بازشناسی عوامل کالبدی_فضایی مؤثر بر پیاده روی شهروندان در محله های شهری (مطالعه موردی: نوشهر)

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار شهرسازی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد رامسر، رامسر، ایران.

2 کارشناسی ارشد برنامه ریزی شهری

چکیده

مبحث پیاده­روی و تأمین محیط­های مناسب برای ترغیب و گسترش میزان پیاده­روی به عنوان یکی از راهبردهای اصلی ارتقای کیفیت محیط در شهرها تبدیل شده است. امری که در پی تأیید تأثیرات مثبت پیاده­روی بر سلامت شهروندان، کاهش ترافیک و آلودگی­ها و مراودات اجتماعی افراد در پژوهش­های مختلف، مداوماً رو به گسترش بوده است. با توجه به این که اهداف شهروندان از پیاده­روی با یکدیگر متفاوت می­باشد و در حالی که وجوه مختلف محیط در ترغیب شهروندان به پیاده­روی در عرصه­های شهری اثرگذاری متفاوتی دارند،  پژوهش حاضر در جست­وجوی تبیین چگونگی اثرگذاری ویژگی­های کالبدی_فضایی محلات مسکونی بر میزان پیاده­روی شهروندان بوده و در پی پاسخ به این سئوالات است که ابعاد کالبدی_فضایی محلات مسکونی بر چه جنبه­هایی از پیاده­روی افراد تأثیر بیشتری دارند؟ و در این صورت کدام یک از عوامل کالبدی_فضایی محیط ساخته شده بیشترین تأثیر را بر میزان پیاده­روی دارند؟ در این پژوهش پس از مطالعات نظری پیرامون شاخص­های کالبدی_فضایی شهر و پیاده­روی شهروندان و تدوین مدل مفهومی تحقیق، میزان پیاده­روی ساکنان سه محله واقع در شهر نوشهر استان مازندران (مطالعه موردی تحقیق) بر حسب دو  نوع پیاده­روی کاری و تفریحی از طریق پرسشنامه مورد پرسش و ارزیابی قرار گرفت. سپس همپیوندی آنها با فاکتورهای کالبدی فضایی منتج از مطالعات نظری (از حیث شدت تأثیرپذیری) از طریق رگرسیون خطی چند متغیره سنجیده شد. نتایج یافته­های پژوهش نشان داد که متغیرهای کالبدی_فضایی شکل شهر تنها بر میزان پیاده­روی تفریحی به صورت معناداری تأثیرگذارند (فرضیه نخست). دلیل این امر می­تواند این باشد که پیاده­روی کاری جزو فعالیت­های ضروری افراد است و فرد در هر شرایطی ناگزیر به انجام آن است؛ بنابراین محیط تأثیر کمتری بر میزان پیاده­روی کاری دارد. در صورتی­که پیاده­روی تفریحی جنبه­ حیاتی نداشته و در شرایطی انجام می­گیرد که زمینه­ مطلوب برای آنها فراهم باشد؛ در نتیجه شرایط محیط و شکل شهر می­تواند تأثیر زیادی بر انجام آن بگذارد. همچنین آنالیز واریانس یافته­ها نشان داد که عوامل کاربری، تراکم و دسترسی(در بین عوامل کالبدی_فضایی شهر) بیشترین همپیوندی را با میزان پیاده­روی شهروندان دارند(فرضیه دوم).

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Identification of spatial factors affecting pedestrsin movement in urban neighborhoods (Case Study: Nowshahr)

نویسندگان [English]

  • A K 1
  • T G 2
چکیده [English]

