نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه معماری، واحد بوشهر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، بوشهر، ایران.

2 گروه معماری، دانشکده مهندسی معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید رجایی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

میزان موفقیت فضاهای جمعی به میزان استفاده از آن مکان و حضور انسان وابسته است. انسان به صورت پیوسته با مکان همراه بوده و نوعی تعامل در آن را ایجاد کرده  که منجر به شکل­گیری روابط اجتماعی و اجتماع­پذیری فضای­ باز جمعی شده است. در دهه­های اخیر، بی­توجهی به حفظ و ارتقای حیات جمعی در برخی فضاهای باز موجب از بین رفتن اهمیت و نقش فضا شده است. همچنین عدم استفاده از معیارهای فضاهای باز عمومی برای اجتماع­پذیری فضاها منجر به خالی و رانده شدن فضاها شده است. از این رو شناخت معیارهای ایجاد کننده و ارتقادهنده اجتماع­پذیری در فضاهای باز جمعی به منظور رونق بخشیدن به این­ گونه فضاها در مقیاس­های مختلف ضروری است. پژوهش حاضر با هدف شناسایی و تحلیل عوامل مؤثر بر کیفیت فضای باز جمعی محیط­های مسکونی و تأثیر آن در ایجاد تعامل بین کاربران و پاسخ به این پرسش که حضور افراد در این  فضاها چگونه منجر به اجتماع­پذیری فضای باز جمعی و عاملی در جهت موفقیت فضا می­شود، انجام شده است. از این ­رو چهار فضای باز مشترک جمعی در مقیاس مجتمع­­­­های سکونتی در منطقه­ شش شهرداری شهر شیراز انتخاب شد. این پژوهش با استفاده از آمار توصیفی و استنباطی به روش پیمایش و با استفاده از ابزار سنجش پرسشنامه صورت گرفته است. حجم نمونه 488 نفر از ساکنان مجتمع­ مسکونی است. تجزیه تحلیل داده­ها با استفاده از ضریب همبستگی پیرسون و با بهره­گیری از نرم­افزار SPSS انجام شده است. پس از تحلیل و دسته­بندی ابعاد در سطح نظریه­ مکان و استخراج هفت­ مؤلفه­ مؤثر بر کیفیت فضاهای جمعی و اجتماع­پذیری (که شامل ایمنی و امنیت، انعطاف­پذیری، نفوذ­پذیری، فعالیت­پذیری، تعامل­اجتماعی، هویت مکان و ادراک محیط است) در چگونگی برقراری تعامل و ارتباط کاربران محیط چهار نتیجه حاصل گردید. نخست ایجاد آفرینش فضاهایی پویا، دوم ایجاد فضاهای جمعی، سوم پیوستگی و تعامل و چهارم تقویت درک متقابل از رفتارهای محیط کیفیت مکان­های باز جمعی را می­توان ارتقا بخشید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Explaining the relationship between the components affecting the quality of collective open space in promoting the sociability of the environment

نویسندگان [English]

  • nazanin dehnad 1
  • Jamaledin Mahdinejad 2
  • BAGHER KARIMI 1

1 Department of Architecture, Bushehr branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran.

2 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architectural and Urban Engineering, Shahid Rajaee University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

 
 Highlights
Therefore, acquiring knowledge about the developing and improving factors of sociability in open public spaces to revive these spaces in various scales is necessary.
The quality of shared public spaces in terms of sociability; given that this quality is highly effective in the amiability of the environment and the quality of its residents’ lives.
Hence, open spaces in residential complexes are the fundamental element of building space and the heart of social affairs.
Strengthening mutual understanding with the behaviors of the environment enhance the quality of open public spaces.
 
Introduction
Public spaces have always had a close connection to human beings and created a form of interaction in space that, in turn, has formed social relations and socialized public spaces. Besides, the neglect of and lack of concern for the standards for open public spaces has made them empty and inutile. Therefore, it is necessary to acquire knowledge about the factors developing and improving sociability in open public spaces to revive them on various scales. The present study aims to identify and analyze the factors affecting the quality of public spaces in residential areas and their impact on the interaction between residents. Accordingly, the main purpose of this research is to assess and evaluate the factors interpreting the quality of shared public spaces in terms of sociability; given that this quality is highly effective on the amiability of the environment and the quality of its residents’ lives. The set of effective activities and parameters are significant in environment socialization.
Theoretical Framework
Theorists have presented models based on the above concept to categorize the quality and sociability of spaces. In this article, conclusions have been made—according to the space theory of John Panther and Counter and Gustavon’s emphasis on meaning and the significance of its interaction with the environment—regarding the idea that the quality of sociable spaces is the consequent of three aspects, each developing one of the triple qualities in the environment: physical, active, and semantic. The latter is of great significance in terms of the improvement made in the sociability between individuals within the environment. For this purpose, a theoretical framework was established to obtain the effective qualitative components of a favorable design of open public spaces, focusing on the potential of sociability in public spaces and entailing the improvement of such environments.
 Methodology
The descriptive-inferential research method was adopted in this article. First, the quality of open public spaces within residential complexes was assessed, and quantitative data were collected and categorized to determine the proportions, criteria, and spectrum of sociable quality in open spaces. The inclusion criteria considered in this study was to be a resident of one of four residential complexes in Municipal District 6 of the city of Shiraz, Iran. The sample size was calculated using the Cochran formula as 122 individuals in each residential complex. The simple random sampling method was used for sampling. The collected data were authenticated by the residents of the residential complexes through the evaluation method of questionnaires. The reliability of the questionnaires was verified through Cranach’s alpha method—with each factor evaluated individually first, followed by the whole questionnaire. The validity coefficient was assumed to be 0.61, and the sample size was determined as 488 of the residents of the four residential complexes, based on the results from the Cochran formula. The results obtained from the questionnaires were used in the statistical test, using the Pearson correlation coefficient to verify the hypotheses of the research, based on the fact that the scale in this study was interval, and the relationship was linear. The data were analyzed using the SPSS software.
Results and Discussion
The results of this research were focused on the impact of the quality of open public spaces on the emergence of sociable environments in residential complexes in the three physical, active, and semantic dimensions. The study also assessed sociability in residential areas according to the conceptual model, as compared to factors such as security, flexibility, penetrability, activity, sociability, spatial identity, and environmental perception. In the physical dimension, the relationship between physics and sociability was found significant. The most important conclusions made regarding the physical factors in residential complexes emphasized the use of symbols and elements to organize the environment. On the other hand, ease, secure access, and flexible navigation proved effective in the development of interaction between users and the environment, as well as social activity in sociable spaces. In the active and social dimensions, a significant relationship was observed between activity and sociability. The users’ attention to sociable spaces in shared public spaces in residential complexes and social relations and activities conform to the arrangement of open public spaces, appropriate behavior patterns toward the environment, and elements that pertain to environment-fitting activities. Other factors that enhance sociability in these dimensions include accessibility and legibility—especially effective in the active dimension. In the semantic dimension, a significant connection can be seen between sense and sociability. The impact of sociability on the attachment and connection of man to a place is signified through the several forms of connection made by people to the environment. In this dimension, the multiplicity and sequence of spaces are also signified. Consequently, among the three major aspects defining the quality of open public spaces—physical, active, and semantic—the semantic dimension and its relevant components attracted the largest amount of attention from users, and proved to have the greatest impact on sociability in the open spaces between residential complexes. This needs to be included more effectively in the theories of public space design. This study demonstrates how active and physical components affiliate with the concepts and semantics of a place to create a pleasant public space and provide sociability as well.
Conclusion
The findings of this research—providing useful methods for design of open public spaces with an enhanced potential for sociability in the interaction and communication between users—can be decomposed into four branches: creation of active environments, creation of public spaces, association and interaction, and enhancement of mutual understanding with the behaviors of the environment. These findings can improve the quality of open public spaces.
Given the hierarchy of human needs and social dimensions, open spaces in residential complexes form the foundation of social life, creating a background for the emergence and growth of creativity, sociability, collective interaction, communication, entertainment, events, and activities—social, economic, and leisure. Hence, open spaces in residential complexes constitute the fundamental element of the building space and the heart of social affairs.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • socialization
  • Social interaction
  • Public outdoor space
  • residential complex
Alexander, C., & Silverstein, M. (1986). A Pattern Language with General Multi-service. In center of  Environment Structure.
Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., & McGlynn, S. (2012). Responsive Environments a Manual For Designers. Translated by: M. Behzadfar, University of Science and Technology press.
Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., & Bonnes, M. (2003). Social- psychological approaches in environment- Behavior studies. Theoretical perspective in environmentbehavior research 67–78.
Canter, D. (1983). The Purposive Evaluation of Places: a facet Approach. Journal of Environment & Behavior, 15, 659– 698.
Carmona, M. (2006). Public Places, Urban An Spaces. Architectural press.
Colantonio, A. (2008). Social Sustainability: Linking Research to Policy and Practice. Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development Oxford Brookes.
Cross, J. (2005). What is Sense of Place. Website Retrieved 20Feb.
Daneshpour, S., & Charkhchian, M. (2007). Public spaces and factors affecting collective welfare. Bagh- E Nazar Journal, 7. [in Persian]
Daneshpur, S. A., & Charkhchian, M. (2007). Public Spaces and the factors affecting social life. Bagh-E Nazar Journal, 4(7), 19 –28. [in Persian]
Desvan, A. (2004). Human sociology. Translated by: Jafar Najafi, Khak publication.
Dines, N & ., Cattell, V. (2006). Public spaces, Social relations and well- being in East London. London: The policy press.
Dominy, M. (2002). Calling the station home: Place and identity in New Zealand’s high countr Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Falahat, M., & Noohi, S. (2012). Threat to the Sense of Environment in the Area after the Destruction of Symbols. Proceedings of the First National Conference on Islamic Architecture and Urban Planning, Tabriz: Daneshgah Honar Eslami publicatio .[in Persian]
Francis, J. (2012). Creating sense of community: The role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 401– 409.
Forgas, J. (2000). Psychology of social interaction, interpersonal behavior. Translated by: M. Firoozbakht & K. Beygi, Abjd Publication .
Gehl, J., & Lars, G. (2004). Public Spaces, Public Life: Copenhagen. School of Architecture Publishers.
Ghanbaran, AH. (2004). Iranischer Basar im Wandel, Stuttgart. Publication Server of the University of Stuttgart.
Ghanbaranj, A. (2014). An Investigation of the Effective Factors in Enhancing Residents’ Social Interaction in Residential Districts: A Case Study on the Darakeh Neighborhood in Tehran. Journal of Iranian Architecture &Urbanism, (7), 57. [in Persian]
Grutter, J. K. (2005). Aesthetics in Architecture. Translated by: J. Pakzad, Shahid Beheshti, University Publication. [in Persian]
Gustafson, P. (2001). Meaning of Place: Every Day Experience and Theorethical Conceptualization Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 5 –16.
Hanson ,J. (2000). Urban Transformations: a history of design ideas. Urban Design International, 5, 97 –122.
Huffman, R. (2006). The Value of Urban Open Space. Urban land, 65(1), 108 –111.
Kashaniju, K. (2010). Recognizing of Theoretical Trends in Relation to Urban Public Spaces. Hoviat- E Shahr Journal, 4(6), 95–106. [in Persian]
Kellert, S. R. (2005). Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human Nature Connection. Bibliovault OAI Repository, the University of Chicago Press, 24.
Kurniawati, W. (2012). Public Space for Marginal People. Procedia– Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 476 – 484.
Lang, J. (2003). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. Translated by: A.r. Einifar, daneshgah Tehran Publication.[in Persian]
Lang, J. (2007). Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures and Products. Translated by: H. Bahraini, daneshgah Tehran Publication. [in Persian]
Lennard, S. G., & Lennard, H. (1993). Urban Space Dessign and Social Life. Companion to contemporary architectural. (London: Rutledge).
Lewicka, M. (2010).What Makes Neighborhood Different from Home and City? Effects of Place Scale on Place Attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 35– 51.
Lynch, K., & Hack, G. (1984). Site Planning. MIT Press.
Marcus, C.,  & Sarkissian, w. (1988). Housing As If People Mattered: Site Design Guidelines for Medium-Density Family Housing. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mitchell, N. (2008). Considering the Authenticity of Cultural Landscape, In Waite, Diana. Published by Association for Preservation Technology International.
Namazian, A. (2012). The psychological Requirements in connecting with the Artificial Environment. Soffeh Journal, 10(30), 74 – 83. [in Persian]
Norberg-Schulz, C. (2007). The Concept of Dwelling: On the Way to Figurative Architecture. Translated by: M.Yarahmadi, Agah Publication. [in Persian]
Osmand, H. (1957). Function as basis of psychiatric ward design. Holt Rine hart & Winston.
Pakzad, J. (2007). A Guide to Designing Urban Spaces. Shahidi Publication. [in Persian]
Purjafar, M., Ansari, M., & Mahmudinejad, H. (2008). A Deliberation on the Methods of Assessment Regarding Citizen Behavior in Urban Spaces. Payam- E Mohandes 43, 56-66. [in Persian]
Rafiian, M., Taqvai, A., Khademi, M., & Alipur, R. (2013). A Comparative assessment on the approaches of quality evaluation in designing urban public spaces. Iranian Architecture & Urbanism Journal,(4), 35 – 40. [in Persian]
Rastbin, S., Jafary, Y., Daram, Y & .,Moazezi, A. (2012). Environmental between Relationship Realm Public in Life Urban of Continuation and Qualities. Bagh-E Nazar Journal, 21, 35 – 46. [in Persian]
Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. Pion.
 Sadeqi, R., Daneshgar Moqadam, G. (2011). A Study on the Relationship between the Skeletal Scheme of Residential Complexes and the Sense of Interest to the Place among the Residents. Modiriyat Shahri Journal, (30), 253 – 264. [in Persian].
Shojaee, D., & Partoee, P. (2015). Analysis of Factors Affecting the Creation and Promotion of Sociability in Public Spaces in Different Scales of Tehran City (Case studies: Two Neighborhoods and an Area in District 7 Tehran. Bagh-E Nazar Journal (34), 93– 08. [in Persian]
Siadatian, S., & Pourjafar, M. (2015). Application of Justification Graph in Islamic Iranian Architecture (Case Study: Rasoolin Yazd House, Masouleh House). Naqsh-e Jahan Journal, 3, 27– 42. [in Persian]
Southworth, M. (1989). Theory and Practice of Contemporary Urban Design. Town Planning Review, 6(4), 369 – 402.
Stedman, R. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predictive behavior from place-based cognitions. Environmental Behavior Journal, 34(attitudes, and identity), 561– 581.
Steele, F. (1981). The Sense of Place. CBI Publishing Company.
Truss, L. (2005). Talk to the hand: The utter bloody rudeness of everyday life, or, six good reason to stay at home and blot the door. First Edition, Profile Books Publisher.
Turan, M.H. (1973). Environmental Stress and Flexibility in the Housing Process. (W. Priser, ed.), Environmental Design Research. Stroudsburg, Dowden, Hutchingson and Ross, Inc., vol. I, 47-58.
Tibbaldz, F. (2009), "Making Pepole - Friendl Town", translated by M. Ahmadinejad, Isfahan, Khak Publication. [in Persian]
Vaughan, L., & Hillier, B. (2007). The Spatial Syntax of Urban Segregation The City as One Thing. Progress in Planning  67, 205 – 294.
Whyte, W. (1982). Social life of small Urban Space. Journal of contemporary Conversation Founaation, 10 (4), 466 – 446.
Williams, K. (2000). Achieving Sustainable Urban Form: An Introduction. E & FN Spon.
Woodcraft, S. (2012). Social Sustainability and New Communities: Moving from Concept to Practice in the UK. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 68, 29 – 42.