ارزیابی ادراک خدمات فرهنگی اکوسیستم در پارک‌هایی با سبک منظرین متفاوت مطالعه موردی: پارک‌های شهری تهران

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی - کاربردی

نویسنده

گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

چکیده

«خدمات فرهنگی اکوسیستم» در پارک شامل فواید غیرمادی است که مردم به‌صورت ذهنی ادراک می‌کنند و در بهبود کیفیت زندگی شهرنشینی تأثیر دارد. این پژوهش قصد دارد با رویکرد مشارکتی ارتباط بین سبک طراحی منظر با خدمات فرهنگی پارک را بررسی نماید. پژوهش پیش رو از نظر هدف کاربردی و روش پژوهش از نوع تحلیلی-توصیفی است. برای ارزیابی کالبدی منظر از روش ارزیابی شخصیت منظر و برای ادراک خدمات فرهنگی از پیمایش اجتماعی استفاده می‌گردد. جامعه آماری شامل مراجعه‌کنندگان به پارک‌هایی با سبک منظرین متفاوت در شهر تهران هستند. حجم نمونه بر اساس جدول مورگان، ۴۰۰ نفر برآورد و با روش نمونه‌گیری در دسترس (توزیع پرسشنامه‌های آنلاین در شبکه‌های اجتماعی) اقدام به جمع‌آوری داده‌ها شد. رتبه‌بندی عوامل خدمات فرهنگی در پارک‌های مختلف با آزمون ویلکاکسون در نرم‌افزار SPSS انجام می‌شود. نتایج نشان‌دهنده تفاوت در اولویت‌بندی ادراک خدمات فرهنگی در پارک‌هایی با سبک منظرین متمایز است. هر چند تفریح در همه پارک‌ها اولویت اول استفاده‌کنندگان می‌باشد و حس مکان و ارزش‌های معنوی به‌خوبی در پارک‌ها ادراک نشده است ولی در پارک با سبک طبیعت‌گرایانه ادراک بهتر خدمات فرهنگی پارک صورت گرفت است ازاین‌رو کالبد طبیعت‌گرایانه می‌تواند زمینه را برای ارتباط معنادار مردم با فضای سبز شهری فراهم کند. لایه طبیعی پارک با پوشش گیاهی نیمه متراکم، لایه‌بندی گیاهان در اشکوب‌های مختلف و غلبه لایه طبیعی به لایه مصنوع پارک از عوامل مهم کالبد طبیعت‌گرایانه هستند. به‌این‌ترتیب پژوهش حاضر گام‌های نخستین را در راستای برنامه‌ریزی منظر مبتنی بر ارتباط معنادار استفاده‌کنندگان با محیط برداشته است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessment of cultural ecosystem services in parks with different landscape Styles: The case study a urban parks of Tehran

نویسنده [English]

  • zahra sadeghi
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Arts, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

A B S T R A C T
"Cultural Ecosystem Services" in the parks include intangible benefits that people perceive subjectively. The research aims to investigate the relationship between the landscape style and the Cultural Ecosystem Services in different parks with a participative approach. The research is analytical-descriptive in terms of practical purpose and research method. For landscape objective-physical assessment, the method of Landscape Character Assessment is used, and for the perception of CES, a social survey was exerted. The statistical population includes visitors to Tehran's parks with different landscape styles. The sample size was estimated to be 400 people based on Morgan's table, and data was collected using the available sampling method (distribution of online questionnaires in social networks). Cultural Ecosystem Services are ranked in different parks using the Wilcoxon test in SPSS software. The results show the difference in prioritizing the perception of CES in parks with distinct landscape styles. Although recreation is the priority in all parks, and the sense of place and spiritual values are not well understood, in the park with a naturalistic style, a better understanding of the park's Cultural Ecosystem Services has taken place. Therefore, the naturalistic can provide the ground for the meaningful connection of people with the urban green space. The natural layer of the park with semi-dense vegetation, the layering of plants in different layers, and the predominance of the natural layer over the artificial layer of the parks are important factors of the naturalistic body.
Extended Abstract 
Introduction
Parks, as the public urban green space, are one of the essential areas of urbanization. The main difference between parks and other urban public spaces is their natural environment. Parks provide places for human-nature communication in urban. "Cultural Ecosystem Services" in parks include intangible benefits that people perceive subjectively. CES has an impact on improving life quality. CES assessment is based on users' perceptions of the benefits of green spaces. Also, CES should be evaluated based on a specific site and green space. Landscape design will affect the perception of CES by changing the environment. There are areas for improvement in the Cultural Services (CS) studies and landscape design in Iran. Understanding how different types of landscapes in parks lead to diverse CS can go a long way in planning landscapes and enhancing the perception of park CS. The research investigates the relationship between the landscape style and the Cultural Ecosystem Services in different parks.
 
