Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue on STAAUH, November (2022) 244 - 257

© School of Engineering, Taylor’s University

CHILDREN’S SAFETY: THE COMMON

SPACES IN PPR HOUSING IN KUALA LUMPUR

SUCHARITA SRIRANGAM*, LOW WING CHUN,

TAMIL SALVI MARI, SUJATAVANI GUNASAGARAN

School of Architecture, Building, and Design, Taylor’s University, Taylor's Lakeside

Campus, No. 1 Jalan Taylor's, 47500, Subang Jaya, Selangor DE, Malaysia
Liveable Urban Communities Impact Lab, Taylor’s University, Taylor's Lakeside
*Corresponding Author: sucharita.srirangam@taylors.edu.my

Abstract
The People's Housing Program (PPR) is a low-cost and affordable housing
programme introduced during the First Malaysia Plan as an initiative to address
squatters’ settlements and support the lower-income group in the country. While
it is important to maintain realistic expectations regarding low-cost affordable
residential housing, media and publications have reported concerns about the
safety of children residing in public housing has been impacted. This paper aimed
to explain the categories of architectural elements in low-cost housing that
affected children's safety. A qualitative research method based on the non-
participatory observation method was conducted to observe and identify
behavioural patterns of children in the PPR context based on a selected case
study. A notable discovery has unveiled a robust correlation between the
dimensions of communal areas and the corresponding patterns of movement
displayed by individuals. Children were found to be more actively engaged in
activities within common spaces under adult supervision and near their
residences. Furthermore, the study highlighted various safety concerns, including
inadequate maintenance of buildings and infrastructure, environmental settings,
and limited accessibility. This indicates the need for substantial improvements
and modernisation in the CIS for PPR developments to address the challenges
associated with common spaces. The study concludes with comprehensive
recommendations and critical discussions to encourage further research and raise
awareness within the industry about creating secure spaces in PPR settings.
Keywords: Behavioural pattern, Children safety, Common spaces, Interstitial
spaces, Low-cost housing, Movement, Transitional spaces.

244
 Children’s Safety: The Common Spaces in PPR House in Kuala Lumpur 245

1. Introduction
Public housing was first introduced in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, during the First
Malaysia Plan (1966-1970). It was constructed to relocate squatter settlements in
urban sprawls and for rental purposes [1]. About 40,000 public houses were
constructed to accommodate the squatter population in Kuala Lumpur in 1966.
During the second stage of public housing development between 1969 and 1975,
nearly 28,000 squatters had been evicted and rehoused in the 2,230 social public
flats available. Acknowledging the rising demand for public housing in 1982, the
government made it a policy that private developers must include at least 30 per
cent of public houses in housing development projects to ensure that they were
reasonably priced and standard (UNDP Malaysia, 2005).
Nevertheless, challenges were prevalent within the realm of public housing in
Malaysia. The provision of compact units to residents necessitated families,
regardless of size, to adapt and coexist, resulting in heightened tension and stress
among household members [2]. Undesirable living circumstances, such as noise
pollution and littered waste, were also observed within social housing communities,
despite the occupants' acknowledgement of their low-income status and efforts to
minimise such issues' impact [2]. While current studies have primarily focused on
evaluating the quality of life in low-cost housing [3], further research must be
conducted to examine these housing units' spatial attributes and qualities.
While there had been sufficient studies proving that social housing may not
have been up to satisfactory standards, even though the occupants had learned how
to live with such conditions, there seemed to be no solutions or discussions on the
categories of architectural elements in PPR Housing that affected children's safety
when children were the more vulnerable demographics in public housings.
Environmental design, consideration of children's capabilities that differ from
adults, and the unpredictable behaviour of children need to be considered when
attempting to make an environment safe for them [4].
This study aimed to identify the categories of architectural elements of common
spaces in low-cost housing that affect children’s safety. This study embarked on
the following objectives: a) to identify the roles of architecture that offer safety for
behavioural patterns of children and b) to identify the patterns of children’s
behaviour in PPR Housing’s Common Spaces.

