The Social Life of Residential Architecture: A Systematic Review on Identifying the Hidden Patterns Within the Spatial Configuration of Historic Houses

Abstract

Traditional residential architecture is more than a historical form; it is a repository of lived experiences, cultural identity, and socio-spatial organisation. However, scholarly understanding of its social life and spatial logic remains disjointed. This study aims to identify existing research gaps in the spatial configuration of historic houses by systematically reviewing the social life of residential architecture. Using the PRISMA framework, 534 peer-reviewed articles were retrieved through a rigorous screening process from the Scopus database. A combination of bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer term mapping and SankeyMATIC visualisations was employed to categorise thematic concentrations and reveal methodological and regional distributed trends. The findings identified ten dominant thematic clusters: sustainability, restoration and conservation, gender role, vernacular architecture, space syntax, semantic values, spatial characteristics, cultural studies, environmental psychology, and adaptive reuse. The strong quantitative presence in spatial metrics and qualitative dominance in cultural and gendered perspectives suggested a rich yet segmented field ripe for future mixed-method development. The findings expose pervasive research gaps in traditional residential architecture, from a lack of real-time empirical data and fragmented interdisciplinary knowledge to underutilised innovative methodologies and insufficient representation of diverse user groups, collectively highlighting the urgent need for integrated approaches to understand evolving socio-spatial dynamics.

1. Introduction

Residential architecture is more than just a physical structure; it serves as a dynamic space where social relationships and daily interactions unfold. In historic residential houses, the spatial configuration is deeply intertwined with the socio-cultural background of the residents, shaping patterns of communication, privacy, and communal life [1,2,3]. The organisation of these houses reflects cultural values, traditions, and social lives, making them a rich source for understanding past ways of living [4,5,6]. Identifying the hidden spatial patterns within such houses provides invaluable insights into how architectural design has historically contributed to the establishment of social interactions of households [7]. Moreover, this spatial liveability influences the mental well-being of both the family unit and the broader community by fostering a sense of belonging and social solidarity [8,9,10]. A deeper understanding of these intricate relationships not only contributes to heritage conservation but also offers valuable lessons for designing contemporary houses that enhance social well-being [11,12,13]. Thus, studying the social life embedded within historic residential architecture can bridge past and present, informing future architectural practices that prioritise human connections and communal harmony [14].

Analysing the hidden patterns within the spatial configuration and organisation of historic houses can reveal fundamental architectural principles that remain relevant for contemporary design [15]. These patterns, embedded in the arrangement of spaces, circulation paths, and accessibility, elucidate how architecture has historically supported social interactions, privacy management, and functional adaptability [7,16]. One of the most effective methods for uncovering such latent concepts is Space Syntax, which quantitatively analyses spatial configurations to understand movement patterns, visibility, and social encounters within built environments [17,18]. Additionally, other qualitative and computational design approaches, such as behavioural mapping [19,20], spatial justified graph analysis [21,22], and typological studies [23,24], further enhance our understanding of how these spaces facilitated communal and familial interactions. Through incorporating these analytical methods, contemporary architects and designers can draw inspiration from traditional residential layouts to create adaptable, socially responsive, and culturally informed living spaces [25]. This fusion of historical wisdom with contemporary housing design approaches can contribute to more socially sustainable residential environments [26].

Despite the significance of uncovering hidden spatial patterns in historic houses and their implications for contemporary sustainable design, the future direction of research in this domain remains ambiguous. Many existing studies tend to revisit similar objectives, often within the context of diverse case studies [27,28,29,30]. While these studies contribute valuable insights, they often rely on recurring typologies and spatial analysis techniques—such as conventional applications of space syntax—without sufficiently diversifying the contexts, architectural typologies, cultural frameworks, or methodological innovations. This repetition can lead to overlapping conclusions and a diminishing novelty, thereby limiting the potential for theoretical expansion or new architectural interpretations. This approach sometimes limits the exploration of innovative methodologies that could provide a more integrated and profound analysis of these latent architectural patterns. Thus, a gap exists in systematic approaches that comprehensively investigate the underlying socio-spatial influences, both quantitatively and qualitatively. To bridge this gap, it is essential to adopt a systematic review approach, enabling a critical assessment of previous research while unveiling unexplored areas for future inquiry. Such an approach can identify methodological shortcomings, highlight emerging trends, and propose novel frameworks for investigating spatial configurations in historic residential architecture.

This study aims to investigate the socio-spatial interaction inherent within historic residential architecture by identifying existing scientific gaps related to the spatial configuration of these houses through a systematic review. The resulting insights are valuable for shaping future directions in architectural heritage studies and contemporary design practices, and for contributing to the creation of socially sustainable built environments by synthesising methodological trends, identifying underexplored themes, and offering a comprehensive understanding of current research limitations.

2. Materials and Methods

Systematic literature reviews offer a unique advantage in minimising bias, increasing the dependability of research, and potentially broadening the reach of findings [31,32]. In this process, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines have achieved widespread recognition and are now a leading framework for the conduct of systematic literature reviews [33]. The methodology of this systematic review conformed to the criteria stipulated by the PRISMA framework, which facilitates a comprehensive and unbiased synthesis of the current literature. The methodological framework in this study comprises four different segments: search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, screening process, and data analysis. These segments are explained meticulously in the following subsections.

2.1. Search Strategy

To explore the potential of spatial configuration in historic houses to enhance social life within residential architecture, a thorough review of the literature was undertaken. This review sought to pinpoint areas where further research is needed. To ensure transparency and reproducibility, a pre-defined protocol was developed, outlining both the analytical approach and the criteria for inclusion. For reasons of methodological rigour and comprehensiveness, the Scopus database was selected due to its broader coverage compared to other established academic databases. Thus, a thorough literature search was performed in the Scopus database, covering all relevant articles published up to 8 February 2025. Considering the complex relationship between social life, historic architecture, and the spatial configuration of houses, the authors evaluated various search strategies to establish a protocol for identifying all eligible articles. Consequently, the following search protocol was implemented in this study, with a focus on article titles, abstracts, and keywords: TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“historic house” OR “traditional house” OR “historic architecture” OR “traditional architecture”) AND (social OR “spatial configuration” OR “space syntax”))*.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The initial database search identified 534 articles. Following the established search protocol, inclusion criteria were applied to refine the results. Specifically, the search was limited to English-language journal articles. This excluded other document types, such as conference papers, book chapters, reviews, reports, books, and notes. As research in this area was scarce and scattered before 2000, the review focused on the last 25 years. After applying these criteria, 279 articles remained for final screening. The titles, abstracts, keywords, and all the required bibliographic information for each of these records were exported to a Microsoft Excel 2016 spreadsheet for further analysis and screening process. These 279 articles were then subjected to thematic analysis to identify the most relevant studies for inclusion in the review.

2.3. Screening Process

The selection of articles was meticulously executed through an independent review, strictly following the PRISMA flowchart and checklist guidelines to ensure a rigorous and transparent process. This systematic approach, detailed in Figure 1, meticulously guided each phase of the review. These phases included the initial identification of potential studies, the screening of abstracts and titles for relevance, the detailed assessment of full-text eligibility, and culminated in the final inclusion of pertinent research, all consistently and accurately documented. The screening stage resulted in the exclusion of 186 articles due to factors such as their interdisciplinary nature, limited relevance to inhabitants’ social lives, and lack of emphasis on the spatial configuration of historic residences.