Methodology
According to the types of parks, the research selected parks with urban scale in Tehran. The priority for selecting parks was that parks had the same conditions in terms of management criteria like access, amenities, cleanliness, and security. The next point in choosing parks was to place them near each other to be similar in climate and geographical condition. Another essential point that we considered in the park selection is the physical design. According to the landscape design, parks with different styles were selected, which include parks; Taleghani, Melat, Ab & Atash, and the Iranian Garden in Tehran. We did landscape subjective assessment by the method of Landscape Character Assessment. A social survey was used to examine perceptions. It is a questionnaire that has been validated. The sample size was estimated based on Morgan's table, and the data were collected by the available
 
sampling method (distribution of online questionnaires on social networks). Ranking of CS agents in the different parks is done by Friedman and Wilcoxon test in SPSS software.
 
 Results and discussion
According to the Friedman test, there was a significant difference in CS factors ranking in the park. Wilcoxon test was exerted to compare two-factor rankings. Results showed that there is a significant difference in the sense of place and inspiration (ps <0.05) in the Iranian Garden between the recreational factor and all other factors (cultural heritage, social awareness, sense of place, spirituality, and inspiration), cultural heritage, and sense of place, awareness and sense of place. In the Ab & Atash Park, the recreational factor and all other factors (cultural heritage, social, spiritual, sense of place, awareness, and inspiration), cultural heritage factor and spiritual factor, sense of place, awareness, and inspiration, social and spiritual factor, sense of place, awareness, and inspiration were significantly different (ps <0.05). In Mellat Park, there was a significant difference between the recreational factor and all other factors (cultural heritage, social, awareness, inspirational, spiritual, and sense of place), cultural heritage factor and factors of awareness, inspiration, spiritual, and sense of place, social factor and factors of awareness, inspiration, spirituality, and sense of place, the factor of awareness and spiritual factor and the sense of place, inspiration and spiritual factor and sense of place factor (ps <0.05). In Taleghani Park, there was a significant difference between the recreational factor and all other factors (cultural heritage, social, spiritual, awareness, inspiration, and sense of place), cultural heritage factor and spiritual factor, awareness, inspiration, and sense of place, social and spiritual factor, awareness, inspiration, and sense of place, the spiritual factor and sense of place (ps <0.05). There was no significant difference between the mean rank of other factors (ps <0.05). In all parks, recreation is the priority of the respondents, but the
 
 
importance of the values of cultural services in different parks is various. In Taleghani Park and Mellat Park, the importance of other CS is much greater, and in addition to recreational and social values, values related to the spiritual connection with green space, such as inspiration and spiritual sense, are better understood. The main feature of Taleghani Park and Mellat Park in terms of design style is the naturalistic body of these two parks. The Iranian Garden is almost at the top in terms of recreation, but other CS (inspiration, cultural heritage, spiritual, awareness, and social values) have been perceived very poorly. People do not interact properly with the park. In Ab & Atash park, the sociality of the park is quite evident.
 
Conclusion
If CS is examined in two objective dimensions (recreational, social values, and cultural heritage) and subjective dimensions (inspirations, sense of place, and spiritual values). It is observed that subjective dimensions of CS significantly impact promoting a sense of well-being. Although subjective dimensions of CS are weak in all parks, in the park with natural bodies (Taleghani and Mellat) are strong. The natural layer provides a better platform for a meaningful relationship with nature. In this way, given the living conditions of urbanization, people also fully understand the need for natural environments. Semi-dense and layered vegetation and semi-open spaces, a variety of plants, arched paths that create a variety of landscapes, etc., create a favorable landscape for the promotion of CS. Complexity and naturalness are among the factors that make the landscape more suitable for communication with nature. Therefore, a natural layer can be more important than an artificial layer in park design. Also, creating a human activity environment in a natural layer leads to more event-oriented communication between users and the natural environment.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
 
