath). They consider the use of the communal spaces only for the unemployed. Different cultures in case of sense of community between the occupying owners and the rent occupants affect the occupants' sense of place regarding the use of the communal spaces as places for social interaction.

  1. personal factor

    The rent occupants consider the communal spaces as places for social interaction, but they do not want to be involved in the communal spaces. Whereas the occupying owners consider that the roles of the communal spaces as places for social interaction at Rusunami Benhil II relate to the characteristics of the occupants. Social interaction in the communal spaces has a strong relationship with the occupation of the occupying owners (Pearson Value by 0.4520), a strong relationship with the sex of the occupying owners (Pearson Value by 0.361), a very strong relationship with the occupying owners education (Pearson Value by 0.7781), and a strong relationship with the area of origin of the occupying owners (Pearson Value by 0.5044). There is a segregation of the places for social interaction at Rusunami Benhil II based on the characteristics of the occupants. Different educational backgrounds and sexes will form a different sense of place for the use of the communal spaces. The communal spaces on a typical floor tend to be used by housewives and those with higher education (undergraduate). Meanwhile, other female occupants with basic to undergraduate educations tend to use the Rusunami corridors. The flats terraces or corridors tend to be used by female occupants with elementary, junior high school and undergraduate educational backgrounds. They also work as private employees with limited time for social interaction, so they tend to choose corridors or hallways as places for social interaction because they are close to the dwelling. The ground floor of the flats tends to be used by occupying owners who

    open a business (private person) on the ground floor of Rusunami Benhil II with senior high school education background. Meanwhile, the retiree occupants tend to make a social interaction only in their dwelling.

  2. Cognitive factor (occupants view of the roles of Rusunami Benhil II)

The occupants consider that there is a strong relationship (Pearson Value by 0.395) between the Roles of Rusunami Benhil II and the use of the communal spaces. In general, the occupying owners consider the roles of Rusunami Benhil II as a belonging role according to Maslow's territory (1943). They tend to use the communal spaces on the typical floor and ground floor of Rusunami Benhil II as places for social interaction. This is following the nature of humans who cannot live alone and always need other people to communicate and achieve their existence. For them, dwelling does not only have physiological roles, namely, to fulfill necessities and safety, namely being protected from the adverse effects of the climate from outside. Meanwhile, the occupying owners tend to consider the roles of Rusunami Benhil II only as physiological and safety factors according to Maslow's theory (1943). They understand the roles of the communal spaces as places for social interaction, but they do not want to use the same. Some of the rent occupants (4%) even think that the existence of the communal spaces is not important for them. The sense of place formed between the communal spaces and the rent occupants lies at the level of knowledge of being located in a place. The rent occupants consider the roles of the communal spaces as places for social interaction, but they are not involved in using the same as places for social interaction. The emotional bond between the rent occupants and the communal spaces is not formed. They are not yet integrated with the communal spaces. Therefore, according to Maslow's hierarchy (1943) the higher the roles of Rusunami Benhil II, the more important the communal spaces as places for social interaction, both on the typical floor and on the ground floor of Rusunami. Likewise, on the contrary, according to Maslow's hierarchy (1943), the lower the roles of Rusunami Benhil II, the less important the existence of the communal space as places for social interaction for the occupants.

Figure 7. The Relationship between the Views of the Occupants of Rusunami Benhil II according to Maslow's Theory (1943) and the Roles of Communal Spaces as Places for Social Interaction

Meanwhile, the external environment influencing the occupants' sense of place in the use of communal spacea at Rusunami Benhil II are:

  1. physical factor

    Physically, communal spaces are considered comfortable because they are comfortable and spacious, open and lots of light. The large size of the space is identical to the use of communal space for big events and is formal in nature, so that in everyday life the communal space looks empty. There are several physical factors constraining the use of the communal spaces as places for social interaction, namely:

    • The location is difficult to reach, so the occupants will not come to the communal space to socialize. Reach distance measured based on the distance between the flats unit and the communal space can be close, average, or far. Occupants working in the formal sector eventually prefer to use the flats corridors for social interaction because it is close to their home.

    • Lack of privacy and physically uncomfortable to use for chatting because many people pass by around the communal spaces.

    • The facilities in the communal spaces are incomplete, so that they are not attractive as places for social interaction. Te existence of food stalls and seats in the communal spaces further improve friendship and social contact among the occupants, even though the use of the food stalls in the communal spaces is illegal under regulation. Food stalls in the communal spaces are supporting activity for occupants to make a social interaction in the communal rooms, even though they are only greeting and chatting with the shop owners.

    Physical factors and social factors have the same roles in the creation of place attachments. Physical factors have a direct role in the creation of place attachments, while social factors have an indirect role in the creation of place attachments.

  2. social factor

    The community bonding formed among the occupying owners is very strong (sense of community) because they have many similarities, namely they already know each others when they used to living in a slum settlement in the same location as Rusunami Benhil II today. They are the primary group who know each other personally. Their common life is a gemeinschaft of place that lived jointly due to the closeness of dwelling and a gemeinschaft of mind because they have the same soul and mind because they have been living together for a long time. The shared values of the occupants indicate that they have the same needs, priorities and goals thereby making easier to integrate with each other and create a cohesive society (community bonding).