Following the stringent screening through title, abstract, and keywords, a final selection of 93 articles was made, advancing them to the in-depth stage of full-text exploration. This refined set represented the studies deemed most relevant and suitable for addressing the research objectives. Application of eligibility criteria led to the exclusion of 36 studies due to their broad scope on sustainability, conservation, and structure and inclusion of non-residential applications. The remaining 57 articles, each addressing varied aspects of historic residential architecture, were deemed suitable for investigating the relationship and subsequent analysis of spatial morphology and social life. Accordingly, the rigorous and transparent selection process ensured the final dataset’s relevance to the research objectives.

2.4. Data Analysis

The selected papers underwent a thorough review to extract essential data necessary for the analytical objectives of this study. The analysis commenced with a general overview of the obtained data, followed by the visualisation of quantitative data from the Scopus database, to provide an overall understanding of the acquired datasets. To elucidate the knowledge structure inherent within the reviewed papers, a term co-occurrence analysis was performed using VOSviewer (Version: 1.6.20, Manufacture: Nees Jan van Eck and Ludo Waltman (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University), City: Leiden, Country: The Netherlands). This software, designed for visualising knowledge domains, produced network visualisations wherein node size corresponded to term frequency and link width to connection strength [34,35]. The resulting term map served as a valuable tool for identifying key thematic foci, enriching the systematic review’s overall analysis. After critically highlighting and discussing the core findings of the articles in the final inclusion set, we gained an overall grasp of the current state of knowledge in the field.

To further enhance the analysis, a series of Sankey diagrams were developed using an open-source SankeyMATIC website, created by Steve Bogart, to visually map the relationships among methodologies, research themes, and geographic distributions of the included studies. This visualisation technique enabled the identification of dominant patterns, such as the prevalence of qualitative approaches in gender and cultural studies, and the concentration of spatial syntax applications in the historic housing architecture. The Sankey diagrams provided a clear and accurate depiction of thematic orientations and regional emphases within the dataset. These graphical representations offered additional clarity in tracing complex linkages across the reviewed literature and contributed to a more intuitive understanding of research trends and gaps.

A range of research gaps, specifically evidence, knowledge, practical, methodological, empirical, theoretical, and population gaps, were examined to ascertain the current state of knowledge, with these gap categories validated through prior systematic literature analyses [36,37]. The definitions of each research gap associated with this study are also presented in

Table 1. Definitions of different research gaps associated with this study [36,37].

Research Gaps	Definitions
Evidence Gap	An evidence gap refers to a lack of sufficient or contextually appropriate data, empirical support, or documented outcomes necessary to substantiate the claims, theories, or recommendations presented in the literature.
Knowledge Gap	A knowledge gap refers to a lack of understanding, clarity, or established science in a particular domain, topic, or relationship.
Practical Gap	A practical gap refers to the disconnect between theoretical knowledge and its pragmatic application.
Methodology Gap	A methodology gap refers to inadequacies, limitations, or outdated procedures in the research approaches employed within a field of study.
Empirical Gap	An empirical gap refers to the absence or insufficiency of first-hand, observation-based, or measurable data to support theoretical claims or hypotheses.
Theoretical Gap	A theoretical gap refers to the absence, underdeveloped, or fragmentation of conceptual frameworks that explain observed phenomena in a coherent, systematic, and generalisable manner.
Population Gap	A population gap refers to the limitations in the scope, diversity, or representativeness of the populations studied in a given research field.

. An inductive content analysis was conducted to categorise extracted data from the identified papers into research gap typologies. This involved an iterative process: initial data extraction from the first paper informed the development of a preliminary coding framework, which was subsequently refined and expanded upon through the analysis of each subsequent paper. This process continued until all papers were reviewed, culminating in the synthesis of the categorised data to address the study’s objectives. To mitigate potential bias, a rigorous assessment of methodological quality was conducted. Each included study was independently evaluated by three reviewers, and any discrepancies in their assessments were resolved through collaborative discussion to establish consensus.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. General Overview of the Findings

The results obtained from the search through the Scopus database indicated that while the general publication trends over the years have witnessed a fluctuating process, in 2021 a tremendous increase in publications on this topic has occurred by academics. The findings also revealed that the most important journals that have focused on publishing these topics include Sustainability with 14 articles, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering with 10 articles, and Open House International with 9 articles. Additionally, the number of publications by country or territory revealed the pioneering role of Indonesia, the United States, and Turkey, with 33, 27, and 26 articles published, respectively, over the period studied (Figure 2).

The word cloud, resulting from a comprehensive review of literature on the social aspects of residential architecture, visually emphasises several central research areas (as seen in Figure 3). Prominent keywords such as “traditional,” “house,” “heritage,” “architecture,” and “spatial” signal a significant academic focus on understanding how historical living spaces are both shaped by and influence cultural and spatial dynamics. The frequent appearance of “space syntax” and “social” indicates a common methodological approach using spatial analysis tools to reveal patterns of interaction, movement, and privacy within traditional residential settings. The notability of terms like “cultural,” “urban,” “sustainability,” and “conservation” suggests that many studies link the architectural characteristics of historic houses to wider societal and environmental concerns, particularly regarding the preservation and adaptive reuse of heritage. Moreover, words like “vernacular,” “energy,” “identity,” and “community” highlight an interdisciplinary tendency to explore traditional homes as reflections of socio-cultural values and ecological considerations. Overall, this word cloud illustrates a deep and multifaceted interest in how traditional spatial arrangements both embody and support social life, providing a valuable basis for identifying future research avenues.

The bibliographic co-occurrence analysis of keywords using VOSviewer reveals distinct thematic clusters within the literature on historic residential architecture (Figure 4). The red cluster emphasises keywords such as traditional houses, traditional architecture, and house, highlighting studies centred on typologies and forms of traditional dwellings. The yellow cluster focuses on spatial aspects, with keywords like space syntax, spatial configuration, privacy, and courtyard, indicating a strong emphasis on analytical tools and spatial studies. The purple cluster connects vernacular architecture with sustainability and sustainable architecture, underlining the increasing relevance of environmentally conscious approaches in heritage studies. The green cluster integrates socio-cultural dimensions, linking traditional houses, gender, community, and built environment, reflecting a growing interest in the social life and inclusivity of residential spaces. The blue cluster centres on cultural heritage, historic architecture, and housing, pointing to conservation-driven narratives. Lastly, the cyan cluster captures institutional and heritage management concerns, with keywords like architectural heritage and conservation. Overall, the analysis demonstrates a multidisciplinary convergence, where sustainability, spatial configuration, and socio-cultural reflections coalesce around the study of traditional residential architecture.

The overlay visualisation map produced through VOSviewer displays the temporal evolution of research themes related to traditional architecture by mapping keyword co-occurrences alongside publication years (Figure 5). Earlier studies (around 2016–2017, shown in purple and blue) predominantly focused on foundational topics such as privacy, courtyard, historic preservation, and traditional houses, indicating an initial emphasis on conserving architectural heritage and understanding traditional residential forms. Over time, research interest expanded towards analytical tools such as space syntax and spatial configuration, reflecting a methodological shift in the field. In more recent years (2019–2021, marked in yellow), there is a noticeable trend toward themes like sustainability, vernacular architecture, community, gender, adaptation, and conservation, which reveal a growing concern with inclusive, resilient, and socially responsive design practices. The greater visibility of these new keywords reveals a change in focus. Rather than primarily concentrating on preservation and documentation, research in traditional architectural contexts is now increasingly geared towards solving current global challenges. This involves the application of cutting-edge spatial analytical tools, notably space syntax, with a specific emphasis on sustainability and socio-cultural integration.