Authors’ Contribution
All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Objective Assessment
  • Landscape Style
  • Cultural Services of Urban Park
  1. جنادله، علی. (۱۳۹۵). فضاهای سبز شهری و کیفیت زندگی (مدلی برای ارزیابی تأثیرات اجتماعی بوستان‌ها و فضاهای سبز شهری و کاربرد تجربی آن در سه بوستان شهر تهران). برنامه‌ریزی رفاه و توسعه اجتماعی، ۸ (2۷)، ۲۲۵-۲۲۸.
  2. حسینی، اکرم و محمدزاده، اکرم. (۱۳۹۳). بررسی چگونگی کاربست الگوی باغ ایرانی به‌مثابه فضای عمومی شهری راهکاری جهت احیای باغ ایرانی با کاربرد تکنیک فرآیند تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی AHP. نقش‌جهان- مطالعات نظری و فناوری‌های نوین معماری و شهرسازی، 4(3)، ۷۳-۶۳.
  3. حمزه‌نژاد، مهدی و گرجی، فاطمه. (۱۳۹۶). تبارشناسی پارک‌های معاصر تهران و بررسی زمینه‌های شکل‌دهنده به آن‌ها.  باغ نظر، ۱۴ (۵۵)، ۲۹-۴۶.
  4. ربانی، رسول؛ نظری، جواد و مختاری، مرضیه. (۱۳۹۰). تبیین جامعه‌شناختی کارکرد پارک‌های شهری مطالعه موردی پارک‌های شهر اصفهان. مطالعات و پژوهش‌های شهری و منطقه‌ای، ۳ (۱۰)، ۱۱۱- ۱۳۴.
  5. رمضانی مهریان، مجید. (1401). ارزیابی کیفیت ساختاری شبکه فضای سبز در محیط‌های شهری- مطالعه موردی منطقه 16 شهرداری تهران. پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 10(1)، 81-99.
  6. سمیاری، امیر؛ صادقی، زهرا؛ رحمانی، فرشته و خواجه سعید، فرناز. (۱۳۹۷). ارزیابی پسندهای منظر؛ برنامه‌ریزی بوستان‌های محلی شهر تهران، با رویکرد جامعه‌محور. فصلنامه علوم محیطی، 16 (2)، 15-30.
  7. صادقی، زهرا؛ انصاری، مجتبی و حقیقت‌بین، مهدی. (۱۴۰۰). بررسی الگوی کاشت گیاهان مبتنی بر مقیاس بصری مطلوب در پارک‌های محله‌ای (نمونه موردی: پارک‌های محله‌ای منطقه ۱۸ و ۱ تهران). فصلنامه مطالعات شهری، ۱۰ (۴۱)، ۳۱-۴۲.
  8. کبیری هندی، مریم؛ میرکریمی، سید حامد و سلمان ماهینی، عبدالرسول. (۱۳۹۹). ارزیابی خدمات فرهنگی اکوسیستم در استان گلستان. مطالعات علوم محیط‌زیست، ۵ (2)، ۲۵۶۰-۲۵۶۸.
  9. مشاری، محمد؛ سپهری، عادل؛ بارانی، حسین و دانه‌کار، افشین. (۱۳۹۸). طراحی معیارها و شاخص‌های اندازه‌گیری ارزش‌گذاری خدمات فرهنگی اکوسیستم بر اساس مختصات بومی ایران. نقش‌جهان - مطالعات نظری و فناوری‌های نوین معماری و شهرسازی، ۹ (۴)، ۳۰۵-۳۱۲.
  10. هدفی، فرزانه و صرافی نیک، علی. (1401). مطالعه ارتباط ادراک محیطی و دل‌بستگی به مکان و اثر آن‌ها بر رفتارهای حامی محیط‌زیست. پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری. 10(2)، 93-114.
  11. Antrop, M., & Van Eetvelde, V. (2017). Landscape perspectives. The Holistic Nature of Landscape, 100, 1-23.
  12. Bell, S. (2004). Elements of visual design in the landscape. Taylor & Francis.
  13. Bertram, C., & Rehdanz, K. (2015). Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosystem Services, 12,187-199.
  14. Bryce, R., Katherine N., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S., & Kenter, J. O. (2016). Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 21, 258-269.
  15. Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Luyuan L., & Uyttenhove, P. (2019). Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100925.
  16. Dade, M C., Mitchell, Matthew GE., Brown, G., & Rhodes, R. (2020). The effects of urban greenspace characteristics and socio-demographics vary among cultural ecosystem services. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 49,126641.
  17. Ebenberger, M., & Arnberger, A. (2019). Exploring visual preferences for structural attributes of urban forest stands for restoration and heat relief. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 41, 272-28.
  18. Janadleh, A. (2016). Urban Green Space and The Quality of Life (A model for the assessment of the social impact of urban green space and its empirical application in three parks of Tehran). Social Development & Welfare Planning, 55, 225-284. [In Persian].
  19. Hadafi, F., & Sarrafi Nik, A. (2022). The Relationship of Environmental Perception with Attachment to Place and their Effects on Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR)10(2), 93-114. [In Persian].
  20. Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2018). Proposal for a common international classification of ecosystem goods and services (CICES) for integrated environmental and economic accounting. European Environment Agency, 30, 1-12.