2. Methodology and Methods

The study employed the empirical research method and thus kept the researcher as an
external factor in data collection to conclude concrete evidence. The study had four
foci. First, a literature review was conducted to obtain information from the previous
research works that had been done on similar topics, which would then help in further
developing observation criteria and preliminary behavioural patterns for the site
observation visits. Second, the physical attributes of the PPR Muhibbah common
spaces were identified and observed to understand the setting for the participants.
Third, a theory of behavioural patterns by Lang [5] in the common spaces was
executed for data collection for children's activities within the selected spaces for a
specific time (5 pm to 6 pm on weekends and weekdays). This qualitative research
method used photographic mapping to a diversified set of common spaces. Lastly,

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

246 Srirangam et al

the field notes and photographs were recorded. The collected data were then
organised and categorised based on the different types of identified patterns.

3. Literature Review
A thorough literature review has been conducted to comprehensively comprehend
the connection between children's safety and their surrounding environment within
the Public Housing Projects (PPR) context. This review aims to enhance the
understanding of both subjects and ultimately address Objective 1, thereby
facilitating the progression of the subsequent chapter.

3.1. Children’s active nature

The Director of Pusat Kajian Alam Bina Dunia Melayu (KALAM), Faculty of Built
Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Assoc. Mohamad Tajuddin
Mohamad Rasdi stated that it is normal for children to participate in vigorous
activities. It was the instinct of children with a desire to learn and do something that
may be harmful to them [6]. Children aged 2 to 11 years old required more physical
activity than teenagers and adults; all young people possessed higher physical
activity levels than adults [7]. Low physical activity levels among children were
often associated with parental satisfaction and perceived neighbourhood safety [8].
Research showed that boys had more independent mobility than girls, allowing
them greater access to physical activity in their neighbourhood [9, 10]. A higher
percentage of male children (62.9%) were seen around the areas than female children
[11]. When an environment becomes a child's place of psychological importance, it
would be an essential space for activities frequented by children having behavioural
goals [12]. Outdoor spaces in housing areas were an essential environment for
children's developmental process as children needed to adapt to the limited spaces in
the low-cost housing designs [1]. Ginsberg & Churchman (1985) also stated that the
higher the floor level, the lower children's physical activity levels.

3.2. Spaces for children's activity in PPR

Children were only allowed to play within their homes or in visual supervision
proximity by their parents [13, 14]. These children appeared to understand that the
unwritten rules that dictated the affordances for play were limited to certain places
preferred by adults or parents [15]. Children often used circulation space as their
social and playing area as they were limited to nearby areas even when allowed to
play [1]. Activities that took place mainly in the corridors and parking areas often
had the advantage of allowing visual supervision by the residents [1]. Children
living in low-cost housing were more likely to utilise the corridors as a play area
where surveillance was enabled by adults living nearby [16].
Overcrowding also forced children to efficiently utilise the surrounding
accessibility by using outdoor neighbourhood environments as a medium for social
interaction, exploration, and development [1]. Many children mentioned places in
designated play areas and parks as play areas, whereas neighbourhood open spaces
such as streets, courtyards, rest spaces, and parking lots were the least mentioned
[12]. Outdoor spaces near home were essential for social interaction, and social
withdrawal was not readily apparent in low-cost housing environments [17]. Open
corridors with sufficient light, good views of streets and surroundings, and ample

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

 Children’s Safety: The Common Spaces in PPR House in Kuala Lumpur 247

surveillance opportunities are connected to the safety of children being alone

outside [1]. Children chose wider corridors when allowed to choose between having
wider corridors and providing a covered ground common court as it was closer to
home [1]. Transitional spaces, including corridors, the main hall/entrance, and
lift/lobbies (see Fig. 1), were the most popular spaces for social interactions, and
findings showed that 46% of the social interactions took place in these spaces [18].
In another discussion about resilience in the built environment, Castona-Rosa et al.
[19] discussed the visual and physical connection to green spaces as a notion and
possibility for wellbeing, safety, and resilience.

Fig. 1. Typical plan for an 18-storey low-cost flat

with yellow highlights indicating the transitional spaces.

A set of common spaces summarises the key to children’s safety in high-rise

apartment buildings as follows:
i. Transitional spaces such as corridors, lift lobbies and the likewise
ii. Outdoor spaces include play areas, green spaces, and recreational spaces
on the common floor.
iii. Interstitial spaces such as balconies, courtyards, and verandas.
iv. Indoor spaces such as multipurpose rooms and vendor shops.

