Mindmap

The concept of territory

The conceptualisation of territory originated through work on animals in their natural habitat.

It can be defined as "An area visibly bounded, habitually used and defended and relatively stationary." (Howard 1948)

The acquisition, marking and defence of territory is essential to the survival of animals in the wild in terms of both provision of food and drink and in enabling the continuity of the species through mating. Very often animal territoriality involves group territory rather than individual territory. Territoriality can be observed in domesticated animals as well. A cat will mark out the boundaries of its territory by urinating around the borders and will defend that territory against invasion by other cats.

In human societies territorial behaviour can be observed at its most horrific in wars. However it occurs on many less obvious levels as well, e.g.

Territoriality on this level is closely related to personal space in that markers serve to indicate territory and to reduce the likelihood of an invasion of personal space. We have probably all experienced irritation when someone takes our seat and observed others being irritated when we have encroached on their territory.

Psychologists have tried to measure and define territoriality and the most commonly used categorisation is that produced by Altman & Chemers (1980) which identifies three types: primary, secondary and public territory.

Objects and ideas also come into the arena of territoriality. We mark objects and go to great lengths to ensure that they remain with us. Similarly we defend our ideas through copyrighting, patenting and rules about plagiarism. The latter raises the issue of the legal system and indeed many aspects of territoriality are subject to laws in many societies. Invasion of another‘s home is burglary.

Boundaries in physical space are often symbolic, and are treated with respect by other people. A small boundary fence although in reality totally ineffectual to keep out invaders is usually respected by potential invaders - they are warned off.

Some theorists from the socio-biological perspective argue that territorial behaviour is inherited and is a carry over from our evolutionary past.

Others argue that it serves an organising function and is learned.

The latter explanation is based on the basic notion from cognitive psychology that our cognitive processes operate to simplify the world and do this through categorising information. In this explanation, what is inherited is a brain which is physically designed to categorise. The types of categories, hence the types of territorial behaviour, are a function of our experience in the world, that is the content is not programmed in at birth. Territorial behaviour is very much dependent on social and cultural factors.

 

Factors that influence territoriality

As with personal space, territorial behaviour is modified by personal and situational factors.

Gender

It appears that males prefer larger territories than females. The finding has been consistently demonstrated in studies of behaviour on the beach, and in dormitories (Gifford, 1987). In traditional families different rooms in the home were often seen as male or female or shared territory. The study was often the domain of the father while the kitchen was seen as under the control of the females, and sheds are definitely a male preserve in Australian culture at least. Given this one can see how it is quite likely that male / female expectations of territory are part of the socialisation process. In support of this learning influence are studies which show that individuals who were brought up in larger homes tend to mark out larger territories for themselves as adults (Mercer & Benjamin, 1980). The same study suggests that gender interacts with personality in the process. However less attention has been paid to these aspects of territoriality, but one would expect that size of territory expected or required would be very closely related to size of personal space. Hence one can argue that the data on personal space can usefully be generalised to territoriality.

Cultural Aspects of territoriality

One aspect of territoriality that has gained some public acclaim is the way in which people from different nations compete for beach space on holiday. Smith (1981) compared Germans, French and Americans, and concluded that there were both similarities and differences. In general males claimed more territory than females regardless of nationality, and groups tended to claim less space per person than couples or people on their own. However the study did suggest that the Germans engaged in much more marking of territory in erecting boundaries etc., and also tended to claim larger territories than either of the other groups. Shapes of territories were similar however, with individuals marking elliptical territories and groups marking territories that were circular.

Situational aspects of territoriality

Territoriality by definition is concerned with the division and defence of situations. However it is an interaction rather than a one way effect. In other words, while territoriality works to structure the use of space, the physical location of that space will determine the types of territoriality behaviour. For example when homes are owned rather than rented, people are generally more territorial about the entire area. Home owners are more likely to be concerned about litter in the street in their area, outsiders using the parking space and people repairing cars on the street. People in rented accommodation tend to be concerned only with the actual piece of property rented. People tend to move objects, e.g. furniture, less in public areas than they do in their home territories. 

Using territoriality to fight crime

A concept that has attracted a lot of attention in regard to crime prevention is the notion of defensible space. The idea is that space which was originally public space is organised so that residents feel some sense of ownership of it. It is based on the observation that much crime in the community is centred around public space. While offenders are unlikely to congregate in someone‘s front garden they are likely to occupy public spaces such as street corners or pathways.