3.2. Critical Review on Outcomes of Prior Studies

The study of traditional residential architecture has evolved through multiple disciplinary lenses, increasingly focusing on the complex interaction between spatial organisation, socio-cultural factors, symbolic interpretations, and heritage preservation strategies. Scholars have progressively examined how traditional domestic spaces reflect collective memory, adapt to societal change, and provide frameworks for future housing paradigms grounded in local identity and sustainable development. While much progress has been made in documenting these relationships, a deeper critical engagement with the existing literature is needed to identify nuanced arguments, overlooked connections, and persistent research gaps that can inform future inquiries.

3.2.1. Gender Roles, Privacy, and Domestic Life

The domestic realm, particularly in traditional architecture, is profoundly shaped by the intricate dynamics of gender roles and the cultural imperative for privacy. Recent heritage interpretation efforts, as highlighted by Lewi [38], stress the transformative potential of heritage management in foregrounding women’s history, particularly through spaces like kitchens. This re-evaluation aligns with feminist critiques of domestic space, which advocate for understanding household architecture not merely as a site of confinement, but as a critical locus for cultural transmission, a perspective echoed by Suhada and Lukito [39] regarding Indonesian traditional houses. However, while these studies underscore the kitchen’s significance, a broader examination of how other domestic spaces similarly empower or restrict different gendered activities remains a nascent area.

Expanding on the embodiment of gender relations in spatial organisation, Orhun [40] argues that traditional Turkish houses systematically integrate gender relations within their living spaces, where perceived differences stem more from embedded social processes than rigid physical divisions. This challenges a purely physical segregationist view, suggesting a shared societal understanding of women’s roles manifested subtly in spatial use. Complementing this, Trapeznik [41] reveals a critical historiographical omission in New Zealand’s historic house narratives: the often-invisible presence and labour of domestic servants. This omission suggests a broader oversight in heritage narratives across cultures, highlighting a significant research gap in understanding how diverse, often marginalised, domestic actors experienced and shaped these spaces, beyond the primary occupants.

The imperative for privacy, particularly in Islamic societies, stands as a fundamental determinant of residential architecture, intricately linked to gender segregation and hospitality norms. Sadoughianzadeh [42] and Al-Mohannadi and Furlan [43] meticulously demonstrate how these cultural values critically define the spatial organisation of traditional houses in Iran and Qatar, respectively. Sadoughianzadeh’s distinction between “Introvert” and “Extrovert” spatial models further illustrates the deeply embedded nature of gender ideologies within domestic architecture, influencing layout from the macro- to the micro-scale. This pervasive influence is reinforced by Nazidizaji and Safari [44], who identify persistent spatial “genotypes” in Persian houses, directly linking integration values and functional arrangements to enduring social norms. While these studies clearly establish the cultural drivers of privacy and gender segregation, there is less exploration into how these deeply ingrained spatial norms are challenged or modified by contemporary social shifts, such as changing family structures or increasing public exposure through media.

Furthermore, the integrative role of spatial layout in mediating between private and public life is a crucial, yet often complex, aspect of traditional domestic design. Asriana et al. [45] and Asriana and Khidmat [46] illustrate how spatial hierarchy and hall-centred axial patterns in Indonesian housing effectively regulate social interaction and maintain rule-based cultural order, even amidst urbanisation. This hierarchical control of access and visibility is a recurring theme, observed also in South Asian contexts where, as Lambe and Dongre [47] note, Indian houses traditionally follow a distinct spatial gradient from public to private zones, fostering social flexibility. This observation resonates with Nejadriahi and Dincyurek [48], who link specific courtyard configurations in Kashan, Iran, to varying degrees of privacy, a central Iranian societal value. While these studies collectively affirm the cultural embedding of vernacular spatial structures and their behavioural expressiveness, the extent to which these traditional mechanisms of privacy and social regulation are preserved or adapted in modern housing designs, particularly in dense urban settings, warrants further investigation.

3.2.2. Cultural Symbolism and Spatial Meaning

Traditional domestic spaces are not merely functional enclosures but rich repositories of cultural symbolism and embedded spatial meanings, profoundly influencing how inhabitants perceive and interact with their environment. Zulkarnain et al. [49] compellingly uncover the metaphysical and moral codes embedded within the vertical and horizontal spatial orders of the Sapo Battoa customary house, detailing how its three vertical sections, tangibly symbolise human birth, the moral journey of life, and the ultimate return to the Creator. Tarigan et al. [50] build upon this by observing how these symbolic meanings are dynamic, shifting as physical forms and user activities evolve. This necessitates a deconstructive approach to contemporary symbolic interpretations, one that respects traditional values while acknowledging their adaptation, though the specific methodologies for such a deconstruction often remain underspecified.

Cultural specificity profoundly shapes regional morphological patterns, showcasing diverse approaches to integrating symbolic meaning into domestic space. Bura and Ando [51] highlight how Indonesian urban forms retain caste-based spatial configurations despite the pressures of modernisation, underscoring the enduring power of social hierarchies on spatial organisation. Conversely, Aryani and Wijaya [52] illustrate how rural lodge houses in the same region display spatial adjustments driven by economic imperatives tied to farming, suggesting a direct link between livelihood and architectural form. Han and Lim [53] contribute to this narrative by analysing how traditional Korean fences serve as multifunctional spatial tools, imbued with aesthetic and directional significance, thereby enriching the narrative of threshold spaces as culturally resonant elements. While these studies offer rich examples of cultural specificity, a comparative analysis exploring the degree to which these symbolic meanings are consciously perceived and enacted by contemporary inhabitants, particularly across different generations, remains an area for further inquiry.

The courtyard, as a quintessential spatial and cultural element, is a recurring motif across traditional houses, imbued with diverse symbolic and functional meanings across regions. Kamelnia et al. [30] reveal that in Iranian houses, courtyards possess varying spatial integration depending on the era, directly impacting privacy and social interactions, thus reflecting historical shifts in societal norms. Saad [54] presents similar findings in Egypt, demonstrating how courtyards manifest socio-spatial territoriality, acting as a buffer and a mediator between the private and public spheres. Adebara [55] further illustrates the courtyard’s multifaceted symbolic layering in Nigerian houses, informed by gender, religion, and social hierarchy. These diverse regional interpretations collectively affirm the courtyard’s centrality as a multifunctional, symbolic, and highly adaptive space, yet the specific mechanisms through which these symbolic layers are culturally transmitted and maintained across generations warrant deeper investigation.

Beyond the courtyard, transitional spaces and integrated forms also carry significant cultural weight and adapt to specific socio-religious contexts. Fathima et al. [56] and Kalaivani et al. [57] analyse Indian courtyard houses and transition spaces, respectively, using shape grammar and typological thresholds, emphasising how spatial language adapts to religious, regional, and occupational factors. This adaptability underscores the resilience of traditional design principles in diverse settings. Furthermore, Baharudin et al. [58] propose that traditional houses, through their linkage with Islamic aesthetics and values, continue to serve as pedagogical tools in cultural tourism, suggesting a role beyond mere habitation. Haraty et al. [59] similarly examined Iraqi courtyard houses, asserting that their layout manifests Islamic principles, mediating an enduring semantic, cultural, and environmental sensitivity. While these studies illuminate the embeddedness of cultural and religious values in spatial design, the long-term effectiveness of traditional designs as “pedagogical tools” or their continued adherence to original religious principles in rapidly modernising contexts requires more empirical evidence.

