ارزیابی تأثیر مقیاس مکانی بر دلبستگی ساکنین به مکان در محلات مرکزی (شهر تبریز)
Evaluation the Impacts of Spatial Scale on the Residents’ Attachment to Place in Central Neighborhoods (Tabriz City)
اشتراک گذاری
اشتراک در شبکه های اجتماعی :
گزارش خطا
با توجه به مسئله تضعیف ارتباط ساکنین با مکان‌های سکونتی، مقاله حاضر در تلاش است به اهداف تحقیق یعنی یافتن ارتباط میزان دلبستگی ساکنین و ابعاد آن با سه مقیاس مکانی (خانه، محله و شهر)، شناخت تصویر ذهنی ساکنین و یافتن ارتباط آن با دلبستگی مکانی بپردازد. بنابراین تحقیق حاضر با فرض دلبستگی کمتر ساکنین به محله تاریخی به دو روش کیفی و کمّی شامل ترسیم نقشه شناختی و توزیع پرسش‌نامه در میان ساکنین محله تاریخی سرخاب شهر تبریز انجام گرفت. یافته‌های تحقیق نشان داد که ارتباط بین میزان دلبستگی و مقیاس مکان به شکل منحنی U (دلبستگی به محله، کمترین) است. با افزایش مقیاس مکان، میزان تصویر ذهنی ساکنین کاهش می‌یابد، در مقیاس محله، نشانه و در مقیاس شهر، گره نقش مؤثرتری در خوانایی ساکنین از محله و شهر دارد و ارتباط خطی مستقیمی بین تصویر ذهنی و میزان دلبستگی به محله وجود دارد. بنابراین نتایج آزمون برای ارتقای دلبستگی به محله تاریخی، توجه بیشتر بر بعد عاطفی (عوامل کالبدی) و بعد شناختی دلبستگی به محله، تأکید بیشتر بر تقویت مؤلفه‌های نشانه و مسیر در محله، و از طرف دیگر اقدامات بهسازی مرکز محله را برای ارتقای مشارکت و روابط اجتماعی ساکنین از سوی مسئولین و برنامه‌ریزان شهری می‌طلبد.
Due to the weakening of the bonds of place-human that are part of globalization, spatial mobility, and environmental problems, bond and attachment to place (psychological issues) and cognitive issues are major factors in overcoming these problems, and in achieving environmental sustainability. Thus to enhance the attachment to place and to reduce the spatial mobility in new and central urban environments, it necessary to review the factors and variables affecting the place attachment in these environment. Place attachment involves positively experienced bonds, sometimes occurring without awareness, that are developed over time from the behavioral, affective, and cognitive ties between individuals and groups and their socio-physical environment. The neighborhood attachment is embedded in the relationships between physical, cognitive, affective and behavioral aspects of people-residential environment transactions. The few research studies that took into account more than one type of place demonstrate that attitudes towards place and their predictors may differ depending on the spatial scale. The present paper attempts to evaluate the theories of place attachment at central neighborhood and at three scales of home, neighborhood, city, and factors of place attachment and relationship among these factors with attachment intensity and spatial scale. The research is conducted using qualitative and quantitative methods such as drawing cognitive maps and distribution of questionnaires among Sorkhab (historical-central) neighborhood residents. Results of test showed that there is a U shaped relationship between place attachment intensity and spatial scale. Attachment to home has the highest value and attachment to neighborhood has the lowest one. There are descending linear relationship between cognitive and spatial scale from home to city and also a U shaped relationship between cognitive- attachment value and spatial scale. This relationship is of the highest value for the city scale and of the lowest for neighborhood scale. Evaluation of cognitive maps drawn by residents showed that cognitive maps of neighborhood have the highest frequency for the ways, nods, symbols and edges, while for the cognitive maps of city, this belongs to ways, edges, symbols and nods. So symbols at neighborhood scale and nodes at city scale have the more impact upon the residents’ mental image and legibility of neighborhood and city. Socio-demographic factors (gender, marital status, home ownership, car ownership, age, education, type of transportation, duration of residence) showed consistent impacts on place attachment and a strong positive and significant relationship was established between social factors and attachment to neighborhood. Understanding the relationship between place attachment and place identity and characteristics of the activities is useful for planners and urban designers in making livable and meaningful urban places. Also the results showed that increase of the spatial scale decrease the intensity of residents’ mental image. The results of the research indicate that in order for improving attachment to historic neighborhood, affective dimension (physical factors) and cognitive dimension of attachment to neighborhood must be taken into account, and more emphasis must be placed on improving symbols and ways in neighborhood; on the other hand, there is a need for improvement efforts for neighborhood center to enhance residents’ participation and social relations.