The issue of waking and providing suitable environments to encourage walking level has become one of the main strategies to improve quality of environment in cities. The issue is constantly attracting much more attention as it has been confirmed that walking has positive effects on citizens’ health, reducing traffic and pollution and increasing social interaction between people. Planning and design approaches that focus on sustainability, density, security, etc. consider walkability of urban spaces as an available strategy for achieving these concepts.  Many prior surveys have considered the level of walking and walkability of urban spaces as an important factor in sociability and quality of urban spaces. Although prior surveys have generally focused on determining physical and spatial dimensions effective on walking, the effect of each physical and spatial factor in different urban areas (residential, downtown…) on different types of walking (business and recreational) is not the same.
Since people walk for different objectives and as various aspects of the built environment have different effects on encouraging people to walk in urban environments, this study tries to seek how spatial-physical factors influence the walking level of citizens at residential districts. This research poses two main questions: which aspects of people’s walking are affected by physical-special factors of residential districts? Which physical-special factors have more impact on the level of walking? In this research, theoretical studies on the spatial-physical factors of urban areas and walking indicators revealed that several environmental factors are effective on the walking level of people including continuity of paths, mixed usage, quality of paths, safety and security, beauty and desirability, and residential density. These factors are in a way parts of the wider spatial system of a city (or are affected by them). This wider system includes type of components, quantity of components, density, context, structure and spatial distribution. After developing the conceptual model of the research, the walking level of residents (business and recreational walking) in three neighborhoods of Nowshahr was evaluated through a questionnaire. Then its relationship with spatial-physical factors resulting from theoretical studies was measured through multivariate linear regression.
The results of the study showed a significant relationship between spatial-physical variables of urban neighborhoods and recreational walking (first hypothesis). The reason for this could be that business walking is a required activity for individuals which should be done in all circumstances regardless of the environment. However, recreational walking is not an obligation and is encouraged in favorable contexts and conditions, so environmental conditions and form of urban areas can significantly affect it.  ANOVA results also indicated high correlation between walking level of citizens and land use, density and accessibility factors among the physical-spatial factors of the city (second hypothesis). Accordingly, urban physical-spatial features that represent mixed use, physical density and more pedestrian roads will be more favorable because in this case the rate of recreational walking will increase significantly.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • walking
  • Environmental Factors
  • physical-spatial factors
  • business walking
  • recreational walking
  • Alfonzo, C.E., KawachiI, S.V., Tucker-Seeley. R., & Sorensen, G. (2005).The social environment and walking behavior among low-income housing residents. Social Science & Medicine, 1-9.
  • Andrews E., Jerrett, M., Dunton, G., Seto, E., & Pentz, M.A. (2012) A study of community design, greenness, and physical activity in children using satellite, GPS and accelerometer data. Health & Place, 18, 46–54.
  • Appleyard, A. (1981). Livable Streets. Berkeley: University of California Press
  • Arvidsson, D., Eriksson, U., Lonn, S.L., Sundquist, K., (2012).Neighborhood walkability, income, and hour-by-hour physical activity patterns. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc, 698–705.
  • Bahraini, S.H,.(1998). Urban Design Process, University of Tehran Publications, Tehran.[ in Persian]
  • Bahraini, S.H., Khosravi, H.(2014). Handbook of Urban Spaces Design, University of Tehran Publications, Tehran.[ in pesian]
  • Booth, G.L., Creatore, M.I., Moineddin, R., Gozdyra, P., Weyman, J.T., Matheson, F.I., Glazier, R.H., (2013). Unwalkable neighborhoods, poverty, and the risk of diabetes among recent immigrants to Canada compared with long-term residents. Diab. Care 36,302–308.
  • Craig, C.L, Marshall, A.L, Sjostrom, M., Bauman, A.EBooth, M.LAinsworth, B.EPratt, M., Ekelund, U., Yngve, A., Sallis, J.F., Oja, P. (2003) International physical activityquestionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc;35(8):1381–95.
  • Dowling, R. G., Reinke, D. B., Flannery, A., Ryus, P., Vandehey, M., Petritsch, T. A.,
  • Landis, B. W., et al. (2008). NCHRP report 616: Multimodal level of service analysis
  • for urban streets. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the
  • National Academies.
  • Doyle, S., Kelly-Schwartz, A., Schlossberg, M., & Stockard, J. (2006). Active
  • Community environments and health: the relationship of walkable and safe
