بررسی تأثیر ظرفیت مکانی بر دلبستگی به مکان از منظر گروه نوجوان در شهر تهران

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی - کاربردی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، دانشکدۀ هنر و معماری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

2 دانشیار گروه شهرسازی، دانشکدۀ هنر و معماری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

3 استادیار گروه شهرسازی، دانشکدۀ هنر و معماری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده

این مقاله به بررسی تأثیر ظرفیت مکانی بر دلبستگی به مکان در منتخبی از محلات شهر تهران اختصاص دارد. روش این مطالعه از نوع توصیفی- تحلیلی بوده است و داده‌های مورد نیاز با استفاده از توزیع 475 پرسش‌نامه و مطالعات میدانی و نیز مصاحبه‌های حضوری با نوجوانان در ردۀ سنی 12 تا 16 سال از محلات الهیه، نارمک، هاشمی و یافت‌آباد که به روش طبقه‌ای سیستماتیک انتخاب شده بودند، به‌دست آمد. هدف کلی پژوهش حاضر، تعیین روابط علی میان مؤلفه‌های ظرفیت‌های مکانی بر شاخص دلبستگی به مکان و تبیین معناداری یا عدم معناداری آنها در محلات منتخب است. بدین منظور از آزمون پارامتریکF و نیز آزمون Tukey استفاده شد. در تمام متغیرهایِ شاخص ظرفیت مکانی بین محله‌های تحت بررسی تفاوت معنادار وجود داشت. نتایج آزمون Tukey نشان می‌دهد محلۀ هاشمی کمترین میزان ظرفیت مکانی را در بین محله‌ها دارا است و بیشترین ظرفیت مکانی متعلق به محلۀ الهیه است. برای سنجش رابطۀ دو متغیر، ضریب همبستگی پیرسون به‌کار گرفته شد و برای بررسی تأثیر مؤلفه‌های متغیر مستقل (ظرفیت مکانی) بر متغیر وابسته (دلبستگی به محله) از تحلیل رگرسیون چندگانه به روش Stepwise استفاده شد. نتایج تحلیل رگرسیون نشان می‌دهد بین سه مؤلفۀ ظرفیت مکانی (ادراک محیط، امکانات محله و ویژگی‌های زیست‌محیطی) که در معادلۀ رگرسیون باقی مانده‌اند، با متغیر دلبستگی به محله همبستگی چندگانۀ قوی برقرار است. در مجموع سه مؤلفۀ ظرفیت مکانی حدود 37 درصد از واریانس متغیر دلبستگی به محله را تبیین می‌کنند که با توجه به توزیع F، همۀ ضرایب همبستگی و ضرایب تبیین معنادار بوده و قابل تعمیم به جامعۀ آماری کل است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Physical Capacities on the Place Attachment from the View of Teenagers in Tehran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Zahra Khodaee 1
  • Mojtaba Rafiean 2
  • Hashem Dadashpoor 3
  • Ali Akbar Taghvaei 2
1 PhD Candidate of Urban Planning, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Urban Design and Planning Department, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 Assistance Professor, Urban Design and Planning Department, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
This essay embarks on a research about the effects of community capacities on certain selected districts in the city of Tehran. The urban space can be created based on different patterns of people in the various places and neighborhoods. Another option would be an urban space as seen from the perspective of those who understand different cities based on their mental capacity. In this way, the same number of people and different understanding of urban space was seen. The method of this research has been an analytical and dialectic process.
Methodology 
This study has been concluded with distribution of 475 application forms, field and district observation, and oral interviews with teenagers between 12 and 16 years old, from certain districts such as Elahieh in district 1, Narmak in district 8, Hashemi in district 10 and Yaftabad in district 17. It is necessary to mentioned that all these districts were chosen in an analytical and systematic way. The major goal of this research has been the dialectic evaluation of the factors existing or could be created between community capacities and the place attachment for the certain sample districts. To creat pyscial capacity, 16 questions were asked. To investigate the effects of the independent variable component (Physical capacity) on independet variable (place attachment), we used Stepwise multiple regression analysis.
Results and Discussion 
Just 11.2 percent of teenagers have positive evalution of the pyscial capacity of their local area. About 79.8 percent have medium evaluation and 9.1 percent have negative assessment. Average evaluation of the respondents is ranged from 0 to 100 and equal to 50.2, i.e., approximately equal to the midpoint of the range. The greatest average from the questions of the pysical capacity is related to neighborhood crowding and the lowest average is related to harmful insects and vermin and refer to Game-net and coffee-net. In this paper, place attachment index and pysical capacity of the four districts were studied separately. To that end the Parametric F test (One-way analysis of variance) and also Tukey test (significant differnece) were utilized to cluster the selected neighborhoods and to ansewer the question that; which of the neighborhoods from the index review are either similar to each other or different from each other. In all the variables of the community capacity index (the residential properties, environment recognition, annoying use and activities, environmental features and local features) there was a significant difference between the studied neighborhoods. Tukey test results show that from the component of residential properties, Hashemi District is located in one cluster and other districts are located in other clusters. Therefore, the teenagers of three districts such as Narmak, Elahiye and Yaftabad compared with those of Hashemi District have significantly better living conditions from the point of residential properties. from the point of environment recognition, Hashemi and Yaftabad districts are in one clutser and, narmak and Elahyieh districts are in the other different clusters. Hence, the teenagers of Elayieh compared with those of Narmak have the better recogniton of the environment. From the point of annoying use and activities, Hashemi and Yaftabad districts is located in one clutser and Narmak and Elahyieh district in another cluster. Thus, the teenagers of Elayieh and Narmak districts in comparison with those of Hashemi and Yaftabad have the lowest annoying use and activities. From the point of environmental features, Hashemi and Yaftabad districts are located in one clutser. On the other side, Yaftabad and Narmak distritcs are formed in other cluster and finally the Narmak and Elahiye districts can be placed in one cluster. From the point of local features, Hashemi district along with Elayihe and Narmak districts are located in one clutster and Narmak and Yaftabad districts are formed in other clutster. In general, the results of Tukey test indicates that Hashemi district is located in one cluster, Yaftabad and Narmak districts in other cluster and from the other side, Narmak and Elayieh district can also be formed one cluster. Therefore, Hashemi district has the lowest capacity for community capacities among all other districts and at the same time the Elahye District has the highest level of potential for community capacities. In order to evaluate the variables; the Pierson associative parameter is utilized. This factor for the correlation between physical capacity variable and attachment index is equal to 0.514. This value suggests a strong correlation between the two variables. In other words, if the physical capacity is high, the attachment of teenagers to place will be increased. Among the components of pysical capacity, environment recognition factor has the highest correlation with the place attachment variable. Pierson associative parameter is 0.564 that shows the strong correlation between the two variables. Except the variable of annoying use and activities, other factors are positively correlated with the place attachment variable. Given that a significant amount of all components is less than 0.05, the correlations observed in the sample with 5% maximum error can be generalized to the target population.
Conclusion 
The regressive analytic process indicates that all three components of pysical capacities (environment cognition, local possibilities and environmental characteristics) with the place attachment variable has strong multiple correlation. All three components of the analysis for physical capacities are clarifying the place attachment variable. This is in association with F test, all the affiliation variables and clarification variables are decipherable and could be generalized based on the statistics.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • community capacity
  • physical investment
  • place attachment
  • teenagers
  • Tehran city
دانشپور، عبدالهادی؛ سپهری مقدم، منصور؛ چرخیان، مریم؛ (1388). تبیین مدل دلبستگی به مکان و بررسی عناصر و ابعاد مختلف آن، نشریۀ هنرهای زیبا، شمارۀ 38.