Newman (1972) studied crime rates in two housing projects in New York. While both projects housed the same number of people, one (Brownsville) was organised in smaller blocks catering for 5-6 families while the other (Van Dyke) was high rise. In Brownsville the buildings were built around courtyards while the large Van Dyke blocks were separated by large parks. In essence, the area around the Brownsville blocks was defensible while the Van Dyke parks were public and became a base for juvenile gangs. In Brownsville people knew their neighbours and a sense of community developed whereas families in Van Dyke kept to themselves. The difference in crime rate was such that the rate in Van Dyke was 50% greater than that in Brownsville. While it is difficult to be exact about the causes for such a difference in the natural environment because of the number of possible variables, it has been suggested that 4 factors are important (Newman, 1972).

Defensible space is important in designing environments and again shows how physical environments enhance or destroy communities.

 

Territoriality and community

Central to the effect of the environment on crime is the facilitative effect of the environment in generating a sense of community in inhabitants. People must be able to feel some sense of ownership of the environment and hence a sense of responsibility for it. Lee (1984) described a new development where a new motorway was built through a town, effectively dividing it in two. A subway was built to allow access between the two parts of town. Crime rates in the town escalated with much of it being based around the subway which became a haven for street gangs and a source of many violent crimes. A survey revealed that people felt they had lost a sense of community. People who had once visited each other regularly and were now separated by the motorway, ceased to visit and rarely saw each other. It was as if there were now two separate towns with a sort of no person’s land between them. This serves to illustrate the consequences of change in the physical environment and territory and the need to consider the effect on human behaviour in planning environments.

 

Marking, personalisation, emotion and behaviour

Territoriality is expressed through marking whether physically or verbally and often involves personalising. Fences, boundaries, and other indications that the territory belongs to someone, without identifying who that person or group is, are markers. Markers which indicate the identity of the person (name labels) or which distinguish the territory in some unique way (house names) reflect attempts to personalise territory. Marking territory in the public domain such as your seat in the library, or your space on a beach, is where invasions and distress are most likely to occur. It is less likely that your home or garden will be invaded, but the same is not true when the space is in the public domain. Often when a territory in the public domain is invaded we just move somewhere else. However the invasion will engender physiological arousal and anger, and may lead to conflict. It is this aspect of conflict over territory in both animals and humans which attracts most attention. The extreme and tragic example is war.

However, one must acknowledge for the vast majority of time territoriality serves to produce a positive outcome: violent conflict over territory is the exception rather than the rule. Certainly in face-to-face disputes over territory, violence is generally the last resort.

Marking of territory occurs in many ways that are not entirely obvious to us. Street gangs use graffiti and slogans sprayed on walls to define the boundaries of their territories and such markers do tend to engender fear in those who stray into the area. Studies have shown that we touch our plates in restaurants more when they are served by someone else in what is seen as territorial ritual (Truscott, Parmelee & Werner, 1977), and that people who display signs such as "Private Property" on their houses respond much quicker to a knock at the door than do those who are less obviously territorial (Edney, 1972).

While we might be surprised at such territorial behaviour which occurs below the level of our awareness, we have probably all felt some emotional reaction on discovering that our favourite seat on the bus is occupied, or a parking space which we often use is taken, even when we have no claim to these territories.

The positive side of territoriality in regulating our interaction and helping to establish some sense of control in an increasingly complex environment, should not be underestimated.

Holahan (1976) showed that the mood of both staff and patients was improved when patients were allowed to personalise their territory.

Personalisation of office space at work, using family photographs, amusing quotations and so on, are a very common aspect of work life, though no evidence appears to exist concerning the relationship between personalisation and job satisfaction or levels of stress. But studies of student drop out from college tend to show that people who personalise their rooms less, tend to show less commitment to courses and drop out/leave more.

Personalisation is by definition related to identity. For example young adults tend to personalise their bedrooms with pictures of pop and film idols and current affiliations. Often colours and decorative schemes are chosen which appear the antithesis of parental preferences.

The reflection of social identity in territorial behaviour is recognised but not very well researched. As with personal space, it is the aspect of understanding and obeying the informal rules of territoriality, which is of most importance in understanding human behaviour and experience. These rules are subjective, and are constructed through interaction in the social arena. However they are about the physical environment and subject to its influence.

Territory is organisation. Within a territory people have a sense of control, a feeling of stability and organisation, perhaps predictibility. Theorists such as Wicker suggest that territory and territorial behaviour are fundamental to behavioural "settings".