  • communities to individual health. Journal of the American Planning Association,
  • 72(1), 19-31.and morbidity. Urban Ecology, 567–582.
  • Ewing R.,T. Schmid, R. Killingsworth, A. Zlot, and S. Raudenbush. (2003). Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity. American Journal of Health Promotion.18:47-57.
  • Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment – A meta-analysis.
  • Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 256–294.
  • Frank, L. D., Andresen, M. A., & Schmid, T. L. (2004). Obesity relationships with
  • community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of
  • Preventive Medicine, 27(2), 87–96.
  • Frank, L. D., Schmid, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Chapman, J., & Saelens, B. E. (2005). Linking
  • objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form:
  • Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2),
  • 117–125.
  • Frank, L.D., Sallis, J.F., Saelens, B.E., Leary, L., Cain, K., Conway, T.L., Hess, P.M., (2010). The development of a walkability index: application to the neighborhood quality of life study. Br. J. Sports Med. 44 (13), 924-933
  • Gallimore, T, Browna, S &Werner, W, (2011) Moving beyond walkability : On the potential of health geography. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 1925-1932.
  • Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
  • Gehl, J. (2011). Life between Buildings. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
  • Gehl, J., Svarre, B. (2013). How to Study Public Life, Island Press, Washington.
  • Gilderbloom, J.I., Riggs, W.W., Meares, W.L. (2015), Does walkability matter? An examination of walkability’s impact on housing values, foreclosures and crime. Cities, 42, 13-24
  • Gilderbloom, J. I., Meares, W. L. (2012). Sustain: Special Issue: Alternative
  • Transportation Guest Editor Sustain A Journal of Environmental and
  • Sustainability Issues University of Louisville: Kentucky Institute for Sustainable Development, (26) Spring/Summer.
  • Gilderbloom, J., Meares, W. L., & Riggs, W. (2014). How toxic waste sites in neighborhoods kill places and people. Journal of Urbanism, December.
  • Jacobs, A. (1993). Great Streets. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Joshu, C. E., Boehmer, T. K., Brownson, R. C., & Ewing, R. (2008). Personal, neighbourhood and urban factors associated with obesity in the United States. Journal of Epidemiology and community Health, 62, 202-208.
  • Krizek, K.J., Handy, S.L., Forsyth, A., (2009). Explaining changes in walking and
  • bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research. Environ. Plan. B Plan.
  • Des. 36 (4), 725-740.
  • Lang, J.(1987). Creating architectural Theory, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York
  • Lawrence, D. Frank, Thomas L. Schmid, James F. (2005), Linking Objectively Measured Physical Activity with Objectively Measured Urban Form, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Am J Prev Med;28(2S2)
  • Longo, A., Hutchinson,W.G., Hunter, R.F., Tully, M.A., (2015). Demand response to improved walking infrastructure: A study into the economic of walking and health behavior change, social science medicine, 143, 107-116
  • Lovasi, G.S., Neckerman, K.M., Quinn, J.W., Weiss, C.C., Rundle, A., (2009). Effect of individual or neighborhood disadvantage on the association between neighborhood walkability and body mass index. Am. J. Public Health 99, 279–284.
  • Lynch, K. (1981). A Theory of Good City Form, MIT Press.
  • Moudon, A. V., Lee, C., Cheadle, A. D., Garvin, C., Johnson, D., Schmid, T. L., Weathers,R. D., et al. (2006). Operational definitions of walkable neighborhood:
  • Theoretical and empirical insights. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 3, 99.
  • Nosal, A, (2009). Street connectivity and obesity in Glasgow, Scotland: Impact of age, sex and socio economic position. Health &Place, 18, 1307–1313.
  • Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B, Bull, F., Jamrozik, K., Donovan, R. (2003), Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling. Soc Sci Med; 56:1693–703.
  • Robinson, S, (2002). Physical activity patterns of Australian adults, Results of the 1999 National Physical Activity Survey. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
  • Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D. (2003), Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health;93:1552– 8.
  • Saelens, B.E., Handy, S.L., (2008). Built environment correlates of walking: a review.
  • Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 40 (7), 550-566.
  • Sallis, J.F., Saelens, B.E., Frank, L.D., Conway, T.L., Slymen, D.J., Cain, K.L., Chapman,J.E., Kerr,J., (2009). Neighborhood built environment and income: examining multiple health outcomes. Soc. Sci.Med.68, 1285–1293.
  • Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the walkable city. Journal of Urban Planning and
  • Development, 131(4), 246–257.
  • Southworth, M., Owens, P. M., (1993), The Evolving Metropolis Studies of Community, Neighborhood, and Street Form at the Urban Edge, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 59, No. 3.
  • Sundquist, K., Eriksson, U., Kawakami, N., Skog, L., Ohlsson, H., Arvidsson, D., (2011). Neighborhood walkability, physical activity, and walking behavior: the Swedish Neighborhood and Physical Activity (SNAP) study. Soc. Sci. Med.72, 1266–1273.