3.3. Children's safety factors in PPR

A significant oversight in low-cost housing was observed in terms of
comprehensive security measures, particularly concerning the wellbeing of
children [20]. Despite design revisions being implemented since the 1960s, the
housing units continued to fall short of meeting fundamental humanistic standards
[21]. Furthermore, inadequate consideration was given to the needs of younger
residents within the context of high-rise housing [21]. Statistical data revealed that
approximately 30% of childhood accidents occurred within school premises and
public playgrounds [22, 23].
Playgrounds are designed to provide children with a safe playing environment
[24]. However, it is crucial to recognise that playgrounds can also become settings
where injuries, hospitalisations, and even fatalities occur among children's primary
users [25-28]. Despite the presence of these potential risks, children continued to
utilise these playgrounds without adequate parental supervision. Furthermore, these
issues associated with playground safety were often concealed from parents,
leading to a lack of awareness and precautionary measures. Consequently, the

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

248 Srirangam et al

ignorance displayed by parents, who believed that playground equipment posed

minimal or no harm to their children, further exacerbated the problem [29].
Furthermore, the presence of unknown and suspicious visitors in the apartment
complexes added to the vulnerability and potential disturbance faced by children
residing there [30]. The transitional spaces within apartment buildings have the
potential to enhance the satisfaction and comfort of occupants [18]. A recent study
focused on social interactions within high-rise apartment buildings, and the
findings revealed that a significant portion (46%) of social interactions among
residents occurred in circulation areas. These interactions encompassed greetings,
conversations, and gatherings, including accompanying children during playtime.
However, it is important to note that circulation areas were initially designed for
different purposes, highlighting a discrepancy between their intended function and
the social activities that take place in these spaces.
Using these spaces for children to play and gather informally created social
annoyance among residents, as these activities created noise and negatively
impacted people's privacy, feelings of safety, and cleanliness of these shared
spaces. Therefore, the research recommended that the future designs of high-rise
apartment buildings provide appropriate opportunities and spaces to accommodate
actual social interaction between residents. The design should encourage social
interaction and offer residents a certain level of privacy and safety.

3.4. Physical forms of PPR & design standards

Low-cost housing has been found to fall short of meeting the established standards
for residential dwellings, with the houses being constructed following office design
principles [20]. Most building guidelines primarily focus on specifying minimum
and maximum requirements without sufficiently emphasising the significance of
design purpose and its impact, as long as they comply with legal standards. For
instance, safety railing height guidelines typically stipulate a measurement of
900mm. However, this standard could pose a risk to children, as horizontally
constructed bars safe for adults may inadvertently provide opportunities for
climbing over [16]. In a study on collective action for safety within low-cost
housing in Malaysia, it was discovered that there exists a positive correlation
between the quality of physical characteristics in common areas and the level of
collective action achieved [31].
The study's findings underscored that enhancing the quality standards of high-
rise, low-cost units, including the common properties, improving the crime rate in
the neighbourhood, and maintaining well-functioning lift systems in transitional
spaces, were all significant positive predictors of achieving collective action. The
paper reinforced the importance of improving low-cost units' spatial quality,
properties, and associated common areas. Such efforts would greatly contribute to
the effective management of collective action in the future.
The current design of low-cost housing was considered as lacking in privacy
due to the old concept adapted from the Industrial and Communist Revolution in
the late 20th century [32]. With very limited living space, these houses (low-cost
apartments) were designed using all rudimentary architectural and engineering
skills [33]. In the Construction Industry Standard (CIS) 2:1998 and CIS 4:2005 by
the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) Malaysia, there needed to

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

 Children’s Safety: The Common Spaces in PPR House in Kuala Lumpur 249

be more details regarding children's safety. In both versions of the standard, the
only relevant standard referring to children's safety was the railing height of a
minimum of 1200 mm required at open corridors and balconies.
There were no further details elaborated. In CIS 26:2019, there was an
additional statement in the standard compared to the previous editions. "Anti-
climb" design was the additional criteria for barriers or railings at open corridors
and balconies. However, the 14-year gap between 2004 and 2019 meant that
countless PPR projects were constructed with the older editions, lacking the
additional "anti-climb" design standard. This reinforced what past authors had
criticised regarding the absence of children's safety requirements in the standards.

