IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i8p2587-d159616.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Spatial Factors of Cultural Identity: A Case Study of the Courtyards in a Historical Residential Area in Beijing

Author

Listed:
  • Zhifen Cheng

    (Institute of Beijing Studies, Beijing Union University, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Shangyi Zhou

    (Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Baoxiu Zhang

    (Institute of Beijing Studies, Beijing Union University, Beijing 100101, China)

Abstract

The issue of identity is very complex and determining the factors influencing cultural identity is a key issue. Several scholars have studied the factors influencing cultural identity. However, relatively little attention has been paid to how spatial factors influence cultural identity. This paper takes a historical and cultural conservation block in Beijing, China, as the research area. This area includes eight lanes and is called Eight Lanes in North Xisi. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that spatial changes in living conditions, layout, size, architectural form, and decoration, etc. in the courtyards led to changes in the traditional culture of the courtyards, which ceased to reflect the original residential culture, which led to a decline in cultural identity. Spatial factors directly affected the residents’ cultural identification with harmonious courtyard culture. This view adds nuance to debates about cultural identity and the factors that influence it. From the perspective of cultural geography and by using structural equation modelling, we draw two main conclusions. First, the smaller proportion of public space (The term “space” as it is used in this paper is based on the understanding of humanistic geographers and refers to physical space; it does not acquire meaning and cultures.) is one main factor affecting residents’ identification with the harmonious residential culture of the case area. Second, the greater population density of the courtyards is another main factor affecting residents’ identification with the area’s harmonious residential culture.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhifen Cheng & Shangyi Zhou & Baoxiu Zhang, 2018. "The Spatial Factors of Cultural Identity: A Case Study of the Courtyards in a Historical Residential Area in Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2587-:d:159616
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2587/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2587/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhifen Cheng & Boning Fan & Shangyi Zhou & Baoxiu Zhang, 2022. "Interactions among Trialectic Spaces and Their Driving Forces: A Case Study of the Xisi Historical and Cultural Block in Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Di Zuo & Changrong Li & Mingliang Lin & Pinyu Chen & Xiang Kong, 2022. "Tourism, Residents Agent Practice and Traditional Residential Landscapes at a Cultural Heritage Site: The Case Study of Hongcun Village, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-21, April.
    3. Xiaokang Wang & Li Zhu & Jiang Li & Ni Zhang & Yue Tang & Yilin Sun & Honglin Wu & Chuang Cheng, 2023. "Architectural Continuity Assessment of Rural Settlement Houses: A Systematic Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    2. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    3. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    4. David Rudolph & Claire Haggett & Mhairi Aitken, 2018. "Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 92-117, February.
    5. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    6. Tim Jones & Colin G Pooley & Griet Scheldeman & Dave Horton & Miles Tight & Caroline Mullen & Ann Jopson & Anthony Whiteing, 2012. "Moving around the City: Discourses on Walking and Cycling in English Urban Areas," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(6), pages 1407-1424, June.
    7. Aitken, Mhairi, 2010. "Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6066-6075, October.
    8. Flannery, Wesley & O’Hagan, Anne Marie & O’Mahony, Cathal & Ritchie, Heather & Twomey, Sarah, 2015. "Evaluating conditions for transboundary Marine Spatial Planning: Challenges and opportunities on the island of Ireland," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 86-95.
    9. Evon Scott & Giorgos Kallis & Christos Zografos, 2019. "Why environmentalists eat meat," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-9, July.
    10. Brent S. Steel & Erika Allen Wolters & Rebecca L. Warner, 2019. "Public Preferences for Food–Energy–Water Tradeoffs in the Western U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-19, September.
    11. John Colton & Kenneth Corscadden & Stewart Fast & Monica Gattinger & Joel Gehman & Martha Hall Findlay & Dylan Morgan & Judith Sayers & Jennifer Winter & Adonis Yatchew, 2016. "Energy Projects, Social Licence, Public Acceptance and Regulatory Systems in Canada: A White Paper," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(20), May.
    12. Zagata, Lukas & Uhnak, Tomas & Hrabák, Jiří, 2021. "Moderately radical? Stakeholders' perspectives on societal roles and transformative potential of organic agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    13. Maedeh Molaei & Marian Bosch-Rekveldt & Hans Bakker, 2019. "Extending the View on Project Performance," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, August.
    14. Stephan Bosch & Matthias Schmidt, 2019. "Auswirkungen neuer Energiesysteme auf die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung – Möglichkeiten eines grünen Kapitalismus [Economic development within renewable energy systems – Opportunities for green capit," NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum | Sustainability Management Forum, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 95-111, June.
    15. Hall, N. & Ashworth, P. & Devine-Wright, P., 2013. "Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 200-208.
    16. Bidwell, David, 2013. "The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 189-199.
    17. Reidar Staupe-Delgado & Philip R. Coombes, 2020. "Life in Anticipation of Wind Power Development: Three Cases from Coastal Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Matthew Cotton & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2011. "Discourses of Energy Infrastructure Development: A Q-Method Study of Electricity Transmission Line Siting in the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(4), pages 942-960, April.
    19. Devine-Wright, Patrick & Wiersma, Bouke, 2020. "Understanding community acceptance of a potential offshore wind energy project in different locations: An island-based analysis of ‘place-technology fit’," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    20. Iosif Botetzagias & Chrisovaladis Malesios & Anthi Kolokotroni & Yiannis Moysiadis, 2015. "The role of NIMBY in opposing the siting of wind farms: evidence from Greece," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(2), pages 229-251, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2587-:d:159616. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.