Name: Ann Uriel Acula
Course & Instructor: AD 3231 - Br. Bela Lanyi SVD
RESEARCH INTEREST
PRIVACY VS CONNECTIVITY: HOW FLOOR PLANS SHAPE
HUMAN BEHAVIOR AT HOME
When we consider modern architecture, we tend to concentrate on a
building's appearance. However, the design of a space extends beyond mere aesthetics,
as it has a significant impact on our emotions and behavior. Whether it's the
arrangement of a living room, the openness of an office, or the atmosphere of a public
space, the way these areas are designed can greatly shape our thoughts, interactions,
and even our mood. Research indicates that architectural features like lighting, color,
acoustics, spatial layout, and texture can trigger distinct psychological and physiological
reactions. These elements work in conjunction with personal preferences, cultural
background, and societal norms, positioning architecture as a powerful, dynamic tool for
shaping human experiences.
In recent years, open-plan layouts have gained popularity due to their ability to
foster social interaction, create a sense of spaciousness, and allow for flexible use of
space. However, they also raise concerns about noise, lack of personal space, and reduced
privacy,which are important for concentration, relaxation, and individual well- being.
Open layouts encourage connectivity, making them ideal for communal activities,
but they may not always support activities that require focus, such as studying or working
from home. Closed layouts, on the other hand, help define boundaries but may lead
to reduced interaction among family members. In modern home design, hybrid solutions
are emerging to balance privacy and connectivity. Sliding doors, partition walls, and
flexible spaces allow residents to adjust their environment based on their needs. As
lifestyles continue to evolve, architects and designers must consider how to integrate
both open and closed elements in home layouts, ensuring that homes are adaptable,
comfortable, and functional for diverse occupants.
RESEARCH THEME
Privacy vs. Connectivity: How Floor Plans Shape Human Behavior at Home looks at
how the design of homes affects how people feel and behave. Architecture isn’t just about
how a space looks; it also influences how we interact with our surroundings and with each
other. Open floor plans, which are common in modern homes, help people connect and create
a sense of space. They are great for socializing, but they also bring challenges like noise and
lack of privacy, making it harder for activities like working or relaxing.
On the other hand, homes with closed floor plans offer more privacy and quiet, which can be
helpful for focus, but they might reduce interaction between family members. As our
lifestyles change, many homes are now designed with a mix of both open and closed spaces.
Features like sliding doors or partitions allow people to adjust the space based on their needs
for privacy or socializing.
This research aims to understand how different floor plans affect people’s well-being and
social interactions, and how to design homes that balance privacy and connection. By
combining open and closed layouts, homes can be more comfortable, flexible, and functional
for everyone.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Statement of the Problem
The layout of a home’s floor plan plays a significant role in shaping the balance
between privacy and connectivity among its residents. As open and closed floor plans
become more prevalent in modern architecture, it is important to understand how these
designs influence human behavior, family dynamics, and the overall experience of living in
these spaces. This study seeks to explore how different floor plan designs affect social
interaction, personal privacy, noise management, and flexibility for various household
activities.
1. How do open floor plans affect how often and how well family members interact with
each other?
Sub-questions:
➢ Do people talk more with each other in homes with open spaces?
➢ How do families feel about the quality of their conversations in open-plan homes?
➢ Does being able to see and hear others in open spaces lead to more interaction?
➢ Are people more likely to have casual conversations in open-plan homes?
2. How do homes with closed or separate rooms affect people’s sense of privacy?
Sub-questions:
➢ Do people feel they have more privacy in homes with more separate rooms?
➢ How do walls or dividers help people feel more comfortable in their personal space?
➢ Are people better able to find alone time in homes with more closed-off rooms?
➢ Can people control their personal space better in homes with separate rooms?
3. How do different home layouts help people balance privacy and family time?
Sub-questions:
➢ How do people in open-plan homes find ways to have privacy?
➢ What features in home design help people balance family time with personal space?
4. How does a home’s floor plan affect noise levels and how people manage sound?
Sub-questions:
➢ Are noise levels higher in open-plan homes compared to homes with separate rooms?
➢ How do people cope with noise in homes with fewer walls and barriers?
5. How do families with children or elderly members adapt to open versus closed floor
plans?
Sub-questions:
➢ Do families with young children prefer open spaces for easier supervision?