3.5. Summary
Through a comprehensive understanding of children's behavioural tendencies and
the underlying principles driving the design of PPR, the researcher successfully
established a relationship between these two subjects and presented a thematic
summary (refer to Table 1). The Literature Review revealed the pressing need for
updates and revisions to the CIS) in PPR housing developments, aiming to create a
secure environment for young residents. Additionally, the researcher identified key
areas within PPR contexts where children frequently engaged in activities.
Recognising the essentiality of accommodating children's active nature for their
overall healthy development, architectural designs must provide suitable settings
that cater to their needs, irrespective of their income group.

Table 1. Thematic summary of the literature review.

Themes Arguments & attributes

Children’s ● Vigorous activity was regular for children. It is an instinct

Active of children who are always active or desire to learn and
Nature do something that may be harmful to them [8].
● Young people naturally display higher physical activity
levels [7].
● Physical activity among children is associated with
parental satisfaction & perceived level of neighbourhood
safety [6].
● Boys have more independent mobility than girls [9, 10].
● Housing outdoor spaces are essential for children's
developmental process [1].

Spaces for ● Children's play is limited to certain places, typically near

Children or within their home or under visual supervision (of
Activity in parents) [13, 14, 16].
Low-Cost ● Children living in low-cost housing are more likely to
Apartments use circulation space as their social and playing area due
to overcrowding and residents' surveillance [1].
● Open corridor, with abundant light, views of the streets
and surrounding, and opportunity for surveillance seems
to relate to more children being alone outside [1].
● Children still chose to be close to [1]

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

250 Srirangam et al

Children’s ● Lack of comprehensive security action in terms of

Safety occupancy, especially for the children [20]
Factors in ● Highrise housing with open corridors was poorly
Low-Cost designed without consideration for its young occupants
Apartments [21].
● Playgrounds can cause host injury, hospitalisation, and
death [25-28].
● Children are vulnerable to being disturbed by strangers
[30].

Physical ● Green spaces significantly offer to quality of life [31]

Forms & ● Most building guidelines only specify minimum and
Design maximum requirements; being safe for adults may cause
Guideline danger to children [16].
● Designed within a limited space applying all
rudimentary architectural and engineering skills [33].
● PPR design guideline (CIS) mentions briefly “railing
height” in CIS 4:2005 and “anti-climb” design in
CIS26:2019

4. Data Collection
The selected case study for this research was PPR Kampung Muhibbah in the
Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. This housing complex comprised nine blocks
and provided two common outdoor spaces: a playground, a community area, and a
futsal court. In line with the standardised approach, all low-cost housing apartments
constructed under the PPR scheme in Kuala Lumpur adopted an 18-storey high-
rise flat design, each floor accommodating 20 units [34]. Based on critical
assumptions of an average of five occupants per unit, PPR Kampung Muhibbah
was estimated to house approximately 16,000 individuals (20 units per floor × 5
occupants per unit × 18 storeys × 9 blocks). Due to the implementation of the
Movement Control Order (MCO), interstate travel was restricted, but a 10km travel
radius was permitted. Considering the size of PPR Kampung Muhibbah and its
accessibility within the allowable distance, it emerged as the most viable location
for conducting observations in this research.
Data collection took place within the common interstitial spaces of PPR
Kampung Muhibbah, where children were most frequently engaged and exposed
to potential safety risks. The researchers systematically recorded and observed the
behavioural patterns of the children within these areas. The observations of
children's behaviour were conducted during after-school hours, when participants
were more active in public and transitional spaces, specifically from 5 pm to 6 pm,
Monday to Sunday. This time frame ensured a higher presence of adults compared
to business or school hours. The primary areas of observation encompassed
transitional spaces such as corridors, lift lobbies, staircase areas, and public spaces,
including the playground, open car parks, and the ground floor common area. These
spaces were classified as Common Spaces within low-cost housing, following the
Construction Industry Standard (CIS) 2:1998 guidelines. The collected data was
documented through photographic mapping techniques for 7 weeks.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

 Children’s Safety: The Common Spaces in PPR House in Kuala Lumpur 251

In the case study, 94 children were observed as participants in the photographic

mapping of behavioural settings. The data obtained from the site observations were
systematically organised and categorised, taking into account factors such as the
specific spaces, frequency of activities, types of activity, gender, race, and the
presence or absence of adult supervision. The researchers initially classified the
observed and recorded behavioural patterns into themes based on the insights
gained from the Literature Review. Subsequently, new patterns and themes
emerged by analysing the collected data. Prominent patterns were given priority
and highlighted in Table 2, while a thematic categorisation of these patterns was
conducted and presented in Table 3.