    Meanwhile, the rent occupants have a very weak community bonding (weak sense of community) because they came from different areas, have very diverse characteristics, and varying length of stay at Rusunami Benhil II because their length of stay at the flats is less than 5 years. They are a gesellschaft group, namely a secondary group that has tenuous relationships, limited and infrequent social contacts to communication needs, both with fellow rent occupants and the occupying owners.

    The mixed two occupant groups with different characteristics at Rusunami Benhil II affect the use of the communal spaces at the Rusunami. The strong community bonding among the occupying owners makes them difficult to make a social interaction with the rent occupants, especially those staying only for less than 5 years. Occupying owners who feel that they are the existing people at Rusunami Bendingan Hilir II want the rent occupants to be more active in knowing the existing people in the flats. Meanwhile, the rent occupants feel that they do not need any social interaction with other occupants because they are tired of work and use their spare time to take a rest in their dwellings. In the end, a dichotomy between the occupying owners and the rent occupants becomes a factor affecting the use of the communal spaces as places for social interaction at Rusunami Benhil II.

  3. place satisfaction factor

    The occupants 'dissatisfaction with the quality of the communal spaces (place satisfaction) emotionally and physically reduces the occupants' bond to the communal spaces (place attachment). It corresponds to the opinion of Low and Altman (1992). The occupying owners feel more dissastified with Rusunami Benhil II. They compare their past life in the slum area with that at Rusunami Benhil II. Their life in the slum areas was full of high sense of community among the occupants, while the sense of community among the occupants is difficult especially because of the insufficient facilities in the communal space, long adaptability to the rent occupants and difficult social communication with the rent occupants. The level of place attachment occurring between the occupants and their communal spaces highly depends on the extent to which the communal spaces can fulfill the needs and expectations of its users.

  4. interaction and activity features factor

    One of the important factors that play an important role in forming a place attachment is the intensity of human interactions and the form of activities that occur at that place. The activities such as festivals, celebrations and other cultural events are some social activities that can foster place attachments. The use of communal space is used only for certain formal and large-scale activities such as social gathering, thanksgiving, tahlilan, community meetings, weddings, and so on. When there is no such event, the communal space is quiet or there are no activities, so the occupants are reluctant to use it for social interaction. The existence of large-scale formal activities in the communal space plays an important role in forming the occupants' sense of place for the communal space. While informal social interaction and shorter social interaction times such as greeting and chatting more frequently take place on the flats corridors when they meet other neighbors there and the distance is also close to their dwelling. The occupying owners consider that the communal space is a place where family and friends are connected (community space as relationship with family and friends). Communal spaces are important to the occupying owners because they have limited flats unit thereby requiring a larger space for larger events such as social gathering, celebration or wedding events, community meetings, tahlilan and children's playground. The existence of communal space on a typical floor is also considered important because not everyone can rent a multipurpose room on the ground floor of the flats and the distance of the

    communal space is not far from their dwelling if compared to the multipurpose room located on the ground floor.

  5. Time factor

    Emotional bond between the occupying owners and their communal space is very strong because they have occupied Rusunami Benhil II for more than 10 years. Meanwhile, tenants who live in a short period of time of <5 years tend to make social interactions in their units, in the communal space when shopping at the food stalls, as they meet people do not have any special place for social interaction. Occupants already living there for> 5 – 10 years tend to make social interactions on the ground floor of Rusunami Benhil II because there are many food stalls there. Meanwhile, occupants already living there for> 10 years tend to interact on the Rusunami Benhil II corridors. Overall, the rent occupants are not interested in any social interaction in the communal spaces of Rusunami Benhil II. Even among them, they think that they do not need the communal spaces, especially for those who have lived there for <5 years. It seems that the longer the occupants stay at Rusunami Benhil II, the stronger their emotional bond with other occupants (community bonding) and their emotional bonds with the communal space. The occupants' sense of place to their communal space strongly relates to the length of their stay at Rusunami Benhil II (P value of 0.6489). The shorter the time they stay at Rusunami Benhil II, the less important the existence of the communal spaces for their lives, especially for the rent occupants already staying at Rusunami Benhil II for less than

    5 years. The rent occupants already staying at Rusunami Benhil II for between 5 – 10 years generally use the communal spaces that have food stalls there. Social interactions occur in a short time, just chatting with the shop owners or other buyers. Meanwhile, the occupants already staying Rusunami Benhil II for more than 10 years consider the roles of space in a broader sense, namely as a place for celebration or big events or social gathering, as a gathering place for the occupants, and as a hall or public facility.

  6. Territory factor

    The fourth factor is that the communal space is privatized by other occupants (14%). Some occupants use the communal space for personal purposes such as raising birds, sleeping places, as a place to sleep. As a place to sell open food stalls, store goods because they no longer fit in their dwelling, used as a warehouse for storing unused furniture. The privatization of public space in the communal space made other occupants feel reluctan to use the same. The privatization of the communal spaces at Rusunami Benhil II reduces the occupants sense of place to use communal space as places for social interaction.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENT

    This study was supported by Mercu Buana University. We are grateful to our colleagues from University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, who provided insights and expertise that were very helpful to the study, even though they may not agree with all interpretations hereof.

