Utilization of the Environmental Preferences of the Users as an Approach to Improving Urban Riverside Spaces; Case Study: Babolrood Riverside, Babolsar

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 M.A. of Architectural Engineering, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Mazandaran University, Babolsar, Mazandaran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Mazandaran University, Babolsar, Mazandaran, Iran (Corresponding Author).

3 Associate Professor of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Mazandaran University, Babolsar, Mazandaran, Iran.

10.22034/aaud.2021.274756.2434

Abstract

The urban can form the users’ behaviors and at the same time adapt to their behaviors. Therefore, the creation of spaces derived from the users’ demands and needs (preferences of space users) to make lively and dynamic spaces with a specific identity to achieve the highest resident satisfaction seems to be necessary. The present study has aimed to achieve a more desirable space in line with the users’ demands and needs by investigating the preferences of users of Babolrood riverside in Babolsar, and the use of the data extracted from their experiences. It is a survey conducted in two stages: The first stage is observation and the second stage is performing interviews in the form of a semi-structural questionnaire consisting of a combination of survey, scoring, prioritization, and explain questions. The final number of questionnaires was 324 and it was tried to collect all the data extracted from the questionnaires as the main interview data in the form of simple and legible tables divided by the type of questions. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the interviews. Also, in some cases, the categorization of the items and data was used. After analyzing and matching the data, the most important annoying items for the users were categorized into three categories of interference, disturbance, and noise (noise pollution). Also, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze some items of the questionnaire, and it was revealed that the level of lighting at night has not been appropriate in the studied area, while the users were satisfied with the urban furniture. Generally, the most important cases as the environmental preferences of the users are safety and security, privacy, spatial hierarchy, pedestrian-orientedness, and lack of noise pollution. Some suggestions were provided to solve these problems. In addition to the abovementioned, the results obtained from the present study also confirmed the results of some cases in the research background.

Keywords

References

Abbaszadeh, Shahab, and Souda Tamri. 2012. Analysis of Factors Affecting the Improvement of Pedestrian Walkway Spatial Quality and Pedestrian-Oriented Spaces, in Order to Increase the Social Interactions Level of People (The Case Study: Tarbiat & Valiasr Axis, Tabriz Metropolitan). Urban Studies 1(4): 95-104. https://journals.uok.ac.ir/article_3668.html
Atashin Bar, Mohammad. 2009. Continuity of identity in the urban landscape. Bagh-e Nazar 6(12): 45-56. http://www.bagh-sj.com/article_32.html?lang=en
Azadkhani, Pakzad, Ali Jasemi, and Younes Azadi. 2015. Investigation and analysis of citizens' satisfaction with the quality of the urban environment (case study: Eiwan city). Geography and Environmental Studies 4(16): 35-48.
Birenboim, Amit, Martin Dijst, Dick Ettema, Joost de Kruijf, Geert de Leeuw, and Nico Dogterom. 2019. The utilization of immersive virtual environments for the investigation of environmental preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 189: 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.011
Carmona, Matthew, Nick Gallent, and Reetuparna Sarkar. 2010. Space standards: the benefits. CABE: London, UK . 
Cassarino, Marica, Eleanor Bantry-White, and Annalisa Setti. 2019. Cognitive and sensory dimensions of older people’s preferences of outdoor spaces for walking: A survey study in Ireland. International journal of environmental research and public health 16(8): 1340. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/8/1340
Dadashi, Mehdi, Mansour Sepehri Moghadam, and Hossein Zabihi. 2018. Investigating residents' perceptions, experiences and preferences in order to improve performance in buildings with an environmental approach. Urban Management 17(50): 181-197. https://www.sid.ir/paper/91916/fa
D’Acci, Luca. 2019. Aesthetical cognitive perceptions of urban street form. Pedestrian preferences towards straight or curvy route shapes. Journal of Urban Design 2(6): 896-912. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13574809.2018.1554994 
Farsi, Tayebeh, Shahriar Nasekhian, and Ahmad Shahiwandi. 2019. Post Utilization Evaluation of Urban Hangouts to Analyze Its Effects on Vivacity Development (A Case Study of Urban Hangout in Natural Historic Pathway of Isfahan). Amish Environment 12(47): 145-162. https://ebtp.malayer.iau.ir/article_671726.html
Golrokh, Shamin. 2019. The Application of Environmental Preferences Criteria in Public Space Assessment, with an Emphasis on the Sense of Place. Soffeh 29(2): 77-94. https://soffeh.sbu.ac.ir/article_100466.html
Handy, Susan L., Marlon G. Boarnet, Reid Ewing, and Richard E. Killingsworth. 2002. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. American journal of preventive medicine 23(2): 64-73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379702004750
Herzog, Thomas R. 1992. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of environmental psychology 12(3): 237-248. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494405801380
Herzog, Thomas, and Gregory A. Smith. 1988. Danger, mystery, and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior 20(3): 320-344. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916588203004
Im, Seung-Bin. 1984. Visual preferences in enclosed urban spaces: An exploration of a scientific approach to environmental design. Environment and Behavior 16(2): 235-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916584162005
Kaplan, Stephen. 1987. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and behavior 19(1): 3-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916587191001
Khaleghimoghaddam, Navid. 2016. Assessment of Satisfaction and Environmental Preferences of Students. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning 4(2): 96-107. https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2016.12
Lak, Azadeh, and Mina Ramezani. 2018. PUsers’ Preferences for Designing Spaces under Urban Bridges as Vital Urban Spaces. Arman Shahr Architecture and Urbanism 11(23): 225-235. http://www.armanshahrjournal.com/article_69692.html.
Lu, Ming, and Jingwan Fu. 2019. Attention restoration space on a university campus: exploring restorative campus design based on environmental preferences of students. International journal of Environmental research and public health 16(14): 2629. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142629
Mamaghani, Nasser Koleini, Azadeh Parvandar Asadollahi, and Seyed-Reza Mortezaei. 2015. Designing for improving social relationship with interaction design approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 201: 377-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.190
Mansouri, Seyyed Amir. 2009. Income/ urban landscape, a comprehensive narrative of the city. Manzar 1(3): 4. http://www.manzar-sj.com/article_249.html
Mirzaei, Shokoufeh, Siavash Teimouri, and Saeideh Nejad Sattari. 2012. Sense of place and Identity creation (Case Study: Bazaar Kermanshah). National Studies Quarterly 13(50): 121-141. http://rjnsq.sinaweb.net/article_99155.html?lang=en
Mohammadian, Mehrdad, and Darya Goharmotahar. 2018. Investigating the relationship between the quality of the urban environment and the social relations of the citizens of the municipal Region 1 of Tabriz. Urban Sociological Studies 8(26): 191-222. https://urb.dehaghan.iau.ir/article_660877.html
Nazarpour, Mohammad Taghi, Ahmad Heidari, and Marzieh Salimi. 2018. The Effect of Spatial Configuration of Student Dormitories on the Students’ Space Preferences. Armanshahr Architecture and Urbanization 11(25): 209-223. http://www.armanshahrjournal.com/article_85096.html
Neghabi, Mahboubeh. 2014. Evaluating the effectiveness of behavioral camps designed in the Botanical Park of Tabriz University. International Conference of Niaresh Shahr Paya, Tehran. https://civilica.com/doc/344559
Pirbabaei, Mohammad Taqi, Leila Medqalchi, and Ali Niknama. 2016. Design principles of riverside green paths. The second international conference on man, architecture, civil engineering, and the city, East Azerbaijan. https://civilica.com/doc/656958.
Pirbabaei, Mohammad Taqi, and Hassan Sajjadzadeh. 2011. Group Belonging to Place, Realization of Social Residence, in Traditional Neighborhood. Bagh-e Nazar 8(16): 17-28. http://www.bagh-sj.com/article_2.html.
Rabei, Kamran, and Tahereh Shariat Manesh. 2020. Hangouts and the Social Production of Space: A Phenomenological Study of Everyday Life in Isfahan Women's Hangouts. Women in Development and Politics 18(2): 263-292. https://jwdp.ut.ac.ir/article_78679.html
Rafiyan, Mojtabi, and Zahra Askarizadeh. 2009. Investigating factors affecting the quality of the urban environment. Urban Management Studies 1(3): 119-134. https://ums.srbiau.ac.ir/article_4744.html.
Rasouli, Sara, and Samira Rahim Dokht Khorram. 2009. Creating a favorable urban landscape on footpaths. Arman Shahr Architecture and Urbanization 2(3): 103-112. http://www.armanshahrjournal.com/article_32603.html
Razaghi, Habibullah. 2013. Quality Analysis of Urban Space, landscape and the Behavior User Method of Users (Case Study: karaj Edge Stream). Geographical Research 28(111): 95-112. https://www.sid.ir/paper/29812/fa
Rezaei, Nahideh, Rahmat Mohammadzadeh, and Ali Omranipour. 2016. The Evaluation of Social Quality of Open and Semi Open Communication Pathways at University of Kashan's Campus. Iranian Architectural Studies 5(10): 183-206. https://www.sid.ir/paper/219503/fa
Roradeh, Hemmatollah. 2016. Investigation of coastal tourism from a climatic point of view. Geography Quarterly 14(49): 209-223. https://www.sid.ir/paper/150211/fa
Sashvarpour, Mehdi, and Mehdi Elyasi. 2015. Waterfront urban design with a sustainable development approach (case study: Mahabad River). City Landscape Research 2(4): 19-33. magiran.com/p1499217
Sayafzadeh, Alireza, Mohammad Miraei, and Morteza Farahani Nodeh. 2013. The role of urban landscape quality in creating social life and spatial identity of citizens (case study: Nawab Highway). Iranian Islamic City Studies (11): 29-39. https://www.sid.ir/paper/492620/fa
Shakri Eski, Shokouh, and Sanaz Litkohi. 2014. Cultural differences, an influencing factor on students' environmental preferences regarding the dormitory space (Case study: Iran and Cyprus). Architecture and Urban Planning of Iran (JIAU) 5(8): 1-11. doi: 10.30475/isau.2015.61992
Sood, Tapeesh, Patrick Janssen, and Clayton Miller. 2020. Spacematch: Using environmental preferences to match occupants to suitable activity-based workspaces. Frontiers in Built Environment 6: 113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00113
Tavakkolian Ferdowsieh, Maryam, Najma Ismailpour, and Mohammadreza Noqsan Mohammadi. 2016. Redesigning Bazaar, Based on Its Collective Memories Formation and Retention Case Study: Bazaar Khan, City of Yazd. Bagh-e Nazar 13(39): 45-56. http://www.bagh-sj.com/article_14941.html?lang=en
Tavallaei, Novin. 2003. Urban space and socio-cultural relations. Cultural Research Journal 7(5): 109-140. https://www.sid.ir/paper/483497/fa
Valizadeh, Negar, and Alireza Andalib. 2017. Designing the public arena with emphasis on the relationship between activity patterns and design features (case study: Persian Gulf Shohada Lake area, District No.22, Tehran). International conference on civil engineering, architecture and urban planning of contemporary Iran, Tehran. https://civilica.com/doc/710053.
Wang, Ronghua, Jingwei Zhao, Michael J. Meitner, Yue Hu, and Xiaolin Xu. 2019. Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 41: 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.005
Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development
Volume 15, Issue 40 - Serial Number 40
December 2022
Pages 101-116

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 23 February 2021
  • Revise Date: 05 June 2021
  • Accept Date: 26 May 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics