عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
Apart from providing homes for native wildlife, parks have many values. The last few decades of the 20th century have seen a rapid change in approaches towards nature in the urban environment, which reflects more familiarity with nature amongst the general public and landscape professionals. Benefits and values of contact with nature have been investigated by environmental psychologists. It can be said that such contact is necessary for human health and existence of natural and open spaces have many psychological and aesthetic benefits. Evidence regarding the influence of nature on the health and well-being of individuals and communities has emerged from a number of traditional disciplines such as psychology and in recent fields of research like recreation and leisure. Although much emphasis has been put on urban nature from different perspectives and on preferences of urban natural areas in comparison to built-up areas, studies focusing on perception and preferences of different forms of nature are rather scarce. For increasing use of urban green spaces, it is better that these spaces be designed based on the public’s preferences and needs. There is proof which show that some people do not respond to natural landscapes in urban areas, and view them as messy, worthless or even frightening, and prefer formal and designed landscapes. This research paper examines public attitudes towards urban naturalistic in contrast to designed landscapes. Public opinions was evaluated using site-based questionnaire and random sampling in natural and designed spaces (Lale and Daneshjoo Parks, respectively) and these two methods were then compared. The survey sites should be in the same area and approximately similar in size in order to eliminate possible effect of population differences, distance, and size on perceptions and preferences. Following site selection, a questionnaire was designed to measure public perception and preferences of contrasting landscapes. The questionnaires were conducted on a face-to-face basis with 200 park users (100 per site) at the survey sites. In the next stage, researchers asked them to classify 16 photos of different parks with varied landscape characteristics into 5 groups (very elegant, beautiful, simple, ugly, very ugly). Results demonstrated that the study population did not have a clear understanding of natural and organic design patterns, prefered regular and plaid patterns for urban green spaces and derived more benefits and values from them. Laleh and Daneshjoo Park were appraised as more attractive and safer, respectively. It can be concluded that peace and quiet, safety, nature observation, experiencing seasonal changes and social interactions are rated higher in designed parks (Daneshjoo) and other factors such as contact with nature and being beneficial for wildlife are superior in natural parks (Laleh). Furthermore, natural parks are more effective in creating excitement and sense of freedom in users. On the other hand, designed parks (Daneshjoo) are more calming and have more positive effect such as relief from stress and sense of renewal. Recognizing public perception of landscape design styles and paying attention to their preferences and needs in green spaces can help landscape designers in designing such places and enhancing their use.
- Beheshti, Seyyed Mohammad (1387) The Persian Garden, Journal of Golestan Art, num 12.
- Bezi, Khodarahm, Khamr, Gholamali, Kiani, Akbar et al. (1392) Assessing the preferences of different age groups of Mellat Park visual landscapes in Zahedan, Geography and regional- urban planning, num 9, pp 49-68. [in Persian]
-Bixler, R.D., Floyd, M.F., 1997. Nature is scary, disgusting and uncomfortable. Environ. Behav. 29, 443–467.
- Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M., Limb, M., 1988a. People, parks and the urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Stud. 25, 455–473.
- Burgess, J., Limb, M., Harrison, C.M., 1988b. Exploring environmental values through the medium of small groups. Environ. Plann. A20, 309–326.
- Chiesura, A., 2003. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plann. 68, 129–138.
- Coley, R.L., Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 1997. Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environ. Behav. 29 (4), 468–494.
-Daniel, T. C. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol 54.
- Dick, R.E., Hendee, J.C., 1986. Human responses to encounters with wildlife in urban parks. Leisure Sci. 8 (1), 63–77.
-Domon,G., et al. 2005 . Élaboration d’ un modèle integerd’aménagement des paysages en zone d’agriculture intensive sur la base du cadre écologique. Rapport d’étape déposé au Fonds québécois de la recherché sur la nature et les technologies – Action Concertée « Soutien stratégique à la prom otion et à la consolidation de la recherche sur l’environnement rural », Montréal, pp: 90.
- Emery,M., 1986. Promoting Nature in Cities and Towns: A Practical Guide. Croom Helm, London.
- Falamaki, Mohammad Mansour (1384) The mysteries of the Persian garden, Journal of Museums, num 41, Special number of conference and exhibition of Persian garden, pp 2-5 [in Persian]
- Ghorbani, Rasool, Teimoori, Razieh (1389) Analysis of the parks' role in improving the quality of urban life by using the seeking-escaping, Case study: Tabriz city parks, Research in Human Geography, num 72, pp 47- 62 [in Persian]
- Gobster, P.H., 2001. Visions of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landsc. Urban Plann. 56, 35–51.
- Golchin, Peiman, Narooi, Behrooz,Masnavi, Mohammad Reza (1391) Assessing the Visual quality educational spaces based on the preferences of consumers (Case study: University of Sistan and Baluchistan) Journal of Ecology, num 62 [in Persian]
- Golchin, Peiman, Narooi, Behrooz, Behbehani, Homa (1392) Deliberation of Users' preferences based on visual quality assessment, Journal of Ecology, num 4, pp 193- 203 [in Persian]
- Gold, S.M., 1977. Social benefits of trees in urban environments. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 10, 85–90.
