1. Mapping Memories of the Home Environment Presented by: Paul Nakashima UCI Undergraduate Research Symposium May 14, 2005

2. Why Research Memories of the Home?

3. Much research on other aspects of housing Doyle (1992): “much has been written, for example, about the economics of housing, the construction and design of housing… the marketing of housing. But little has been written about the meaning of housing”.

4. Why Research Memories of the Home? (Cont.) Potential to use information to build homes that are more receptive to inhabitants’ cultural values

5. Why Research Memories of the Home? (Cont.) Much new housing being rapidly developed with little concern for people who will eventually inhabit this space

6. Why Research Memories of the Home? (Cont.) Lack of connection between designers and social scientists Designers (physical aspects) Social Scientists (social, cultural aspects)

7. Why Research Memories of the Home? (Cont.) Home memories help bridge gap between physical, non-physical features: Memories we have of our homes often include both of these aspects  i.e. remembering physical dimensions of the home and the objects kept within this space, as well as those who lived there

8. Why Research Memories of the Home? (Cont.) Once we understand aspects of home that people value, we can begin to translate into more meaningful design

9. Data Set Participants: UCI students (both current and past) Open-ended essay to express memories of home most significant to participants Limited prompting Participants free to express feelings Fairly open guidelines, general structuring (minimum of 2-3 pages of text, submit sketches, drawings, pictures)

10. Data Set (Cont.) 5 general guidelines: Write about the house you remember most vividly, and/or have strongest emotional relation to What was your age when you were in the house? Where was this house located? What else comes to mind when you think of this house? Who or what are they? What about the house is most prominent in your memory?

11. Data Set (Cont.) Composition of Data Set: Responses from students analyzed in detail  Students from Spring 2004  Students from Fall 2001

12. Data Set (Cont.) Responses selected based on: Clarity of descriptions Detailed expression Intriguing medium of expression

13. Analysis General categories used to classify the kinds of memories people expressed: Physical Sensorial Social Emotional Socio-physical/Cultural

14. Analysis (Cont.) Form of representation used by participants: Text Plans/drawings Collages and other expressions Etc.

19. Physical Aspects Features of physical environment that are most memorable Values given to particular spaces/areas How are these areas described Which features most prominent/most elaborately described

20. Sensorial Aspects Sensory experiences within home: Audio Visual Olfactory/Smell Tactile Other Is there recollection of views, outdoor environment, surroundings, etc.

21. Social Aspects People recollected Who? Social environment as influence of satisfaction with home Connection of social, physical (does it exist?)

22. Emotional Aspects Kinds of emotions expressed towards home Intensity of emotions Positive, negative, both Consideration from participant’s point of view Desire for similar living environment (or for something different) expressed

23. Socio-Physical/Cultural Aspects Are there feelings expressed that combine two or more of the other features i.e. socio-physical Are cultural values/expressions included Kinds of activities associated with home (cultural, religious, other)

24. Research Findings Both the physical and non-physical elements of the home valued Many sections of home were associated with positive emotions Conversely, some sections of home that were connected with negative emotions

25. Research Findings (Cont.) Some participants expressed a longing for their home Seen with those who could not visit home often Human qualities associated with some people’s homes

26. Research Findings (Cont.) In contrast, other participants wanted to separate themselves from their homes Sense of dread associated with coming back to their home See their home as inanimate “object” Dissatisfaction with this environment

27. Research Findings (Cont.) Satisfaction not limited to spatial aspects It is hard to separate memories of home into distinct categories i.e. many social and cultural memories are tied in with physical aspects of the home and the arrangement of objects within this space

28. Research Findings (Cont.) This a great exercise in understanding people’s needs prior to housing construction Can administer a similar free-form expression of memories of home to people who are going to live in a house to be built

29. Conclusion There is no one set design that can be applied to satisfy every person. However, we can see that: Good design should be linked with consideration of the future inhabitants While consideration of social and cultural aspects is important, they are not completely independent of design

30. Conclusion (Cont.) People involved in the construction/modification of their residence Remember home in greater detail

31. Conclusion (Cont.) Involvement of future residents in design process of new homes

32. Conclusions (Cont.) Disconnection with home: No real “living” in home Personalization of space limited

33. Conclusion (Cont.) Research is more than finding future resident’s preferences Obtain customized information about each person’s experiences/background

34. Conclusion (Cont.) Effective design of homes can be executed by: Taking future residents into consideration Getting future residents involved in design process, if possible  Can allow clients to express memories/feelings associated with their homes (in similar fashion) to begin to understand what they value

35. Conclusion (Cont.) Future Research Memories of home using different demographics Applying similar info towards design of future homes effectively Interviewing residents before/after design of homes (based on the memories of homes and what they value in this environment)  Attempt to see how effective the application of this information is

36. Acknowledgements Many thanks to my faculty mentor and advisor: Sanjoy Mazumdar, Ph.D & Valerie Jenness, Ph.D Social Ecology Honors Research Seminar Section Leader The many respondents in the “My Home as I Remember it” Project Whose responses were compiled and analyzed for this project My fellow students in the Social Ecology Honors Research Seminar For their constructive criticism and support throughout the year UROP (UCI Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program) For funding this project

37. For more information please contact: Paul Nakashima pnakashi@uci.edu University of California, Irvine