The nuanced interaction between space and culture is further illuminated by regional studies focusing on less commonly discussed architectural elements. Atak and Çağdaş [60] emphasised that visibility structures in Turkish houses express shared cultural values across religious communities, despite minimal differentiation in spatial configuration, suggesting a cultural unity transcending religious divides in spatial expression. Similarly, Ozyilmaz et al. [61] linked the evolution of kitchen space in traditional Turkish homes to culinary traditions shaped by nomadism, Islam, and intercultural exchanges, portraying vernacular architecture as dynamic cultural artifacts rather than static typologies. Furthermore, Pulhan and Numan [62] championed the architectural bridge role of semi-open spaces in Cypriot homes, arguing they promote continuity between traditional and contemporary living, while Foruzanmehr [63] highlights the social and environmental value of loggias in Iran, lamenting their neglect in modern housing despite proven effectiveness and cultural resonance. These analyses collectively underscore the rich symbolic and functional depth of specific architectural elements, yet there is a need for more systematic frameworks to compare and contrast how these elements’ cultural meanings are maintained or altered across vastly different global contexts.

3.2.3. Space Syntax, Spatial Morphologies, and Social Structure

The systematic exploration of spatial configuration and its relationship to socio-cultural performance has been significantly advanced by quantitative methods, particularly Space Syntax. Moqadam and Nubani [64], alongside Hessari and Chegeni [65,66], effectively employ Space Syntax to demonstrate how Iranian traditional houses, especially those with varying numbers of courtyards, exhibit distinct patterns of spatial intelligibility, connectivity, and flexibility. This methodological rigour is further exemplified by Xu et al. [67], who apply Space Syntax to Chinese rural housing, identifying region-specific patterns of integration and accessibility. These studies collectively underline the methodological strength of syntactical analysis in bridging qualitative traditions with quantitative rigour, offering a robust tool for objective spatial assessment. However, while Space Syntax effectively quantifies spatial relationships, a more in-depth exploration of how these quantified aspects directly translate into specific, observable social behaviours or psychological impacts remains an area for further qualitative validation.

Comparative studies using morphological analysis further highlight how distinct spatial typologies influence or reflect underlying socio-cultural priorities. Khalil et al. [68] provide a compelling example by demonstrating that linear layouts in Iraqi houses prioritise high privacy at the expense of lower accessibility, whereas central types offer greater accessibility but reduced privacy. This privacy-accessibility dichotomy mirrors broader cultural values embedded in spatial arrangement, indicating a conscious design choice [69]. While this provides a clear understanding of trade-offs, a more detailed analysis of the social implications of these different trade-offs in terms of community interaction and household dynamics would strengthen the argument.

Finally, methodologically hybrid approaches are offering deeper insights into the dynamic nature of spatio-temporal transformations and their interaction with social structures. Gökçen and Özbayraktar [70] propose an innovative combination of Space Syntax and system dynamics to track and manage rural housing changes under cultural evolution, moving beyond a purely descriptive analysis to a more predictive model. Samimi and Maraschin [71] further demonstrate how urban spatial centrality significantly affects the persistence of traditional housing typologies in Afghanistan, suggesting that location is a key determinant in heritage resilience. These hybrid approaches are promising for understanding the complex interaction of spatial and social factors over time; however, their practical application in heritage management and urban planning is still in its nascent stages, presenting a clear research frontier.

Furthermore, studies emphasising social structures and behavioural norms actively demonstrate how these elements shape spatial organisation, often in subtle yet profound ways. Ding and Ma [72] distinguish between “extroverted” and “introverted” spatial behaviours in Chinese houses based on the visibility and integration of interior spaces, revealing how design can facilitate or inhibit social interaction. This behavioural shaping is implicitly linked to concepts of privacy and interaction, echoing the broader theme of culturally embedded spatial norms. Memarian and Sadoughi [73] further stress the importance of design flexibility and cultural specificity in housing transformation, noting that Persian houses exhibit seasonal adaptability, which Space Syntax can effectively capture. While these studies illuminate the behavioural aspects, a critical examination of how these “extroverted” or “introverted” spatial behaviours adapt or resist when confronted with modern, often standardised, housing layouts represents a significant gap in the literature.

The hierarchical organisation of interior spaces, mirroring societal structures, is particularly evident in South Asian contexts. Lambe and Dongre [47] observe that Indian houses traditionally follow a distinct spatial gradient from public to private zones, promoting social flexibility within the household. Desai and Nagendra [74] expand on this by describing how multifunctional spaces and semi-open elements like balconies foster vibrant street interactions, illustrating a nuanced blurring of public and private boundaries. However, despite the designed harmony, Bertolani and Boccagni [75] reveal a contrasting tension in rural Indian shared houses, where intergenerational disputes actively disrupt the social harmony these spatial forms were designed to support. This highlights a critical limitation: while spatial morphologies intend to promote certain social structures, evolving social dynamics, such as family conflicts, can significantly undermine these inherent design intentions, indicating a need for more socio-behavioural studies that examine the failures of traditional designs to adapt to contemporary social pressures.

3.2.4. Socio-Political Dynamics and Spatial Adaptation

The conservation and adaptation of traditional architecture are increasingly influenced by socio-political dynamics and the imperative for sustainable solutions. Digital and participatory methods are gaining traction, as highlighted by Suprapti et al. [76], who showcase the utility of digital social mapping involving community and governmental collaboration, effectively reimagining conservation as a dynamic, technological, and community-driven endeavour. Similarly, Zhou et al. [77] advocate for adaptive reuse over traditional preservation, asserting that sustainability in historic housing is best achieved by integrating cultural memory into contemporary use. These strategies collectively signal a crucial shift from static preservation to the dynamic reactivation of living heritage, recognising that traditional buildings must remain relevant to survive. However, the long-term success metrics for such adaptive reuse projects, particularly concerning the maintenance of original cultural meanings, remain underexplored.

The broader socio-political context plays a decisive, often destructive, role in architectural transformation, yet it also presents opportunities for adaptation. Hamid and Aksulu [78] clearly identify war and socio-political instability as critical destructive forces against Iraqi traditional houses, demonstrating the vulnerability of built heritage to external conflict. Formolly and Saraei [79], on the other hand, argue that modernisation itself, through its erosion of traditional housing benefits like well-being and communal identity in Iran, can be equally detrimental. These critiques resonate with Perera and Pernice [80], who illustrate how modernist influences in post-independence Sri Lanka inadvertently curtailed the multifunctionality of transitional spaces like verandahs, which were once crucial to communal life. While these studies convincingly link socio-political shifts to architectural decline, there is a need for more nuanced research into the resilience mechanisms employed by communities to protect or re-adapt their traditional housing in the face of such profound external pressures.

Despite these challenges, traditional architecture holds immense potential to inspire contemporary housing solutions through its inherent flexibility and sustainable values. Malakouti and Norouzian-Maleki [81] and Itma and Khaleefa [82] show how spatial flexibility and sustainability values in Iranian and Iraqi houses, respectively, are achieved through compact designs, shared outdoor spaces, and adaptability to user needs. These arguments effectively position traditional architecture not as a nostalgic relic, but as a resilient template for modern sustainable housing, offering practical lessons for energy efficiency and social cohesion. This perspective is further supported by Muñoz-González et al. [83], who found that Mediterranean houses built before 1950 provided sufficient natural lighting for work during lockdowns, showcasing their intrinsic passive design strategies. However, the extent to which modern architects and developers are genuinely integrating these traditional sustainable principles, beyond superficial aesthetic mimicry, remains a critical question.

The evolution of residential spatial logic is not solely a product of cultural continuity but often a direct consequence of socio-economic transformations, resulting in hybrid typologies. Erman and Kasapbasi [84] illustrate how Turkish housing between 1960–1980 retained traditional influences while accommodating new socio-economic realities, demonstrating a practical adaptation. Hosanlı [85] noted a similar duality in Ankara’s early modern apartments, where historicist facades often masked interior layouts adjusted for modern family life, indicating a tension between external appearance and internal function. Phuong et al. [86] further support this by declaring that modern apartment buildings in Vietnam retain spatial configuration characteristics akin to traditional Vietnamese garden houses, particularly in adapting to the natural environment. While these examples highlight successful mediations between tradition and modernity, a deeper analysis of the socio-economic factors that drive specific hybridisations, and the long-term implications of these new typologies on cultural identity, is warranted.

Conversely, a significant cultural mismatch arises when new housing models disregard traditional values, often leading to a disintegration of communal identity and privacy logic. Günçe et al. [87] critically assess prototype rural housing plans in Cyprus, finding them disconnected from local lifestyles and thus potentially eroding communal identity. Moayed and Türker [88] identify similar detrimental consequences in Iran, where adaptive re-use of Qajar-era houses disrupted the original hierarchy and privacy logic, leading to unintended social consequences. These cases starkly underscore the risk of spatial discontinuity when vernacular design principles are overlooked in contemporary adaptations, pointing to a persistent gap in understanding how to effectively integrate traditional knowledge into large-scale modern housing developments.

The symbolic and social dimensions of vernacular housing are critical, as house transformation often reflects not only environmental adaptation but also intergenerational shifts and aspirations. Vitasurya et al. [89] add a compelling layer by showing how house transformation reflects intergenerational shifts in social class, with wealthier heirs preserving heritage, while others reshape it to reflect newfound status. This highlights how identity, memory, and aspiration actively influence the evolution of traditional spaces, sometimes in ways that diverge from pure preservation [90]. Furthermore, Zhang [91] offers a cautionary tale, noting that while new Chinese housing estates visually mimic traditional forms, they often fail to foster social cohesion, implying that spatial aesthetics alone cannot replicate communal life. This suggests a crucial disconnect between formal adherence to tradition and the successful replication of its inherent social benefits, indicating a need for research into the non-physical elements essential for fostering community in contemporary traditional-inspired designs.

Finally, not all transformations serve cultural continuity, as economic viability often conflicts with heritage integrity. Yıldırım and Turan [92] illuminate this tension by finding that commercial reuse of traditional Turkish houses, while economically viable, frequently compromises heritage integrity, whereas community-oriented reuse, though culturally beneficial, is often financially unsustainable. This fundamental dilemma highlights the urgent need for innovative policies that effectively balance heritage preservation with practical functionality and economic sustainability. Compounding these challenges, shifts in family structures and inheritance laws are crucial in shaping residential morphology. Ragab [93] traced spatial transformations in Egyptian desert housing to the decline of extended families and the direct implications of Islamic inheritance laws, demonstrating how legal and social changes directly impact built form. Jason et al. [94] add a transnational perspective, showing that collectivist values among Latinos in the U.S. recovery housing context influence spatial needs, especially when cultural modifications are lacking, underscoring the ongoing challenges of culturally appropriate housing provision in diverse societies. These examples collectively reveal that the evolution of traditional housing is a multifaceted process, heavily influenced by a complex interchange of socio-economic, political, and cultural forces, demanding integrated approaches to future research and conservation.

In summary, the preceding critical review of existing literature underscores the multi-dimensional import of traditional residential architecture, illuminating its intrinsic relationships with socio-cultural frameworks, ecological responsiveness, symbolic representations, and the evolving discourse of heritage. This review has moved beyond mere summarisation, engaging in a dialogue with various scholarly perspectives to identify key arguments, underlying assumptions, and particularly, persistent research gaps. Consequently, this critical synthesis lays a robust foundation for subsequent inquiries into the enduring pertinence and latent possibilities of vernacular design principles within contemporary architectural housing, emphasising the need for interdisciplinary approaches that bridge theoretical understanding with practical application and socio-cultural sensitivity.

3.3. Data Synthesis and Analysis Using SankeyMATIC

The data analysis and synthesis of the selected body of literature have led to the identification of ten primary core themes that capture the dominant research orientations across studies related to traditional residential architecture. These thematic clusters, along with their associated references, include: Sustainability; Restoration and Conservation; Gender Role; Vernacular Architecture; Space Syntax; Semantic Values; Spatial Characteristics; Cultural Studies; Environmental Psychology; and Adaptive Reuse.

The SankeyMATIC diagram, which visually illustrates the interrelation between research methodologies and core themes, allows for a better grasp of the prevailing methodological orientations within each thematic domain (Figure 6). Among the 57 studies analysed, qualitative methods are the most frequently employed, accounting for 25 publications, followed by quantitative approaches (19 studies), and mixed methods (13 studies). This distribution spotlights a relatively strong inclination toward exploratory and interpretive framework in the study of traditional architecture.

The “Space Syntax” theme emerges as the most methodologically aligned with quantitative analysis, receiving the strongest input (14 studies) from quantitative sources. This trend is expected given the syntactical and computational nature of space syntax methodologies, which rely on spatial network metrics, visibility analysis, and graph-based quantifications. Similarly, “Spatial Characteristics” (seven studies) and “Environmental Psychology” (two studies) are also predominantly scrutinised through quantitative lenses, reflecting an empirical and data-driven approach to understanding built environment-user interactions.

Conversely, qualitative approaches are dominantly employed in the study of “Gender Role” (seven studies), “Vernacular Architecture” (eight studies), “Cultural Studies” (three studies), and “Semantic Values” (five studies). These themes inherently involve socio-cultural interpretations, symbolic readings, oral histories, and ethnographic dimensions, domains in which qualitative inquiry substantiates essential for capturing nuances in meaning and tradition.

Mixed Methods are notably used in themes such as “Adaptive Reuse” and “Restoration and Conservation” (each with two studies), and to a lesser extent in “Sustainability” (one study). The use of mixed methodologies in these domains suggests an integrated approach, combining technical and performative assessments with cultural or historical evaluations. This methodological blend is particularly useful in research areas requiring both diagnostic and interpretive outcomes to inform conservation practices or design interventions.

Finally, while “Sustainability” is moderately balanced across all three methodological approaches (three quantitative, one mixed), it shows a surprising underrepresentation in qualitative studies. This may indicate an opportunity for future research to explore more subjective, community-centred, or socio-cultural dimensions of sustainable traditional housing, especially considering the relevance of localised knowledge and behavioural adaptation to sustainability discourse.

In summary, the SankeyMATIC diagram presents the thematic foci of the literature, alongside an overview of the methodological tendencies and gaps. The strong quantitative presence in spatial metrics, and the qualitative dominance in cultural and gendered perspectives, reflect a segmented but rich field. However, the limited use of mixed methods in certain themes suggests a gap in integrative research designs that could bridge spatial performance with social meaning, an area ripe for future exploration.

Likewise, the visual synthesis of the selected literature via SankeyMATIC offers significant interpretations regarding the geographical distribution of case studies in relation to the ten identified core themes (Figure 7). The SankeyMATIC diagram visualises each of the ten identified core research themes, including Adaptive Reuse, Cultural Studies, Restoration and Conservation, Gender Role, Space Syntax, Semantic Values, Spatial Characteristics, Vernacular Architecture, Sustainability, and Environmental Psychology, is geographically distributed across the 57 selected case studies.

At the centre of the network lies Iran, with 18 unique studies spanning a wide thematic spectrum. It is the most frequently investigated context, especially dominant in themes such as Space Syntax, Gender Role, Semantic Values, Spatial Characteristics, and Restoration and Conservation. This trend reflects Iran’s rich traditional housing heritage, strong domestic research output, and the country’s relevance to topics involving privacy, cultural symbolism, spatial configuration, and heritage conservation.

Following Iran, Indonesia appears as the second most frequently studied location with 11 articles, prominently linked to themes like Vernacular Architecture, Gender Role, and Cultural Studies. The Indonesian context provides fertile ground for ethnographic inquiry and vernacular interpretations, especially given its diverse indigenous communities and evolving cultural dynamics within traditional housing configurations.

India also holds a significant position with seven studies, primarily addressing Gender Role, Vernacular Architecture, and Spatial Characteristics, which often reflect societal structures, tribe-influenced spatial divisions, and sacred geometries manifested in domestic architecture. The inclusion of Turkey (three studies) and Egypt (three studies) reflects ongoing concerns about Restoration, Adaptive Reuse, and Heritage Transformation, where contemporary pressures challenge traditional morphological continuity.

Smaller but notable contributions come from China (3), Iraq (3), and New Zealand, Qatar, Afghanistan, Australia, South Korea, Cyprus, and Sri Lanka (each with 1). These countries, while less represented, provide unique case-specific perspectives. For example, New Zealand’s study is situated in Semantic Values, exploring the interpretation and memory of historic spaces; China’s studies fall under Sustainability, Environmental Psychology, and Space Syntax, suggesting a performance-based and empirical approach to spatial analysis. Countries such as Qatar and Vietnam, while only appearing once, reflect regional uniqueness in themes like Vernacular Architecture and Adaptive Reuse, respectively.

Thematically, Space Syntax is the most frequent category, entailing 14 distinct case studies across 6 countries, demonstrating the methodological strength and cross-regional applicability of configurational spatial analysis. Gender Role follows with seven unique cases, revealing growing scholarly interest in how domestic spaces reflect or reinforce social relationships, particularly within traditional family structures. Spatial Characteristics (seven studies) and Vernacular Architecture (eight studies) also show broad geographic application, often intersecting with environmental, social, and symbolic dimensions.

In summary, Iran, Indonesia, and India dominate the geographic distribution of studies, displaying regional strengths but also highlighting an imbalance in global representation. Entire regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and Latin America remain underrepresented. Figure 7 demonstrates how certain themes are regionally concentrated; for instance, Vernacular Architecture is heavily studied in Indonesia, while Space Syntax is a popular tool in the Iranian context. This synthesis confirms the need for comparative cross-cultural research, especially in underexplored contexts, to diversify the narrative and broaden the application of heritage, spatial, and socio-cultural theories in architectural studies.

3.4. Research Gaps and Future Research Directions

3.4.1. Evidence Gap

In architectural and cultural studies, particularly when dealing with traditional housing, this gap manifests in the form of either inadequate data supporting symbolic interpretations, insufficient validation of proposed conservation or adaptation strategies, or missing real-time usage evidence of spatial elements.

One significant aspect of the evidence gap within this domain is the reliance on symbolic or culturally rooted interpretations of space without the necessary incorporation with behavioural, social, or environmental data. For instance, while spatial divisions such as the courtyard, kitchen, and threshold areas are frequently discussed in terms of privacy, gender roles, or religious function, few studies offer measurable or comparative evidence across households, time periods, or user groups. Claims about the social value of the courtyard or the hierarchical layout of rooms are often drawn from historical documents, cultural narratives, or architectural simulation and observation, yet they are rarely substantiated by contemporary data reflecting how these spaces are used today, how their meanings may have evolved, or how different demographics perceive or interact with them. As a result, many conclusions remain speculative or locked in past interpretations, limiting their relevance to contemporary design challenges.

Another form of evidence gap lies in the evaluation of interventions or strategies proposed for the conservation, transformation, or adaptive reuse of traditional houses. Several studies recommend digital social mapping, participatory design, or spatial reconfiguration based on cultural values or environmental sustainability, yet they rarely provide post-intervention assessments to validate the impact of these strategies. There is often a notable absence of follow-up studies to document whether proposed interventions have succeeded in improving socio-cultural continuity, user satisfaction, spatial performance, or community engagement. Furthermore, where such interventions are implemented, such as transforming historic houses into public museums, community centres, or cultural tourism assets, evidence documenting the outcomes in terms of social inclusion, financial viability, or spatial liveability is either scarce or anecdotal. Without empirical grounding, these proposals risk remaining idealistic or academically isolated, with limited relevance to policy-makers, architects, urban designers, or conservation practitioners seeking evidence-based models for application.

Lastly, the comparative dimension of evidence is also underrepresented. Most studies are focused on singular geographic locations, ethnic groups, or architectural typologies, without comparative datasets that could illuminate shared patterns, divergences, or contextual dependencies. This lack of comparative evidence not only limits the generalisability of findings but also weakens the potential to develop universal or adaptable principles for sustainable, culturally rooted housing. For example, while studies may reveal privacy strategies in Iranian houses or communal spatial arrangements in Indonesian vernacular architecture, the absence of cross-regional data makes it difficult to discern whether these spatial norms are unique, culturally transferable, or driven by similar environmental and social stimuli. Similarly, the evidence supporting symbolic interpretations, such as axiality representing gender roles or vertical divisions symbolising spiritual ascension, is typically based on cultural exegesis rather than cross-cultural pattern recognition. Overall, the literature would benefit greatly from a more robust and interconnected evidence base that embraces historical analysis, spatial simulation, post-occupancy evaluation, and community-based ethnographic research to substantiate and contextualise its claims.

3.4.2. Knowledge Gap

Within the context of traditional residential architecture, this often results in an incomplete conceptual incorporation of cultural, spatial, and functional dimensions; insufficient theoretical synthesis across disciplines; or a limited understanding of how these residential environments function dynamically within evolving societal contexts. While there is an abundance of studies focusing on specific components, such as spatial configuration, symbolic meanings, or gendered divisions of space, these tend to operate in separate compartments. Few studies holistically bridge architecture, anthropology, heritage management, and social sustainability to produce integrated knowledge systems that can inform future adaptive design or policy interventions.

One core knowledge gap evident across the literature is the fragmented treatment of socio-spatial mechanisms in traditional housing. Many studies delve into the symbolic interpretation of space (e.g., courtyards representing family unity or kitchens symbolising women’s work), yet they fail to tie these meanings to everyday spatial practices or to the broader socio-economic structures shaping housing use. There is a marked absence of work that explores how historical spatial configurations are renegotiated in contemporary life, particularly in transitional contexts where urbanisation, generational shifts, and lifestyle changes alter how these spaces are occupied and perceived. The result is a static or romanticised portrayal of traditional architecture, disconnected from the au courant lived experiences of current occupants. Furthermore, knowledge remains superficial concerning how hybrid spatial forms emerge when traditional values intersect with modern aspirations, such as those seen in urban fringe developments, informal settlements, or culturally sensitive public housing.