➢ How do elderly family members feel about privacy and accessibility in different floor
plans?
SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND
Human perceptions of the space they live in, work, or spend time in are directly impacted
by the reflection of personal,social, and cultural identities on these places. It is convenient
that places remind us of the main features of our identity,"there is a complex interaction
between a person and a space. The person defines the space, the space defines the person; the
person gives meaning to the space, the space gives meaning to the person. In other words,
there is a complex and bilateral interaction between the person and the space in its cultural,
psychological, economic and physical dimensions" (Ayalp, 2012). The sense of psychological
identity about the architecture of space grows when we start to identify ourselves with places.
"The field of psychology and the social sciences of architecture, emphasizing the influence of
the physical environment on identity and self-perception" (Hauge, 2007). The psychological
identity sense and its interaction with interior architecture occurs in both larger domains such
as culture, religion, nation, city, gender, social roles or social class and in smaller domains
such as neighborhood, family, homes and rooms. Generally, we can say that humans have
always shown their dedication to their roots. It can be said that every civilization or ethnic
group offers a specific architectural identity in accordance with their cultures and traditions at
different times.
RATIONALE
In contemporary residential design, one of the most pressing challenges is achieving an
optimal balance between privacy and connectivity within a home. As living spaces
increasingly serve multiple functions—accommodating work, leisure, and social
interaction—floor plan configurations play a crucial role in shaping human behavior. A
well-designed layout can foster both individual well-being and healthy social engagement,
while a poorly designed one can lead to either excessive isolation or a lack of personal space,
negatively impacting the quality of life.
As I began working in design, I realized that many modern homes struggle to meet the needs
of today’s households. With the shift toward remote work and more flexible living
arrangements, the way we use our spaces has changed. But often, traditional design
approaches haven’t kept pace. Open plans sometimes leave us craving personal space, while
overly compartmentalized homes make us feel disconnected from one another. These
observations led me to ask: how can we create homes that nurture both our need for solitude
and our desire for meaningful social interaction?
This study is a direct response to that question. By exploring how different floor plans impact
human behavior, I aim to develop design principles that will help architects create homes that
are not only functional but also emotionally supportive. My goal is to contribute to a more
thoughtful, human-centered approach to residential design—one that considers the
importance of both privacy and connection in promoting well-being.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study is highly relevant to various sectors involved in shaping residential environments
and the behaviors of those who inhabit them. By investigating the influence of floor plan
design on human behavior, the research aims to offer key insights that can inform future
decisions in creating spaces that balance privacy and social interaction. By exploring the
influence of floor plans on human behavior, the findings of this study will provide valuable
insights for the following groups:
Researchers in Human Behavior and Architecture:
They can use the study's interdisciplinary approach to explore the relationship between space
design and human behavior, furthering academic knowledge and practical applications.
Architects and Interior Designers: They can apply the findings to create floor plans that
better balance privacy and connectivity.
Urban Planners and Developers: Insights can guide the design of residential communities
that foster healthy social interaction and personal well-being.
Policymakers and Housing Authorities: The research can inform housing policies that
improve living standards.
Residents and Homeowners: Ultimately, improved designs will enhance the quality of life
by addressing the diverse needs for solitude and social connection within homes.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This research will focus on analyzing various residential floor plan designs to identify
elements that promote or hinder privacy and connectivity. By examining how these spatial
configurations affect residents' behaviors, well-being, and social dynamics, the study seeks to
offer practical recommendations for enhancing residential designs. The findings aim to
inform the development of living spaces that support both personal privacy and community
engagement.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
While the study endeavors to provide comprehensive insights, several limitations must be
acknowledged:
➢ Geographical Constraints: The research will focus on residential complexes in
urban areas, which may not represent rural or suburban settings.
➢ Cultural Specificity: Findings may be influenced by the cultural context of the
selected regions, limiting generalizability to other cultural settings.
➢ Participant Diversity: The research will involve a specific demographic group,
which may not encompass the full spectrum of residential occupants.
➢ Temporal Factors: The study will be conducted over a limited timeframe, potentially
overlooking long-term behavioral changes.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
In qualitative research, defining key terms is essential for clarity and consistency. For a
study examining how residential floor plans influence privacy and connectivity, the following
definitions are pertinent:
Residential Floor Plans: Architectural layouts of living spaces, detailing the arrangement
and relationship of rooms and areas within a dwelling.
