عنوان مقاله [English]
Neighborhood satisfaction or residents’ overall evaluation of their neighborhood environment has long been a major research topic in sociology, planning, and the related disciplines. Research suggests that it has a multidimensional basis relating to both the actual and the perceived environment. Research has identified aesthetics as one of the most important factors in neighborhood satisfaction. Moreover, naturalness (vegetation) is found to be a principal component of neighborhood attachment and a factor affecting use of space, sense of safety, adjustment, and informal social contact among neighbors. Research has also found openness, vistas with open views and the lack of spatial enclosure, to be a key factor associated with evaluative appraisals, such as neighborhood satisfaction. While many studies on residential satisfaction have focused on the overall residential satisfaction, some have focused on satisfaction with a particular residential realm, such as the housing itself the neighborhood or the community itself. In this article, satisfaction of the residents of a high density residential district, Narmak, an important part of the 8th district in Tehran, is selected as the case study. Narmak is a neighborhood that from its first steps of design and development has been designed to provide open spaces and public amenities. Whereas, the aim of the other districts of Tehran was dividing the land into segments to build residential units and install access roads. In this district, one and two-story private houses which used to be seen 10 years ago have been converted to four to five-story apartment buildings to accommodate the growing population. In other words, the land used by one family is now allocated to house four or five families. Meanwhile, no changes have been made in the open spaces of the district; leading to the residents’ dissatisfaction. This research aimed to find out the level of satisfaction among Narmak’s residents, the reasons for not using the squares, places designed as open spaces in Narmak, and the roots of the problems causing dissatisfaction with the open spaces. It helps to find solutions needed for such cases, both those which have been built before and are facing problems now, and the new projects which are in the design process.As the public open spaces in residential neighborhoods play a very important role, such a case study is needed to make the designed open space lively and useful for as long as the residents live there. The first step of the research methodology was undertaking an intensive search for the pertinent literature. A confined amount of primary research was then carried out. This paper made use of both secondary and primary data. The primary data was obtained from a sample of 50 households. The questionnaire was administered to each sampled household. Pre-survey was conducted to gain insight to the study area, test the household questionnaire and refine the research instruments. The secondary data was collected from a sample of 40 households. The questionnaires were scored, analyzed and interpreted. Findings from the observations, and information gathered were considered when the overall interpretations and conclusions were made. The results showed that the residents usually use the squares for taking a walk. They also defined the main roots of their neighborhood problems as shortage of parking space, high number of the residents and many buildings being reconstructed around Narmak. Neighborhood relations and overall neighborhood satisfaction were also found to be moderate. The results provided a manual for solving some of the problems the residents face. Some of them can be defined as below: The number of the stories clients are allowed to build should be the same as the number of parking spaces they are allowed to have; The recreation and sport facilities should be installed in all the squares in order to make them lively and useful for the residents, especially the youth; Local commercials help the open spaces become more and useful.
-- Amérigo, M. (2002). A psychological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. In Aragones, (J.
I.,Francescato, G., & Gärling, T. Eds.). Residential environments: Choice, satisfaction, and behaviour ( pp. 99–81).
Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
-- Alexander, E. (1993). Density measures: a review and analysis. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research,10
-- Altman, I. (2003). The environment and social behavior: privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. (A. Namazian,
Trans.) Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University Publishing Center.
-- Alvi, S., Schwartz, M.D., DeKeseredy, W.S.,&Maume, M.O. (2001). Women’s fear of crime in Canadian public
housing. Violence against Women,7 (6), 638–661.
-- Azizi, M. M. (2006). Sustainable residential neighborhood : A case study of Narmak. Journal of Fine Arts (27),
-- Beer, A., & Higgins, C. (2006). Environmental Planning for Site Development: A Manual for Sustainable Local
Planning and Design. (S. H. Bahreini, & K. Karimi, Trans.) Tehran: University of Tehran Publishing Center.
-- Beski, S. (1995). An interview with Behrouz Pezeshki. Abadi Quarterly Journal of Architecture & Urbanism , 5
-- Brower, S. (2003). Designing for community. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press.
-- Chan, E.H.-W., Tang, B.-S.,&Wong, W. –S. (2002). Density control and quality of living space.Habitat International,
26 (2), 159-175.
-- Churchman, A. (1999). Disentangling the concept of density.Journal of Planning Literature,13 (4), 389–411.
-- Francescato, G. (2002). Residential Satisfaction Research: The case for and Against,In Aragonés, J.I., Francescato,
G. and Garling, T. (eds.) Residential Environments: Choice, Satisfaction and Behavior (pp. 15-34), Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.
-- Fulton, W., Pendall, R., Nguyen, M.,&Harrison, A. (2002). Who sprawls most? How growth patterns differ across
the U.S. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Retrieved May 3, 2010, fromhttp://www.brookings.edu.
-- Gifford, R. (1999). Environmental perception and cognition. (N. Dehbashi, Ed.) Quarterly Journal of Architecture
& Culture, (2-3).
-- Hosseini, S. B., & Norouzian Maleki, S. (2008). Making a suitabale housing & town for people with physical disabilities.
International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Production Management , 19 (10), 195-206.
-- Hur, M., Nasar, J.L., &Chun, B. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness.
Journal of Environmental Psychology,30 (1), 52-59.
-- Kashanijou, K. (2010). Recognition of theoretical approaches to urban public spaces. Hoviateshahr, (6), 95-106.
-- Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Coley, R.L.,& Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community: inner-city neighborhood
common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26 (6), 823–851.
-- Lang, J. (2004). Creating Architectural Theory. (A. Eynifar, Trans.) Tehran: University of Tehran Publishing Center.
-- Langdon, P. (1988). A good place to live. The Atlantic Monthly,261 (3), 39–60.
-- Langdon, P. (1997). Can design make community?The Responsive Community, 7 (2), 25–37.
-- Lovejoy, K., Handy, S.,& Mokhtarian, P. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus traditional environments:
An evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban
Planning ,97 (1), 37-48.
-- McGlynn, S., Smith, G., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., & Bentley, I. (2003). Responsive Environments. (M. Behzadfar,
Trans.) Tehran: Iran University of Science & Technology Publishing Center.
-- Mohit, M. A., Ibrahim, M.,& Rashid, Y.R. (2010). Assessment of residential satisfaction in newly designed public
low-cost. Habitat International, 34 (1), 18-27.
-- Morrison, P.S.,&McMurray, S. (1999). The inner-city apartment versus the suburb: housing sub-markets in a New
Zealand city. Urban Studies, 38 (2), 377–397.
-- Newman, O. (1973). Defensible space: people and design in the violent city .London: Architectural Press.
-- Pakzad, J. (2007). Progression of ideas in Urbanism (2): From quantity to quality. Tehran: New Towns Development
-- Proshansky, H.M. (1978). The city and the self-identity. Environment and Behavior,10 (2), 147-169.
-- Rafieian, M., Asgari, A., & Asgarizadeh, Z. (2009). Units residential satisfaction assessment of Navvab Residence.
Human Geography Research , 67 (1), 53-68.
-- Salleh, A.G. (2008). Neighbourhood factors in private low-cost housing in Malaysia. Habitat International,32 (4),
-- Sirgy, M.J., &Cornwell, T. (2002). How neighborhood features affect quality of life?Social Indicators Research,59
-- http://region8.tehran.ir.Accessed on 28th of September 2010.
-- http://atlas.tehran.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=161#1000. Accessed on 3rd of May 2011.
-- http://www.tehran.ir/Portals/0/Other/Detailed_Plan/Detailed_Plan.html. Accessed on 3rd of May 2011.