- Hands, D.E., Brown, R.D., 2002. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landsc. Urban Plan. 58, 57–70.
- Harrison, C., Burgess, J., 1988. Qualitative research and open space policy. The Planner, 16–18.
- Harrison, C., Limb, M., Burgess, J., 1987. Nature in the city—popular values for a living World. J. Environ. Manage. 25, 347–362.
- Hartig, T., Mang, M., Evans, G.W., 1991. Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environ. Behav. 23 (1), 3–26.
- Hayward, D.G., Weitzer, W.H., 1984. The public image of urban parks: past amenity, present ambivalence, uncertain future. Urban Ecol. 8, 243–268.
- Hekmati, Jamshid (1371), Garden and park design, Thesaurus (Farhang Jame), Tehran [in Persian]
- Heidar nattaj, Vahid (1389) Urban parks with Iranian garden pattern, Journal of Manzar, num 10 p. 84 [in Persian]
- Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., Calvert, T., 2002. Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landsc. Urban Plann. 60, 135–150.
- Hitchmough, J., Woodstra, J., 1999. The ecology of exotic herbaceous perennials grown in managed, native grassy vegetation in urban landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plann. 45, 107–121.
- Hull I.V., R.B., 1992. Brief encounters with urban forests produce moods that matter. J. Arboric. 18 (6), 322–324.
- Kaplan, R., 1984. Impact of urban nature: a theoretical analysis. Urban Ecol. 8, 189–197.
- Kaplan, R., Talbot, J.F., 1988. Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: a review and recent findings. Landsc. Urban Plann. 15, 107–117.
- Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., Wendt, J.S., 1972. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Percept. Psychophys. 12 (4), 354–356.
-Kaplan, R., Austin, M.E., 2003. Out in the country: sprawl and the quest for nature nearby. Landsc. Urban Plann. 69, 235–243.
- Kellert, S.R., 1993. The biological basis for human values of nature. In: Kellert, S.R.,Wilson, E.O. (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press, Washington, pp. 42–69.
- Kuo, F.E., Bacaicoa, M., Sullivan, W.C., 1998. Transforming inner city landscapes: trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environ. Behav. 30 (1), 28–59.
- Majlesi Pakooi, Aboozar, Ansari, Mojtaba, Bemanian, Mohammad Reza et al. (1392) Features of the first park in Tehran: Amin al-doleh, Baghe Nazar, num 25, pp 3-16 [in Persian]
- Majnoonian, Henrik (1374) Issues about parks and green spaces and promenades, Organization of parks and green spaces in Tehran [in Persian]
- Mansouri, Amir (1389) Income of 4 consecutive generations of urban parks, Journal of Manzar, num 10 [in Persian]
- Moore, E.O., 1982. A prison environment’s effect on health care service demands. J. Environ. Syst. 11, 17–34.
- Nassauer, J.I., 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landsc. J. 14 (2), 161–170.
- Lamb, R.J., Purcell
, A.T., 1990. Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landsc. Urban Plann. 19, 333–352.
- Parry-Jones, W.L.I., 1990. Natural landscape, psychological wellbeing and mental health. Landsc. Res. 15 (2), 7–11.
- Parsons, R., 1995. Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: conundrum, canard or curiosity. Landsc. Urban Plann. 32, 227–244.
- Parsons, R., Tassinary, L.G., Ulrich, R.S., Hebl, M.R., Grossman- Alexander, M., 1998. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. J. Environ. Psychol. 18, 113–139.
- Saidnia, Ahmad (1383), Design of urban furniture and spaces, The municipalities and village administrations of the country, Tehran [in Persian]
- Schroeder, H.W., Anderson, L.M., 1984. Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. J. Leisure Res. 16 (2), 178–194.
- Shaffer, G.S., Anderson, L.M., 1985. Perception of the security and attractiveness of urban parking lots. J. Environ. Psychol. 5 (4), 311–323.
- Soltani, Mehrdad (1386) The creation of urban gardens in the modern era: the transition from the garden to park, Bagh Nazar, num 8, pp 48- 58 [in Persian]
- Soltanzadeh, Hosein (1382) From garden to park, Anthropology Journal, num 1, pp 91- 113 [in Persian]
- Talbot, J.F., Kaplan, R., 1984. Needs and fears: the response to trees and nature in the inner city. J. Arboric. 10 (8), 222–228.
-Tennessen, C.M., Cimprich, B., 1995. Views to nature: effects on attention. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 77–85.
- Ulrich, R.S., 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well being. Landsc. Res. 4 (1), 17–23.
- Ulrich, R.S., Addoms, D.L., 1981. Psychological and recreational benefits of a residential park. J. Leisure Res. 13, 43–65.
- Yang, B.E., Brown, T.J., 1992. A cross-cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environ. Behav. 24 (4), 471–507.