Privacy: The state of being free from observation or intrusion, encompassing physical,
social, and psychological dimensions.
Connectivity: The degree to which individuals within a space can interact and communicate,
fostering social relationships and community bonds.
Spatial Configuration: The arrangement and organization of spaces within a building,
influencing movement patterns and interactions among occupants.
Behavioral Patterns: Recurring actions or reactions of individuals within their environment,
influenced by spatial arrangements and design elements.
Social Dynamics: The patterns of interaction and relationships among individuals within a
community or group.
Architectural Design: The process of planning and creating buildings and structures,
considering functionality, aesthetics, and user experience.
Social Interaction – Refers to the communication and engagement between family members
or occupants of a space.
Well-Being – The overall quality of life experienced by individuals, including their mental
and physical health.
Noise Management: Techniques and design elements used to control sound within a space,
particularly relevant in open floor plans where sound travels more freely.
Household Dynamics: The interactions and relationships among family members or
occupants, shaped by the physical arrangement and design of the home.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Having a home is a basic need for all human beings. It is more than simply a shelter or a
physical structure – it is an integral part of the social and cultural unit and is an institution
created to sup- port a particular way of life (Rapoport, 1991). The term “privacy”conjures up
a variety of meanings. Some architectural designers describe the need for ample space for a
visual, physical, or psychological separation (Altman, 1975). In the interaction between space
and the individual, the person defines the space, while the space, in turn, defines the person
inhabiting it (Ayalp, 2011). In architectural psychology, the interaction between individuals
and their built environments plays a critical role in shaping human behavior. This dynamic is
particularly relevant when considering the design of residential spaces, where the balance
between privacy and connectivity impacts well-being, social interaction, and overall
functionality.
The chosen theoretical approach will build upon the interaction between spatial design and
human behavior. The aim of this research is to explore a holistic notion of comfort from the
perspective of privacy and connectivity within home environments, thus the theoretical
approach must enable this to be achieved. Research shows that well-designed spaces impact
physical comfort (ease of movement), emotional comfort (security, control, and relaxation),
and social comfort (engaging in social interaction while maintaining the option for privacy).
These aspects are critical in creating homes that support both personal well-being and social
engagement (Mahmoud, 2017). This framework underpins the research questions by
examining how different floor plans affect human behavior. Open layouts may enhance social
interaction but challenge privacy and noise control, while closed layouts support privacy but
reduce spontaneous interaction. Balancing these elements through flexible designs (e.g.,
sliding doors or partitions) allows residents to adapt their space to their needs, making homes
more functional and adaptable. A different approach to identify the wide scope of comfort in
homes through a multi-dimensional survey was composed of three main proposed dimensions
(Meaning of Comfort at Home, Home Environment, and Comfort). Figure 1.
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1- Dimensions and sub-dimensions of home comfort
Within this conceptual framework, Comfort at Home is the focal concept and represents a
person's general sense of comfort in their home. This comfort is not a standalone event but a
result of the combination of various significant factors.
To one side we have the Comfort Experience, the personal and subjective dimension of
comfort. This includes how people emotionally and psychologically experience their home
setting based on items like personal tastes, habits, and emotional connections they make with
the place in which they live. The dynamics of Comfort Experience and Comfort at Home are
bidirectional—one's experience influences overall comfort, and vice versa, the feeling of
comfort at home can contribute to subsequent comfort experiences. Conversely, there is the
Home Environment, which is the more objective, physical nature of the domestic
environment. This involves such things as the building design, space layout, indoor climate,
lighting, and sound. The home environment sets the structural framework for comfort, either
adding to or reducing the resident's sense of comfort. The Home Environment contributes to
the overall comfort in the home, influencing residents' interactions with the home.
Underneath the idea of Comfort at Home is the Meaning of Comfort, which can be
deconstructed into three fundamental dimensions: Security, Control, and Freedom of Action.
