Main Article Content
Successful traditional settlements refer to a settlement environment that spontaneously built by residents who consider their existing site integrates with excellent social sustainability indicators. This study aims to determine the factors of physical character for social sustainability of a traditional settlement. Among the objectives is to identify the types of physical characteristics deemed as significant in daily social interaction among the locals. A quantitative method was employed using questionnaire survey distributed to 400 residents in two historic settlements in Kuala Terengganu. Such factors categorised into six latent factors, which are the preservation of local identity, safety, provision of infrastructure, natural qualities, accessibility, and availability of public spaces.
Copyright (c) 2020 Najiha Jaffar, Nor Zalina Harun, Mazlina Mansor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Ali, M. (2018). Interpreting the Meaning of Housing Quality towards Creating Better Residential Environment. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 3(8), 141-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v3i8.1414
Barron, L., & Gauntlett, E. (2002). Stage 1 report-model of social sustainability. Housing and Sustainable Communities’ Indicators Project. Perth, Murdoch University, Western Australia.
Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2006, April). What is ‘social sustainability’, and how do our existing urban forms perform in nurturing it. In Sustainable Communities and Green Futures’ Conference, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, London.
Chan, E., & Lee, G. K. (2008). Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban renewal projects. Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 243-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9089-3
Colantonio, A. (2008). Traditional and emerging prospects in social sustainability: 2008/02.
Dave, S. (2011). Neighbourhood density and social sustainability in cities of developing countries. Sustainable Development, 19(3), 189-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.433
Davidson, M. (2009). Social sustainability: a potential for politics?. Local Environment, 14(7), 607-619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830903089291
Eizenberg, E., & Jabareen, Y. (2017). Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework. Sustainability, 9(1), 68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010068
Ginting, N., & Rahman, N. V. (2016). Maimoon Palace Heritage District in Medan, Indonesia: What we preserve and why we preserve?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 332-341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.177
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2013). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition. Pearson Higher Ed.
Hajirasouli, A., & Kumarasuriyar, A. (2016). The social dimension of sustainability: Towards some definitions and analysis. Journal of Social Science for Policy Implications, 4(2), 23-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15640/jsspi.v4n2a3
Hamdan, H., Khalid, N. S., & Baba, N. F. (2017). People in City: The relation of urban park and the quality of life. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 2(6), 311-318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v2i6.996
Ibrahim, F. I., Omar, D., & Mohamad, N. H. N. (2019). Human Interaction In Urban Open Spaces. EnvironmentBehaviour Proceedings Journal, 4(10), 188-193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v4i10.1590
Michael, Y. M. A. K., & PEACOCK, C. J. (2011). Social Sustainability: A Comparison of Case Studies in UK, USA and Australia.
Okunola, O. O., Adebayo, A. K., & Amole, D. (2018). Sense of Community And Demographic Factors As Predictors Of Neighbourhood Satisfaction. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 3(8), 149-156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v3i8.1402
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Pasaogullari, N., & Doratli, N. (2004). Measuring accessibility and utilization of public spaces in Famagusta. Cities, 21(3), 225-232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2004.03.003
Perry, R. H., Charlotte, B., Isabella, M., & Bob, C. (2004). SPSS explained.
Pitarch-Garrido, M. D. (2018). Social sustainability in metropolitan areas: Accessibility and equity in the case of the metropolitan area of Valencia (Spain). Sustainability, 10(2), 371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020371
Primož, M. (2017). Leading sustainable neighbourhoods in Europe: Exploring the key principles and processes. Urbani izziv, (28 (1)), 107-121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2017-28-01-003
Rad, V. B., & Ngah, I. (2013). The Role of Public Spaces in Promoting Social Interactions. International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, 3(1), 184-188.
Surbhi, S. (2016). Difference between probability and non-probability sampling. Retrieved from Key Differences website: http://keydifferences. com/differencs-between-probability-and-non-probabilitysampling. html# KeyDifferences.
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273-1296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Talmizi, N. M., Zainol, H., Teriman, S., & Ali, N. E. (2017). Improving Community Behaviour Towards Sustainable Mobility for Liveable Neighbourhoods. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 2(6), 45-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v2i6.994
Wang, J., Pan, Y., & Hadjri, K. (2018). Creative Housing Design: Promoting sustainable living in cohousing community in the UK. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 3(8), 129-140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v3i8.1358
Woodcraft, S., Hackett, T., & Caistor-Arendar, L. (2011). Design for social sustainability: A framework for creating thriving new communities. Future Communities.
Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology, 9(2), 79-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079