  21. Hamzenejad M. & Gorji F. (2017). Genealogy of Recent Parks of Tehran and Analyzing their Forming Background. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 55, 29-46. [In Persian].
  22. Hosseini A., & Mohammadzadeh A. (2014). An analytical Review for Usage of Persian Garden Pattern as Urban Public Space a Mechanism for Reviving the Persian Garden Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Technique. Naqshejahan, 4 (3), 63-73. [In Persian].
  23. Kabiri Hendi M., Mirkarimi S. H., & Salmanmahiny A. (2020). Cultural ecosystem services assessment in Golestan Province. Journal of Environmental Science Studies, 2, 2560-2568. [In Persian].
  24. Ko, H., & Son, Y. (2018). Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces: A case study in Gwacheon, Republic of Korea. Ecological indicators, 91, 299-306.
  25. Mao, Q., Wang, L., Guo, Q., Li, Y., Liu, Min L., & Xu, G. (2020). Evaluating cultural ecosystem services of urban residential green spaces from the perspective of residents' satisfaction with green space. Frontiers in public health, 8, 2-26.
  26. Mashari, M., Sepehri, A., Barani, H., & Danehkar, A. (2020). The time and value of value in Iran. Nagsh-e- Jahan - theoretical studies and new technologies in architecture and urban planning, 4, 305-312. [In Persian].
  27. Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84, 1-7.
  28. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.
  29. Plieninger, T., Kizos, T., Bieling, C., Le Dû-Blayo, L., Budniok, M.-A., Bürgi, M., & Kolen, J. (2015). Exploring ecosystem-change and society through a landscape lens: recent progress in European landscape research. Ecology and Society, 20, 72-86.
  30. Rabbani R., Nazari J., & Mokhtari, M. (2011). Sociological explanation of the function of urban parks: A case study of parks in Isfahan. Urban and regional studies and researches, 10, 111- 134. [In Persian]
  31. Ramezani Mehrian, M. (2022). Assessing the structural quality of green space network in urban environments - case study: District 16 of Tehran Municipality. Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR), 10(1), 81-99. [In Persian].
  32. Riechers, M., Barkmann, J., & Tscharntke, T. (2018). Diverging perceptions by social groups on cultural ecosystem services provided by urban green. Landscape and Urban Planning, 175, 161-168.
  33. La Rosa, D., & Spyra, M. (2016). Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services for urban planning: A review. Ecological Indicators, 61, 74-89.
  34. Sadeghi Z., Ansari M., & Haghighat Bin M. (2021). Investigating the Planting Pattern Based on Desirable Visual Scale in Neighborhood Parks (Case Study: Neighborhood Parks in Districts 18 and 1 of Tehran). Motaleate Shahri, 10 (41), 31-42. [In Persian]
  35. Sang, Å. O., Knez, I., Gunnarsson, B., & Hedblom, M. (2016). The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green space is perceived and used. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 18, 268-272.
  36. Semiari A., Sadeghi Z., Rahmani F., & Khaje Saeed F. (2018). Landscape preferences evaluation: Planning of neighborhood parks in Tehran with community-oriented approach. Environmental Sciences, 2, 15-30. [In Persian]
  37. Shirley, P., & Moughtin, J. (2006). Urban Design: Green Dimensions. Routledge.
  38. Steg, L., van den Berg, A. E., & de Groot, J. (2012). Environmental psychology: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
  39. Sukhdev, P. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach. conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. UNEP.
  40. Vallés-Planells, M., Galiana, F., & Van Eetvelde, V. (2014). A classification of landscape services to support local landscape planning. Ecology and Society, 19, 73-93.
  41. Zhang, H., Chen, B., Sun, Z., & Bao, Z. (2013). Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hangzhou, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12, 44-5 9.