These three elements are core to the definition and experience of comfort. Security is the
perception of safety inside the home, both physically and emotionally. Safety in the home is
crucial in order to be comfortable and feel at ease. Control is the ability of an individual to
control their home environment, be it changing temperature, light, or even the arrangement to
fit their requirements. Control enables personalization, which adds to comfort. Freedom of
Action refers to the adaptability in the space—whether people feel they are able to move,
transform, and live as they desire without unnecessary restrictions. This freedom promotes
comfort by giving residents the capacity to live in a manner that is appropriate for their
lifestyle and requirements.
These three factors—Comfort Experience, Home Environment, and the Meaning of
Comfort—interact with each other to create the overall feeling of comfort in the home.
Knowing how these dynamics work can inform decisions in residential design so that homes
are not only functional but also emotionally supportive.
QUESTIONNAIRE
PRIVACY VS CONNECTIVITY:
HOW FLOOR PLANS SHAPE HUMAN BEHAVIOR AT HOME
PART I: INFORMATION SHEET
Introduction
I am Ann Uriel Acula, a third-year student from BS Architecture at the University of San Carlos -
Talamban Campus conducting a survey as part of my research entitled "PRIVACY VS
CONNECTIVITY: HOW FLOOR PLANS SHAPE HUMAN BEHAVIOR AT HOME". The purpose
of this research is to investigate how residential floor plans impact the balance between privacy and
connectivity, and how this, in turn, shapes human behavior at home. This study aims to provide design
insights that enhance well-being by addressing the evolving spatial needs of modern households. We
would like to ask for your participation in this survey as your insights will greatly contribute to
creating better design strategies and will serve as a learning opportunity for this research.
PART II: CERTIFICATE OF CONSENT
Privacy and Confidentiality
All responses will be kept strictly confidential and will only be accessible to the researchers and our
research adviser, Br. Bela Lanyi SVD. All personal data will remain anonymous to ensure your utmost
privacy.
If you have any questions and concerns regarding this study, please feel free to contact us as your
feedback is greatly appreciated.
Ann Uriel Acula (22101744@usc.edu.ph)
SECTION 1: DEMOGRAPHICS
Name* (Family Name, First Name, Middle Name)
____________________
Email*
____________________
Age*
____________________
Gender*
Male
Female
Prefer not to say
Type of Home:
Apartment/Condo
Detached House
Townhouse
Other: ______________
Household Size (Including Yourself):
1 person
2-3 people
4-5 people
More than 5 people
SECTION 2: EVALUATING YOUR HOME’S LAYOUT
Using the scale below, please rate the following statements.
Scale:
1 – Strongly Disagree
2 – Disagree
3 – Neutral
4 – Agree
5 – Strongly Agree
Privacy at Home
1. I feel that my current home layout provides me with enough privacy when I need it.
Strongly Disagree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Strongly Agree
2. I can find quiet, personal space when I want to be alone.
Strongly Disagree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Strongly Agree
3. There are areas in my home where I feel I have complete control over my privacy.
Strongly Disagree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Strongly Agree
Connectivity at Home
4. The layout of my home encourages interaction with other household members.
Strongly Disagree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Strongly Agree
5. Common areas (e.g., living room, kitchen) are easily accessible and facilitate
socializing.
Strongly Disagree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Strongly Agree
6. I feel that the design of my home allows me to engage with family/housemates
without feeling overwhelmed.
Strongly Disagree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Strongly Agree
Balancing Privacy and Connectivity
7. My home layout strikes a good balance between privacy and social interaction.
Strongly Disagree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Strongly Agree
8. I am satisfied with how my home’s design allows for both private and communal
activities.
Strongly Disagree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Strongly Agree
SECTION 3: PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH PRIVACY AND CONNECTIVITY
9. How does your home’s layout impact your ability to connect with family members or
housemates? (E.g., Do you feel it brings people together or causes isolation?)
_______________________________________________________________________
10.If you could change one thing about your home’s design to improve either privacy or
connectivity, what would it be and why?
_______________________________________________________________________
11.Do you think your home’s design has adapted well to changes in lifestyle, such as
remote work or spending more time at home? Why or why not?
_______________________________________________________________________
12.How does your home’s layout impact your ability to connect with family members or
housemates? (E.g., Do you feel it brings people together or causes isolation?)
_______________________________________________________________________
Thank You!
We appreciate your time and valuable insights. Your responses will contribute to a deeper
understanding of how floor plans influence behavior, privacy, and social interaction at home.