Table 2. Behavioural patterns.

No. Behavioural Patterns

1 Children chased each other in the corridor without adult surveillance.
Children played on mobile phones and sat together by the house's front entrance in the
2
corridor.
3 Children were running along a corridor with adult supervision.
4 Children cycled along the corridor with adult supervision.
5 Children walked and played in the playground area without adult supervision.
6 Children were walking in the playground area with adult supervision.
7 Children were walking along the corridor without adult supervision.
8 Children were playing with playground equipment with adult supervision.
9 Children were playing with playground equipment without adult supervision.
10 Children played in the playground area with adult supervision.
11 Children sat at vendor shops with adult supervision and played on mobile phones.
Children were standing/sitting along the corridor, observing, and gazing into the void
12
without adult supervision.
13 Male children were primarily involved in running, cycling, and social playing activities.
14 Most of the male children carried out the activities.
15 Female children were involved in playing alone or with adult supervision mostly.
16 Children in transitional spaces played in larger groups.
17 Children in common ground spaces played in smaller groups.
18 Children’s activities in transitional spaces were mostly without adult supervision.
19 Children’s activities in common ground areas accompanied by adults
Children at vendor shops were more passive, sitting and playing with mobile phones and
20
toys.
21 Malay children were mostly seen playing in larger groups.

5. Results and Discussion

The study revealed two prominent findings domains: spaces and movement within
those spaces. The behavioural patterns observed in the transitional and public
spaces of PPR Kampung Muhibbah exhibited notable similarities. However,
variations were observed based on the distinct characteristics and nature of these
spaces, which were influenced by factors such as the proximity of adult surveillance
and the mobility options available. Notably, the size limitations of transitional
spaces played a crucial role in providing different opportunities for diverse
behavioural patterns.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

252 Srirangam et al

Furthermore, the study highlighted a direct correlation between the notion of

movement and the scale of the architectural environment. In spaces where children had
more autonomy and limited adult supervision, their freedom of movement was more
pronounced. However, it was noted that transitional spaces needed to be designed with
larger dimensions to facilitate a broader range of mobility and vice versa.
These findings emphasise the significant interplay between space, movement,
and the presence of adult surveillance in shaping the behavioural dynamics of
children within the context of low-cost housing. They provide valuable insights for
designing and planning future housing developments to accommodate children's
needs better and promote their wellbeing.

5.1. Role of the spaces

The spaces mentioned in this study pertain to the specific areas where the children
engaged in various activities. These spaces were identified through a comprehensive
literature review in Section 3.2, and subsequent analysis was conducted to categorise
them into different types of Common Spaces to gain a deeper understanding of their
safety characteristics. The findings presented in Table 3 further support the inference
that safety issues encompassed concerns such as inadequate maintenance of buildings
and infrastructure, suboptimal settings, and limited accessibility. These observations
shed light on the importance of addressing these safety issues to create more secure
and suitable environments for the residents.

Table 3. Thematic findings on common spaces.

Spaces / Safety Behavioural Patterns
Themes
Elements Characteristics Recorded (Children)
1. Enclosed
Transitional Lift Lobbies Slippery Floors,
Space Dimly Lit, poor
2. Vertical connection to
Transitional Staircase nature
Spaces • Cycling
3. Horizontal • Playing with
Narrow Corridor, toys
Transitional
Corridors Loose Furniture, • Running
Spaces
Slippery Floors
• Chasing
4. Visually • Playfighting
Vertical
connected Privatisation, • Strolling
floors' visual
Interstitial Loose Furniture • Walking
connection
Spaces • Yelling
L Junction • Talking
(corridors), T
5. Junction Junction (lift
Dimly Lit
Transitional lobbies), C
without sunlight.
Spaces Junction
(corridors &
stairs)

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

 Children’s Safety: The Common Spaces in PPR House in Kuala Lumpur 253

Motorcycles • Cycling
travel in the • Running
ground floor area • Chasing
(non-road) • Playfighting
Ground • Strolling
Poor pedestrian
Floor, • Walking
walkability
6. Ground Vendor • Sitting down
Veranda is not
Common Stalls, (vendor
well protected
Spaces Vehicular stalls)
from vehicular
Parking,
traffic. • Running
Veranda
• Chasing
Vendor Stalls • Playfighting
located by the • Playing on
roadside the swing
Poorly • Climbing on
maintained the
facilities & playground
7. Playground Playground structure
Facilities, Infrastructure
Spaces • Sitting down
Veranda Not well (benches)
protected from • Strolling
vehicular traffic • Walking