عارفی، مهیار؛ (1380). به سوی رویکرد دارایی‌مبنا برای توسعۀ اجتماع محلی، ترجمۀ نوین تولایی، نشریۀ هنرهای زیبا، شمارۀ 10.

قاضی‌زاده، سیده ندا؛ (1390). تأثیر طراحی فضای باز مجتمع مسکونی در ایجاد حس دلبستگی به مکان، پایان‌نامۀ دکتری معماری، تهران، دانشگاه تهران.

منصوری، امیر؛ قره‌بیگلو، مینو؛ (1390). کیفیت فضای باز شهری در تعامل با کودکان، فصلنامۀ علمی- پژوهشی شهر ایرانی- اسلامی، سال دوم، شمارۀ ششم.

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Fehr, B. (2005). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chapman, M., and Kirk, K. (2001) Lessons for Community Capacity Building: A summary of the research evidence. Research review to Scottish Homes (full text accessible through scot-homes.gov.uk).

Chow, Kenny & Healey, Mick (2008); Place attachment and place identity: First-year undergraduates making the transition from home to university, Journal of Environmental Psychology, No.28, PP:362–372.

Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of attachment and place attachment. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological theories for environmental issues (pp.137–170). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Kretzmann, J. & J. McKnight (1993), Building Communities from the Inside Out: a Path toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets, Chicago,IL: ACTA Publications.

Knez, I. (2005). Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived climate. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 207–218.

Liou, Jaeik (2004); Community Capacity Building to Strengthen Socio-Economic Development with Spatial Asset Mapping, 3rd FIG Regional Conference Jakarta, Indonesia, October 3-7, 2004.

Low, S. M. (1992). Symbolic ties that bind. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 165–185). New York: Plenum Press.

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

Proshansky, H., Fabian, A.K., &Kaminoff, R.(1983).Placeidentity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited.

Sanders, S., Bowie, S. L., & Bowie, Y. D. (2003). Lessons learned on forced relocation of older adults: the impact of hurricane Andrew on health, mental health, and social support of public housing residents. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 40, 23–35.

Scannell, Leila & Gifford, Robert (2010); Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework, Journal of Environmental Psychology, No. 30.

Stokols, D., and Shumaker, S.A. (1981), 'People in places: A transactional view of settings', In J. Harvey (Eds.), Cognition, Social behavior, and the environment, Hillsdale, Erlbaum, pp.441-488.

Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 205–220.

Verity, Fiona (2007); Community Capacity Building – A review of the literature; Prepared for the Department of Health, Health Promotion Branch, School of Social Administration and Social Work, Flinders University of South Australia. Availabe at: http://www.health.sa.gov.au/pehs/branches/health-promotion/0711-capacity-building-review-lit.pdf.

Wilke, Julie (2006); Understanding the Asset-based Approach to Community Development, Availabe at: http://www.neighboraustin.com/PDF/Understanding%20the%20Asset- based%20Approach%20to%20Community%20%20Development.pdf.

Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J.W.,&Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences, 14, 29-46.