Additionally, the literature shows limited advancement in conceptualising traditional housing as a knowledge system capable of informing broader discourses on resilience, inclusivity, or environmental responsiveness. While many studies praise vernacular housing for its sustainability, climate responsiveness, and cultural rootedness, few offer explanatory concepts or mechanisms that detail how such qualities are achieved or sustained across time. This absence of operationalised knowledge hinders the ability to adapt such principles in contemporary contexts. Moreover, existing research does not sufficiently account for the internal diversity within traditional housing systems, such as variations across socio-economic strata, ethnic minorities, gender dynamics, or different modes of occupancy (e.g., extended vs. nuclear families). Consequently, the field lacks a nuanced, multi-scalar understanding of traditional housing not just as built form, but as a socio-cultural construct evolving through experiment, adaptation, and contestation. Addressing this gap requires a transdisciplinary knowledge framework that affirms both the physical and intangible attributes of traditional residential architecture and its relevance to future-oriented housing solutions.

3.4.3. Practical Gap

In the context of traditional residential architecture, this gap illustrates the limitations in effectively translating research findings, cultural knowledge, and spatial principles into actionable architectural design, urban planning strategies, or policy interventions. While many studies extensively document the symbolic meanings, spatial configurations, and cultural functions of traditional houses, there is a marked absence of design-oriented outputs, implementation frameworks, or adaptable toolkits that could inform contemporary architectural practices. This detachment between academic inquiry and architectural practice poses a critical challenge for heritage preservation, housing design, and the sustainable development of culturally rooted communities.

One of the key manifestations of the practical gap is the lack of implementation-focused studies that demonstrate how the values established in traditional housing, such as privacy, flexibility, environmental, or social sustainability, can be incorporated into new housing developments. Numerous studies laud traditional housing for its passive design strategies, spatial adaptability, and alignment with socio-cultural norms, yet few offer practical design guidelines, planning prototypes, or material strategies to infuse these features in modern contexts. As a result, architects and planners often lack clear roadmaps to incorporate vernacular experiences into affordable housing schemes, public social housing design, or urban renewal projects. Furthermore, where policy recommendations are made, they are characterised by being abstract or overly general, lacking specificity about zoning regulations, building formulations, or spatial standards that would support culturally sensitive development.

Another dimension of the practical gap relies on the limited engagement with real-world constraints such as budget limitations, land tenure complexities, infrastructure availability, or institutional capacity. Various studies stress the cultural or symbolic importance of certain spatial arrangements, such as central courtyards or multigenerational layouts, but do not critically assess the feasibility of implementing such features in dense urban areas or low-income housing contexts [95]. There is also insufficient dialogue with stakeholders such as local governments, developers, or community-based organisations who could translate academic knowledge into built outcomes [96,97,98]. This lack of translational research mitigates the impact of scholarly work, and restricts its ability to inform sustainable development goals, urban regeneration policies, or culturally inclusive design practices. Realizing this practical gap requires not only a clearer articulation of design implications but also greater collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers to co-produce solutions that are both culturally grounded and pragmatically feasible.

3.4.4. Methodology Gap

In the context of traditional residential architecture, this gap becomes evident when research methods do not sufficiently capture the complexities of socio-spatial patterns, fail to evolve in line with technological advances, or lack incorporation between qualitative and quantitative paradigms [99]. Although multiple studies have successfully identified cultural, symbolic, and social attributes of traditional homes, they often fall short in using methodological tools that can reveal deeper, relational, or behavioural notions.

One key dimension of the methodology gap is the narrow application of advanced spatial analysis tools. Space syntax, for instance, is widely adopted for analysing configurational patterns, spatial accessibility, and visibility in traditional houses. However, its application remains largely conventional, often limited to axial analysis or basic visibility maps. Critical areas such as the societal implications of spatial visibility, controlled boundary of permeability, or gendered-specific spatial characteristics remain unexplored. For example, window openings—regularly noted for their aesthetic, climatic, or decorative value—are seldom analysed in terms of their visual connectivity or control over social interaction using visibility graph analysis.

Such omission indicates a missed opportunity to draw upon methodological tools for deeper cultural interpretation. Additionally, since most of the traditional houses are nowadays underutilised due to heritage preservation, conservation, or outdated functionality and viability, applying agent-based analysis could further validate and simulate the hypothetical behavioural movement of users within a virtual framework to understand their socio-spatial patterns of the layout. This gap also points to a lack of innovation in adapting existing methodologies to interrogate complex, multi-layered spatial meanings inherited in traditional housing environments.

Furthermore, many studies do not incorporate mixed-method approaches that could integrate spatial analysis with ethnographic profiles, behavioural observations, or participatory design methods [100]. While some research includes interviews or historical texts, there is a lack of methodological depth in cross-referencing these qualitative assessments with spatial metrics, social performance indicators, or environmental simulations. The absence of longitudinal studies or post-occupancy evaluations also limits the ability to understand how spatial configurations perform over time or under evolving user needs.

In addition, participatory and co-creative research involving community members, artisans, or residents remains scarce, despite its potential to uncover user-based knowledge, contest dominant narratives, and ground findings in lived experience. Addressing the methodological gap requires a critical shift toward a more integrative, experimental, empirical, and participatory framework that allows researchers to capture the full spectrum of meanings, values, performances, and transformations that historical residential spaces undergo.

3.4.5. Empirical Gap

In studies of traditional residential architecture, this often translates into a reliance on archival sources, historical interpretations, or expert narratives without substantial engagement with real-time data collection through fieldwork, direct observation, or experimental methodologies. While many publications adopt rich qualitative accounts and symbolic interpretations of spatial organisation, very few are grounded in systematic empirical evidence that validates how these spaces are currently used, perceived, or transformed by their inhabitants under contemporary conditions. This gap is often attributable to the significant challenges involved in gathering such data, given that it requires extensive physical and sociological field studies.

One of the most paramount empirical gaps concerns the lack of user-centred field studies, particularly those that examine how residents interact with traditional spatial arrangements in daily life. While many authors document the idealised or historically viable functions of elements like courtyards, thresholds, or gender-segregated zones, there is minimal evidence from current users about how these functions have evolved, persisted, or been reinterpreted. For example, notions of privacy, communal life, or ritual-based spatial use are often treated as dynamic cultural variables, and could be subjected to modifications across generations or socio-economic contexts [101,102,103,104,105]. Without interviews, behavioural mapping, or longitudinal ethnographic studies, such assumptions remain speculative. Moreover, the limited incorporation of contemporary resident voices in the empirical record limits the development of design or conservation strategies that genuinely reflect lived experience over time.

Yet another overlooked area within the empirical domain is the scarcity of environmental, behavioural, and functional data that could quantify the benefits or drawbacks of traditional design principles. For instance, while many studies contend that traditional houses offer thermal comfort, social vitality, or spatial flexibility, few present measurable data, such as temperature fluctuations, energy usage comparisons, behavioural patterns, and user satisfaction indices, that substantiate these assertions. Moreover, empirical assessments of recent heritage conservation efforts, adaptive reuse projects, or incorporation of traditional spatial features in new builds are often missing or anecdotal. This lack of empirical follow-up prevents a critical reciprocity where practice could inform theory, and vice versa. Addressing this empirical gap requires a stronger commitment to collecting, analysing, and interpreting quantitative and qualitative data in situ, to more precisely represent the ongoing relevance and evolution of traditional housing forms in the contemporary world.

3.4.6. Theoretical Gap

In the domain of traditional residential architecture, the theoretical gap becomes evident when empirical findings, cultural characteristics, and spatial observations are not framed within broader explanatory models. While the literature contains rich descriptions of traditional housing forms, spatial arrangements, and their cultural symbolism, much of it lacks the underpinning of rigorous theoretical foundations that would enable deeper analytical interpretation, comparative analysis, or translatability into new research contexts.

One major theoretical shortcoming is the fragmentation of disciplinary perspectives, which often results in partial or circumscribed interpretations of traditional housing phenomena. Architectural studies tend to focus on form, layout, and materiality; anthropological research leans toward ritual, identity, and symbolism; while environmental analyses bold sustainability and climate adaptability. However, these strands most frequently remain disconnected, with limited attempts to build integrative theories that explain how traditional housing operates as a holistic socio-spatial system. For instance, while spatial configuration is often linked to socio-cultural values such as privacy or gender segregation, few studies attempt to formulate a generalisable model of spatial governance or typological evolution that ties cultural values with morphological shifts and socio-behavioural changes. This disciplinary compartmentalisation barricades the development of a consolidated theory of traditional residential houses capable of informing both academic inquiry and practical application.

Furthermore, there is a limited presence of adaptive theoretical frameworks that account for how traditional spatial configurations transform over time. Most theories applied to traditional architecture are constant, focusing on preserving authenticity or decoding original spatial configurations rather than theorising how these spaces adapt in response to socio-political, or generational changes. This static lens often reduces traditional houses to heritage artefacts rather than living environments. For example, while researchers underscore the symbolic and social importance of courtyards or communal thresholds, they rarely theorise the mechanisms through which these spaces evolve, hybridise, or dissolve under urbanisation, migration, or lifestyle shifts. Without such theoretical scaffolding, traditional housing studies risk becoming descriptive or nostalgic rather than explanatory, limiting their contribution to broader discourses on housing resilience, transformation, or sustainability.

3.4.7. Population Gap

In the study of traditional residential architecture, this gap typically emerges when findings are drawn from narrowly defined or homogenous populations, such as specific ethnic groups, social classes, or geographic regions, thereby limiting the generalisability of the results. Many studies focus on a small number of case studies within specific cultural or regional contexts without adequately considering how architectural meaning, spatial practices, and housing performance might vary across broader demographic spectra, including differences in gender, age, socio-economic status, and occupation. As a result, current knowledge often reflects a partial view that may not fully account for the diversity of lived experiences or the changing nature of household dynamics in both rural and urban areas.

One of the most visible population gaps in the literature concerns the way gender roles are represented and interpreted within spatial configurations, particularly in relation to spaces like kitchens, courtyards, or thresholds. Many studies reproduce traditional narratives where the domestic realm, especially cooking and caregiving zones, is seen as predominantly female. While these interpretations reflect historical realities in many cultures, they often lack critical engagement with contemporary transformations in gender roles. In the current global context, where gender equality is not only a social imperative but a development priority (as reflected in Sustainable Development Goal 5 of the United Nations), such studies risk becoming reductive or outdated. Current households increasingly reflect more egalitarian arrangements, with shared responsibilities in domestic tasks and spatial usage. However, architectural research rarely interrogates how these evolving gender roles impact spatial usage, design needs, or socio-spatial equity within traditional or adapted housing configurations. This oversight perpetuates an inflexible understanding of gendered space, and it misses opportunities to advance gender-inclusive architectural theories or interventions [106,107,108].

Additionally, the literature demonstrates a propensity to concentrate on heritage-rich or culturally idealised populations, while largely ignoring transitional or marginalised populations who may inhabit deteriorated, altered, or hybridised versions of traditional housing. For example, migrant families, renters, or economically disadvantaged groups who inhabit former heritage homes may utilise spaces differently, adapt layouts more aggressively, or embody non-traditional household structures. Similarly, youth perspectives, intergenerational living patterns, or the experiences of elderly residents are seldom explored in depth and detail. These exclusions create blind spots in understanding how traditional houses function as evolving social systems, and they diminish the relevance of the research in addressing contemporary architecture, urbanisation, housing justice, or inclusive planning. Bridging the population gap requires a deliberate effort to engage with diverse demographic groups, incorporate participatory and inclusive research designs, and develop more equitable architectural narratives that reflect the plurality of users and their dynamic spatial needs.

3.5. Overview of Synthesised Gaps and Study Limitations

In summary, the synthesis of selected studies revealed seven major categories of research gaps in the literature on traditional residential architecture. These include evidence gaps, such as the lack of real-time behavioural data and comparative analysis across contexts; knowledge gaps resulting from disciplinary fragmentation and a limited understanding of how traditional spaces evolve under contemporary influences; and practical gaps where vernacular values are not effectively translated into applicable design guidelines or policy frameworks. Methodological gaps persist due to the underuse of innovative tools like agent-based modelling or integrated qualitative-quantitative techniques. Empirical gaps are evident in the absence of post-occupancy evaluations, user-based fieldwork, and measurable environmental data. Theoretical gaps stem from insufficient interdisciplinary models to explain the socio-spatial dynamics and adaptability of traditional housing systems. Lastly, population gaps are marked by underrepresentation of diverse user groups, with a critical need to reconsider gender roles, intergenerational use, and marginalised communities within evolving domestic settings. The visual summary of these research gaps and their thematic structures is depicted in Figure 8.

Despite the comprehensive nature of this systematic review, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in the Scopus database, potentially excluding relevant insights from grey literature, local publications, or non-indexed sources. Second, the analysis was restricted to English-language studies, which may have led to the omission of regionally significant research published in other languages. Thematic categorisation, while rigorously applied, may also involve subjective interpretation, especially in interdisciplinary studies that span multiple domains. Lastly, the review focused on traditional residential architecture, and thus excluded non-residential typologies that may suggest transferable socio-spatial patterns. These limitations highlight the need for future systematic review to adopt broader linguistic, and typological scopes to ensure a more inclusive understanding of traditional built environments.

4. Conclusions

This study set out to explore the socio-spatial factors established in historic residential architecture by conducting a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles. Through adopting the PRISMA framework and integrating qualitative and quantitative tools, including bibliometric mapping and SankeyMATIC visualisations, the review aimed to discover the future research directions that could be effective on the social life of historical houses. The analysis revealed ten thematic clusters, ranging from space syntax and gender roles to restoration, sustainability, and cultural symbolism, while also illuminating methodological and geographic trends in the literature.

In particular, the review highlighted how heritage interpretation, symbolic spatial meanings, gender dynamics, and vernacular adaptability converge in shaping the socio-spatial structure of historic houses. Tools such as space syntax proved critical in quantifying spatial characteristics across contexts, while feminist and cultural studies shed light on evolving domestic practices, memory, and identity. Beyond synthesising a diverse body of literature, this review also pinpointed seven critical research gaps: evidence, knowledge, practical, methodological, empirical, theoretical, and population gaps. For instance, limited post-occupancy evaluation, insufficient empirical behavioural data, and lack of participatory design input were recurring shortcomings. Similarly, evolving gender roles and underrepresentation of marginalised groups remain insufficiently addressed in spatial studies. These findings directly respond to the study’s aim by clarifying the fragmented state of current research and pointing toward more integrated, user-centred, and culturally responsive future directions.

The originality of this work lies in its comprehensive and visual synthesis of the academic landscape of traditional housing, which goes beyond thematic review by offering a methodological framework and strategic directions for interdisciplinary collaboration. By framing these insights within a typology of research gaps, the study also provides a structured foundation for scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers to design future research and heritage interventions more effectively. In conclusion, this study not only reinforces the ongoing relevance of vernacular housing principles but also serves as a roadmap for future research and practice aimed at crafting socially sustainable and culturally grounded living environments.