(939.9 کیلوبایت)
دانلود مقاله
مشخصات مقاله
- پرتوی، پروین (1387) پدیدارشناسی مکان، انتشارات فرهنگستان هنر جمهوری اسلامی ایران، تهران.
- شوای، فرانسوا (1375) شهرسازی: تخیلات و واقعیات، ترجمه سید محسن حبیبی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
- شولتز، کریستین نوربری (1387) مفهوم سکونت: به سوی معماری تمثیلی، ترجمه محمود امیر یاراحمدی، نشر آگه، تهران.
- لینچ، کوین (1374) سیمای شهر. ترجمه منوچهر مزینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
- مهندسین مشاور نقش محیط (1388) طرح تفصیلی شهر تبریز، وزارت مسکن وشهرسازی.
- Brown, B.B. & Werner, C.M. (1985), “Social cohesiveness, territoriality and holiday decorations”, Environment and Behaviour, 27, pp.539-565.
- Bonaito, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). “Multidimensional perception of residential environment qulity and neighborhood attachment in the urban environment”. Journal of environmental psychology, 19, pp. 331-352.
- Devine-Wright, P., & Howes, Y. (2010) “Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study”, Journal of environmental psychology, in press, corrected proof.
- Davidson, P. & Black, R. (2007) “Voices from the profession: Principles of successful guided cave interpretation”, Journal of Interpretation Research, 12(2), pp. 25-43.
- Erkip, Feyzan (2010) “Community and neighborhood relations in Ankara: An urban-suburban contrast”, Cities, 27, pp. 96-102.
- Fridgen, J.D. (1987), “Use of cognitive maps to determine perceived tourism regions”. Leisure Science, 9, pp. 101-117.
- Gilmartin, P. (1985), “The cued spatial response approach to macro scale cognitive maps”. Canadian Geographer, 29, pp. 56-59.
- Gifford, Robert (2007), “The consequences of living in High-Rise buildings”, Architectural Science Review, Vol. 50. No.1.
- Gillis, Rob (1997) “Place Attachment, identification and perception”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, pp. 241-265.
- Hidalgo, M.C. & Hernandez, B. (2001). “Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions”, Journal of Environmental psychology, 21, pp. 273-281.
- Haynes, Robin, et al. (2007), “Modifiable neighborhood units, zone design and residents perceptions”, Health & Place, 13, pp. 812-825.
- Jacobs, M. (1995) “Sustainability and community: Environment, economic rationalism and sense of place”, Australian Planner, 32(2), pp. 109-115.
- Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R.; & Bacon, J. (2004) “Effects of place attachment on users perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, pp. 213-225.
- Kitchin, R.M. (1997) “Exploring spatial thought”, Environment and Behavior, 29(1), pp. 123-157.
- Lovejoy, Kristin; Handy, Susan & Mokhtarian, Patricia (2010) “Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus traditional environments: An evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighborhoods”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 97,pp. 37-48.
- Lewicka, M. (2005) “Ways to make people active: role of place attachment, cultural capital and neighborhood ties”, Journal of environmental psychology, 4, pp. 381-395.
- Lewicka, Maria (2008) “Place attachment, place identity and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, pp. 209-231.
- Lewicka, Maria (2009) “What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, xxx, pp. 1-17.
- Liberman, N.; Trope, Y. & Stephan E. (2007), “Psychological distance.” In A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social Psychology:Handbook of basic principles (pp.353-381). New York: The Guilford Press.
- Low, S.M. & Altman, I. (1992), “Place attachment: a conceptual inquiry”. In I. Altman, & S.M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment(pp.1-12). New York/London: Plenum Press.
- Marcus, C.C. (1992), “Environmental memories”, In Low, S.M. and Altman, I. (Eds.) Place attachment, New York: Plenum Press.
- Moore, Gary T. & Reginald G. Golledge, (1976) Environmental Knowing: Theories, Research and Methods, Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
- Nasar, J. L. (1998) The evaluative image of the city, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
- Neisser, V. (1976) Cognition and reality, San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freem.
- Najafi M. & Shariff M.K.M. (2011) “The concept of a place and sense of place in architectural studies”, International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 6(3), pp. 187-193.
- Scannell, Leila & Gifford, Robert (2010) “Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, pp.1-10.
- Scannell, Leila & Gifford, Robert (2010), “The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, pp. 289-297.
- Shamai, S. & Ilatov, Z. (2005) “Measuring sense of place: methodological aspects”, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96, pp. 467-476.
- Stedman, R. C. (2003), “Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place”, Society and natural Resources, 16, pp. 671-685.
- Shumaker, S.A. & Taylor, R.B. (1983) “Toward a clarification of people-place relationships: A model of attachment to place”, In N. R. Feimer and E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental Psychology: Directions and perspectives, New York, Praeger, pp.119-251.
مسابقات
جوایز
نشریات
http://aup.journal.art.ac.ir