    REFERENCES

    1. B. Bakhtyar, A. Zaharim, K. Sopian, S. J. W. t. o. e. Moghimi, and development, "Housing for poor people: a review on low-cost housing process in Malaysia," vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 126-136, 2013.

    2. P. D. Msindo, I. Gutsa, N. Z. J. J. o. S. Choguya, and S. Planning, "Squatter settlements an urban menace in Zimbabwe? Examining factors behind the continued resurfacing of squatter settlements in Epworth suburb, Harare," vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 171-182, 2013.

    3. B. Christian and R. Arianto, "The Study of Attachment between Distribution Pattern of Land Price and Apartments Price (Case Study: Vertical Housing Development in Administration City of South Jakarta)," in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2018, vol. 152, no. 1, p. 012004: IOP Publishing.

    4. S. J. J. L. Aminah, "Konflik dan Kontestasi Penataan Ruang Kota Surabaya," vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 59-79, 2015.

    5. F. Lianto, L. S. Arifin, Y. B. J. I. J. o. A. S. Dwisusanto, Engineering, and I. Technology, "Role of Corridor in Territorial Meaning Formation in Owned Low-Cost Apartments(Rusunami) Bidara Cina, Jakarta, Indonesia," vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 399-405, 2017.

    6. B. N. Silva, M. Khan, K. J. S. C. Han, and Society, "Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities," vol. 38, pp. 697- 713, 2018.

    7. G. O. I. J. A. I. R. D. Cahyandari and T. I. A. C. ENVIRONMENT, "INTRODUCING VERTICAL HOUSING TO THE RURAL BEHAVIOUR IN INDONESIA," p. 360, 2016.

    8. R. M. J. V. Hasbi, "Peran Ruang Publik dan Privat Dalam Memproduksi dan Mengkonsumsi Ruang Sosial Studi Kasus Pulau Burgazada, Istanbul, Turki," vol. 5, no. 1, p. 265324, 2015.

    9. L. Van Malderen, T. Mets, and E. J. A. r. r. Gorus, "Interventions to enhance the Quality of Life of older people in residential long-term care: a systematic review," vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 141-150, 2013.

    10. M. Anggiani and R. F. J. S. Jamila, "Study Of Satisfaction: Open Space Housing In The South Tangerang Region," vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 145-152, 2019.

    11. A. H. Maslow, A theory of human motivation. Simon and Schuster, 2013.

    12. A. J. Hale, D. N. Ricotta, J. Freed, C. C. Smith, G. C. J. T. Huang, and l. i. medicine, "Adapting Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a framework for resident wellness," vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 109-118, 2019.

    13. X. R. Li, C. Lai, R. Harrill, S. Kline, and L. J. T. m. Wang, "When east meets west: An exploratory study on Chinese outbound tourists travel expectations," vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 741-749, 2011.

    14. C. J. H. C. I. i. U. C. Norberg-Schulz, "Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (1979)," vol. 8, p. 31, 2019.

    15. H. Hashem, Y. S. Abbas, H. A. Akbar, B. J. M. J. o. S. Nazgol, and Space, "Comparison the concepts of sense of place and attachment to place in Architectural Studies," vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 107-117, 2013.

    16. C. M. Raymond, M. Kyttä, and R. J. F. i. p. Stedman, "Sense of place, fast and slow: The potential contributions of affordance theory to sense of place," vol. 8, p. 1674, 2017.

    17. H. N. Rafsanjani, C. R. Ahn, K. M. J. B. Eskridge, and environment, "Understanding the recurring patterns of occupants' energy-use behaviors at entry and departure events in office buildings," vol. 136, pp. 77-87, 2018.

    18. C. E. Anton and C. J. J. o. E. P. Lawrence, "Home is where the heart is: The effect of place of residence on place attachment and community participation," vol. 40, pp. 451-461, 2014.

    19. D. D. Perkins, P. Florin, R. C. Rich, A. Wandersman, and D. M. J. A.

      j. o. c. p. Chavis, "Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context," vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 83-115, 1990.

    20. C. E. Anton and C. J. J. o. E. P. Lawrence, "The relationship between place attachment, the theory of planned behaviour and residents response to place change," vol. 47, pp. 145-154, 2016.

    21. L. T. Graham, S. D. Gosling, and C. K. J. P. o. P. S. Travis, "The psychology of home environments: A call for research on residential space," vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 346-356, 2015.

    22. M. Parsaee, M. Parva, and B. J. H. j. Karimi, "Space and place concepts analysis based on semiology approach in residential architecture: The case study of traditional city of Bushehr, Iran," vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 368-383, 2015.

    23. Y.-C. Huang, K.-Y. Wu, Y.-T. J. P. Liu, and u. computing, "Future home design: an emotional communication channel approach to smart space," vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1281-1293, 2013.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *