تاثیر دلبستگی به مکان بر سرمایه اجتماعی در محیط‌های مشترک همسایگی؛ نمونه موردی: مجتمع مسکونی نور در تهران

رامیار, رضا; ضرغامی, اسماعیل

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

¹ دانشجوی دکتری در دانشگاه شهید رجایی

² هیئت علمی دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی

چکیده

فضای باز در بافت‌های مسکونی فراتر از دیگر فضاهای مشترک مورد توجه کاربران آن قرار دارد که باعث شده در حوزه روانشناسی و جامعه‌شناسی محیط جایگاه ویژه‌ای پیدا کند. همگام با ابداع روش‌ها و نیز ارتقای دانش در حوزه‌های علوم انسانی و محیطی این دو حوزه نیز با ظهور رویکردهای مختلف، گاه متضاد و گاه مکمل رشد یافته‌اند. نقاط و مفاهیم مشترک در این دو حوزه می‌توانند راه را برای ارتباط دانش در میان این دو برای افزایش کیفیت محیط تسهیل کنند. در این مقاله سعی شده تا یکی از مهمترین مفاهیم نهفته در حوزه روانشناسی محیط یعنی دلبستگی مکانی برای افزایش سرمایه اجتماعی در محیط مورد بررسی قرار گیرد. معمولاً مطالعات در حوزه‌های فردی مانند دلبستگی مکانی و نیز معنای محیط به صورت فردی و یا تجربه و احساس فردی انجام شده و مطالعات در حوزه‌های جمعی نیز در روش‌ها و صورت‌های اجتماعی مورد بحث قرار گرفته است. در این مقاله با محوریت بهبود سرمایه اجتماعی و دلبستگی مکانی سعی شده تا بر چندبعدی بودن این موضوع توجه شود و نیز مدلی با کمک روش مدلیابی و موضوعات اثرگذار بر دلبستگی به مکان، برای تعریف ارتباط میان سه مفهوم دلبستگی مکانی، مشارکت اجتماعی و سرمایه اجتماعی ارائه شود. برای آزمون این مدل از پیمایش و روش تحلیل "مدلیابی معادلات ساختاریافته" استفاده شده که تکنیک تحلیل نیرومندی از خانواده رگرسیون چندمتغیری است. در نهایت مشخص شد که دلبستگی مکانی و مشارکت هر دو تأثیر قابل ملاحظه‌ای بر سرمایه اجتماعی دارند و همچنین مشارکت تأثیر زیادی بر تعلق دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

برنامه ریزی شهری

عنوان مقاله [English]

Place attachment influences on social capital in common neighborhood environment (The case study: Nor residential complex in Tehran)

نویسندگان [English]

Reza Ramyar ¹
Esmaiel Zarghami ²

¹ PhD Candidate at Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University. Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning.

² Associate Professor at Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University. Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning

چکیده [English]

Objectives:
Residential and neighborhood open spaces are more than a simple space. They are the most important places for people living in urban areas and are part of their sense of living. The literature of neighborhood environments has always been attempting to describe neighborhoods in terms of the criteria of their overall quality. Social and individual attachment are two major factors having an important effect on the overall quality of residents’ lives. Psychological and sociological aspects of people’s behavior in these spaces are addressed in the disciplines of environmental psychology and sociology. These two knowledge areas have evolved with development of new methods and knowledge improvements. In these two disciplines, different and almost independent, sometimes contradicting, theories have been proposed to in a complementary way. Finding a relationship between the proposed theories in these two fields is rarely considered. Investigating one of the most important concepts in environmental psychology, i.e. place attachment, and using this concept to improve social life of residential neighborhoods, this paper tries to establish a link between these separate disciplines. Most studies conducted on place attachment and meaning of place have been at the individual level addressing mostly individual emotions and experiences. Also, in the social domain, only social emotions and experiences have been discussed. Focusing on social participation and place attachment, this research first tries to show the complexity and multi-dimensionality of these concepts and then attempts to from a framework for social planning in common areas like residential open spaces.
Research method:
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), as a vigorous regressive multivariate analysis technique, is used to examine the hypotheses in this research. SEM is a multivariate statistical analysis technique suitable for analyzing structural relationships. Its ability to define relationships between unobserved constructs (latent variables) and observable variables has made it a common justified method in social sciences. In the modeling method here, we use SEM that allows complex relationships between one or more independent variables and one or more dependent variables.
Findings:
Based on the findings, place attachment and participation have a significant impact on social capital. The direct correlation between participation and social capital is stronger than that of place attachment, showing higher significance of participation in affecting social capital. Participation has also a great impact on place attachment.
Results:
Place attachment is a complex process that significantly affects social factors. It spreads and gets shaped over time. It is not only the place, but also social relationships produced in that place that support the maintenance and development of local community relations. Places are formed by individuals, groups and neighborhoods, and neighborhood groups are shaped by their place. According to this research, certain places with a strong sense of identity, higher communication, social capital and collective actions such as participation create a higher sense of attachment in the residents.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Society
Place Attachment
Participation
Social Capital
Tehran

مراجع

- Abbaszadeh S., Amani M. M., Khazra Azar H., SariBeigloo J., and Pashuy Ghasem. (2012). Introduction to the PLS structural equation modeling method and its application in the Behavioral Sciences, Urmia University Press [In Persian].

- Alexander C. (1979). Timeless Way of Building. Oxford University Press

- Altman, I, and Setha L. (1992). Human behavior and environments: Advances in theory and research. Volume 12: Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.

- Anguelovski I, and Martínez A. J. (2014). The ‘Environmentalism of the Poor’ revisited: Territory and place in disconnected glocal struggles, Ecological Economics 102: 167-176.

- Anton C. E., and Lawrence, C. (2016). The relationship between place attachment, the theory of planned behaviour and residents’ response to place change, Journal of Environmental Psychology 47: 145-154.

- Appleyard, D. (1979). Inside vs. outside: The distortions of distance. Working Paper 307, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California.

- CABE Space (2003) Planning green infrastructure. CABE Space, London.

- Chin W.W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quart 22(1): 3.

- Lee, J. N., and Kim, Y. G. (1999). Effect of partnership quality on IS outsourcing success: conceptual framework and empirical validation. Journal of Management information systems 15(4), 29-61.

- Falahat, M.S. (2006). The concept of sense of place and its constituent elements. Art Bulletin 26: 66-57. [In Persian]

- Fornel, C., and Lacker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistic. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 39-50.

- Furlan, R. (2015). Liveability And Social Capital In West Bay, The New Business Precinct Of Doha. Arts Social Sci J 6:116.

- Granie, M.A., Brenac T., Montel M. C., Millot M., Coquelet C. (2014). Influence of built environment on pedestrian's crossing decision, Accident Analysis & Prevention 67: 75-85.

- Huang, L S. (2006). A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3): 193–204.

- Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.

- Kang, B. (2006). Effects of Open Spaces on the Interpersonal Level of Resident Social Capital: A Comparative Case Study of Urban Neighborhoods in Guangzhou, China. A Dissertation Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD.

- Kemmis, D. (1995). The good city and the good life: Renewing the sense of community. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

- Kearney, Anne R. (2006). Residential Development Patterns and Neighborhood Satisfaction. Impacts of Density and Nearby Nature. Environment and Behavior 38(1): 112-139

- Landry, R. (2006). The art of city making, London, Earthscan.

- Lefebvre, H. (2009). State, Space, World, Selected Essays, Edited by Neil Brenner and Stuart Elden, Translated by Gerald Moore, Neil Brenner, and Stuart Elden, University of Minnesota Press.

- Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?, Journal of Environmental Psychology 31( 3): 207-230.

- Manzo, L. C. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25(1): 67–86.

- Manzo, L. C. (2006). Finding Common Ground: The Importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature 20 (4): 335-350.

- Marcus C. C. (1974). The House as a Symbol of Self. In J. Lang. C. Burnette, W. Moleski, & D. Vachon, Eds., Designing for Human Behavior.Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

- Newman, Oscar. (1972). Creating Defensible Space, New York: Macmillan.

- Perkins, D. D., Joseph H., and Paul W. S. (2002). Community psychology perspectives on social capital theory and community development practice. Journal of the Community Development Society 33(1): 33–52.

- Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24:1-24.

- Proshansky, H. M., Fabian A., and Kaminoff , R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3(1): 57–83.

- Ramyar, R. (2011). Introduction to Outdoor space of residential spaces design. SAMT [in Persian].

- Rapoport A. (1982). The Meaning of the Built Environment (A Nonverbal Communication Approach). niversity of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

- Ratcliffe E., and Korpela K. M. (2016). Memory and place attachment as predictors of imagined restorative perceptions of favourite places, Journal of Environmental Psychology 48: 120-130.

- Riger, S, and Lavrakas P. J. (1981). Community ties: Patterns of attachmentandsocial interactions in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology 9(1): 55–66.

- Rivlin, L. (1982). Group membership and place meanings in an urban neighborhood. Journal of Social Issues 38(3): 75–93.

- Ryan, R. (2005). Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas, Environment and Behavior 37 (1): 32-37.

- Shafter, CS., Lee, B.K. and Turner, S. (2000). A tale of three greenway trails: user perceptions related to quality of life. Landscape and Urban Planning 49(3): 163-178.

- Sosik J. J., Gentry W. A., and Chun J. U. (2012). The value of virtue in the upper echelons: A multisource examination of executive character strengths and performance, The Leadership Quarterly 23(3), 367-382.

- Taylor, M. (2000). Communities in the lead: Power, organizational capacity and social capital. Urban Studies 37 (5–6): 1019–1035.

- Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

فصلنامه مطالعات شهری

تاثیر دلبستگی به مکان بر سرمایه اجتماعی در محیط‌های مشترک همسایگی؛ نمونه موردی: مجتمع مسکونی نور در تهران

مراجع

مراجع

دوره 6، شماره 23 - شماره پیاپی 23
مرداد 1396
صفحه 39-52

تاثیر دلبستگی به مکان بر سرمایه اجتماعی در محیط‌های مشترک همسایگی؛ نمونه موردی: مجتمع مسکونی نور در تهران

مراجع

مراجع

دوره 6، شماره 23 - شماره پیاپی 23مرداد 1396صفحه 39-52

دوره 6، شماره 23 - شماره پیاپی 23
مرداد 1396
صفحه 39-52