Common spaces from the data collected are subdivided into multiple themes.
1. Enclosed transitional spaces, such as lift lobbies and motorcycle car parks,
refer to transitional areas that lack vertical, visual, or horizontal connections. These
spaces are characterised by dim lighting and a floor texture unsuitable for children
to engage in activities other than typical traversal actions. However, observations
indicate that children can be seen running and cycling in these stagnant transitional
spaces. This particular theme appears to encompass centralised activities where the
range of children's movement is limited.
2. Vertical transitional spaces, such as fire safety staircases, refer to the
vertically connected transitional areas in PPR Kampung Muhibbah. These spaces
are constructed with cement and are dimly lit, lacking natural daylight. The
observed behavioural patterns of children in these spaces tend to be more reserved,
with activities primarily focused on traversing, sitting, and talking.
3. Horizontal transitional spaces pertain to the corridor spaces found on each
floor. Children engage in horizontal movement in these areas as they carry out their
activities. The safety hazards present in this space include a cement-finished floor
unsuitable for active activities and loose furniture that can pose risks. Notably, this
theme accounted for a significant portion of the observed activities in the data
collection chapter, making it a prominent aspect of the study.
4. Visually connected interstitial spaces refer to transitional areas that are
visually connected across different floors. These spaces facilitate children's
activities involving gazing and observing, where they stand or sit still while looking
at and observing others from a distance. These areas predominantly encourage
behavioural patterns characterised by lower levels of activity.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

254 Srirangam et al

5. Junction transitional spaces encompass corners and junctions within

transitional areas. These spaces can be classified into three categories: L Junction
(corridor corners), T Junction (corridor to lift lobbies), and C Junction (mainly near
fire exit staircase areas). Typically, these spaces have limited visual connections to
other areas. Observations indicate that children show little to no engagement in these
spaces, with minimal activities observed apart from simply passing through them.
6. Ground common areas encompass the public spaces situated at ground level,
including the ground floor, vendor stalls, verandas, and open public car parks.
These areas serve as venues for various activities such as cycling, running, playing,
sitting, and walking. A wide range of activities can be observed in this expansive
space. However, it is important to note that these areas present different safety
hazards, particularly from vehicular traffic, as they are not adequately protected
from vehicles, particularly motorcycles.
7. Playground spaces specifically denote the areas designated for playground
activities. These spaces serve as locations for children to interact with playground
facilities, engaging in activities such as chasing, playing on swings, riding see-
saws, climbing on playground structures, and sitting on benches. This particular
theme encompasses behavioural patterns characterised by a broader range of
movement. However, it is important to note that safety hazards within this space
primarily arise from poorly maintained and broken facilities. Also, playground
spaces may be exposed to vehicular threats, similar to Theme 6.

5.2. Movement in Architecture

The architectural elements that impacted children's safety were primarily associated
with the types of transitional spaces, which in turn influenced their movement. The
movement was classified into four distinct categories based on the distance between
individuals: Intimate Distance (0 meters to 0.45 meters), Personal Distance (0.45
meters to 1.2 meters), Social Distance (1.2 meters to 3.6 meters), and Public Distance
(3.6 meters and beyond, up to 25 meters). While similar movement categories were
observed across multiple transitional space themes, they were found to be associated
with different safety architectural elements, as discussed in detail below.
1. Intimate distance encompassed activities such as playing mobile phones
together, playfighting, walking, and holding hands. These behavioural patterns
were grouped into this category and observed in limited or tight spaces within
Transitional Space themes 2, 3, and 5. In these spaces, children were more inclined
or able to engage in nearby activities.
2. The personal distance was observed in Transitional Space themes 2, 3, 5, 6,
and 7. This category was prevalent in most spaces, serving as a middle ground for
the four activity categories, with a distance suitable for various activities.
Behavioural patterns such as running, cycling, sitting on swings, walking, and
conversing were included in this category.
3. Social Distance: Activities in this category were observed in Transitional Space
themes 2, 4, 6, and 7. These activities required a larger space or closer proximity to
enable interactions among children. In this category, the behavioural patterns
observed involved transitioning from a large group of children to individual
interactions, where limited interactions occurred between individual children.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

 Children’s Safety: The Common Spaces in PPR House in Kuala Lumpur 255

4. Public Distance was observed in Transitional Space themes 6 and 7, as it was

impossible to observe this category in tight or limited spaces. Behavioural patterns
in this category consisted of individual or isolated activities, which were
predominantly low intensity compared to the other listed categories. Examples of
activities in this category include sitting on benches or near vendor shops, cycling
alone, and walking.
Movement is an inherent aspect of the built environment, providing vitality and
life to architectural spaces. Given children's active nature, movement is a natural
and crucial component for their healthy development. Consequently, ensuring
safety measures for children, particularly those residing in low-cost, high-rise
buildings, becomes paramount. Despite considering construction costs, prioritising
safety, and protecting lives should remain a fundamental concern.

6. Conclusions
Low-cost housing developments play a crucial role in addressing the housing needs
of marginalised populations. While there is increasing attention towards the
wellbeing of occupants, certain important details often get overlooked in the process.
This study examined children's safety factors from an architectural perspective.
However, during the research journey, it became apparent that a multi-disciplinary
approach was necessary to understand the topic thoroughly. The literature review
revealed gaps that could be filled by incorporating social studies, neurology, and
children's healthcare perspectives. However, due to the author's architectural training
and background, exploring those areas exceeded their expertise.
Among the four common spaces mentioned in the literature review, transitional
spaces emerged as the most engaging for children. The findings were categorised
into two significant domains: the role of spaces and the movement within them.
The static and dynamic aspects of architecture were crucial for ensuring children's
safety in high-rise housing. The triangulation of these domains emphasised the
importance of scale in architecture, highlighting the need for recommendations
sensitive to this aspect. In conclusion, it is evident that common spaces of intimate
and public scales must consider children's activities in smaller groups, while spaces
of social scale should accommodate activities involving larger groups.

References
1. Aziz, A.A.; and Ahmad, A.S. (2012). Low-cost flats outdoor space as
children’s social environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 38.
243-252.
2. Karim, H.A. (2012). Low cost housing environment: Compromising quality of
life. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 44-55.
3. Chowdhury, S.; Noguchi, M.; and Doloi, H. (2021). Conceptual parametric
relationship for occupants’ domestic environmental experience. Sustainability
(Switzerland) Journal, 13(5), 2982.
4. Cordovil, R.; Araujo, D.; Pepping, G.-J.; and Barreiros, J. (2015). An
ecological stance on risk and safe behaviors in children: The role of
affordances and emergent behaviors. New Ideas in Psychology, 36, 50-59.
5. Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory, The role of the Behavioral
Sciences in Environmental Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

256 Srirangam et al

6. National House Buyer Association. (2004). Rumah bertingkat (Perangkap

maut kepada kanak-kanak). Retrieved October 18, 2004, from
https://www.hba.org.my/news/2004/1004/rumah.htm
7. Louie, L.; Eston, R.G.; Rowlands, A.V.; Tong, K.K.; Ingledew, D.K.; and Fu,
F.H. (1999). Validity of heart rate, pedometry, and accelerometry for
estimating the energy cost of activity in Hong Kong Chinese boys. Pediatric
Exercise Science, 11(3), 229-239.
8. Carver, A.; Timperio, A.; and Crawford, D. (2008). Playing it safe: The
influence of neighborhood safety on children’s physical activity- A review.
Health & Place, 14(2), 217-227.
9. Mackett, R.; Brown, B.; Gong, Y.; Kitazawa, K.; and Paskins, J. (2007).
Children's independent movement in the local environment. Built
Environment, 33(4), 454-468.
10. Brown, B.; Mackett, R.; Gong, Y.; Kitazawa, K.; and Paskins, J. (2008).
Gender differences in children's pathways to independent mobility. Children's
Geographies, 6(4), 385-401.
11. Aziz, W.N.A.W.A.B. (2007). Low-cost housing policy in Malaysia: The
challenge of delivery. PhD Thesis. University of Dundee.
12. Min, B.; Heo, H.; and Lee, H. (2006). Children’s behavioral and conceived
domains in neighborhood environment. Journal of Asian Architecture and
Building Engineering, 5(1), 83-90.
13. Hillman, M.; Adams, J.; and Whitelegg, J. (1990). One false move: A study of
children’s independent mobility. London: Policy Studies Institute.
14. Malone, K.; and Rudner, J. (2011). Global perspectives on children's
independent mobility: A socio-cultural comparison and theoretical discussion
of children's lives in four countries in Asia and Africa. Global Studies of
Childhood, 1(3), 243-259.
15. Ergler, C.R.; Kearns, R.A.; and Witten, K. (2013). Seasonal and locational
variations in children’s Play: Implications for wellbeing. Social Science
&Medicine, 91, 178-185.
16. Hanapi, N.L.; and Ahmad, S.S. (2016). A review on environmental
characteristic that influence children’ physical activities in low-cost housing.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 19-27.
17. Huang, S.-C.L. (2006). A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise
housing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 193-204.
18. Nguyen, L.; Berg, V.P.; Kemperman, A.; and Mohammadi, M. (2020), Where
do people interact in high-rise apartment buildings? Exploring the influence of
personal and neighborhood characteristics. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(13), 4619.
19. Castaño-Rosa, R.; Pelsmakers, S.; Järventausta, H.; Tähtinen, L.; Poutanen, J.;
Tähtinen, L.; Rashidfarokhi, A.; and Toivonen, S. (2022), Resilience in the
built environment: Key characteristics for solutions to multiple crises.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 87, 104259.
20. Yusuf, S.; Hussin, K.; and Azali, N.H. (2015). Child safety policy in high-rise
buildings as preventive measures of child falls: A review. Journal Teknologi,
73(5), 79-84.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023

 Children’s Safety: The Common Spaces in PPR House in Kuala Lumpur 257

21. Hisham, N.; and Amin, N. (2020). Housing design for urban poor in Kuala
Lumpur: A literature review. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science. 498, 012083.
22. Aaron, D.; and Winawer, B. (1965). Child's Play. Harper & Row.
23. Buck, D.J. (1988). Safe on playgrounds? The nature and causes of children's
playground accidents and opportunities for prevention. Public Health, 102(6),
603-611.
24. Leung, K.W.P.; and Mahadev, A. (2011). The cost of sustaining playground
related extremity fractures in Singapore. Injury, 42(4), 352-355.
25. Uskun, E.; Kisioglu, A.N.; Altay, T.; Cikinlar, R.; and Kocakaya, A. (2008).
Assessment of the current status of playground safety in the Midwestern region
of Turkey: An effort to provide a safe environment for children. The Turkish
Journal of Pediatrics, 50(6), 559-565.
26. Bernardo, L.M.; Gardner, M.J.; and Seibel, K. (2001). Playground injuries in
children: A review and Pennsylvania trauma center experience. Journal of the
Society of Pediatric Nurses, 6(1), 11-20.
27. Bond, M.T.; and Peck, M.G. (1993). The risk of childhood injury on Boston's
playground equipment and surfaces. American Journal of Public Health, 83(5),
731-733.
28. Chalmers, D.J.; and Langley, J.D. (1990). Epidemiology of playground
equipment injuries resulting in hospitalisation. Journal of Paediatrics and
Child Health, 26(6), 329-334.
29. Saaid, A.S.Z.M.; and Hassan, A.S. (2014). The children’s playgrounds in
apartments and terrace housing areas: Places of leisure or failure? Asian Social
Science, 10(22), 128-141.
30. Luthfi, M.; Hayatullah, I.K.; Ayomi, P.D.; Auliawan, A.G.; and Chasif, M..
(2020). Importance of apartment environment for children development case
study: Apartment in Margonda. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, 436. 012017.
31. Wang, H.K.; Au-Yong, C.P.; Ling, G.H.T.; and Law, K.A. (2023). Standard
of workmanship, crime rate and condition of lift systems influence collective
action in low-cost housing. Facilities, 41(9/10), 599-622.
32. Sulaiman, H.; and Yahya N. (1987). Housing provision and satisfaction of low-
income households in Kuala Lumpur. Habitat International, 11(4), 27-38.
33. Karim, A.H.M.Z. (2013). Living condition in the low cost apartments in
Malaysia: An empirical investigation. Asian Social Science, 9(17), 20-29.
34. Goh, A.T.; and Yahaya, A. (2011). Public low-cost housing in Malaysia: Case
studies on PPR Low-cost flats in Kuala Lumpur. Journal of Design and the
Built Environment, 8(1), 1-18.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Special Issue 4/2023