Planned intervention: On Wednesday April 3rd 05:30 UTC Zenodo will be unavailable for up to 2-10 minutes to perform a storage cluster upgrade.
Published September 23, 2022 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Choice of Use of the Kitchen by the Gender Group: Kitchens in Married Households in Dhaka City

  • 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Description

Design and spatial variation of kitchens impact the different gender groups from country to country, society to society, which largely depends on the degree of openness and enclosure (closed kitchen to open kitchen). Although numerous analysts have speculated about the relationships between residential architecture, the use of space, and changing gender patterns within married households, only a few researchers have empirically investigated these connections (Kent, 1990; Lawrence, 1979; Tog-noli,1980). A kitchen connects various household spaces like dining, bedroom, living room, etc. It also defines the public and private zone of a household. But the research keeps focusing on the gender perspective. So, gender is the driving force. The women have in-depth relationships in both eastern and western cultures. In both eastern and western cultures, most of the time, the kitchen is used by women rather than men in both cultures (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1981; Madigan et al. 1990; Rappoport, 1982; Saegert et al., 1980. Architecture can play a vital role in this perspective. Different types of spatial organization can change the feminine perception of the kitchen. Dhaka is the capital of Bangladesh, carrying the shadow of its gender-specific culture with a breakthrough of the masculine lens. Because here both gender is busy with the race of economy. So, here the perception of a kitchen is in a contemporary state, which will give the research another dimension for married households.

Files

Choice of Use of the Kitchen by the Gender -Formatted Paper.pdf

Files (590.3 kB)

Additional details

References

  • Alexander JC (1988) The new theoretical movement, Handbook of sociology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, pp. 77-101.
  • Anthony K. Weidermann S, Chin Y {1990) Housing perceptions of low-income single parents. Environment and Behavior 22(2):147-179.
  • Benedikt ML (1979) To take hold of space: Isovists and invoist fields. Environment and Planning B(6) 47-65.
  • Hasell, M. J., Peatross, F. D., & Bono, C. A. (1993). Gender choice and domestic space: Preferences for kitchens in married households. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 1-22.
  • Rapoport, A. (2000). Theory, culture, and housing. Housing, theory and society, 17(4), 145-165.
  • Stamps III, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14(2), 155-175.
  • Friedman, A. (1997). Design for Flexibility and Affordability: learning from the post-war home. Journal of architectural and planning research, 150-170.
  • Smith, P. A. (2007). Workplace design in the knowledge economy: a case of the NetWorkPlace™© (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology).
  • Wells, M. (2017). From architecture to archetype: space and self in suburban literature (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama Libraries).
  • Thornock, C. M. (2012). There's No Place Like Home: How Residential Attributes Affect Family Functioning.