ارزیابی تأثیر سامانه‌های فضایی میانوند مبتنی بر شاخص‌های حضورپذیری در عرصه‌های جمعی، مورد مطالعاتی: بازار سنتی اصفهان

زارعی, احسان; مهدی‌نژاد, جمال‌الدین; مضطرزاده, حامد; حجتی, وحیده

doi:10.22034/aaud.2025.508439.2959

ارزیابی تأثیر سامانه‌های فضایی میانوند مبتنی بر شاخص‌های حضورپذیری در عرصه‌های جمعی، مورد مطالعاتی: بازار سنتی اصفهان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

احسان زارعی ¹

جمال‌الدین مهدی‌نژاد ²

حامد مضطرزاده ³

وحیده حجتی ³

¹ گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، واحد شیراز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شیراز، ایران.

² گروه معماری، دانشکده مهندسى معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی، تهران، ایران (نویسنده مسئول).

³ گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، واحد شیراز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شیراز، ایران.

10.22034/aaud.2025.508439.2959

چکیده

سامانه‌های فضایی میانوند، به‌عنوان عناصر واسطه‌ای میان فضاهای عمومی و خصوصی، نقش مهمی در تسهیل حرکت، یکپارچگی فضایی و ارتقاء تعاملات اجتماعی دارند. با این حال، بررسی دقیق تأثیر این سامانه‌ها بر حضورپذیری فضاهای جمعی کم‌تر مورد توجه قرار گرفته است. پژوهش حاضر با هدف تحلیل و اولویت‌بندی عوامل مؤثر بر حضورپذیری در سامانه‌های فضایی میانوند در بازار سنتی اصفهان انجام شده است. روش پژوهش از نوع آمیخته (کیفی- کمی) است. در بخش کیفی، با استفاده از تحلیل محتوای متون نظری، مؤلفه‌های کلیدی حضورپذیری شامل ابعاد محیطی، کالبدی، عملکردی و روان‌شناختی شناسایی شد. در بخش کمی، این مؤلفه‌ها با استفاده از پرسش‌نامه مبتنی بر طیف لیکرت و نمونه‌گیری هدفمند از کاربران بازار سنتی اصفهان (۳۷۲ نفر) مورد آزمون قرار گرفت. داده‌ها از طریق آزمون تی تک‌نمونه‌ای، تحلیل واریانس (ANOVA)، تحلیل عاملی تأییدی (CFA) و آزمون فریدمن تحلیل شدند. نتایج نشان داد که تأثیر سامانه‌های فضایی میانوند بر حضورپذیری بسته به ویژگی‌های عملکردی، کالبدی و روان‌شناختی هر محدوده متفاوت است. در محدوده گردشگری (میدان و بازار شاه)، بعد روان‌شناختی (حس مکان، سرزندگی و هویت) بیش‌ترین تأثیر را دارد (بار عاملی 0.83، رتبه اول در آزمون فریدمن). در محدوده گردشگری- خدماتی (قیصریه)، متغیر عملکردی (فعالیت‌های اقتصادی، دسترسی‌پذیری و امکانات) حائز اهمیت بیش‌تری است (بار عاملی 0.79، رتبه دوم). در محدوده خدماتی- بومی (راسته درباغ تا نظامیه و میدان کهنه)، متغیر عملکردی و محیطی بیش‌ترین تأثیر را بر حضورپذیری داشته‌اند. تحلیل ANOVA نشان داد که تفاوت معناداری بین محدوده‌های مختلف در متغیر روان‌شناختی وجود دارد (P=0.02)، درحالی‌که سایر متغیرها تفاوت معناداری نشان ندادند. بر اساس یافته‌ها، بهبود کیفیت ادراکی و تقویت هویت فضایی در محدوده‌های تاریخی، و ارتقاء زیرساخت‌های عملکردی در محدوده‌های خدماتی- اقتصادی، مهم‌ترین راهکارهای ارتقاء حضورپذیری سامانه‌های فضایی میانوند هستند. نتایج این پژوهش می‌تواند در بهینه‌سازی طراحی فضاهای عمومی و تقویت حضورپذیری در بازارهای سنتی و سایر عرصه‌های جمعی شهری مورد استفاده قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

سامانه‌های فضایی میانوند

حضورپذیری

عرصه‌های جمعی

بازار سنتی اصفهان

عنوان مقاله English

Assessing the Impact of Spatial Intermediary Systems on Presence Indicators in Public Spaces; Case Study: Traditional Bazaar of Isfahan

نویسندگان English

Ehsan Zarei ¹

Jamaleddin Mahdinejad ²

Hamed Moztarzadeh ³

Vahideh Hodjiati ³

¹ Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran.

² Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architectural Engineering and Urban Planning, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author).

³ Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran.

چکیده English

Spatial intermediary systems serve as elements connecting public and private spaces. Although they play a crucial role in facilitating movement, enhancing spatial integration, and promoting social interactions, their impact on the presence of public spaces has received relatively less attention. This study aims to analyze and prioritize the factors affecting the presence of spatial intermediary systems in the traditional bazaar of Isfahan. The research employs a mixed-method approach. In the qualitative phase, key components of presence, namely environmental, physical, functional, and psychological dimensions, were identified through a content analysis of theoretical texts. In the quantitative phase, these components were evaluated using a Likert-scale questionnaire administered to users of Isfahan’s traditional bazaar (n = 372). The collected data were analyzed using a one-sample t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and a Friedman test. The results revealed that spatial intermediary systems influence the presence of public spaces differently, depending on their functional, physical, and psychological characteristics. In the tourist area (Shah Square and Bazaar), psychological factors (including sense of place, vibrancy, and identity) had the most significant impact (factor loading = 0.83, ranked first in the Friedman test). In the tourist-service area (Qaysariyah), the functional factors (including economic activities, accessibility, and amenities) were identified as the most important (factor loading = 0.79, ranked second in the Friedman test). In the service-local area (from Dar-e-Bagh Rasteh to Nezamiyah and Kohne Square), both functional and environmental factors were found to influence the presence significantly. ANOVA analysis indicated a significant difference among various areas in psychological variables (P = 0.02), while other variables remained statistically insignificant. The findings suggest several strategies to enhance the presence of spatial intermediary systems: improving perceptual quality and spatial identity in historical areas, and upgrading functional infrastructure in service-economic areas. The results of this research offer invaluable insights for optimizing public space designs and enhancing presence in traditional bazaars and other urban public spaces.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Spatial Intermediary Systems, Presence, Public Spaces, Isfahan&rsquo

s Traditional Bazaar

Anderson, Lauren, Diego Ruiz, and Samir Patel. 2024. “Human Presence and the Experiential Quality of Public Spaces: A Multidimensional Framework.” Journal of Urban Design and Behavior 29(1): 22-38. DOI:10.1080/13574809.2018.1484664
Balilan Asl, Lida, and Dariush Satarzadeh. 2015. “The Role of In Between Space in the Spatial Organization of Urban and Architectural Elements: Case Study: Tabriz City in Ghajar Period.” Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 17(2): 169-181. https://www.magiran.com/p1426396. [in Persian]
Barranco Merino, Rosa, Juan Luis Higuera-Trujillo, and Carlos Llinares Millán. 2023. “The Use of Sense of Presence in Studies on Human Behavior in Virtual Environments: A Systematic Review.” Applied Sciences 13(24): 13095. DOI:10.3390/app132413095
Brown, Samantha. 2022. “Semi-Public Thresholds and Everyday Interaction in University Commons.” Journal of Urban Sociology 18(3): 145-162.
Can, Işın, and Tim Heath. 2024. “In Between Spaces and Social Interaction: A Morphological Analysis of İzmir Using Space Syntax.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 31(1): 31-49.
Carmona, Matthew. 2021. Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Chen, Fang, and Peter Roberts. 2024. “Analyzing Spatial Systems in Historic Urban Cores.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 48(3): 90-110.
Chen, Li, Michael Harris, and Rebecca Devon. 2023. “Sustained Presence in Urban Public Spaces: Beyond Occupancy Toward Experiential Quality.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 84: 102012.
Gao, Xiaoming, and Jing Liu. 2023. “Configurational Structures of Social Intermediary Spaces: Integrating Space Syntax in Urban Design Strategies.” Landscape 23(11): Article 2084. https://doi.org/10.3390/landscapes23112084.
Gehl, Jan. 1987. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Translated by Jo Koch. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
González, Sergio, and Carlos J. Balsas. 2023. “Intermediary Spaces in Historic Markets.” Journal of Architectural Conservation 29(1): 1-18.
Greenwich, Alex. 2022. “Evaluating Public Presence in Small Urban Parks: A User-Centered Spatial Analysis.” Urban Studies Review 58(4): 601-619.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1962. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Neuwied: Hermann Luchterhand Verlag.
Hayden, Dolores. 1995. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hidalgo, Rafael, and Beatriz Hernández. 2022. “Public Space, Accessibility, and Everyday Life.” Journal of Urban Studies 59(4): 678-695.
Hillier, Bill. 2007. “Studying Cities to Learn about Minds: How Geometric Intelligibility Shapes Urban Space.” Progress in Planning 67(4): 281-324.
Hoffmann, Laura. 2023. “Ambient Cues and Emotional Presence in Transitional Spaces of Traditional Bazaars.” Urban Heritage and User Experience 12(2): 89-104.
Huang, Yu, Zhen Liu, and Wei Jiang. 2021. “Behavioral Flexibility in Static Urban Grids.” Cities 112: 103128.
Jackson, Thomas, and Michael Brown. 2023. “Intermediate Spaces in Urban Design: Evaluating Their Role in Connectivity and Social Engagement.” Urban Studies Review 19(2): 75-95.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Jalali, Sahand, Zahra Hosseini, Mansour Yeganeh, and Mohammad Reza Bamanian. 2021. “Analysis of the Role of Connectivity and Continuity of Space in the Geometric Structure of Traditional Iranian Bazaarecheh: Case Study: Tabriz Bazaarcheh.” Andisheh Memari Scientific Journal 5(10): 124-137. [in Persian]
John, Peter, Anna Smith, and Mark Taylor. 2025. Multidimensional Approaches to Urban Presence: Rethinking Public Space Engagement. London: Urban Research Press.
Kamani Fard, Amir, and Mohammad Paydar. 2024. “Place Attachment and Related Aspects in the Urban Setting.” Urban Science 8(3): Article 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8030135.
Kim, Jin, and Rachel Kaplan. 2023. “Psychological Benefits of Historic Urban Environments.” Landscape and Urban Planning 235: 104593.
Kowler, Emily. 2022. “Perceived Identity and Spatial Clarity in Historic Urban Environments: A Behavioral Study.” Journal of Environmental Psychology and Urban Form 27(3): 142-158.
Lee, Sanghoon, and Min Choi. 2022. “Visual Perception of Intermediary Urban Spaces: An Eye-Tracking Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 82: 101892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101892.
Lewicka, Magdalena, and Lynne C. Manzo. 2022. “Place Attachment in Cultural Heritage Contexts.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 77: 101-114.
Lin, Hsien-Chi, and Yu-Ling Chang. 2025. “The Role of Intermediary Spaces in Crafting the Smart City Industry and Urban Futures: A Case Study of Taipei City.” Urban Studies 62(4): 548-567.
Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Manzo, Lynne C., and Douglas D. Perkins. 2016. “The Meaning of Place and Community Identity: Exploring Place Attachment and Collective Memory.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 45: 103-112.
Manzo, Lynne C., and Patrick Devine-Wright, eds. 2016. Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications. London: Routledge.
Marquet, Oriol, and Carme Miralles Guasch. 2023. “Everyday Urbanity: Understanding Spontaneous Interactions.” Cities 129: 104-118.
Mirshahzadeh, Shervin, Seyed Gholamreza Eslami, and Alireza Eyneefar. 2011. “The Role of Border Linking Space in the Process of Meaning Creation (Assessing the Meaning Making Ability of Space via Semiotic Approach).” Hoviat Shahr 5(9): 16-5. https://sanad.iau.ir/Journal/hoviatshahr/Article/795273/FullText. [in Persian]
Montgomery, John. 2020. The New Wealth of Cities: City Dynamics and the Third Place. London: Routledge.
Noghrekar, Abdul Hamid, Ali Mohammad Ranjbar Kermani, and Mehdi Hamzehnajad. 2008. An Introduction to Islamic Identity in Architecture and Urban Planning. Tehran: Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Deputy of Urban Planning and Architecture, Office of Architecture and Urban Design. [in Persian]
Norberg-Schulz, Christian. 1980. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.
Oldenburg, Ray. 1999. The Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. New York: Marlowe & Company.
Pahlevan, Somayeh, and Farah Habib. 2023. “Recognition of Physical Spatial Structure Patterns of Iranian Bazaar Teamcheh Based on Spatial Organization (Case Study: Bazaar Teamcheh of Isfahan, Kashan and Tabriz).” Andisheh Memari 7(14): 169-191. [in Persian]
Pahlevan, Somayeh, Hossein Salianzadeh, and Farah Habib. 2022. “Measuring the Tourist Oriented Axis of Visitor’s Perception of Physical Spatial Quality of Urban Spaces with Emphasis on Legibility in Bazaar Saray: Case Study: Bazaar Saray of Isfahan.” Urban Environmental Planning Quarterly 8(2): 1-20. https://sanad.iau.ir/fa/Article/909987?FullText=FullText. [in Persian]
Pakzad, Jaafar, and Hamed Bozorg. 2012. Urban Design Process. Tehran: Armanshahr Publications. [in Persian]
Park, Sungjin, and Jinwoo Kim. 2024. “User Perceptions in Reconfigured Heritage Precincts.” Urban Heritage Journal 11(1): 56-74.
Poulsen, Jens Frederik. 2023. “Improvisation and Planning: Engaging with Unforeseen Encounters in Urban Public Space.” Urban Planning 8(4): 119-131.
Qi, Jiayi, Subhrajit Mazumdar, and Ana C. Vasconcelos. 2024. “Understanding the Relationship between Urban Public Space and Social Cohesion: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Community Well-Being 7: 155-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-023-00236-9.
Qian, Yu, Xinyu Li, and Shun Zhang. 2024. “Meaning-Making in Urban Heritage Spaces.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 30(1): 7-23.
Rapoport, Amos. 1977. Human Aspects of Urban Form. Reprinted 2018. Pergamon Press.
Riccardi, Marco, and Matteo Ventura. 2024. “Cultural Memory and Urban Resilience: Revisiting Public Spaces.” Urban Studies Journal 61(2): 254-272.
Rojas, Francisco, and Antonio Páez. 2022. “Spatial Coherence and User Comprehension.” Journal of Urban Design 27(3): 289-305.
Salama, Ashraf M., and Florian Wiedmann. 2020. Urban Space and the Production of Aesthetic Experience: A Comparative Approach to Public Places in the Islamic City. London: Routledge.
Samavati, Farzaneh. 2022. Happy Public Spaces: Place Attachment as a Driver of Social Interaction in Urban Environments. Delft: Delft Institute of Positive Design.
Seamon, David. 2018. Dwelling, Place and Environment: Towards a Phenomenology of Person and World. Rev. ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sepe, Marichela. 2013. “Urban History and Cultural Resources in Urban Regeneration: A Case of Creative Waterfront Renewal.” Planning Perspectives 28(4): 595-613. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2013.774539.
Shafighi, Siros. 2015. Isfahan Grand Bazaar. Isfahan: Cultural and Recreational Organization of Isfahan Municipality, Center for Isfahan Studies and House of Nations. [in Persian]
Sharifi, Ayyoob, and Akito Murayama. 2021. “Scale and Human Perception in Urban Design.” Environmental Psychology 75: 102-117.
Silva, Pedro G., and Fernanda P. Costa. 2022. “Adaptive Public Spaces and Social Interaction.” Urban Design International 27(1): 45-60.
Smith, Emily, and Andrew T. Johnson. 2024. “Resilient Design: Aligning Physical Spaces with User Behavior.” Journal of Architectural Theory 33(1): 99-116.
Smith, John, and Emily Johnson. 2023. “Place Attachment and Public Space Usage: A Case Study of Urban Parks.” Urban Studies 60(5): 1023-1040.
Smith, Sarah, John Doe, and Emily Johnson. 2023. “A Critical Review of Quality Assessment Tools for Public Spaces.” Engineering Research Journal 168(September): 97-112.
Soltanzadeh, Hossein. 2024. “Comparative Study of Principles of Physical Spatial Organization of Historic Isfahan Bazaar Teamcheh.” Urban Sustainable Development Quarterly 12(1): 55-78. [in Persian]
Turner, Steven, and Rachel Harris. 2023. “The Role of Traditional Retail Markets in Addressing Urban Food Deserts and Sustaining Social Vitality.” Urban Studies Review 25(3): 210-229.
Whyte, William H. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.
Zhao, Ling, Yujie Chen, and Xiaoyan Wang. 2023. “Spatial Flexibility and Urban Vibrancy: User-Centered Insights.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics 50(2): 311-328.